Witney to Oxford line reopening

[whole diary]

[Oberon]

If that is true then pressure groups such as Railfuture should be shouting this message out loud & clear

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Of course Stagecoach would say the Cambridge Busway has been a success. It is the major operator. Similarly, Cambridgeshire County Council will also say it is a success.Politically it could not say anything else. However I have been looking back over the Cambidge Busway thread on this site and it is nothing but reports of delays, massive overspendings, a poor safety record that would not have been seen with a heavy rail or tram project and most recently structural failure with a projected ^20M repair bill leading to yet more action between the contractor and the county. This sounds much more like a disaster to me than a success.
The busways recently constructed, i.e. Cambridge, Luton and Fareham/Gosport all run on the trackbed of former heavy rail lines. Where in Oxfordshire is such a line suitable and useable for a busway? The only option seems to be to build the proposed busway alongside the A40 leading to substantial land acquisition costs.
Returning to the WOT, it has been campaiging for an update to a professional consultant report commissioned by Oxon C.C. about 12 years that discounted a heavy rail solution on the line of the old Witney line as being too expensive. It has not voiced any paarticular preference but I think most of its members would like to see a rail option. In the past 12 years there has been a complete change in rail viability and WOT believes the economics and attractions of reopening the Witney line in some form would produce a much higher CBR^▸ (Cost Benefit Ratioi (1/BCR)) figure than 12 years ago. I have also seen another proposal by a member of CPRE^▸ (Campaign to Protect Rural England) for a much cheaper heavy rail option whereby the new line would leave the Cotswold line a few miles east of Hanborough and run south west over fairly level land crossing only the River Evenlode and3 minor roads to run just north of the A40 and terminating near the recently contructed A4095 Witney perimeter road where a substantial P & R car park could be built with easy accessess from Carterton and the West via the now approved Shores green road cominbg off the Witney by-pass. It would only be around 8 miles long and cost considerably less for similar benefits. This route would mean no demolition work and only low grade agricultural land acquisition and minimum bridge work. Moreover it would pass centrally through a massive new gravel extraction site to be opened about midway between Eynsham, Hanborough and Freeland. This, at present will mean massive HGV movements from the site onto the grossly overcrowded A40 taking gravel etc eastwards through Oxfordshire to Buck, Berks and other south east areas. A sendible planning sytem would require the gravel extracton companies to pay for a loading loop together with a part cost of constructing the new line so that gravel could be taken out by rail. The main disadvantage would be that the CL would need to be redoubled back to Wolvercote to cope with the additional traffic and by terminating the line to the east of Witney it would not be practical to extend the line westwards beyond Witney to Carterton.
My concern is that a study for the A40 relief should sensibly investigate all possibilities, heavy rail, light rail/tram, monorail, a further recent proposal, busway or simply dedicated bus lanes along the A40 and a proposal be picked from such a report. It seems to me that someone in Oxon C.C. has picked on a busway as the answer without a proper study of options being carried out.
 

[grahame]

If that is true then pressure groups such as Railfuture should be shouting this message out loud & clear

Initial estimates of cost for the Cambridge route were ^50 million for guided busway and ^54 million for restored rail.  The guided busway price kept going up and ended up around ^181 million.   Of course, it's quite possible that the cost of restoring the railway would also have risen from initial concept through to completion ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway

http://www.castiron.org.uk

P.S.  I seem to recall that one of the big attractions of the guided busway was that it could attract external funding from sources not available to the restoration of the railway - so again from a local budget viewpoint, it's not as clear cut as you might think

[phile]

Hope you don't mind me mentioning this, but wouldn't this thread be more suited to the "Campaign for new and improved services" Board.   Perhaps, if the Moderators agree, they might move the topic.   Thanks.

[grahame]

Hope you don't mind me mentioning this, but wouldn't this thread be more suited to the "Campaign for new and improved services" Board.   Perhaps, if the Moderators agree, they might move the topic.   Thanks.

Yes, that would seem appropriate

[Puffing Billy]

... The main disadvantage would be that the CL would need to be redoubled back to Wolvercote to cope with the additional traffic ...
 

Would this help much, given the potential for conflicting movements at both Yarnton and Wolvercote junctions? If a second track is built, might it be better to keep the Cotswold and Witney routes as separate single lines. If the new "Port Meadow" loop is/could be bi-directional, then the Witney line could feed directly into that, so you would simplify operation and only need one new point into the bargain?

[IndustryInsider]

That would be a sensible thing to do operationally, but I fear it would add a lot to the cost and be very difficult to engineer.  I very much doubt approval would be given to build on any part of Port Meadow, then you have Wolvercote village, the A34 and A40, Wytham Hill, the River Thames and a large flood plain to contend with.  A project already very unlikely to happen due to costs in my opinion would then be an awful lot harder to get off of the starting blocks.

[Puffing Billy]

Sorry, I meant the new track that is currently being (re)built - I just dubbed it "Port Meadow" because it is on that side of the lines; I expect it is called the "down relief line" or something officially.

[ChrisB]

"down Frieight" I believe

[IndustryInsider]

Oh right, so you'd use the same route as far as Yarnton Junction but have a separate, independent line that would feed into the loop somehow?  Yes, that could work - good idea - though might prevent/complicate Cotswold Line redoubling over the same bit of track.  Apologies for not reading your previous post thoroughly.

It's the 'Down Passenger Loop' formerly known as the 'Down Goods Loop'.  I presume it will keep that name when extended, unless it becomes the new 'Down Main' and the current 'Down Main' becomes the 'Down Passenger Loop'.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

I understand that the problem with redoubling the line to Wolvercote is the lack of signalling capacity in the Oxford area. Logically, when the Oxford area resignalling is done to cope with the electrification and rebuilding of Oxford station etc., the Wolvercote junction will not be redoubled. Instead it will have what they call "passive" provision for redoubling of Wolvercot junction. That means redoubling might not happen until well into the 2020s. Presumably it is the lack of funding that has resulted in this situation in the same way as the Oxford rebuilding will have no provision of a second through Up line at Oxford station, only "passive " provision for providing a second through line at a later date that would also probably be well into the 2020s

[Puffing Billy]

... use [going north/west] the same route [trackbed] as far as Yarnton Junction but have a separate, independent line ...

Exactly - so at the current north end of the down loop you either continue to merge right onto the main line, or carry straight on along the Witney line.