Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Hopefully some extra Evesham to Worcester trains can be squeezed in. Even better - extend LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise)'s services from Worcester Shrub Hill to Evesham, to give the vale a link to Britain's second city, taking cars off the A46.

Of course, a sensible idea like this won't happen of course, as they would required cooperaton between TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), and for LM to order some extra 170 carriages/ 172s.

[willc]

Of course Network Rail gets track access fee money but, to quote the company itself:

"Network Rail^s financing requirements are principally met by debt raised from the capital markets."

I trust that they know how their own organisation operates. The phrase come from this page on the Network Rail website http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1385.aspx

Of course the ultimate guarantor is the government, but in the context of the sums of taxpayers' money lavished upon bankers recently, or the odd grossly over budget Ministry of Defence procurement project (ie just about every single one of them) Network Rail's debt is small beer. I'm much angrier about the money given to the banks and seemingly open-ended commitments given to arms firms than any delay, real or imagined, in completing the redoubling.

And the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) control period budgets are not set by the government, but by the Office for Rail Regulation. Of course the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) listens to the Government's view, but technically it is independent and I'm sure the Treasury thinks they gave NR far too much money to play with.

There are of course sums of money within the Network Rail budget for discretionary projects, such as station enhancements, and it is likely the case that work is going on behind the scenes to secure money from these sources for some of the Cotswold work, rather than the directly-allocated redoubling pot.

I would have thought the kind of thing they are looking at would be for things like platform extensions at the Wychwoods stations to allow three-car sets to call both ways, something that will be highly desirable if extra mileage at the eastern end of the line is to be wrung out of three-car Turbo sets that would otherwise be resting in the sidings at Oxford. The Wychwoods are among the best opportunities available for bumping up passenger numbers with fresh business (roughly double the population of Honeybourne), so running more trains that can't call, or can only call one way, won't make a whole lot of sense.

The weekday 09.29 from Moreton is already being provided by keeping a set on the move instead of in the sidings but it can't call at Shipton, even though there is time in hand to do so, due to being a three-car set, because the Oxford-bound platform is only two coaches long. Similarly, the 14.21 from London was extended past Oxford to Moreton from December 2008.

You can already just about run an hourly interval service each way with the existing infrastructure - look at the Saturday timetable - just that no-one regards it as a realistic proposition for day-in, day-out weekday operations, because of the extra peak-hour services and the way the current timetable can fall apart with the slightest disruption. Add a couple more trains running the entire length of the route and the chaos would last for hours. Hence the redoubling.

The extra double track and, most importantly, removal of the Moreton-Evesham bottleneck, will make an hourly service a robust proposition at last, though the precise wording used in the Cotswold and Malvern Line News was "The (FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) proposal goes a considerable way towards an hourly service, at least as far as Moreton-in-Marsh for some of the services."

And if you have any thoughts on timetabling, get them in to John Ellis of the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) asap, as they are having a further meeting on this topic with FGW in a fortnight's time. Email is, as previously noted ellis.consultant@virgin.net

[JayMac]

This article from The Times shows the funding arrangements for Network Rail for Control Period 4 in a bit of detail.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4083459.ece

As you can see, it would appear that NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s funding at the moment (and thus what is paying for the Cotswold Line improvements) comes principally from Government - ^16.4 billion. It's other main income source is Track Access Payments from TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company) - ^6.2 billion. Raising additional funds on the capital markets was backed by government guarantee, although Network Rail is now hoping that its increased profitability will mean it can raise funds without the need for the government to act as guarantor.

Can't quite tally that with Network Rail's quote:

"Network Rail^s financing requirements are principally met by debt raised from the capital markets."

An aspiration maybe, but for CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) at least, most of NR's funding is coming from Joe Public.

[grahame]

As you can see, it would appear that NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s funding at the moment (and thus what is paying for the Cotswold Line improvements) comes principally from Government - ^16.4 billion. It's other main income source is Track Access Payments from TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company) - ^6.2 billion.

(My changed highlighting in that quote)

Yes - it would APPEAR that Government is paying NR far more than the TOCs but ... hang on ... aren't the TOCs paying money to the government too?   Let's say that the rail franchises in the 5 year period that's being talked about pay the government 6 billion pounds then you could say ... "The TOCs and FOCs are paying Network Rail (directly or indirectly) 12 billion, and the govenment is contributing an extra 10 billion from other sources."

Note - my franchise payment sum is an educated guess - has anyone got the real figure across all franchises for this period?

[willc]

Raising additional funds on the capital markets was backed by government guarantee

Well that looks rather like raising money on the markets to me... whoever or whatever is providing a guarantee.

[Weston-Sub-Edge]

I guess there will be no news until Network Rail's meeting in March?

[Don]

Willc's suggestion that the Wychwoods can provide an increase in passenger numbers (4 posts earlier) isn't as easy as he makes out. Whilst I have no problems with lengthening the (or building new) platforms, there is no car parking available for such an increase. Ascott has no car park and only narrow nearby roads so parking for 4 cars (f we are generous) and passengers at Shipton have already filled the two access roads that provide the only parking there.  There will be very little increase in usage unless FGW^▸ (First Great Western) want to build car parks which it doesn't, as the existing commuters go to Kingham or Charlebury.  Ascott with 3 to 6 passengers a day, each way, - all of which walk to the station - NEEDS TO BE CLOSED not lengthened, with at most the existing bus service improved to take them to Shipton or Charlebury.  It currently must cost more to clean the station bus shelter windows then the income from the customers provides and then there are the cost of running the station lighting at one lamppost per person.

[willc]

I don't recall using the word easy.

Are you really saying that they shouldn't make more of an effort to offer a decent service to villages with a combined population (in 2001 and more homes have gone in since) of more than 3,300 people (500 at Ascott, 1,550 at Milton and 1,280 at Shipton)? That's rather more people with a mile of the stations than at Kingham, for example.

And is it just me, or is there not something faintly odd about villages that have railway stations needing rail link buses?

Honeybourne in 2001 was 1,600 people, though more homes have since been built near the station. They enjoy a hell of a lot better train service. Why? Perhaps because the platform is long enough to take a three-car, non-SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) Turbo set. Shipton's up platform can only take a two-car Turbo or an SDO-fitted train. Similarly, Ascott can only take two-and-a-bit Turbo coaches.

Looking at the steady build-up in services and traffic at Pershore, Honeybourne and Hanborough since the arrival of Turbos, I can only conclude that Shipton has missed out on some sort of modest improvement itself precisely because of that short platform and the lack of SDO on Turbos.

I'm sure many of those who now drive from the Wychwoods to Charlbury or Kingham would much rather use their local station, if only they were able to (and more certainly did in the snow when the roads were impassable), which would also have the benefit of easing pressure on parking elsewhere, not least Charlbury, where every bit of level ground available is covered in asphalt. It would also be environmentally-friendly and get cars off some not very good roads.

Why would you need parking at Ascott? The custom there is, as you say, walk-up, since the station is right next to the village. More custom would walk up if there were more trains, but if you don't want to be in Oxford for 8.15am Monday to Friday, and return at 5.30pm, the current 'service' is useless. I can think of a few places along the Barnstaple line with smaller populations that have hourly trains, so why on earth should Ascott close? And from what I hear, nothing could be further from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s mind.

As for Shipton, the proposition that cars have 'filled' the approach roads is rather comic. Most of the vehicles on the village side are to do with Matthews flour mill. And there are perhaps half-a-dozen cars on the other side most days. People are dropped off/picked up, walk or cycle as well and more would do this if there were more trains.

There is land right next to the up platform covered in scrub which could be cleared, the corrugated iron goods and parcels store (I'm sure a few preservation lines would like it) could be removed and with judicious use of the approach road and perhaps by building out the old loading docks, you could provide say two dozen spaces. And you probably wouldn't needs loads more. I'm not suggesting stopping the Cathedrals Express, just recognising that there is more traffic to be had, particularly into Oxford, if only the trains were there. Even in these hard times, I suspect that the county council, who paid lots of money to improve Kingham and Charlbury's car parks, may be able to come up with a few quid. How about the money used to pay for rail link buses?

Even FGW seems to be doing what it can to encourage traffic. Since December, the two Saturday morning services from Shipton to Oxford and London have been at 08.00 and 09.02, instead of 7.00 and 8.00. The latter service is the 07.10 from Hereford, Travelling Chef and all. Is there a smaller station around where you can get on a train offering at-seat breakfast service?

[John R]

As for Shipton, the proposition that cars have 'filled' the approach roads is rather comic. Most of the vehicles on the village side are to do with Matthews flour mill. And there are perhaps half-a-dozen cars on the other side most days. People are dropped off/picked up, walk or cycle as well and more would do this if there were more trains.

Is there no opportunity to engage with the Mill to release some space? The owner is a life long rail enthusiast who lives in the village, so  I'm sure he would regard any approach in a positive light. Although if there isn't any spare space, there may be nothing he could sell or lease.   

[ChrisB]

if only the trains were there. Even in these hard times, I suspect that the county council, who paid lots of money to improve Kingham and Charlbury's car parks, may be able to come up with a few quid. How about the money used to pay for rail link buses?

Once the redoubling is complete, your suggestion of lengthening those platforms ought to be taken up by CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about). It won't cost the earth, and I'm sure they could be done one at a time if OCC budgets are tight...but it's something that needs to be put on the OCC public transport agenda for then.

They only need to be 3-car, to enable turbos to stop. The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) have SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening), for when custom improves.

No point asking now as extra stops now would cause further pathing problems.

[IndustryInsider]

I agree with both WillC's and ChrisB's comments to a large extent.  For what it's worth here are my opinions on the four 'halt' stations' potential post-redoubling:

Shipton:
Has the most potential of the lot.  The village is quite large and you have Burford just down the A361.  There are a few hurdles though, yes there is potential for a 20-30 space car park on the upside if land is cleared, but you would ideally need to extend the up platform by 15m from it's current 56m length so that 3-car trains can call.  It would also be highly desirable to install a footbridge otherwise potential car users would probably be put off by the 5 minute walk up to the main road, over the tracks and back down to where they would have parked their car that morning.  Either that, or you encourage more short-cut trespassers over the tracks at the end of the platform, which is already a minor problem!

Ascott-Under-Wychwood:
A large village where walk-up trade would be encouraged with a second mid-morning train to Oxford for shoppers and day trippers, together with a second and possible third service back from Oxford around the 4pm and 7pm mark for those people to return on.  The restoration of the recently withdrawn Saturday service with two trains each way would also be nice!  The new up platform is to be built to a 3-car length, and what will become the down platform would only need extending by 10m as it's 60m long already - it might make sense to do that at the same time the new platform is built?

Finstock:
The shortest platform of the lot at only 40m - would need extending by 30m to comfortably accommodate a 3-car train, and if the rest of the line is doubled in the future the whole lot will need demolishing and rebuilding.  The potential trade at the station might make that uneconomical. although along with Ascott a shoppers/day tripper train would be a useful addition.

Combe:
I really have my doubts about Combe.  It's the quietest of the lot (from my observations) and a good mile from the centre of the reasonably small village.  The wooden platform would need extending by 25 metres in order to accommodate a 3-car train, and if the line does ever get fully redoubled I can't see how the cost of providing a second platform could ever be justified.  With Hanborough well under 2 miles away by road, perhaps the common sense thing to do would be to close it?  Political pressure might stop that from happening though!


To summarise, none of the four are ever going to be big money spinners, or even pay their own way without County Council support, but much more could be done to improve passenger numbers with all the benefits to the area that would bring.  When the redoubling is complete, there might be the potential capacity to allow for more stops (mostly on local Moreton-Oxford/Didcot additional trains) with the resultant growth that would bring.

[willc]

Re platform lengthening, the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) are pressing for that to be done at both Shipton and Ascott during the redoubling to avoid there being three-car platforms in both directions, but at different stations.

Prospects for Ascott look better at this stage, as that does not involve footbridge and parking issues, as Insider notes, even if it is the smaller community by far, so Shipton may have to wait for the money to be found from a variety of sources.

Finstock and Combe: Nothing will be done until the question of resignalling and further redoubling arises, because no-one wants to be bothered with a station closure procedure, but if it is decided to redouble, then I think it will be very hard to justify the cost of new platforms with Charlbury and Hanborough so close by.

[gwr2006]

It won't cost the earth

Really, so what do people think it will cost to lengthen each of the platforms at Shipton, Ascott-Under-Wychwood, Finstock and Combe?

[grahame]

It won't cost the earth

Really, so what do people think it will cost to lengthen each of the platforms at Shipton, Ascott-Under-Wychwood, Finstock and Combe?

Let me start with an educated guess.  A new platform for a three or four coach train - a million pounds.  A footbridge to modern standards - also a million pounds. The existance on an existing (shorter) platform would probably not reduce that very much if at all.

[Deltic]

To solve the problem another way, how much would it cost to add SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) to the Turbos?  Or could certain trains that stop at the halts be operated with alternative stock?