Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[stebbo]

Thank you BTLine - I've usually got flak over this view. I don't object to early morning/evening "expresses" making extra calls on Saturdays and Sundays, but on weekdays no way.

[Mookiemoo]

Thank you BTLine - I've usually got flak over this view. I don't object to early morning/evening "expresses" making extra calls on Saturdays and Sundays, but on weekdays no way.

You would never have got flak from me but then people don't commute from WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) - allegedly

[willc]

I don't object to early morning/evening "expresses" making extra calls on Saturdays and Sundays

Really? I seem to remember you getting very excited one time when you found yourself on a Saturday afternoon Hereford train that dared to call at Shipton, at a time a train has stopped at Shipton for many years.

the morning and evening HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) should miss out Honeybourne and Long Hanborough (and possibly Pershore) and go back to a fast service for those needing to get to London.

And what about people from those places who want to get to London, or Oxford, or anywhere else?

If the shuttles start, there should be NO halts calls (and reduced Hanborough calls) on HSTs,

In the weekday peaks, there is all of one HST stop at a halt at the moment, by the 17.50 from London at Shipton, which is hardly a major inconvenience on a service which doesn't call at Hanborough and can't get to Worcester any faster at the moment, due to crossing other trains at both Moreton and Evesham. The rest of the day Monday-Friday, there is a 17.05 call towards Oxford and London and the last westbound train calls at 23.18, both of which, I'm sure, cause enormous trauma to anyone going from or to Worcester. And unless the eastbound platform at Shipton is extended, then the Saturday morning services have to be HSTs, as they're all that's running then.

At Hanborough, the call by the 05.35 from Hereford is the only extra stop by any morning peak train added there in the past decade, and probably even longer than that, and making changes in the early evening stops wrecks the attempt to provide a roughly hourly service at Hanborough at that time of the day, but hey, why would that matter?

people don't commute from WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) - allegedly

I don't think anyone's ever said anything of the sort on here - we know that you do much of the time - just that I have expressed a degree of scepticism about how many others do so at present, or would do even if there was a faster train or two - and when challenged, on umpteen occasions, no-one has ever come up with any suggested figures, just lots of bluster about knowing lots of people who drive to Warwick. The number of people doing daily commutes, where the journey time is more than 90 minutes each way, is minute, and a quicker Cathedrals Express won't change that.

So, as usual, plenty of opinions, but no sign whatever of any practical suggestions to help anyone who would be inconvenienced by implementation of those opinions.

Please let's not have the 'anyone in the Vale can drive to Evesham' one - they can't, because there's nowhere to park. We've also done the Oxford rush-hour traffic one in relation to Hanborough. Though I suppose from 2013 they can all drive to Water Eaton instead and join btline on Chiltern - but Water Eaton is the very reason FGW^▸ (First Great Western) won't be rushing to cut stops and muck up frequencies at Hanborough.

And I wouldn't get your hopes up about there being many extra services, not least in the peaks, when the line is still going to be operating at near full capacity on the remaining single-line sections - remember the redoubling is mainly about punctuality and reliability. Also because FGW is not getting any extra trains now, following the dropping of the new DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) scheme.

The Turbo fleet is at full stretch and will be short of a train or two until mid-2012 while the refresh takes place, so all there is likely to be by way of extra services in the short term will be extension of some London-Oxford trains out to Moreton to fill in the gaps off-peak, which will offer the ability to provide a better spread of trains for the Wychwoods and won't affect services to the mighty metropolis of Worcester.

[Adrian the Rock]

I have it on good authority that Network Rail is looking to reduce the cost of the project and it will no longer involve modernisation of the signalling system.
...
However, because the project had been designed around transferring the signalling,  Network Rail now has to spend 3 months redesigning the signalling and getting that approved before further on-site work can continue...

The early reports were that the existing boxes would be retained with Absolute Block (AB) working between Evesham and Moreton.  But given the changes planned for Honeybourne - where I unless they provide a crossover and full running signals in each direction, movements from Long Marston would have to run 'bang road' on the up line until they reach Evesham - it's probably more sensible to use Track Circuit Block (TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block), with axle counters) on the down line between Moreton and Honeybourne. 

The key point about AB is that it relies on the signaller seeing the train's tail lamp before the block section it has just left can be cleared for another train.  With AB, they'd either have to provide a Tail Lamp Camera at Honeybourne, or the down section couldn't be cleared until the trains have left Evesham (because the signal box there is on the Worcester side of the station).

It's things like this that take a bit of time to think about when re-designing.

[ChrisB]

I'm hearing that there's a block being planned over the late May bank holiday....

[Adrian the Rock]

So the line will still have 19th century signalling - great!

Actually, more centralised control, marginally better CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) and manpower savings are about the only benefits (in the short term) that would have resulted from controlling the line from Didcot.

Retention of mechanical signalling may actually give better reliability.  Think how often you hear the terms "points failure" or "track circuit failure" when apologies for delays are announced - these are not uncommon failures of power-worked equipment.  Where points are worked mechanically, in some cases the signaller can pop down and clear the fault, eg if it's a stone or something lodged between the point blade and the stock rail.  Though some track circuits are still used with mechanical signalling, it's also often easier to work round them if they do fail.

On the manpower front, there are three signalboxes on the line - Evesham, Moreton-in-Marsh and Ascott-under-Wychwood (ignoring the ones at the ends, which I don't think they plan to change anyway).  That means 3 signallers to work the line, so for an order of magnitude cost maybe 3 x 3 shifts x £35000 salary ie £300K approx per annum.  In the large signalling centres, I believe there's a rule that one signaller can only supervise a maximum of three CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) level crossings.  The Cotswold line already has four - Littleton & Badsey, Campden, Blockley and Bruern - and Ascott would presumably become a fifth if the box were closed.  That sounds very much to me like you'd still need two signallers at Didcot to work the line.  But if we said one-and-a-half, the saving there might be about £150K pa.  There would also be some savings in maintenance costs from not needing to maintain signal wires and point rods etc - so let's guess the same figure for that.  That gives of the order of £300K savings pa.  With low interest rates, let's assume you can pay back the costs of the upgrade from this over 10 years.  But that means that unless you can convert the signalling for less than about £3M then in purely financial terms there isn't a business case for full resignalling.  (I'm not a bean counter, if anyone knows better please correct this.)

Incidentally, in terms of headways even resignalling the line with just the existing boxes (plus Charlbury East) as signal sections would easily allow hourly services.  The minimum headway is determined by the time for a train to cover the longest signal section.  Worcester SH to Evesham currently takes about 20 minutes, so Norton Jct to Evesham West is probably about 15.  This would easily cater for 3 trains per hour (both directions combined) with a bit of contingency for late running.  Evesham - Moreton is about 20 mins, Moreton - Ascott perhaps 15 and Ascott - Charlbury East somewhat less.  Charlbury East - Wolvercote Jct is probably about 15min - current running times are about 18min Oxford - Charlbury.  Extra block signals at Honeybourne would split the Evesham - Moreton section to the point where the single lines at the end easily remain the limiting factors of the service frequency that could be run.

In fact the pinch point, if any, is likely to be Norton Jct - Evesham West, because that section seems just a bit too long to allow a future Birmingham - Worcester - Evesham service to be fitted in, which as someone else said is a sensible future aspiration.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for that interesting information, Adrian the Rock - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum! 

[bleeder4]

I'm hearing that there's a block being planned over the late May bank holiday....

There'd better not be - I'm travelling to Paris that weekend and have already got tickets booked down from Evesham to Paddington. I'm going to have to change my whole schedule if that's the case. Where did you hear that? Is it on the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website anywhere?

[Ollie]

I'm hearing that there's a block being planned over the late May bank holiday....

Is it on the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website anywhere?

Can't see anything.

[willc]

Journey planners are happily offering through trains all that bank holiday weekend, so would be rather worrying if something was to be inserted now, inside the booking horizon.

Meanwhile, yet again, during actual engineering work north of Oxford last Sunday, this coming Sunday and the one after that, what does the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) engineering alterations page have to say - yes, that's right, yet again, NOTHING. Even XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) does actually manage a mention when you winkle out the relevant bit of their site.

Network Rail is expected to reveal all about coming months' work programme on the Cotswold Line in early April. Internal meeting to sign off final redoubling plans and costs is imminent.

[Ollie]

Meanwhile, yet again, during actual engineering work north of Oxford last Sunday, this coming Sunday and the one after that, what does the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) engineering alterations page have to say - yes, that's right, yet again, NOTHING. Even XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) does actually manage a mention when you winkle out the relevant bit of their site.

It doesn't go on the website because it's not an alteration, seeing as it is in the published timetable.

[willc]

Which is an utterly bizarre way of thinking, frankly. A railway not running trains is normal?

Strikes me that's not normal and should be flagged up, whether or not it has appeared in a printed timetable, which in this day and age, many people might not be consulting anyway. Looking on a journey planner and seeing there's a bus in the middle of their rail journey might not strike someone as normal either. Both National Rail and XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) agree with me it's an alteration, as they both flag it up as such.

And are you saying that when all the Cotswold Line changes last summer were flagged up on the alterations page that they shouldn't have been, because there was a printed timetable issued showing them, therefore that was the normal service?

The FGW^▸ (First Great Western) webpage is called timetable alterations and engineering works, which would seem to cover the situation prevailing north of Oxford on Sundays at present from both angles.

[IndustryInsider]

I agree with Will - the website should make some mention to works that involve replacement buses, whether they're in the timetables or not, as they are so unpopular with passengers.  After all that section of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website is titled 'Timetable alterations & engineering works' - though to be fair there is a clear disclaimer that previously published alterations won't be shown, but the work in March is due to engineering work, so I think it should be mentioned on there and the disclaimer removed.

A simple note reminding that advertised works are taking place on a given weekend on a given route and the link to the timetable would suffice.  I would also suggest that that part of the website should be made more interactive and user-friendly - take this Thursday for example where there are no less than 11 separately listed minor entries.  Surely a calender where you just click on the day you're travelling which then shows these alterations highlighted in yellow for minor alterations and red for major ones (with an interactive route map perhaps?) would be far easier to understand than the great long list that's presented now?

To be fair, most TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s have a long way to go in that respect - Virgin goes the furthest towards the layout I'm suggesting, but even that could be much better. http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/updates/

[Timmer]

When it comes to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) providing decent revised timetables due to engineering work most fail miserably with the exception of East Coast Trains who continue what their predecessors NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) and GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways) did by providing full revised timetables on their website. Just shows it can be done.

[IndustryInsider]

When it comes to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) providing decent revised timetables due to engineering work most fail miserably with the exception of East Coast Trains who continue what their predecessors NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) and GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways) did by providing full revised timetables on their website. Just shows it can be done.

As do Chiltern - though in both examples their entire service fits on a couple of timetables, which makes it easier and is a luxury FGW^▸ (First Great Western) haven't got.