Oxford to Bicester Line - FGW and Chiltern Railways (merged topics)

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

Covered already.  The Evergreen 3 booklet already shows the Bicester Village 'shared' parking.

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/images/Chiltern%20A4%208pp%20Booklet%20V9%20Website%20v2.pdf

Page 6:  "Car parking would be provided on the north side of the railway, with additional parking for
rail users on weekdays in the proposed Bicester Village shopping outlet car park which already has planning permission."

Paul

[gwr2006]

The site was previously an assortment of small light industry units (scrap yard, recycling, coal merchant etc.) but was leased to those businesses by the British Railways Board (Residuary).  When they were preparing to offer the land for sale on the open-market in 2008, a forward-thinking Oxfordshire County Council sought a safeguard that some of the land should be used to create a station car park.  Research had shown that this would be attractive in encouraging local people to use the train.

In the event the land was sold to Bicester Village, who were already working with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and the county council to promote use of the Bicester-Oxford line.  After serving notice on the sitting tenants they took over the site last year to begin the transformation to a car park.

A condition of the land sale was a requirement to provide at least 220 spaces for rail users on weekdays, with the car park being used as an overflow for Bicester Village itself at weekends.  The car park is owned and managed by Bicester Village not FGW or Network Rail and is private land.  Also, the obligation to provide 50 parking spaces for rail users throughout the week (secured by the county council as part of planning permission for a third extension to Bicester Village) also remains in place.

This car park has nothing to do with Evergreen 3 and was negotiated and secured long before Chiltern Railways came forward with their plans.

[willc]

I had a word with one of the guys who regularly works that train as a Ticket Examiner and he said the train usually loads to about two-thirds full (of seating capacity).  Quite a lot of people take bikes on board apparently which might give the impression that it's fuller than it is, so he reckons another 50 or so people could travel seated each day without it being sardine time.  I sometimes catch the evening commuter train to Bicester in the evening which for some reason loads less from my experience - I would guess there's usually about 50 or so on board - approx. 15 for Islip and 35 for Bicester (I've always had a bay of seats to myself).  I guess that a few of the regular commuters get either the earlier or later train home?

There might be scope for more 'shoppers' to use the following two trains (09:07 and 10:30) if they know there's ample parking available?  However, I'll still be amazed if this new car park is ever more than 25% full, unless of course it gets swamped by non-rail users taking advantage of free parking and a lack of actual checks that people who've parked there are indeed rail users - a problem that I know used to affect Oxford until the RingGo system was installed.

I think you're right about return traffic being more spread out. Haven't observed the 16.30 lately, but I'd guess it's pretty popular, like most trains out of Oxford at that time of day, and there are usually people boarding the set for the 19.30 in platform 3 well before departure time.

Not sure the car park will be swamped by the office workers of Bicester, as parking fees there aren't quite as sky-high as Oxford, though it might become popular if spaces are at a premium when the town centre redevelopment, masterminded by Sainsbury's, gets under way.

And clearly a case where congratulations are deserved all round for solving several issues at once, and displaying a degree of forethought. If only other some other areas of railway land had been disposed of in such a carefully-thought out way. The former goods yard at Evesham - now a Tesco store - springs to mind when contemplating the problem of car parking there. A deal with Tesco to reserve a slice of the car park for rail passengers on weekdays would have been very handy indeed.

[paul7575]

This car park has nothing to do with Evergreen 3 and was negotiated and secured long before Chiltern Railways came forward with their plans.

That's what I just tried to explain. It was mentioned in the booklet as it was expected to be already completed before the Evergreen work commenced, not as part of Evergreen 3.  When they're doing a planning application and associated publicity it would be normal to include activities already taking place?

Paul

[Timmer]

From the Oxford Times:
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/8628831.Fears_over_Islip_rail_service/

ISLIP station, part of an award-winning rail link, will get its services cut if plans for a route from Oxford to London via Bicester get the go-ahead.

Chiltern Railways plans to spend ^250m to upgrade the track to allow two trains to run from Oxford to London Marylebone every hour. But the plans cut the number of trains from Islip to Oxford and Bicester from 11 to eight per day.

Last month, the Oxford to Bicester link, run by First Great Western and subsidised by Oxfordshire County Council, took a top prize at the Community Rail Awards for last year^s three-day launch promotion. There was a 32 per cent rise in passengers boarding from Islip, with numbers rising from 14,929 to 19,833 in the first nine months of last year after the service was increased from seven to 11 trains a day.

Islip resident Dr Ian East, chairman of the Oxford-Bicester Rail Action Group, said the move would hit people from nearby villages. He said: ^Chiltern have offered eight, but we want the 11 we have at the moment. Stopping at Islip only adds a couple of minutes to the timetable to and from London.^

Although services would be cut from Islip, Chiltern would increase the number of trains from Bicester to Oxford from 11 to 36 a day.

[ChrisB]

Interesting - the extra 3 are provided by the County Council funding via a Section 106 Agreement with Bicester Village. I wonder why OCC won't continue this funding as the S106 money must be ring-fenced - and Chiltern have more than once confirmed in public that Islip would eep their 11 trains if OCC continue funding.

[paul7575]

The latest Today's Railways UK^▸ (United Kingdom) notes (in their article about the Evergreen3 enquiry, p12) that Chiltern will be running the Oxford to Bicester service from May 2011.

Has that relatively early date been mentioned here before, I couldn't find it by searching...

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, I'm pretty sure it has.  With comments suggesting that Chiltern will hire a Turbo off of FGW^▸ (First Great Western), and quite possibly a driver too, until the line closes for the rebuild.

[Lee]

Is the indicative timetable that the article was based on available online?

[IndustryInsider]

Welcome back, Lee!

They are available on the following link - the six 'phase 2' timetables are the relevant ones:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\Track%20Access\2%20Completed%20Consultations\2009\2009.10.27%20Chiltern%20Railways%2073rd%20Supplemental%20Agreement%20-%20consultation%20closed%2023%20November%202009&pageid=4593&root=

[Lee]

Magic, thanks IndustryInsider 

[ChrisB]

I think there's concern that Islip will revert to the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) service rather than the enhanced service being paid for via a section 106 agreement by Oxfordshire CC.

In discussions I've had with OCC, they have indicated every time that they're willing to continue to pay until the money runs out, and just needed Chiltern to reach the same agreement that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has with them.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), it's on Chiltern's side to agree.

[paul7575]

What is scary about the modern railway's accounting systems is that there is supposedly a significant 'cost' in stopping a train at an unmanned station, even when managed by the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) running the service. 

ISTM that this is completely artificial, and although people have explained in the past that there is a marginal fuel cost in accelerating away from a station call that would otherwise not have occured, the same must be true whenever a train is held at a running signal.

Meanwhile SWT^▸ (South West Trains) seem to have had little problem with doubling the offpeak SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) service pattern at Mottisfont and Dean to hourly, does that mean they are paying FGW^▸ (First Great Western) additional access charges for the privelege as well?

Paul

[eightf48544]

What is scary about the modern railway's accounting systems is that there is supposedly a significant 'cost' in stopping a train at an unmanned station, even when managed by the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) running the service. 

ISTM that this is completely artificial, and although people have explained in the past that there is a marginal fuel cost in accelerating away from a station call that would otherwise not have occured, the same must be true whenever a train is held at a running signal.

Paul

Totally agree with Paul the marginal fuel used with a modern DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would probably be paid for by one passenger. With a modern EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) it would be even less as it would have put back power into the wire regen braking for the stop.

However stopping and accelerating an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) on a 125mph railway every 20 miles is expensive. I wonder what TOC does that every half hour in both directions?

[willc]

Couple of pictures of the first Chiltern trains today taken by Martin Loader this morning here http://www.hondawanderer.com/