New Chiltern Railways' timetable promises faster times from May 2011

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Couldn't see it at Banbury at 1700, so guess they took it back to AYS

[inspector_blakey]

Interesting piece in today's Guardian, suggesting that all is not rosy with Evergreen 3...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/02/chiltern-line-upgrade-delay-cost-claims

[ChrisB]

Oh dear - stretching Management too thinly, methinks!

[ChrisB]

This Guardian story isn't half of it. The FT had the attached in the paper yesterday, which prompted me to dig around the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) website....

The ORR has actually taken the planning away from Chiltern & given it to Network Rail

In The ORR Quarterly Monitor

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/network_rail_monitor_1011q3.pdf

It states
"Evergreen 3
We asked the independent reporter, Halcrow, to review progress on phase 1 of the Evergreen 3 project, which is designed to improve journey times between London and Birmingham via Banbury. The report12 identified problems with the project^s progress. Network Rail has agreed to take over management of the project from Chiltern Railways. Following a review of delivery options it has been agreed to postpone the planned introduction of new services until September."

On the ORR website
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2231

about half way down, it says "We asked Halcrow to review whether the Evergreen 3 Phase 1 project was likely to deliver on time. The executive summary of their report has been published. We will be publishing a letter shortly explaining the position in more detail."

So, we need to keep an eye open for this....

Also on that page is the Executive Summary of Halcrow's Report....

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ind-rep-evergreen-report-jan11.pdf

I've only just printed this off, and haven't yet read it.

[SandTEngineer]

Hmm.  Although giving the planning of the work to NR^» (Network Rail - home page) makes them sound very good at it, have a read of NRs performance in the 'Monitor' document.  Not quite as good as they (and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) make out.  It would appear that overall Chiltern would have delivered 4 or 5 days late without any overtime working.  Also note in the independent report that NR are not keeping to thier committment to review Chilterns (BAMS) design submissions within the specified timescales.  This should happen regardless of the quality of the submission and happens on most projects but NR never get blamed for the delay>.

[paul7575]

Having read the various reports linked from ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s site none of them suggest to me that there are massive problems - I think it would be rather unwise to jump to the conclusion that it has been some sort of total disaster...

Paul

[ChrisB]

I don't think I even intimated that - just posted the facts.

'Isn't the half of it' refers to the fact that The Guardian hadn't printed all the facts.

[paul7575]

I don't think I even intimated that - just posted the facts.

'Isn't the half of it' refers to the fact that The Guardian hadn't printed all the facts.

Er... my comment wasn't meant as a reply - if it were I'd have quoted someone.  But if I was to be critical, it would be of the Guardian article's general downbeat tone.

Paul

[willc]

Well maybe it was downbeat because this example of dynamic thrusting private enterprise is running rather late and now being programmed by Network Rail.

The route-learning dmu was stabled in the parcels bay platform at Oxford just after 10am today.

[IndustryInsider]

A Supplementary Signalling Notice, or 'Yellow Peril' has been released by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) showing the changes at Aynho coming into force next Monday.  The layout looks to be exactly that as described in the TWA application (Paul, you were right to stick to your guns!), although the '7-day railway' crossovers are 40mph rather than 50mph.  I remain amazed that an 85mph speed limit is possible on the Down Chiltern line from the bridge to the Down Main at the junction, but the maps (reproduced below) clearly show that to be the case.  We will have a rival for Aston Magna curve! 

The route is fully bi-directional up to and including the junction itself which does mean trains could in theory be looped in either direction to allow another to overtake - but only if there's nothing due the other way.  Another benefit is an extra signal section on the Up line between Banbury and Aynho which is currently a real headache and impacts on the signalling headways, especially if an Up train is stopping at Kings Sutton.  An extra signal on the Down route was put in several years ago because of a similar problem the other way.

Here's some diagrams, and I have the full publication if anyone wants to ask any other detailed questions:

[ChrisB]

Thanks.

What it doesn't show is where the crossovers are in the Bicester direction beyond the bridge....at what stage does a trauin have to cross to the down to use the Bicerster UP line towards Banury...?

[IndustryInsider]

The next set of crossovers are at Bicester, some 9 miles away, hence my use of the phrase 'in theory' - the design is much more likely to be used for 7-day railway purposes, or to get round a failed train etc.

[ChrisB]

North or south of Bicester North platforms?

[paul7575]

A Supplementary Signalling Notice, or 'Yellow Peril' has been released by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) showing the changes at Aynho coming into force next Monday.  The layout looks to be exactly that as described in the TWA application (Paul, you were right to stick to your guns!), although the '7-day railway' crossovers are 40mph rather than 50mph.  I remain amazed that an 85mph speed limit is possible on the Down Chiltern line from the bridge to the Down Main at the junction, but the maps (reproduced below) clearly show that to be the case.  We will have a rival for Aston Magna curve! 

Thanks - I was just about to cobble a post together explaining that on my recent trip to Banbury (where I noted the bridge works discussed elsewhere) I could see absolutely NO evidence of any civils work on either the up or down lines leading to/from the Bicester direction.  The suggested new down line would at least have needed the embankment widening significantly.

I also wonder if the 'yellow peril' exaggerates the curve off the flyover - as I've suggested before I think people have generally assumed the flover was the thing that limited the speed, but Google suggests the curve doesn't start until past it - I suggest the main reason for the speed limit is the downhill approach to what is a very slow set of points forming the junction with the down main line.  I pointed out in an earlier post that down direction moves from the up Bicester have basically the same speed limits in the current (publicly online) sectional appendix.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

The Down Main to Up Main facing crossover is London side of Bicester North, there's also an Up Main to Down Main trailing crossover Banbury side, which presumably is the point trains in the Up direction will resume there normal route if routed on the reversible line from Aynho.

As for the speed, it's the track curvature after the bridge that I personally thought would be the issue, not over the bridge itself.  It will certainly be very close to the limits of what is possible.