PLEA FOR FASTER HEREFORD/WORCESTER TRAINS

[whole diary]

[willc]

And all the stations along the Cotswold Line east of Evesham have hinterlands, as you put it, and are, I would dare to suggest, more likely to draw more regular travellers, more often, than those out in the Marches. And, according to HM Government, Shipton and Hanborough are in the South East.

I will spare you the population stats for places like Robertsbridge, Battle and Etchingham, but they look a lot like Moreton, Charlbury and Honeybourne to me.

As for hinterlands, Honeybourne draws from Bidford-on-Avon and Broadway and the sub-Edges and Mickleton; Moreton also serves Blockley, Chipping Campden and - in competition with Chiltern at Banbury - Shipston-on-Stour in Warwickshire; Kingham village is small, but then add in nearby Bledington, Stow-on-the-Wold, Bourton-on-the-Water and Chipping Norton; Charlbury is park-and-ride from Burford.

And finally, Hanborough is five minutes from Woodstock and 10 or so from Witney - which, whether Btline wishes to acknowledge it or not, puts a population about half the size of Hereford just up the road, that's why BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), Thames and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have all added stops at Hanborough. It used to be called Handborough for Blenheim - these days it ought to be Hanborough for Witney. Unless they are catching a train before 7.30am, no-one from Woodstock or Witney is going to risk driving to Oxford station these days, due to the congestion, and even then, Hanborough is obviously quicker and easier to get to.

Mookie, I know you used to do that journey, but I don't buy the proposition that there are vast numbers of people crying out to do it. How many other people were joining you from Worcester day-in, day-out, in first class?

[Don]

Kingham's hinterland must include Shipton and Ascott

Charlbury's hinterland must include Finstock, Coombe & even Hanborough

So can we close four of those, and speed up the service for long distance users?

Note that Shipton, Ascott, Finstock and Coombe all have less passengers than Honeybourne put together.

[John R]

Shipton is a reasonable size, but as hardly any trains stop there - guess what, it doesn't have many passengers. It would be a bit strange to recommend Kingham as the railhead for Shipton when the latter is in the middle of nowhere (and 3 miles in the wrong direction), when there's a perfectly good station at the edge of the village.

[Don]

Well we seem to have a lot of stations a just a couple of miles apart from each other.  What would be sensible is to have just one or two that people can easily get to.  None of these stations are far away from Kingham or Charlbury and closing them would increase overall train time and therefore, to some extent, provide an increase in trains paths - especially the three on the single line. 

Kingham might be in the middle of nowhere, but it already has a well used station and sizable car park, and nobody has the money to move it to a more sensible location.  Shipton might be more profitable if it had a car park rather than a couple of roads, but with so few users at present, that seems unlikely.

Ascott, Finstock and Coombe together produce less than 20 passengers per weekday, why the heck do they have a train service at all.  It would be cheaper to put on a few taxis than to stop the trains.

Src:  DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 2006-8

[grahame]

Ascott, Finstock and Coombe together produce less than 20 passengers per weekday, why the heck do they have a train service at all.  It would be cheaper to put on a few taxis than to stop the trains.

Don ... I'm going to make a general point here, and not one that relates to these particular stations as I'm not from the area and don't know them.

If you consider / advocate the removal of a train service completely, you need to base your decision on many, many more factors than the current passenger levels ... especially if the station concerned has a very limited service at the current time. 

I've make some quite detailed studies of a 'parliamentary' type service in my own area, where the numbers leaving and joining trains are frankly pathetic - but I have the big advantage of knowing what the true usage figures were prior to it be cut to the current level. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that (in our local case) an increase from 2 trains each way a day, timed to that a daily commute / round trip is impractical, to six trains each way, timed to give true travel opportunities, would rocket usage figures from a level that has previously been compared to the Oxfordshire halts to a level at which a 153 would be inadequate in a year or two and we would be looking at a 150, and even more services.

There is a clearly burning issue here / on this thread between the people who are looking for a fast end to end service, and those who are looking for a useable service at their own locale.  I don't know the answer - there has to be compromise, I suspect.  I *have* been reading parts of the thread with interest, and thinking about other lines which are long and busy enough to justify a fast train - slow train alternating process, and I have been wondering whether a more general thread on this would be appropriate. 

If there are fasts followed by slows should the fast set out just ahead of the slow?  Should they be timed so that they're at an even interval in the middle of the line?   Should alternate trains be fast at the east end then slow, and slow at the east end then fast?  Should the fasts overtake the slows somewhere?  Perhaps it's poll time!

I do know that there are some crass pattern situations that result from the need to meet specifications in this area.  I'm thinking of the Bristol - Salisbury leg of Cardiff - Portsmouth, which passes the previous slower train at Westbury which then carries on (on some hours) to Dilton Marsh and Warminster.  The Portsmouth train calls at Warminster anyway, so the stopper is really just serving Dilton Marsh.  Unfortunately, many of the Dilton March passengers used to go to Salisbury and that's now a journey that involves a change and a 50 minute wait at Warminster ... so (surprise!) the railway has lost that traffic.  Far better (IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion)) in that case to make alternative use of the resource released and if it doesn't end up passing through DMH^» (Dilton Marsh - next trains), stopping alternate Portsmouths there are giving it a decent-er service.  ((DMH sits between two rapidly growing / urbanising areas that are running into each other and is a good example - going back to the initial thoughts that Don had - of a station that should absolutely NOT be judged on current ticket sales!))

[Btline]

The thing is, all four halts should have closed in the 60s.

They would have - had they not been in a marginal constituency. (ditto for the "Heart of Wales" line)

"Good", you might say - and on first glance (as a supporter of rail) I would agree. But 40 years have passed, and still all of the stations have just a paliamentry service, minimal passenger numbers and poor facilities. In other places where lines were shut, the roads (including those to the nearest railhead) are clogged and populations/housing has increased - justifying the need of the rail service. I see none of that in the "halts' " area.

That is the reason why the halts still have a bad service - I am sure either BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), TT or FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would have attempted to "unlock" the potential of these stations. (as Willc points out, they have done this at other "village" stations) The fact is - they should have gone, and they only remain because no-one has the guts to shut them.

I say close at least 2 of them, and improve the stations that remain. (more car parking, better facilities, longer platforms etc. and thus more trains - aka the proposed shuttle) This will improve the transport of the area a lot more, than wasting money keeping 4 stations open with one train a day. On their own - they can't justify any money spent, or more trains. Club the catchment areas together, and you have a case.

I would rather have a station a little further away with better facilities and more trains, than a station at the bottom of my road with one train a day that barley fits on the platform.

_{NB, I know that Shipton has more calls; I have ignored this to simplify my post.}

[Oxman]

I understand that a three car platform is to be built at Ascott as part of the redoubling. What a waste of money. Why not close it and spend the money elsewhere?

[grahame]

Hi, BtLine ... my point (got rather lost in a long post) was that current traffic levels shouldn't be the only thing element that's considered when looking at a station closure.  Your answer goes further, thank you; I'm not in a position, personally to know if and how strong any counterarguments should be weighed, and having made the point that struck me I'm going to quietly resume my watching brief.

P.S. I wouldn't be so sure about FGW^▸ (First Great Western) looking to unlock potential directly if it were there.  It is far more profitable for them to see how much money they can get from the local councils instead. It was very interesting to hear of their senior team visiting all the councils in the area and doing a "please Sir, can I have some more [money]" just after they had won the franchise and were to be taking over from Wessex, to a much reduced service level specification.  Low service levels may be due to low potential demand, or they may be due to the failure to agree buybacks even where they would make sense.

[willc]

That Combe and Finstock survive may be thanks partly to Labour and the Tories hoping for political advantage in the 1960s and early 1970s, because BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) applied to close every intermediate station except Moreton and Evesham at one point in the early 1970s, but in recent times is down to a procedural error and a change in the law in 1994, when BR last applied to close them.

As John Boynton explains in his Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway, on March 11, 1994, BR published closure notices, citing the grounds that it would not be cost effective to improve the platforms to meet new safety standards. But they failed to inform the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) of this view and that May the closure notice was ruled out of order as a result of this. In the meantime, on April 1, the section of the 1962 Transport Act under which the closures had been proposed was repealed by part of the 1993 Railways Act, which paved the way for privatisation, and the closure notices were never reissued under the new act.

That they both survive is frankly a nonsense, especially given the good bus service that Combe village, which is a mile from the station, gets nowadays. It's an easy enough drive to Hanborough if people do want a train to London and that is indeed where many do go, because of the frequent service there. Finstock people drive to Charlbury for the same reason and there is also a railbus link in the peaks.

But, as I've said before, the Wychwoods are a different matter. Beyond their railbuses, some to Charlbury and some to Kingham, bus services are poor, not least to Oxford.

Ascott station is right next to the village and would, I'm sure, be better used if it had a better service - I'm not suggesting vast numbers, just a few extra trains, at sensible times, to see what happens, much as Graham suggests. The same is true of Shipton, even if it's right out at one end of the village. Its population, combined with that of adjacent Milton-under-Wychwood, is greater than that of Honeybourne. Some people from Burford would surely happily switch here from Charlbury if the service wasn't so unbalanced, indeed it was shown in timetables for many years as Shipton for Burford.

That the service at both these places is the way it is is down in large part to the combination of three-car Turbos without SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) on most trains for a long while and two-car platform.

Westbound, Shipton has had four or five weekday stops for many years - because it has a three-car platform there. That the railway system in this country is incapable of coming up with a simple, cost-effective and safety-compliant way of extending platforms a matter of 20 metres or so - knocking the SDO issue on the head so long as you stick to running three-car Turbos or similar - is a disgrace.

These two places have potential, but nothing like that presented by Hanborough, nor Pershore, of course, which also had one train a day for part of the 1970s, a nonsense that was rightly addressed much sooner. Honeybourne got lucky, because it was a reopening, so got a decent length platform, indeed had a contractor not botched infilling work and knocked down part of the rail-side retaining wall, it would have been four-car or longer, not the three-car it ended up with. I trust they won't be inviting the same firm back to have a go at renovating the island platform!

But there is now an opportunity to do something positive in the Wychwoods as well. So build a new three-car platform at Ascott - and extend the other one and the up platform at Shipton too. If there are shuttles, they will more than likely be two-car sets, but the day will surely come when the only one set available at Oxford one morning will be a three-car and we'll be back to the same old nonsense, whereas with three-car platforms at the Wychwoods and that length or longer everywhere else between Oxford and Worcester, only Combe and Finstock, should they survive, would present any problem - a problem which Don rightly says a taxi would solve.

[eightf48544]

This post has been fascinating to read and I'm still not sure that I know the answer.

As someone who thinks rail travel (preferably on all an all electric railway) is the way to go, then conflict of providing express trains from regional towns to London or other major centres  and serving the local staions with very limited infrastructure (even after redoubling) is almost intractable.

Perhaps the provision of loops at Charbury or Kingham to allow a fast to overtake the stopper? But nobody is going to pay for that. Maybe electrifcation is the answer and with increased acceleration, braking and line speeds to get more trains through in a given time.

However, if we look over the horizon there is a possible interesting development which might put the usage of all the small stations from Moreton and maybe further West into grave decline. That is Chiltern's plans to open Water Easton station next to the North Oxford Park and Ride with services to both Oxford and Marylebone. With a se3rvice to Marylebone service in under the hour..

Looking at the road atlas this station looks to be far better situated in relation to the M40/A40 and the other major roads converging on North Oxford than Hanborough.

Chiltern are predicting increased custom at Water Eaton from North Oxfordshire, South Warwickshire and East Gloucestershire many of whom could be existing or potential users of the halts. Even out  as far as Warwick. This would seem to be shooting themselves in the foot but actually gives them increased capacity at Warwick Parkway, which is currently having increased carparking added. By diverting passengers from the South/West who might currently drive to Warwick to Water Eaton capacity is freed up to attract more users from Coventry and South Birmingham from Virgin and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise).

Chiltern know their market and they cultivate it, even having the cheek to give out leaflets on their services at Bourne End station. Although, to give them their due they have apologised to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and won't  be using that agency again.

Chiltern's plans thus fulfill DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)'s dream of rail competing with rail, which is a diversion of scarce resources (routes  and train paths) when the real competiton is road transport. But in my opinion Chiltern's plans should be allowed to go ahead particularly as it gives a boost to reopening through to Milton Keynes with all the connections available from there. Once open the impact on the halts can be measured then decisions can be may on their their future.

The major obstacle is that DaFt obsession with competition within the rail industry means they are not  doing the integrated planning of rail services to provide a well connected network serving the whole country. This includes electrification, new lines, new stations and new services on existing lines. In this integrated planning it maybe that one or two lightly used stations will close but only if there is a better service within a reasonable distance served by public transport.

But until this my  wild dream comes to fruition I don't know how you solve the dilemma of the halts and faster trains from Worcester and Hereford. Unless the Hereford's run via the Severn Tunnel and Worcesters via the Golden Valley.


 

[Btline]

Willc, I agree with you about Combe, Finstock and Shipton. But surely Ascott is too close to Shipton to justify more calls? (unless adequate car parking attracts more users)

Re: Chiltern - it looks like an aim of privatisation - competition - will be fulfilled soon. Meanwhile, Warwick P'way will continue to grow...

[willc]

However, if we look over the horizon there is a possible interesting development which might put the usage of all the small stations from Moreton and maybe further West into grave decline. That is Chiltern's plans to open Water Easton station next to the North Oxford Park and Ride with services to both Oxford and Marylebone. With a se3rvice to Marylebone service in under the hour..

Looking at the road atlas this station looks to be far better situated in relation to the M40/A40 and the other major roads converging on North Oxford than Hanborough.

Well, don't trust what you see on a road atlas. The entire area where the A34, A44 and A40 meet at Wolvercote roundabout and Pear Tree interchange is one of the biggest rush-hour traffic bottlenecks in Oxford. While it may appear that you can zip across from west Oxfordshire up the A40, then a quick sprint on the A44 under the A34 and then on to Kidlington and Water Eaton, it really isn't that easy in the peaks. The traffic tailbacks along the A40 both ways from Wolvercote roundabout are legendary. There is a plan to build a cut-off from the A40 to the A44/A34 junction but that's all it is right now, a plan. From Witney, getting to Hanborough is a piece of cake, even at busy times.

Water Eaton will, as has been said previously, be great for people from Kidlington and the north and eastern edges of Oxford, but that's about it. Why do Chiltern think people will drive from miles away? In Warwickshire, they will go to Parkway, Leamington or even Banbury if they are in the south of the county, in N Oxon, to Banbury or Bicester, or, if the less frequent stops there suit, Kings Sutton. It's just PR^▸ (Public Relations) fluff really.

At the end of the day, Chiltern want a chunk of the Oxford-London action - and from that eastern fringe, a lot of people currently drive to the Thornhill park-and-ride next to the A40 just past Headington and get on the express coaches using the M40, rather than battle across town to the station. Chiltern would like to persuade them to go the other way, up to Water Eaton and park there instead.

By the time the first Chiltern train turns a wheel, there will have been a good couple of years of post-redoubling Cotswold Line services and if they are delivering the goods, people won't be interested in getting in their cars and driving elsewhere if they can go to the local station with the certainty that their train will do what timetable says - something FGW^▸ (First Great Western) now seem to have grasped, thanks to Messrs Haines and Hopwood.

Re the Shipton/Ascott situation, yes they are close together, but are separate communities. If there are to be more Moreton stoppers infiltrated into the service, then I would envisage pretty much all of them calling at Shipton, which could do with some effort to provide proper car parking - the key problem here is the lack of a footbridge, but it may be that the trains have to come first, to prove the case, before someone can find the money to tackle crossing the line without the hike back to parked cars on the up side via the road overbridge.

Ascott would be very much village-only traffic, but I would say it could do with a judicious few extra trains, at times that are likely to draw custom, eg getting into Oxford around 9am should a stopper be doing that sort of trip, an Oxford shopper opportunity out mid-morning and back mid-afternoon and something else early evening after the 17.31, to allow a later day out in London than at present, plus an evening out opportunity in Oxford. I don't think it would be the end of the world for the 21.48 to call, it's not exactly going like the clappers through Ascott now, as it is already easing off for the Shipton stop. And a restoration of some Saturday trains might be nice. It always used to get as many Saturday stops as Shipton, but when the DafT stroke of a pen timetabling team moved in, it was put in the same bracket as Combe and Finstock and now gets absolutely nothing.

[willc]

As regards future service patterns, the Cotswold and Malverns Transport Partnership (county councils along the route, Network Rail, FGW^▸ (First Great Western), LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) and the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about)) is about to start work on a survey of passengers and communities along the line to establish a detailed picture of people's travel patterns, both locally and further afield, to help determine service patterns post-redoubling.

See http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4271265.Survey_will_help_shape_new_Cotswold_Line_timetable/

I think someone asked somewhere about usage at Shipton. Having consulted a colleague who travels in from there on the halts train three or four days a week, there's a solid base line of half-a-dozen, but it can often be twice this (eg students off back to university on Monday mornings) and when it snowed at the start of February, there were a couple of dozen for a few days as the roads were so iffy - suggesting there is definite potential, if there was more than one train into Oxford (I discount the recent experiment stopping the first train from Moreton, when it was Adelante-operated, as it called at Shipton at about 6.10am).

Return traffic is harder to judge, as there are two peak trains back, the halts and the 17.51 from London, plus the 21.48 calls, so it's more in dribs and drabs - I have know about 10 get off the 17.51 some Friday evenings, though much of the rest of the time it's three or four. The stopper usually drops about half-a-dozen.

[Burty76]

Lets hope the survey gets completed by enough people from Worcester and further West to show that the 20% increase in journey times and adding of 2 or 3 stops to through London trains is not accepatable and needs to be reversed.

And before willc gets on his high horse, faster trains with less stop alongside stoppers will be perfectly possible in the peaks.

[willc]

Climbing aboard straight on board, I should remind you that the key point of the project is delivering rock-solid punctuality on the Cotswold Line and the routes it shares tracks with beyond Didcot.

At least in the initial stages, they are not likely to risk that by trying to jam up every available path in the morning peak. Far more likely will be a more regular spacing of the Oxford and London-bound services and ensuring that the Worcester-bound trains actually get there - unlike this morning.

And there will be faster trains, simply because of the operating improvements that redoubling brings. But running more trains will be harder, because until the new DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) arrive in late 2011, or early 2012, the Thames Valley fleet is not going to see a single extra train - unless some more HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) suddenly come on the market. Off-peak, it will be much easier to find stock from the existing fleet.

And since everyone from Worcester and Hereford seems to have abandoned the Cotswold Line anyway, how will they ever manage to survey you? Plus the naughty people now using Pershore and Honeybourne may say how acceptable they find it not having to drive into Evesham in the mornings.