Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Oxman]

I understand the work is likely to finish early, with the possession to be lifted on Monday morning. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is to run a test train at some point during the day to check the signalling system.

[Mookiemoo]

Great! Maybe my fears of mass cancellation or emergency bustitution tuesday morning will not come true!

Itn not fgw I have no faith in but notwork rail

[JayMac]

Great! Maybe my fears of mass cancellation or emergency bustitution tuesday morning will not come true!

Itn not fgw I have no faith in but notwork rail

Because of the other typo I'm wondering whether 'notwork rail' was deliberate. If so, I like it!!!

[willc]

When I visited Chipping Campden tunnel back at the end of July, we were told they were already running a day ahead of schedule, so sounds like they have kept that up.

Trains have been able to run throughout for a good few days now, with all the necessary track in place and connected - and I believe that one of the midweek engineering trains did run from Worcester to Oxford.

And all the signals I saw in the Vale of Evesham when I went that way during the week were already powered and showing caution aspects, so the signs for a smooth resumption of services are good.

[Oxman]

The line has been handed back and a test train ran from Oxford to Worcester and back this morning without a problem. Looks good for tomorrow.

[willc]

Extracted from the new Network Rail RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy):

"Oxford to Worcester
Following a review of this service and its current calling pattern, it was agreed that due to the minimal benefits that could
be achieved from removing stops, the service should remain as it currently is. The RUS recommends a frequent review of the requirements and usage, particularly following the completion of the redoubling of the Cotswold line and any impact from this in line with IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) service developments."

For some strange reason, I could find no mention of super-fast Worcester trains in the strategy's list of 21 most pressing issues facing the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) area over the next decade.

The IEP developments include a third Oxford-London route fast train every hour. A revised layout at Oxford to - among other things - assist in splitting and joining IEP trains to and from the Cotswolds is suggested (ie ONE set from a pair goes beyond Oxford every hour most of the day, with an enhanced peak service). See page 186 of the strategy for a track diagram including a scissors crossing - which appears to have been inspired by the arrangements used for Hereford and Kidderminster portion working at Worcester Shrub Hill in days gone by.

The other key development is that, as previously suggested, Wolvercot-Charlbury redoubling is very much on the cards as part of Oxford area enhancements and was modelled as part of one of the key options they have looked at, combined with quad-tracking throughout between Oxford and Wolvercot junction and south from Oxford to Radley.

[IndustryInsider]

See page 186 of the strategy for a track diagram including a scissors crossing - which appears to have been inspired by the arrangements used for Hereford and Kidderminster portion working at Worcester Shrub Hill in days gone by.

Looks good on paper, doesn't it? How that diagram could be delivered in real infrastructure on the ground though I fail to see. Much of the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) document seems to have been well researched, but the Oxford enhancements section strikes me as a bit of a hastily cobbled together effort.

For a start the 'current' diagram is incorrect as the Up platform is bi-directional. Secondly the proposed layout shows no sign of any additional northbound platforms that are likely to be built as part of the EWS^▸ (English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, now known as DB Schenker Rail (UK^▸ (United Kingdom))) and Chiltern Evergreen 3 project. Thirdly it's quite easy to say that you could turn two single platform faces into two island platforms, but where would the station buildings go? You could perhaps just about squeeze an island platform on the Downside if you demolish the current buildings and remove a few parking spaces (after all, the panel box won't be in use any more), but to gain a through Upside platform would mean the whole concourse being knocked down and rebuilt elsewhere. How much would that all cost?

I suspect that large parts of that suggestion will remain in the 'theoretical' box!

[willc]

Thing is we are rapidly approaching the point where they might actually have to do something, whatever the bill is, especially if you're going to have to accommodate a third London fast train every hour, even if you do have a south bay, and you're going to do large-scale joining and splitting of Cotswold services again. It's not as if no-one accepts there's a problem at Oxford.

I don't recall seeing the report Arup did for the county council in 2004 suggesting moving the station down the line towards Oxpens, but that proposed a double island layout, so I expect someone just picked this up and moved it back north.

Yes, the site is constrained - thanks in no small part to the property company with the national rail network attached, aka Railtrack, which stupidly flogged off the plot at the west side of the station for the youth hostel and on the other side sold Rewley Road station for the Said business school (a site slated for a bus interchange as far back as the late 1950s) and not forgetting the Sheepwash canal channel at the north end of the platforms.

A better idea might be to move the station platforms north of the Sheepwash Channel on to the sidings area, where you actually have the space to build two or three islands (to accommodate Chiltern) and provide through lines for freight - and would save Chiltern having to build a bridge into the station. Put a new station building where the north bays are now, with a footbridge feeding the platforms at the southern end after passing over the waterway. You could also provide a pedestrian only access from Jericho at the north end using the Walton Well Road bridge. And move the stabling facilities down to Hinksey sidings.

Maybe this needs turning into a what do you do about Oxford thread??

[IndustryInsider]

A better idea might be to move the station platforms north of the Sheepwash Channel on to the sidings area, where you actually have the space to build two or three islands (to accommodate Chiltern) and provide through lines for freight - and would save Chiltern having to build a bridge into the station. Put a new station building where the north bays are now, with a footbridge feeding the platforms at the southern end after passing over the waterway. You could also provide a pedestrian only access from Jericho at the north end using the Walton Well Road bridge. And move the stabling facilities down to Hinksey sidings.

I pretty much agree with all that as being the only way you could rebuild the station without taking it even further out of the City centre. Whether there is enough impetus and joined-up thinking for it to happen I think is very much up for debate.

Hinksey sidings could be totally rebuilt as a depot suitable for stabling of the Class 319's, which if all goes to plan, will be arriving at the sort of time a serious rebuild of Oxford might be essential. The amount of space (especially width) available for use in the new proposed replacement depot at Reading is causing concerns, so additional facilities will probably be needed elsewhere. It might well make sense to add Hinksey to a list that I have already heard includes Moreton near Didcot (on the sight of the old marshalling yard), and the Didcot GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) site, as well as more obvious places such as Old Oak Common.

This is a complex jigsaw to fit together, but if all goes to plan and strong long-term decisions are taken, then in 15 years the network could be totally transformed.

[Btline]

I've always thought that Oxford needs more platforms. I don't suppose removing the through tracks (or one) and using that to free up some space would be viable?

The Quad tracking mentioned would also be useful to prevent clashes between XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) slows and FGW fasts.

[willc]

I've always thought that Oxford needs more platforms. I don't suppose removing the through tracks (or one) and using that to free up some space would be viable?

The Quad tracking mentioned would also be useful to prevent clashes between XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) slows and FGW fasts.

The diagram I referred to makes it clear they recommend four platforms and two through roads at the station - so you segregate the through freight from the stopping passenger trains, as happens now and makes the current situation just about manageable. It's certainly not a facility you would wish to lose with the projected increase in traffic, especially with work to increase clearances just starting to allow 9ft 6in shipping containers on standard wagons to run between Southampton and the West Midlands in a couple of years' time, something likely to improve rail's market share on that corridor, which will mean even more freights needing paths through Oxford.

[Btline]

I've always thought that Oxford needs more platforms. I don't suppose removing the through tracks (or one) and using that to free up some space would be viable?

The Quad tracking mentioned would also be useful to prevent clashes between XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) slows and FGW fasts.

...which will mean even more freights needing paths through Oxford.

And if that's the case then 4 tracking around Oxford would also be useful!

[willc]

Some interesting comments below I found on the why and wherefore of the scope of the current redoubling scheme, buried amid a thread about Long Marston on a modelling site, which also features old pictures of that location and the former spoil tip area at Honeybourne triangle. This can be found at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43816&sid=ca4512580f742f81c36c7089e1133187&start=25



"I think all the studies of line capacity - which obviously must always tailor in some respect towards some sort of defined timetable pattern - have show the key stretch for re-doubling is Evesham - Moreton. However there is definite advantage in going a bit west of Evesham and the last time I 'did a job' on the route the 'ideal' (that is combining not only capacity and reliability but paying a bit of heed to sense in terms of costs) came out c.3-4 miles west of Evesham. But that length of double only advantaged about 30% of the service pattern although it had a potentially greater beneficial impact on reliability.

Getting involved with, or near to, Norton Jcn starts to get very expensive and to be honest several studies have shown that it doesn't really offer much timetabling advantage - indeed back in the 1980s I proposed a scheme for two parallel single lines from Norton Jcn to Shrub Hill on which work actually started although it was subsequently dropped for a variety of reasons. And in fact far greater timetable advantage derives from modernising the single line signalling between Norton Jcn and Evesham (plus some doubling at the Evesham end) than would be delivered by doubling out of Norton Jcn; but if Worcester Parkway ever comes off it might happen. And far more important I found to get the signal sections right on the central double line part of the route than go fiddling with extra bits of double line at teh junctions at each end.

The situation at the Wolvercote end is also one where re-doubling would involve major, possibly disproportionate, costs when considered against the overall capacity of the route and possible timetable structures. The last time I looked at it it offered virtually no timetabling benefits at all (I recall only one train a day would have benefitted, and then sat outside Oxford waiting a platform  ) although there were, as usual, some potential reliability benefits.

Overall I think that what is being done now is probably the best (or nearly the best in view of my comment about Evesham  ) that can be done with in a sensible cost situation while offering real capacity benefits. One day things might change and the railways might be deluged with cash thus allowing more to be done but we shouldn't overlook the fact that the original singling almost certainly saved the line from closure as a through route and has at least ensured its survival up to now."

[Btline]

I would have thought that when the Worcester resignalling is done, a minimum would be for double track to be added a few chains east of Norton, covering the site of any Worcester (Norton) Parkway that could be built. This would allow an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) to get off the main line if the single track were occupied. Although, perhaps by then, you might as well do a decent few miles to Pershore of Evesham...

[willc]

But given that Network Rail are already on record as saying that dealing with the remaining single track sections is on the cards when Oxford and Worcester are resignalled, and that Great Western draft Route Utilisation Strategy's endorsement of doing Wolvercot-Charlbury, I should think there's every chance that when the West Midland and Chiltern RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) comes out next year, it will say the same about redoubling Norton junction to Evesham, along with steps to sort out the myriad capacity problems in Worcester itself.