They re-doubled the wrong section...

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Took the Cotswold line for the first time in ages recently, wanting a change of route. Will not do again in a hurry.
I've forgotten how slow the journey is, with pointless stops to allow few, if any, passengers to board/alight.

But my main gripe were the slack operations and delays. Nothing has changed.

1) Fair enough, due to LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) delays at Worcester, the empty train did not arrive until 2 mins before departure. But we left 5 mins late, with no urgency to get the train off. Why bother I suppose, when there is so much slack in the timetable?

2) Between Worcester and Charlbury we picked up an extra 5 minutes delay for no real reason. Slow deceleration/ acceleration at stations (despite being a 180 and no rain). A wait of a minute before the doors were released at Pershore. Long dwell times at all stations despite there being no SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) and few passengers.

3) As a result, we delayed a Northbound service at Evesham.

4) At Charlbury, we were delayed further by the next northbound service, although didn't get off until the other train had arrived (despite the double track starting a few miles away).

5) Further delays at Oxford, Didcot, etc as we had lost our path. No doubt we caused a queue behind us when we called at Slough on the fast lines. We also delayed a Heathrow Express, which was stuck on the flyover.

Had they doubled Honeybourne - Pershore and South of Hanborough to Charlbury as I have suggested many times, BOTH of these delays would have been avoided. Trains cross at the ends of the double track, which means they are still getting delayed! There seems no way around this timetable wise.

I want this line to improve!

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hi, Btline - it's good to hear from you again, after such a while! 

[ChrisB]

With the summer review of CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) spending, you've got a long wait unfortunately

[IndustryInsider]

4) At Charlbury, we were delayed further by the next northbound service, although didn't get off until the other train had arrived (despite the double track starting a few miles away).

Charlbury Junction isn't 'a few miles away' from the station, it's actually just 0.3 miles away.  Even super quick work by the signaller and train crew means that a train will only be departing as a train coming the other way draws to a stand in the opposite platform.   

[ChrisB]

Exaggeration is BTlines middle name :-)

[Steve Bray]

But BT Line make's a point, or one of two! My Mum was on the 1821 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-HFD^» (Hereford - next trains) yesterday and that was delayed at Evesham waiting for the single line to clear, which is frustrating when you are wanting to get home promptly after a long day out. I've probably said it before, but I'ld have doubled Norton Jcn to Honeybourne. Anyway that didn't happen and we are left with what we are left with! 

[ChrisB]

All 3 options were tested for improved running times, timetable options - and the track that was doubled showed the best business case.

[Btline]

All 3 options were tested for improved running times, timetable options - and the track that was doubled showed the best business case.

They obviously did the testing wrong.
I suspect they picked the cheapest option.

[ChrisB]

Thats total b.....rubbish.

The piece between charlbury & Wilvercot junction costs far less than what they did....as does the bit you suggest. They did the most expensive actually, just that they didn't have enough to do all of it!

[eightf48544]

I tend to agree with Btline that it would have been better to do Wolvercote as far as possible and Norton Junction as far possible with a possibly lengthened loop in the middle.

It seems best to me to be able to get a train off the mainline to wait rather than the block the mainline. I know they are partly able do it with the use of the goods loop North of Oxford but the train still has to block the mainline to enter the single line and the single line has to be clear to Charbury.

It also works the other way round in that a train off the single line can wait at the junction to get onto the mainline and not block a train entering the line.

A place where this works is Leamington Spa to Coventry where you have double track both ends and the dynamic loop at Kenilworth. You often pass another train whilst both moving.

[ChrisB]

I'm sure the professionals looked at this & would have come to a reasoned decision, don't you?

[eightf48544]

I seem to remember that it was the problem with the age of the signalling at Oxford and Norton Junction that was a factor in not adding a length of double track onto the single line to allow trains to get off the main line or wait for it to clear. Which to me has clear operational advantages.

Thingley Junction to Bradford North is an even more extreme example of where there is no double track at the junction or a passing loop. This severely limits the potential capacity of the line.

[ChrisB]

Network Rail & FGW^▸ (First Great Western) never mentioned that in briefings on the redoubling if that is/was the case.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

Network Rail & FGW^▸ (First Great Western) never mentioned that in briefings on the redoubling if that is/was the case.

That's odd because it was certainly mentioned in the railway press (unfortunately I have no reference to hand) that in the case of Wolvercote Junction redoubling would have to wait on the Oxford re-signalling otherwise the cost would have been excessive.

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, that's the main reason as far as I'm aware.  I believe the original intention was to have the track doubled slightly further towards Finstock, but that would have meant replacing a low bridge just to the east of where Charlbury Junction was finally positioned. 

The budget was stretched as it was, with plans to move signalling control to the TVSC^» (Thames Valley Signalling Centre - about) Didcot delayed/cancelled.  Further costs would have been incurred sorting out the issue of expensive modifications (or closure) of Finstock, Combe and Hanborough.  The same problems would have occurred at the other end with a new platform possibly needed at Pershore and alterations at Norton Junction and a bridge replaced between the two - depending on how far you did.

Also, there's the additional cost of the switches and crossings (and signalling to control them) that would be needed if the formation between Wolvercote and Norton went single-double-single-double-single as opposed to the current single-double-single layout.

Those items would all have pushed up the cost considerably, and whilst the current layout is not ideal the timetable should improve dramatically when there's a wholesale recast for the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), which up until now hasn't been possible.  It also becomes easier to do the remaining sections in the future now that the tricky middle bit with all the crossings and tunnels has been dealt with.