New rail link is capital idea

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

On this topic what is the state of play on Chiltern's proposals?

I presume they've fallen into a large hole at DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about), never to see the light of day again or am I being too pessimistic?

[Oxman]

The public consultation has been completed and Chiltern now has to prepare its case for the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport). This is part of its franchise commitment. The decision date is the 1st December, and if the DFT agrees with Chiltern's proposal, a Transport and Works Act will be submitted. That will take a year to get through, so physical work won't start until spring 2011, with opening scheduled for 2013.

[Btline]

Unfortunately, thanks to structural issues near Islip, part of Chiltern's route into Oxford will have to be single track.

This will cut the number of proposed Chiltern services from 5 tph to 2 tph.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004bdyk/Malcolm_Boyden_15_09_2009/

[IndustryInsider]

Unfortunately, thanks to structural issues near Islip, part of Chiltern's route into Oxford will have to be single track.

That's disappointing news. I'll wait for an official announcement from Chiltern before I officially get unhappy, but there's obviously no smoke without fire.

Still, perhaps a solution can be found; eg. 1tph off-peak (which might be enough anyway) from Oxford to Marylebone and 1tph EWR Oxford-Bedford, and in the peak 2tph Oxford-Marylebone connecting with an EWR service from Bicester-Bedford?

[Btline]

I'm still confused what the fifth train was to be.

[paul7575]

I'm still confused what the fifth train was to be.

I think there might be some BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) confusion about service patterns here. Chiltern have only proposed a 2tph service to Oxford. It is the Chiltern AND East West Rail projects together that allow for up to 6 tph:

"...These [two] scenarios are set out below.
New Chiltern Railway services only (anticipated to be 2 tph (1) in each
direction); and
New Chiltern Railway services (an anticipated 2 tph in each direction) in
addition to the new services enabled by the East West Rail scheme (an
anticipated 2 tph EWR, and up to 1 tph freight, 1 tph inter-regional
passenger in each direction ^ ie an anticipated total of 6 tph in each
direction)."

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/images/Scoping%20report%20Evergreen%203%20Final%2022%2004%202009.pdf

So basically Chiltern seem to be saying they can afford to do enough just for their project - which is fair enough I imagine...

Paul   

[gwr2006]

Chiltern has found they cannot afford to repair the embankment which is in poor condition so have decided on almost 7 miles of single track between west of Bicester Town and west of Islip. There will then be double track as far as Wolvercot Tunnel where it goes back down to single track for the remainder of the route into Oxford. The track will use the best parts of the trackbed so expect to see it slewed from side to side (as it does now) to get the best line speeds.

Bicester Town station will have another platform and a 2nd track but that's it. Islip remains as it is but with a longer platform. Platforms are also reduced in length at all stations (max 6-car).

The track layout allows for only 2tph to/from Marylebone, 1tph to/from East West Rail (originally 2tph) and 1 tph existing freight, so East West loses out here and faces a much bigger bill to reinstate the second track if it wants to provide more than one train per hour. Chiltern originally signed a development agreement to provide track and signalling for both projects but has backtracked and pulled out of that so they deliver the minimum required for either but not both projects.

I would expect reliaibility will become an issue with so much single track - let's hope it's not the Cotswold Line all over again!!!

[Btline]

Yes, I suppose in this recession there is no money to fund the extra work. Are there any businesses or councils along the route who could stump up the extra cash? - I suppose it depends on the extend of the damage...

Will this affect journey times?

Remember, the main priority is for Oxford - Marylebone services in the short term. Perhaps extra services on EWR can go via Aylesbury or terminate at Bicester.

Cue Willc: do you know any more about this?

[willc]

gwr2006 has summarised the situation pretty well.

It's come into the open due to an Oxfordshire County Council cabinet meeting yesterday.

We have a short report here http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4630476.Rail_link_plan_runs_into_problems/


The full agenda paper is here http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CA/ca150909.htm and if you scroll down to item 9, then there is a link to the Word document version of the report on Evergreen 3 to the cabinet's members by the head of transport, where section 13 outlines the problems encountered.

Whether all the freight paths would be taken up is a moot point and would depend on how keen Freightliner and DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) are to switch Southampton container trains to running via Bletchley, as the current MoD trains to Bicester and the Calvert bins and spoil trains wouldn't need that all those paths, plus, of course, East-West is still hypothetical as no-one knows where the money is coming from.

Six-car trains makes a lot more sense, as I was never sure how on earth they would fit those into Oxford station - even if the buffer stops ended right next to the main building it always looked a big ask.

[Btline]

How will Chiltern run 6 car services with 4 car 168s?

Freight should play second fiddle to passengers in this case. If the infrastructure can allow for 2 tph to London, 1 tph to Bedford and 1 tph to Milton, then it's ok.

But of course ANY services on EWR are only speculation!

PS: V interesting documents.

[willc]

By using the eight or nine 3-car class 168 sets Chiltern have in their fleet, I should think.

Freight won't be playing second fiddle, at least in the case of the already established services to Bicester and Calvert and Oxford's Banbury Road stone terminal.

No-one has yet fully established how keen the container operators are, but I recall seeing it said that they would like to route some of their services going to the north and Scotland via bletchley, as it would allow them to bypass the West Midlands and speed up journeys, plus it would offer a useful alternative if Oxford-Leamington is shut.

[Electric train]

Would be interesting to know what the "structural problems" are

[paul7575]

No-one has yet fully established how keen the container operators are, but I recall seeing it said that they would like to route some of their services going to the north and Scotland via bletchley, as it would allow them to bypass the West Midlands and speed up journeys, plus it would offer a useful alternative if Oxford-Leamington is shut.

One of the previous East West rail reports suggested they might only use the 'new' route for Southbound freight off the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), to avoid northbound crossing conflicts coming off the Bletchley flyover, ie the northbound route would remain via Nuneaton. I suppose from the south coast a lot depends on the final destination, e.g. the Birmingham area and Daventry (DIRFT) are at opposite ends of the advantage scale... 

Of course there is also a potential freight route onto the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), which seems to get little discussion.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Chiltern has found they cannot afford to repair the embankment which is in poor condition so have decided on almost 7 miles of single track between west of Bicester Town and west of Islip.

The track layout allows for only 2tph to/from Marylebone, 1tph to/from East West Rail (originally 2tph) and 1 tph existing freight, so East West loses out here and faces a much bigger bill to reinstate the second track if it wants to provide more than one train per hour.

Thanks for the extra details, gwr2006. I can't see how you can fit 8 train paths per hour into a section of single track that's almost 7 miles long though? Even if you allow only 7 minutes for a train to go through the section that gives you only 6 minutes an hour when the section isn't occupied? Allowing for delay recovery and so on that's pushing it! Six tph and no freight might just be workable. EWR running an hourly Bedford service from Oxford would probably be just about right to be honest - backed up with a service from Aylesbury.

[paul7575]

Thanks for the extra details, gwr2006. I can't see how you can fit 8 train paths per hour into a section of single track that's almost 7 miles long though? Even if you allow only 7 minutes for a train to go through the section that gives you only 6 minutes an hour when the section isn't occupied? Allowing for delay recovery and so on that's pushing it! Six tph and no freight might just be workable. EWR running an hourly Bedford service from Oxford would probably be just about right to be honest - backed up with a service from Aylesbury.

You can have intermediate signals and 'flight' trains through the single track sections (ie more than one between direction changes). AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) that's how they can get 6 tph on the Fareham - Botley line when FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and SWT^▸ (South West Trains) divert via Eastleigh when the Netley line is closed.  In extremis you could run half an hour each way IYSWIM...

[PS, you also need to be able to stand more than one train in the double track sections to make that work. IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) someone reckoned that the Axminster 'dynamic loop' should be long enough to pass more than one train through in each direction, which may mean a different service next time FGW divert that way...]
Paul