New rail link is capital idea

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

"Oxford could get a new train service to London, via Bicester, under a ^200m plan drawn up by Chiltern Railways.  Chiltern's scheme, developing an idea it first suggested several years ago, would complement the East-West Rail Consortium's proposals to upgrade the Oxford-Bicester Town line and reopen the route from Bicester to Milton Keynes.

A new quarter-mile-long west to south connection would be built to link Bicester Town station with the Chiltern Line at a junction on the southern outskirts of the town, along with a new station alongside the Water Eaton park-and-ride site on the outskirts of Kidlington.

Chiltern Railways' chairman Adrian Shooter said that if the scheme was approved, it would make Bicester one of the best connected towns in the country, with four direct trains to London every hour - two from Bicester Town and two from Bicester North station, on the route to Banbury and Birmingham.

Two trains an hour would run between Oxford and London Marylebone, via an improved and expanded Bicester Town, in addition to the four trains an hour - two expresses and two stopping services - which First Great Western runs to London Paddington."

For full details, see http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.2430855.0.new_rail_link_is_capital_idea.php

[super tm]

Sounds like an ORCATS^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) raid to me.  Chiltern will get a chunk of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) revenue between Oxford and London which will help to pay for this proposal.

Along a similar line strong rumours that FGW want to run HST^▸ (High Speed Train) to Banbury.  Quite a few already sit at Oxford for over an hour before going back to Paddington.  More that enough time to go to Banbury and back.  Cost would be very low as drivers already go there so only fuel to consider and training a few guards.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the major problem is that the signalling does not allow to turn around in the platform at Banbury so a shunt would still be required which makes the timing quite tight.  Solve that and HST will be going to Banbury.

[Btline]

Shame that Chiltern are not re-opening the Ox-London line via Thame.

[Electric train]

Shame that Chiltern are not re-opening the Ox-London line via Thame.

That is true, quite a lot of civil's work to do to re-establish the bit of the trackbed ripped out by the M40

But the upside of all this talk about new services between here and there is the authorities are now actually talking about not only reopening railways but even building new bits

[IndustryInsider]

It may have been said on here before, but this would lesson the pressure of the Reading rebuild and Crossrail construction with the Oxford-London punters diverted via High Wycombe.

[eightf48544]

It seems a very interesting idea, however, I'm not sure how Chiltern will fit these extra trains in South of Bicester as the line is already very full even with  the redoubling and the extra signals recently installed. They urgently need at least one loop between Marylebone and Risborough. This is especialy so  with the Wexham and Shrewsbury and Virgin Blockade busters plus diverted freight now using the line .

Of course the Oxford service could go to Padd (South Ruislip - Old Oak) after all Chiltern drivers already know the road for the daily "ghost train".

I like the idea of doing this before Reading starts.

Although how long the spur will take build with the current system it is not possible to estimate but I would guesstimate less than 18 months, but that doesn't take into account planning and the nimbys.

As for Oxford Thame once again the civl work to cross the M40 is actually not very difficult given modern machinery. Road builders have to shift more earth than rail builders.

This proposal actually highlights one of main critisims of the Beeching report in that he didn't look at the possibility of such links. Rather the approach was to look at individual lines and services, which as I've said previously were mostly still following pre grouping routes.

Ironically neihter route was included in the Beeching plan although Risborough Banbury was down for closure  of the intermediate stations/halts which were served by an irregular all stations push pull service. Similar to the golden valley service to Gloucester. But both lines had basically pre grouping services GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)/GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) through Bicester North and LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) through Bicester town.

[IndustryInsider]

The quoted journey time of 65 minutes would also be very tight to achieve. Currently non-stop trains from Bicester North to Marylebone take 55 minutes, so that just allows a further 10 minutes to get from Oxford to Bicester, even if the train runs non-stop from Bicester Town (I would have thought a High Wycombe stop would be required at least in order to make the service viable off-peak).

If it does run into Paddington (I agree that paths into Marylebone are now at a premium), then it will be likely that line-speed improvements would also be required between South Ruislip and the junction with the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) at Old Oak common.

The two stations at Bicester are not close to each other either, so it's alright boasting that the town would have four trains to London an hour but it suddenly becomes less attractive when those stations serve different London termini and you have to park at one of them to get the train in the first place.

It's an interesting idea, but there are significant hurdles to overcome. It might take something like CrossRail and Reading to force those resonsible to write out the cheques!

[Electric train]

If it does run into Paddington (I agree that paths into Marylebone are now at a premium), then it will be likely that line-speed improvements would also be required between South Ruislip and the junction with the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) at Old Oak common.

Certainly there would need the double track reinstating and the signalling is dated also the Wycombe Line to Relief Line junction at Friars Junction (OCC) is not what it used to be.  There is also the capacity problems at Paddington which are likely to become acute while Crossrail is in construction as there is a lot of work to be done at Westbourne Pk.

The future if the the Padd Oxford via HW were built would be to electrify it and add it to Crossrail ........... but that is a bit to ambitious to hope for

[Btline]

I still think that the route via Thame is better. I think that the line still exists between Thame and Princes R and a short section near Oxford.

And I doubt there is platform space, let alone paths for these trains.

[eightf48544]

If it does run into Paddington (I agree that paths into Marylebone are now at a premium), then it will be likely that line-speed improvements would also be required between South Ruislip and the junction with the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) at Old Oak common.

Certainly there would need the double track reinstating and the signalling is dated also the Wycombe Line to Relief Line junction at Friars Junction (OCC) is not what it used to be.  There is also the capacity problems at Paddington which are likely to become acute while Crossrail is in construction as there is a lot of work to be done at Westbourne Pk.

The future if the the Padd Oxford via HW were built would be to electrify it and add it to Crossrail ........... but that is a bit to ambitious to hope for

Certainy putting Crossrail up to HW if not Oxford would be an excellent idea instead of terminating 14 westbound tph at Westbourne Park. That would get rid of another 4 tph to a useful destination.

[Electric train]

I still think that the route via Thame is better. I think that the line still exists between Thame and Princes R and a short section near Oxford.

It is now a foot path / cycle way / bridle way although the route has been identified and safeguarded by Bucks CC for future transport needs

[willc]

Won't waste space quoting people:

1. Yes, the quoted timing is optimistic, to put it politely, but makes it look a better comparison with the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) time via Reading. I'd say 75 minutes is more realistic.

2. Extra trains. A number of services throughout the day turn round at Bicester North already, so their paths can be used.

3. You would need a hell of a lot more than ^200m to reopen the line via Thame to Cowley. The stub out to Thame closed in 1991 under BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) and the track was later removed. Video of the last train of oil tanker empties out is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npj1tNHhDEk Apart from the M40, parts of the trackbed are missing elsewhere. See http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html for photos taken along the route a couple of years ago.
The Morris Cowley branch is pretty busy with BMW traffic, parts in and cars out, so would need redoubling to handle any extra traffic.

4. Orcats raiding. Since this would be a new service, then all operators involved would have to sit down round a table and thrash it out. Chiltern couldn't just say 'we run to London now, give us a pile of money please'.

5. I'm dubious that this will actually happen unless the East-West Link from Oxford-Bletchley/Milton Keynes is approved, because I don't believe Chiltern would go it alone on the redoubling between Oxford and Bicester Town.

[IndustryInsider]

Won't waste space quoting people:

1. Yes, the quoted timing is optimistic, to put it politely, but makes it look a better comparison with the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) time via Reading. I'd say 75 minutes is more realistic.

2. Extra trains. A number of services throughout the day turn round at Bicester North already, so their paths can be used.

3. You would need a hell of a lot more than ^200m to reopen the line via Thame to Cowley. The stub out to Thame closed in 1991 under BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) and the track was later removed. Video of the last train of oil tanker empties out is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npj1tNHhDEk Apart from the M40, parts of the trackbed are missing elsewhere. See http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html for photos taken along the route a couple of years ago.
The Morris Cowley branch is pretty busy with BMW traffic, parts in and cars out, so would need redoubling to handle any extra traffic.

4. Orcats raiding. Since this would be a new service, then all operators involved would have to sit down round a table and thrash it out. Chiltern couldn't just say 'we run to London now, give us a pile of money please'.

5. I'm dubious that this will actually happen unless the East-West Link from Oxford-Bletchley/Milton Keynes is approved, because I don't believe Chiltern would go it alone on the redoubling between Oxford and Bicester Town.

Some valid points there. Though the pathing issue is more complex than utilising existing paths on the Marylebone to Bicester North services. If you take the 'up' service for example there is only one train starting at Bicester heading towards Marylebone before 9am and those after that that do (an average of about 1tph, but it's a bit hap-hazard) take around 70 minutes with their 5 or six stops which would bump the journey time from Oxford to Marylebone to nearer 85 minutes which really wouldn't be attractive.

It would take some VERY careful planning to try and slot in more fast trains which wouldn't impact on the number of services serving the smaller stations. In the peak hours I could only see it being possible (even if extra passing loops are provided) with the replacement of the Aylesbury<>Marylebone via High Wycombe services with Aylesbury<>Princes Risborough shuttles as per the current off-peak. I wouldn't advise the member of OxRailAction to get too optimistic about this service!

As for the Thame route, wasn't it part of Chiltern Railways' franchise commitments to at least look seriously into re-opening the Thame route? Other potential projects are:

    *  The restoration of the quadruple track between South Ruislip (Northolt Junction) and West Ruislip, allowing trains to call at both stations without blocking the line.
    * Triple track currently exists at West Ruislip, with the up platform loop still in situ, and at South Ruislip, with the Down Main through line also in situ. This would involve the reconstruction of the down platform at West Ruislip, the reconstruction of the up platform at South Ruislip, and the demolition of West Ruislip signalbox. This 'Chiltern Metro' service was not programmed in to the last round of franchising agreements.
    * Restoration of fast through lines at Beaconsfield. This project has been shelved; the existing lines have been realigned and can now be traversed by locomotive-hauled trains at 50 miles an hour, and by the Chiltern DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) at 75 miles an hour.
    * Double track the line from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury.
    * Remodelling Banbury Station and tracks.
    * Building of the West Hampstead Interchange to allow easy interchange with the Silverlink Metro, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and First Capital Connect service. This would also give Chiltern Railways an interchange with the future Orbirail line.
    * New Chiltern Metro Service that would operate 4+tph for Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Northolt Park, South Ruislip and West Ruislip. This would require a reversing facility at West Ruislip, passing loops at Sudbury Hill Harrow and a passing loop at Wembley Stadium (part of the old down fast line is in use as a central reversing siding, for stock movements and additionally for 8-car football shuttles to convey passengers to the stadium for events).
    * Re-opening the line between Oxford and Princes Risborough, which would provide an alternative to the Oxford Paddington route. The Oxford to Banbury spur would then be handed over to the Chiltern Main Line to create a diversionary loop from Princes Risborough to Banbury via Oxford. This option requires an expensive crossing of the M40 motorway.
    * Building a connection at Bicester to the Oxford to Bicester Line, allowing direct trains from Marylebone to Oxford via Bicester Town.
    * Re-opening the passenger line between Aylesbury and Bedford via Milton Keynes.
    * A new station is currently being constructed at Aylesbury Vale to serve a planned residential development in the area. This station will also improve access from those parts of Buckinghamshire not at present directly served by the rail network.
    * Opening a rail line from Aylesbury to a M6-M1 Parkway Station near Rugby.
    * Re-opening the Oxford to Bedford line. This would form part of a future Varsity Line.
    * Re open Gerrards Cross to Uxbridge line continuing the route to Heathrow Airport. This would give Birmingham a direct rail link with the largest airport in the United Kingdom.

[willc]

The Chiltern franchise bid contained a long wish list of new services but thus far, unless you count the Aylesbury Vale Parkway extension - due to open in December - then nothing has come of any of it yet.

East-West and Aylesbury-Milton Keynes are all still mired in the Government's housing plans for the region and efforts to get housebuilders to stump up much of the cost (increasingly unlikely in the current climate in that industry).

[eightf48544]

Have obtained some more info on this from a reliable source.

Oxford Risborough via Thame Chiltern has looked at this but it would be too expensive even with their 20 year franchise. Just one of the stupidities of the way the railways were privatised but that's another issue.

However, Chiltern has to put positive proposals to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) for investment.

Hence Oxford to link at Bicester.

The whole package is too large to explain here but it starts with a desire to get London Birmingham (with stops) down to 90 mins. Involves re-engining whole fleet, increased line speeds, and several bi-directional fast lines to allow fasts to overtake stoppers between London and Banbury.

Oxford Bicester requires a link down from the mainline (land available) to the Oxford Cambridge line just East of Bicestrer Town. Most  of the route will be double track with 100 mph running with new stations at Bicester Village (apparently one of the most popular tourist destinations outside London).

A parkway station by existing North Oxford Park and Ride. With a 58 minute running time to Marylebone with it's good road connections this station is expected to attract a large number of users from a wide area of North Oxfordshire.

A totally new line parallel with Mainline from Oxford North Junction, to the old parcel docks on NE side Oxford station so no interferance with other services. Existing junction to Bicester line to allow through workings South of Oxford to remain. Also only gives one interface with Oxford panel.

Other points are:

Could be quite quick to implement 2 years?.
Would releive Reading rebuild.
Could serve new eco town proposed in the area the line is on Southern boundary, a possible station has been identified.
Designed to be compatible with East - West route proposal. In fact it would save them money having a virtually new line  with new staions between Bicester and Oxford.
Allegedly only 3 miles longer  to Marylebone than  Padd - Oxford
About 10th price of doing Oxford Thame and probably quicker running time. Oxford Bicester is virtually straight and level.

It seems a really well thought out scheme, so very likely DfT will reject it.