New rail link is capital idea

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Water Eaton to London in under an hour?!

Wow - Chiltern will need some big trains as they will poach loads of commuters AND OFF PEAK TRAVELLERS who are fed up with FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

Either: drive to Oxford station, take a 2 tph FGW (i.e. unreliable, Cotswold etc.) service to London in an hour.

Or: drive to Water Eaton, take a 2 tph Chiltern (i.e. reliable, good service etc) service to London in an hour.

I know which I would pick! In fact, I would rather take the Chiltern from Oxford - as it is still more likely to be quicker than FGW!

Yes, traffic may be bad at peak times on the A34, but off peak......

[willc]

The Rail reference to raising the Chiltern speed limit may have been to loco-hauled trains, as W&S^▸ (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) cannot run at the same maximum speeds as DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), indeed I have a feeling they aren't allowed to top 60 or 70mph the whole way between Aynho and London.

Yes there was a public inquiry about Water Eaton, but it is, as they say, a fact on the ground and even before the park and ride was built, it was hardly an oasis of tranquility, with the eyesore of the old grain silo and the traffic on the A34 thundering past, which was one of the key factors in the councils picking the location anyway, as it minimised any additional disruption, rather like building High Speed 1 alongside motorways for much of its length.

If Chiltern could get hold of the grain silo site, than that would give you pretty much all the land you would need for an extended car park and station. Indeed, I don't actually see anywhere else you could really build a station, except the silo, as it stands between the railway and the park-and-ride and its associated access road off Banbury Road.

Chiltern's service promise for Bicester is two trains per hour calling at North and two trains per hour at Town, which implies the rerouting to Oxford (and retiming as expresses) of the current hourly train that turns back at North.

The assumption at Oxford station is they would convert the parcel docks, as that Chiltern presentation to the SE assembly talks of two new platforms at Oxford, served by an "independent route" into the station with no need to wait for full Oxford resignalling, which I take to mean using the ex-freight loop, once the bidirectional signals are plugged in to allow its use by Bicester-bound trains.

Only issue I see with the parcel docks is access from the rest of the station, as they are cut off by the old Red Star office and the traincrew depot, unless you cut back platform 3 to a three-car platform and fill the track bed at its south end to give access that way.

If this does go ahead, by the time Chiltern run their first train, the Cotswold Line work will long have been completed, with all the benefits for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) reliability and punctuality that that will bring. Remember a key factor in persuading the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) to authorise redoubling was that Network Rail and FGW were able to demonstrate just how much disruption delayed Cotswold services also caused further afield on the network.

The timings are projections, not set in stone, and there is no way Chiltern could be quicker into central Oxford having to go up to Bicester and back down to Oxford, indeed the threat of competition might persuade FGW to trim some of the padding out and get back to 50-minute timings for HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

And I'll say it again, if you can possibly avoid it, you do not try to get across or around Oxford in the peaks, so Water Eaton would attract custom from nearby parts of the city and Kidlington, but not from others. For example, it is probably almost quicker to drive from the south-east out to Haddenham & Thame and get a train there, or, as many do, board a coach at Thornhill park-and-ride. And off-peak, it's usually pretty straightforward to get to Oxford station, so no clear advantage at those times either.

[gwr2006]

They intend two trains will run every hour, calling at High Wycombe, Bicester Town, Water Eaton Parkway and Oxford. Some trains will also stop at Islip. The currentlky projected journey times are:

London Marylebone - Water Eaton Parkway in 58  minutes
London Marylebone - Oxford   in 1hr 6 minutes
Bicester Town - Oxford in 14 minutes
Oxford - High Wycombe in 38 minutes

So far they are saying these will be extra trains and existing stopping/fast services will remain as they are now, but I think that they will eventually remove some of the existing stops at Bicester North to reduce the West Midlands-London journey time. Also, Cross Country are looking at routeing all their services via Coventry and Birmingham International which should help with paths via Solihull.

It's becoming clearer as the plan develops as to how important a part of the proposal the Water Eaton Parkway station will become. 58 minutes will be an appetising prospect for anyone in North Oxford fed up of battling their way through the traffic to Oxford station, or facing an uncertain parking situation and unreliable service (hopefully soon to change, relability wise at least!) at Hanborough.

As for Oxford, what are the platform arrangements expected to be? Is it just a case of opening up the current east and west former parcel dock platforms to passenger use? With very little modification the actual platforms could take a 2/3 car train respectively, though signalling would need to be modified and actually getting passengers to/from those platforms would need some looking into with barriers etc.

Chiltern are looking at converting the parcel dock platforms to create (platforms 4 and 5!) and as a minum is looking at a 5-car platform, (but ideally 8-cars). To fit either in needs a new bridge across the sheepwash channel (very close to the old LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) swingbridge) as the throat into the bays is too narrow for a dedicated track. The traincrew depot, storage and red star builidng will need to be demolished.  The route to and from the platforms will be a single bi-directional line running behind the Turbo Sidings and along the old disused LNWR trackbed to Oxford North Jn. This keeps it remote from Oxford PSB^▸ (Power Signal Box) and means it could be controlled from Marylebone IECC^▸ (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) which is also being expanded.

[IndustryInsider]

The Rail reference to raising the Chiltern speed limit may have been to loco-hauled trains, as W&S^▸ (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) cannot run at the same maximum speeds as DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), indeed I have a feeling they aren't allowed to top 60 or 70mph the whole way between Aynho and London.

Yes, that is the case and the source of the Rail article I expect.

And I'll say it again, if you can possibly avoid it, you do not try to get across or around Oxford in the peaks, so Water Eaton would attract custom from nearby parts of the city and Kidlington, but not from others. For example, it is probably almost quicker to drive from the south-east out to Haddenham & Thame and get a train there, or, as many do, board a coach at Thornhill park-and-ride. And off-peak, it's usually pretty straightforward to get to Oxford station, so no clear advantage at those times either.

I agree, but that's quite a big catchment area. The potential custom of Kidlington, Yarnton, Cutteslowe Wolvercote and Marston residents would make Water Eaton Parkway a busy little hub.

[IndustryInsider]

It's becoming clearer as the plan develops as to how important a part of the proposal the Water Eaton Parkway station will become. 58 minutes will be an appetising prospect for anyone in North Oxford fed up of battling their way through the traffic to Oxford station, or facing an uncertain parking situation and unreliable service (hopefully soon to change, relability wise at least!) at Hanborough.

As for Oxford, what are the platform arrangements expected to be? Is it just a case of opening up the current east and west former parcel dock platforms to passenger use? With very little modification the actual platforms could take a 2/3 car train respectively, though signalling would need to be modified and actually getting passengers to/from those platforms would need some looking into with barriers etc.

Chiltern are looking at converting the parcel dock platforms to create (platforms 4 and 5!) and as a minum is looking at a 5-car platform, (but ideally 8-cars). To fit either in needs a new bridge across the sheepwash channel (very close to the old LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) swingbridge) as the throat into the bays is too narrow for a dedicated track. The traincrew depot, storage and red star builidng will need to be demolished.  The route to and from the platforms will be a single bi-directional line running behind the Turbo Sidings and along the old disused LNWR trackbed to Oxford North Jn. This keeps it remote from Oxford PSB^▸ (Power Signal Box) and means it could be controlled from Marylebone IECC^▸ (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) which is also being expanded.

Right, thanks for that information. It will be quite a big project then - and something no franchise of the typical current length would be able to consider undertaking, proving the sense in longer franchises like Chiltern's! Those enhancements would be sensible to ensure that trains and tracks have enough capacity at the peaks. Who knows, perhaps Oxford could have six platforms in about 5 years time then!

[autotank]

Chiltern comes up trumps again - what a great TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)! This sounds like a great project and is just the sort of thing rail privitisation should be producing on a much more regular basis. Just a shame that they can't get stuck into it now and have to jump through some silly hoops first.

Will FGW^▸ (First Great Western) still have to run services to Bicester Town once Chiltern services start? The sensible solution would be for the unit freed up to improve local Oxford - Banbury services. But due to the ridiculous fare system I imagine FGW would keep a few token serives (not stopping at Water Eaton Parkway!) operating to grab some of the fare pot!

I like the Minehead idea but I think that is a step too far, even for Chiltern!

[willc]

I agree, but that's quite a big catchment area. The potential custom of Kidlington, Yarnton, Cutteslowe Wolvercote and Marston residents would make Water Eaton Parkway a busy little hub.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a lucrative stop, merely that the prospects for it hoovering up traffic from all around Oxford are limited by the overall transport problems that afflict the city and surrounding area, due to its geography and history.

While what gwr2006 says Chiltern are suggesting doing at Oxford station sounds impressive on paper, I would argue that with the slippage of their service date to 2013 - originally they were talking in time for the 2012 Olympics - that it's going to be getting near enough to the main Oxford resignalling project that with the prospect of this work at the north end and  GW^▸ (Great Western) turnback platforms alongside the car park at the south end as well, perhaps Oxford station needs looking at in the round, in conjunction with the resignalling, so that what emerges is a station fit for the 21st century, rather than yet more piecemeal tinkerings with an inadequate basic layout created by the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) in the 19th.

Unfortunately, due to the actions of a property company (which had the national rail network in its charge) known as Railtrack, the Rewley Road station site was sold off for the Said Business School and a chunk of land at the back of platform 2 for the new youth hostel, limiting the space for making changes to the existing station.

The two through platforms are inadequate now and even if you remove the need for terminating and starting London trains to use them, that only eases the pressure, not solves the problem. Were the East-West link to become a reality, there would surely be the prospect of something like a Bristol-Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes service, and with a Didcot-Moreton-in-Marsh shuttle suggested elsewhere on this site, you have yet more demand for through platforms.

Ideally, you need four through platforms and a couple of long bays at either end, plus through lines for freight but how you can manage that, and provide a decent station building, cab ranks, bus stops and car parking, I'm not sure. Is it time to revive the now-dead idea of moving the whole thing a few hundred yards south towards Oxpens? Or shunt it up to the area where the stabling sidings are, which has the necessary width, and maybe create overnight stabling at Hinksey sidings, Cowley or Didcot instead?

Any thoughts?

[gwr2006]

Rail suggests that the line between Ruislip and Aynho is to be increase in speed to 85mph. That surprised me, as I would have thought a line substantially rebuilt during Evergreen 1 & 2 between Princes Risborough and Aynho would have already be at that sort of speed.

What is the limit on the newly redoubled stretches? Anyone know?   

Running South from Banbury I believe the speeds are (for Turbos):

Banbury-Aynho Junction: 90mph
Aynho Junction: 70mph (Up direction) 40mph (Down direction)
Aynho Junction-Bicester: 100mph
Bicester: 25mph (Up direction) 80mph (Down direction)
Bicester-Princes Risborough: 100mph
Princes Risborough: 70mph
Princes Risborough-West Wycombe: 75mph
West Wycombe-High Wycombe: 50mph

Then it's largely 75mph to Neasden Junction with the odd drop here and there through stations.

Possible improvements:
1) You could improve the speeds through Aynho in the down direction (but not by much as the track sweeps over the main line at quite a cant).
2) Bicester North track realignment (or a through loop) could dramatically increase on the 25mph limit in the Up direction.
3) Princes Risborough and the line through to West Wycombe could probably be increased in places, but again track curvature is tight.

Other locations would be more difficult as the track winds through the Wycombe area with some sharp twists and turns so I doubt much improvement on 50mph could take place. South-East of Wycombe there's scope to increase the 75mph sections in a number of places, but again 100mph I would have thought is impracticable - the 85mph stated would make sense.

All in all though, I can't see really impressive linespeed increases being possible for the majority of the route. That's why I'm so sceptical of this 100 minute London-Birmingham schedule, and also think the Oxford-Marylebone aspirational timings will be very challenging to achieve.

I've heard that the up line speed will be increased from 90 mph to 100 mph north of Banbury, reducing to 75 mph around the station and then back up to 90 mph as far as Aynho. Then the current 90 mph to Bicester North is going to be increased to 100 mph all the way to Princes Risborough before the current 75 mph limit is increased all the way to South Ruslip, with the exception of High Wycombe where it drops to 50 mph.

To achieve this they will reinstate the through road at Bicester North to avoid the 25 mph platform loop and this will be bi-directional too, and a similar arrangemrnt will apply at Princes Risborough so trains can pass through at 90 mph. There will be a new south facing bay on the down side at Gerrards Cross so trains can turnback clear of the through tracks. A new through track will be laid at Denham and a new crossover at West Ruslip.

All track will be bi-directional. At present up trains can only be regulated at Leamington and then 74 miles later at West Ruislip, but the new arrnagement means trains can be passed additionally at Bicester North and Princes Risborough. Down trains currently have to travel 68 miles to Banbury before they can be 'looped', but the new arrangements means this can be done at Denham, Princes Risborough and Bicester North too.

The changes to the engine and transmission on the 168 fleets is to reduce the power to weight ratio and enable them to accelerate to their top speed quicker. I've been told this will enable them to reach 100 mph in around 300 seconds compared to the 450 seconds it takes them now. That should make a big difference if the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) agrees.

[John R]

Will FGW^▸ (First Great Western) still have to run services to Bicester Town once Chiltern services start? The sensible solution would be for the unit freed up to improve local Oxford - Banbury services. But due to the ridiculous fare system I imagine FGW would keep a few token serives (not stopping at Water Eaton Parkway!) operating to grab some of the fare pot!

I doubt it. With 2 tph (4tph once E-W rail starts) it would be ludicrous for FGW to run a shuttle. And it probably wouldn't be able to be fitted in very easily at either end. I suspect it's a service that FGW would willingly drop.

[Btline]

This sounds great.

If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are forced to cut the slack, and reduce their timings to 50 mins - good.

That is what privatisation is about - competition, resulting in faster services.

Remember that Chiltern's fares will probably be lower.

If Chiltern do not call at Islip, I presume a FGW shuttle will have to serve every few hours.

[stebbo]

Reading all this, it seems to me that the sensible answer would be to reopen Princes Risborough to Oxford. Not that easy but do-able. Couple that with a Parkway station near the Oxford Motorway Services on the M40, reinstate through lines at Princes Risborough, Beaconsfield and Denham and redouble Ruislip to Old Oak Junction and you're cooking.

Throw in electrification and hey.......!

Like the idea about reopening the curve to Uxbridge, but I guess the the old Staines branch would need huge investment. 

[willc]

That is what privatisation is about - competition

That wasn't the Major government's intention at all, it was to get the railways off the state's books.

Remember that Chiltern's fares will probably be lower.

If Chiltern do not call at Islip, I presume a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) shuttle will have to serve every few hours.

First Group aren't above a bit of competitive pricing themselves, so don't count on it. If you are able to book advance tickets off-peak, then you can do Oxford-London and back for ^8, half the price of the M40 coaches, which charge a flat ^16 return all day.

Chiltern have already said they will serve Islip, though not with every train, so they could easily match the current level of service across the day, with the longer-term prospect of East-West stoppers being the main service. If that goes ahead, I'd expect Chiltern's service to be adjusted to something like that at Kings Sutton, south of Banbury, with several peak stops for travel towards London and return, and every couple of hours the rest of the day.

The route via Thame was already discussed when this thread began last summer and it just isn't practical, breached by the M40 and the Wheatley bypass, housing in Wheatley, etc, etc, unless you know where they can get their hands on a lot more than ^200m, plus it simply isn't as attractive in traffic terms.

Water Eaton taps into Kidlington, which is a 'village' of 17,000 people with rail lines to its west and south but no station and Bicester is slated to keep growing over the next few years but the county council are desperate to make sure that doesn't mean yet more cars heading into Oxford. Bicester North's (extended) car park is pretty much at full capacity Mon-Fri now, while Town is next to the Bicester Village shopping complex, which is a massive draw for overseas visitors doing day trips from London and has acres of parking space too and whose owners are under pressure to encourage more use of public transport after Bicester became gridlocked by shoppers' cars during the post-Christmas sales.

Pics of the current state of the Thame route are at http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html

[IndustryInsider]

All fascinating stuff. I will be interested to see how Project Evergreen 3 pans out over the coming years. I think Chiltern's 'Design, finance, build, and transfer' method of providing these improvements is one which should be more widely encouraged throughout the country (Stroud Valley redoubling?!?) - though it might be a little harder to implement so smoothly when compared with PE1 and 2 when other operators will be inconvenienced or have their custom put at risk, as they will with the proposed Oxford alterations.

[mjones]

....

Chiltern are looking at converting the parcel dock platforms to create (platforms 4 and 5!) and as a minum is looking at a 5-car platform, (but ideally 8-cars). To fit either in needs a new bridge across the sheepwash channel (very close to the old LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) swingbridge) as the throat into the bays is too narrow for a dedicated track. The traincrew depot, storage and red star builidng will need to be demolished. The route to and from the platforms will be a single bi-directional line running behind the Turbo Sidings and   along the old disused LNWR trackbed to Oxford North Jn. This keeps it remote from Oxford PSB^▸ (Power Signal Box) and means it could be controlled from Marylebone IECC^▸ (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) which is also being expanded.

If I recall correctly, at least some of this route now has a sewer buried underneath it, serving a housing development built next to Port Meadow, probably about 10 years ago. The trackbed itself looks clear, but presumably any buried services like this will need to be moved, or an new alignment found if there is space?

[willc]

Chiltern has set up a mini-website to outline progress on the project at http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/