Chiltern consultation on September 2015 timetable

[CyrusWuff]

One of the issues with the Stratford branch is that of line speed. It takes about 25 minutes to cover the 15 or so miles from Hatton to Stratford-upon-Avon, which is the same time taken by rail replacement buses when there's engineering work.

As for service levels, the simple fact is that there are insufficient people travelling from London to Stratford by train to warrant an enhanced service. Chiltern trialled additional services during the Summer a few years back, as well as additional late night "theatre trains", but they obviously didn't result in an increase in ridership or they would have been retained.

Yes, having to change trains is inconvenient, but even in the current timetable it's often quicker to change at Solihull (even allowing for the ~30 minute wait there) than to wait for the next direct train from Marylebone, and if you include the option of local buses or taxis from Leamington Spa or Warwick, that gives further journey opportunities.

Whilst it would be nice to have a good frequency of direct trains to just about anywhere, there are only a finite number of units, drivers and guards to go around, so a TOC has to plan to make the best use of them.

 

[The Planner]

One of the issues with the Stratford branch is that of line speed. It takes about 25 minutes to cover the 15 or so miles from Hatton to Stratford-upon-Avon, which is the same time taken by rail replacement buses when there's engineering work.

There are some that do it in less and dwell times are what are pushing it up. Apart from Hatton itself the line is 50/60mph. Unless you stop calling at some of the stations then the likelihood of actually achieving something like 75mph for a decent amount of time to make a dent is small.

 

[30907]

I'm struggling to follow your inability to understand what I'm saying.

If connections are just fine and dandy, as you seem to imply, why did NSE make direct London trains the key plank of their service plan for Stratford 20-plus years ago, something which Thames Trains then maintained throughout its tenure and Chiltern has up to now, before the crock of gold of Oxford commuters beckoned?

IIRC service frequency on the main line was considerably less, and NSE ran their trains in marginal time. So it's not strictly comparable.
I would have thought that one or two marginal time workings would be worth it - but at what times is there a significant demand?

 

[evergreenadam]

One of the issues with the Stratford branch is that of line speed. It takes about 25 minutes to cover the 15 or so miles from Hatton to Stratford-upon-Avon, which is the same time taken by rail replacement buses when there's engineering work.

As for service levels, the simple fact is that there are insufficient people travelling from London to Stratford by train to warrant an enhanced service. Chiltern trialled additional services during the Summer a few years back, as well as additional late night "theatre trains", but they obviously didn't result in an increase in ridership or they would have been retained.

Yes, having to change trains is inconvenient, but even in the current timetable it's often quicker to change at Solihull (even allowing for the ~30 minute wait there) than to wait for the next direct train from Marylebone, and if you include the option of local buses or taxis from Leamington Spa or Warwick, that gives further journey opportunities.

Whilst it would be nice to have a good frequency of direct trains to just about anywhere, there are only a finite number of units, drivers and guards to go around, so a TOC has to plan to make the best use of them.

Having visited Leamington Spa/Warwick/Stratford Upon Avon twice this summer from London I have realised that there is huge amount of tourist potential for rail, much of which is probably not being tapped. Lots of places in the area to visit apart from the obvious places in Stratford and Warwick eg. Charlecote Park, Ragley Hall, Compton Verney, Coughton Court, Heritage Motor Museum Gaydon.
The journey times, cost and frequency of trains between Stratford and Warwick/Leamington is uncompetitive with parallel bus services. I used Leamington Spa as a railhead which benefits from journey times of 1hr 10mins from Marylebone and has two buses an hour to Stratford and 8 per hour to Warwick town centre. Perhaps many locals do too, especially as the bus journey is free for pensioners.

On one of those occasions I caught the 1937 from Stratford to Leamington on a Saturday evening, a surprisingly well loaded 3 car class 165 with lots of tourists returning to London. Sadly the last train from Stratford to Warwick and Leamington on Saturdays in the proposed timetable will be two and half hours earlier at 2041 rather than 2315.

I would welcome FGW entering the London-Oxford-Stratford market with a comfortable through train, especially at weekends when Chiltern does not run the loco hauled Mainline stock and the 3 car Clubman trains to Birmingham are packed which is hardly an incentive for tourists to use them. Chiltern will be busy enough in future with Bicester Village and Oxford customers.

 

[nw1]

The whole point of the London-Stratford direct service, as conceived by NSE back in the early 1990s, was to provide a good link for tourists, with a spread of through trains - which tourists tend to prefer - across the day, with journey opportunities in both directions - and taking in Oxford as well.

Chiltern's proposals for September 2015 reduce it to a handful of trains, mainly targeted at people going from Stratford to London for the day (assuming they want to set off early, as the only morning train will be at 07.33), ie locals doing business in the capital, not tourists visiting London who want a day trip to Stratford (or people from South Warwickshire who want a day out in London), including the option of attending a matinee performance at the RSC, or on their way back after a stay in Stratford, for whom the current 09.14 direct train is a more attractive proposition.

I'm afraid it's a familiar Chiltern tale. If you're lucky enough to live in the West Midlands on their main line, (and Banbury and Bicester to an extent or Oxford, where they also see lots of money to be made) they like you. If you are off the main route, like Stratford, or at an intermediate station in Bucks and want to do something other than get into Marylebone, they're not that fussed about you.

I will admit to not being a "local" but.... contentiously, one could ask: why do Chiltern *need* to offer a half hourly fast service from Oxford to Marylebone, when there's a perfectly good half hourly FGW service via Reading anyway? True, linking Oxford and places like High Wycombe and other large towns in Bucks has value, but I'd have thought an hourly service from Oxford to Marylebone stopping at more stations would be better from a social need (as opposed to profit) motive, which would also free up units for the through Stratford service.

It seems to demonstrate quite nicely one of the problems of privatisation: if a route is profitable it gets loads of services, if it isn't, or less so, it tends to be ignored. I know that if I was an Islip resident I'd be pretty damned p*ssed off!

 

[67018]

.,. if I was an Islip resident I'd be pretty damned p*ssed off!

According to Wikipedia, the population of Islip at the 2001 census was 617. Hardly a massive market, especially as it's a poor railhead for surrounding areas compared to Oxford Parkway which is much better connected by road.

And, given congestion on the existing Oxford route, and the large population north of Oxford, it's difficult to argue that the new service doesn't offer something useful.

Don't get me wrong, I think the proposed timetable has its flaws, but some of the arguments here are marginal at best.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed, Chiltern will make the killing from Oxford Parkway due to its location and road links, not from Oxford itself. As has been mentioned plenty of times before there is a massive untapped market there who dont want to suffer the nightmare that central Oxford is for cars.

 

[jimm]

How long would a (Slough) - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington Spa - Stratford service take?

End-to-end time was not really the point of the NSE service concept. It was to link the tourist hotspots of London, Oxford and Stratford. But it didn't compare badly with current Chiltern times as their services tend to make a good number of intermediate calls south of Banbury, and I suspect are timed for 75mph to allow a 165 to be used.

With an IEP, the key issue would probably be what speed it was allowed to run at from Hatton to Bearley junction, but if you assume a 50-minute London-Oxford time, plus the 34 minutes Voyagers are allowed Oxford-Leamington, then a sub-two-hour time is do-able, perhaps even a 1hr 50min, if allowed to run at the pace of the non-stop late-night Chiltern service between Stratford and Leamington (a 23-minute timing). Whether Bearley and Claverdon justify calls by London trains anyway, I don't know, but the fact is people are far more likely to want to go to Birmingham from those places and are now well-served by the LM service via Solihull.

As for service levels, the simple fact is that there are insufficient people travelling from London to Stratford by train to warrant an enhanced service. Chiltern trialled additional services during the Summer a few years back, as well as additional late night "theatre trains", but they obviously didn't result in an increase in ridership or they would have been retained.

Yes, having to change trains is inconvenient, but even in the current timetable it's often quicker to change at Solihull (even allowing for the ~30 minute wait there) than to wait for the next direct train from Marylebone, and if you include the option of local buses or taxis from Leamington Spa or Warwick, that gives further journey opportunities.

Whilst it would be nice to have a good frequency of direct trains to just about anywhere, there are only a finite number of units, drivers and guards to go around, so a TOC has to plan to make the best use of them.

Who said anything about an enhanced service?

What there is now would be fine, if only it got some promotion - of the kind NSE most certainly used to do, but as I said, Chiltern's timetables are always tagged Birmingham and Kidderminster - never a mention of Stratford.

Did you actually read any of what I said about tourists' travel habits or about the rationale for this service being launched in the first place in the early 1990s? Before then the railways took no interest whatever in the potential of Stratford to generate traffic and revenue in this way. Chiltern seem hell-bent on turning back the clock in pursuit of commuter gold from the West Midlands and Oxfordshire. You may be fine travelling with your myriad connections, taxis, etc, etc. Your average tourist, laden with heavy suitcases, may beg to differ.

IIRC service frequency on the main line was considerably less, and NSE ran their trains in marginal time. So it's not strictly comparable.
I would have thought that one or two marginal time workings would be worth it - but at what times is there a significant demand?

Yes, NSE did run most of their trains in marginal time, because that's when tourists are most likely to be travelling. How many people on holiday want to leap out of bed and travel in the peak, when they do that anyway the rest of the year?

But NSE also ran a lot more trains north of Oxford than FGW does now, because until 2003 there was only one XC train per hour south of Birmingham, so there were more NSE/Thames trains running to/from Banbury to be extended into Warwickshire.

FGW's train planners are highly skilled at making the best use of their rolling stock and probably have a draft timetable tucked away somewhere already. As I said above, it's not about huge numbers of through trains, it's about a carefully timetabled selection of them, backed up with proper marketing.

According to Wikipedia, the population of Islip at the 2001 census was 617. Hardly a massive market, especially as it's a poor railhead for surrounding areas compared to Oxford Parkway which is much better connected by road.

And, given congestion on the existing Oxford route, and the large population north of Oxford, it's difficult to argue that the new service doesn't offer something useful.

Don't get me wrong, I think the proposed timetable has its flaws, but some of the arguments here are marginal at best.

You clearly don't understand the issue about Islip. It has nothing to do with it being a railhead. It's about providing a quick link for the locals into central Oxford, which the buses can never do because of the congestion - and it remains to be seen how the roads handle the impact of Parkway. Being the Oxford area, it probably won't be good news.

The people of Islip are not crying out for an hourly train to Marylebone, if that's what you think. Footfall in 2007-8 before the enhanced Bicester branch timetable was introduced was 14,240. It rose to 29,126 in 2011-12 with the extra calls, and they weren't going to Bicester. The issue is providing a decent enough frequency, across the day, to make the train a practical travel option into and out of Oxford. A four-hour gap in a timetable, at whatever point in the day, or just one morning peak-time train into Oxford, means it will not be, with the inevitable impact on use of the station and the railway more generally.

Indeed, Chiltern will make the killing from Oxford Parkway due to its location and road links, not from Oxford itself. As has been mentioned plenty of times before there is a massive untapped market there who dont want to suffer the nightmare that central Oxford is for cars.

A massive untapped market? Hardly. Lots of people who drive from Kidlington to Bicester North will switch to Parkway, so not exactly an untapped market. One of Chiltern's targets is people who already go to London but use the M40 coaches as it's easier to get to Thornhill park-and-ride than the station from much of the city, so a market already tapped by Stagecoach and Go-Ahead, and there is, of course, the Cotswold Line, which is a market tapped by FGW (barely a year after opening the 190-space car park extension at Hanborough often has 150-plus cars in it on weekdays) but an area where Chiltern will no doubt run one of their dubious marketing campaigns in a year's time - 90 minutes to Birmingham ring any bells?

 

[The Planner]

FGW's train planners are highly skilled at making the best use of their rolling stock and probably have a draft timetable tucked away somewhere already. As I said above, it's not about huge numbers of through trains, it's about a carefully timetabled selection of them, backed up with proper marketing.

Shame they change their minds so often with the amount of alterations they put through to us during the duration of a timetable.

 

[jimm]

Shame they change their minds so often with the amount of alterations they put through to us during the duration of a timetable.

I was thinking more in terms of the way the 180s are deployed so they mainly work contra-peak services, or using an HST on the weekday 10.22 to Hereford and 15.15 back, which looks daft for a 500-seat train, but it forms the 17.31 from Oxford to Paddington and is then in London to work a peak service back out. So I expect they can come up with ways to work IEPs to Stratford, splitting and joining at Oxford, perhaps with Cotswold Line trains, as was done in the past with Turbos, while providing maximum capacity on the London-Oxford section.

 

[67018]

You clearly don't understand the issue about Islip. It has nothing to do with it being a railhead. It's about providing a quick link for the locals into central Oxford, which the buses can never do because of the congestion - and it remains to be seen how the roads handle the impact of Parkway. Being the Oxford area, it probably won't be good news.

The people of Islip are not crying out for an hourly train to Marylebone, if that's what you think. Footfall in 2007-8 before the enhanced Bicester branch timetable was introduced was 14,240. It rose to 29,126 in 2011-12 with the extra calls, and they weren't going to Bicester. The issue is providing a decent enough frequency, across the day, to make the train a practical travel option into and out of Oxford. A four-hour gap in a timetable, at whatever point in the day, or just one morning peak-time train into Oxford, means it will not be, with the inevitable impact on use of the station and the railway more generally.

My mention of Islip as a railhead is because, in a situation where trade-offs need to be made because there is not unlimited capacity/paths/stock, it's difficult to justify prioritising such a small place. One of the ways of doing so is that it supplies a wider catchment area, which is not the case here.

Otherwise, if Islip deserves a better service, shouldn't Wendlebury and Charlton-on-Otmoor get stations too? (At least it still has a service - Barlaston, for example, is bigger...)

 

[route:oxford]

You clearly don't understand the issue about Islip. It has nothing to do with it being a railhead. It's about providing a quick link for the locals into central Oxford, which the buses can never do because of the congestion - and it remains to be seen how the roads handle the impact of Parkway. Being the Oxford area, it probably won't be good news.

If the people of Islip weren't so insular and welcomed the fresh blood of several thousand new homes - you can be pretty sure they'd enjoy an improved service.

A massive untapped market?

Definitely. We've already had a fairly high level HR discussion about the risk to our staffing levels as a consequence of the new service from Kidlington.

If someone has to park their car at the P&R and have a choice of boarding a 45-60 minute bus in peak traffic to the employment centres of Oxford or a 55 minute comfortable Clubman train to London (for a considerably higher salary) then we are going to have serious recruitment and retention problems.

They could, of course, take a swift train to Oxford Station and walk to the centre (and still beat the bus by a considerable margin).

 

[jimm]

My mention of Islip as a railhead is because, in a situation where trade-offs need to be made because there is not unlimited capacity/paths/stock, it's difficult to justify prioritising such a small place. One of the ways of doing so is that it supplies a wider catchment area, which is not the case here.

Otherwise, if Islip deserves a better service, shouldn't Wendlebury and Charlton-on-Otmoor get stations too? (At least it still has a service - Barlaston, for example, is bigger...)

Are we talking about the same place here? The overwhelming bulk of the custom at Islip pre-closure was purely local, with a bit of traffic on to the likes of Didcot and Reading - and that won't change once the line reopens. It doesn't have a car park, so not much use as a 'railhead'.

I repeat, people don't want a train every hour to London, simply a pattern of calls across the day that make the train a viable option to get in and out of Oxford, without huge gaps in between services. Something they were provided with until recently and to which they clearly responded, with that doubling of traffic in a few years. Wendlebury and Charlton aren't on the line, which goes slap bang through the middle of Islip, and Barlaston is another matter entirely.

Yes, some people who now drive to Bicester for a London train will welcome the chance to get on a train down the road instead but they do understand they will not get the same service as the Parkway or the Bicester stations.
East West may offer options for other stops when it gets running, but it is still some years off and Chiltern may well view it as a chance to dispense with any obligation whatever to serve Islip.

If you don't believe me, then look at the OBRAG website and decide if what they have to say seems extreme, naive or unreasonable, in the light of what Chiltern is proposing
http://www.obrag.org.uk/

If the people of Islip weren't so insular and welcomed the fresh blood of several thousand new homes - you can be pretty sure they'd enjoy an improved service.

Given that the new draft Local Plan for the Cherwell council district makes plain that most development until 2030-ish is to be focused in Banbury and Bicester, plus Upper Heyford, that's never going to happen anyway. Never mind what the attitudes of Islip's residents may, or may not, be.

Definitely. We've already had a fairly high level HR discussion about the risk to our staffing levels as a consequence of the new service from Kidlington.

If someone has to park their car at the P&R and have a choice of boarding a 45-60 minute bus in peak traffic to the employment centres of Oxford or a 55 minute comfortable Clubman train to London (for a considerably higher salary) then we are going to have serious recruitment and retention problems.

They could, of course, take a swift train to Oxford Station and walk to the centre (and still beat the bus by a considerable margin).

Doesn't fundamentally alter the fact that abstraction of passengers and revenue from FGW and other existing modes of travel between Oxford(shire) and London - of which there are plenty - is key to the Chiltern strategy. And you seem to be missing out the time needed for people to get from a London terminus to where the jobs are - not that Paddington has much of an advantage over Marylebone in that regard at present, but come 2018 and Crossrail...

If there truly is some huge well of people just gagging to go to work in London, with all the time, aggro and cost that involves, then Chiltern will be creating a rod for their own back, because a few 170s turned into 168s won't go far and won't be very comfortable, same as any overcrowded train

 

[67018]

Are we talking about the same place here? The overwhelming bulk of the custom at Islip pre-closure was purely local, with a bit of traffic on to the likes of Didcot and Reading - and that won't change once the line reopens. It doesn't have a car park, so not much use as a 'railhead'.

I think we are at cross purposes here. I'm saying that Islip is no good as a railhead, so its service can only be justified based on serving the local population, which is very small. You appear to be agreeing that it's not a railhead and never will be.

...Barlaston is another matter entirely.

My intention here was to point out an example of where fast through services have been prioritised to the detriment of a small station - in this case to the point where it has no service at all.

If you don't believe me, then look at the OBRAG website and decide if what they have to say seems extreme, naive or unreasonable, in the light of what Chiltern is proposing
http://www.obrag.org.uk/

The OBRAG response does not seem at all unreasonable, provided the changes that they suggest are feasible with the stock and paths that are available. However I suspect that this isn't the case and that enhancements would involve adversely affecting a greater number of people elsewhere. (The loud noise made about the Thameslink plans by people on the the Wimbledon loop springs to mind - leading to a 'solution' which many people regard as operationally inefficient and much worse for the majority of people on the main line).

I haven't had a chance to look at the timetable in a lot of detail, but suspect I'm not going to like it. Not least because, at first glance, my local station at Bicester North now has some sizeable gaps in service.

 

[jimm]

I think we are at cross purposes here. I'm saying that Islip is no good as a railhead, so its service can only be justified based on serving the local population, which is very small. You appear to be agreeing that it's not a railhead and never will be.

My intention here was to point out an example of where fast through services have been prioritised to the detriment of a small station - in this case to the point where it has no service at all.

The OBRAG response does not seem at all unreasonable, provided the changes that they suggest are feasible with the stock and paths that are available. However I suspect that this isn't the case and that enhancements would involve adversely affecting a greater number of people elsewhere. (The loud noise made about the Thameslink plans by people on the the Wimbledon loop springs to mind - leading to a 'solution' which many people regard as operationally inefficient and much worse for the majority of people on the main line).

I haven't had a chance to look at the timetable in a lot of detail, but suspect I'm not going to like it. Not least because, at first glance, my local station at Bicester North now has some sizeable gaps in service.

I agree entirely Islip isn't suitable as a railhead. All anyone is suggesting is that the station gets a decent spread of services so it remains a viable public transport link with Oxford for the village's residents - the very thing it was for the past few years, before the closure for the rebuilding of the line - with the added bonus of being able to walk down the road at certain times of the day and get a train direct to London - a more attractive long-distance destination than Bristol, which used to be an option at Islip.

The stock and the paths are already there. You seem to be suggesting that arriving at Oxford (at a segregated platform, with no impact on the main line) a few minutes later on one train instead of another, or leaving Oxford a few minutes earlier, is going to derail the entire service.

Whereas the proposed Islip calls look more like a case of someone going 'that one sort of looks like a commuter service, stick it in' or 'pop that one in the list, it will get us up to the number of required calls', rather than a serious attempt to serve the village, just as all those connections for Stratford smack of a means to say 'we're meeting our basic obligation, but that's all we're going to do for you'.

Chiltern seem to want to turn things back at Islip to what prevailed pre-2009, when there were just 14,000 journeys made - given a decent level of service, the village's population, however small, very clearly responded to the improved service from 2009, with traffic doubling. Population size proves nothing at all - Charlbury station has footfall of 271,000 (population 2,800), while at Evesham footfall is 258,000 (population 23,500).

Barlaston or the Wimbledon loop are not the points of discussion here. There are all sorts of local factors at play in each case, so let's stick to this topic and the impact of Chiltern's timetable plans.

And of course Bicester North will have some hefty gaps between trains. It was hardly a secret that was what was going to happen come the start of the Oxford service, with Bicester terminators and starters diverted to serve the route.

 

[The Planner]

The stock and the paths are already there. You seem to be suggesting that arriving at Oxford (at a segregated platform, with no impact on the main line) a few minutes later on one train instead of another, or leaving Oxford a few minutes earlier, is going to derail the entire service..

Famous last words that has caused my colleagues burnt fingers on a number of occasions! Whilst it is unlikely to cause much grief to passenger services, as I dont see the upgraded up loop at Oxford ever being utilised as planned, it may well knacker freight which have pretty fixed paths down to Reading south of Oxford.

 

[merlodlliw]

The Chiltern 18 months advance time table even came up in the Welsh Assembly last week, in questions to the WG Minister in charge of railways.

Aled Roberts
Minister, can I echo the comments made by Mark Isherwood? I would ask, however, that perhaps the Government consider whether there should be cross-border arrangements. Certainly, some of the decisions made by Arriva Trains Wales show that it is accepting contracts from the UK Government when it has insufficient rolling stock. It tells us that it is unable to provide the rolling stock and yet it is taking on more routes from the UK Government.
I also ask that, perhaps if it is not possible now, when the franchise comes up, you ask the new franchisee to adopt the practices of Chiltern Railways, a sister company of Arriva Trains Wales, which publishes its draft timetable some 18 months before any proposed changes.

 

[67018]

The stock and the paths are already there. You seem to be suggesting that arriving at Oxford (at a segregated platform, with no impact on the main line) a few minutes later on one train instead of another, or leaving Oxford a few minutes earlier, is going to derail the entire service.

If the plan can be tweaked to suit Islip, then great - but I think it's optimistic to assume that such an adjustment won't put the mockers on something elsewhere. 'ThePlanner' has suggested as much, no doubt from bitter experience.

Chiltern seem to want to turn things back at Islip to what prevailed pre-2009, when there were just 14,000 journeys made - given a decent level of service, the village's population, however small, very clearly responded to the improved service from 2009, with traffic doubling. Population size proves nothing at all - Charlbury station has footfall of 271,000 (population 2,800), while at Evesham footfall is 258,000 (population 23,500).

Barlaston or the Wimbledon loop are not the points of discussion here. There are all sorts of local factors at play in each case, so let's stick to this topic and the impact of Chiltern's timetable plans.

I'm also not convinced that Chiltern's planners have been lazy or useless, rather than just trying to find the best balance of many different priorities in a timetable that involves dozens of variables. And I fail to see why parallels can be drawn with Charlbury but not Barlaston. Not to mention the fact that Charlbury no doubt does have a railhead effect that we've agreed won't apply for Islip.

And of course Bicester North will have some hefty gaps between trains. It was hardly a secret that was what was going to happen come the start of the Oxford service, with Bicester terminators and starters diverted to serve the route.

As for Bicester North, the off-peak service goes to effectively hourly but this, as you say, was the expected effect of diverting Bicester/Banbury terminators.. However, the evening service is now also basically hourly, and the missing trains aren't going to Oxford Parkway - they sail through without stopping in favour of calling at High Wycombe.

The peak services are slower too, although that looks like timetable padding to me given how suspiciously close the timings are to when the trains actually run now!

 

[jimm]

If the plan can be tweaked to suit Islip, then great - but I think it's optimistic to assume that such an adjustment won't put the mockers on something elsewhere. 'ThePlanner' has suggested as much, no doubt from bitter experience.

They key issues with this service will be the presentation times for eastbound trains at the junction at Bicester and the need to share a short length of track at Oxford. Now if some trains can be timed to call at Islip and manage not to cause grief at these two locations, I would suggest it could be managed with others, to allow a more useful service there. It's not as if most Chiltern trains and services through Oxford run at random times.

I'm also not convinced that Chiltern's planners have been lazy or useless, rather than just trying to find the best balance of many different priorities in a timetable that involves dozens of variables. And I fail to see why parallels can be drawn with Charlbury but not Barlaston. Not to mention the fact that Charlbury no doubt does have a railhead effect that we've agreed won't apply for Islip.

Did I say they were lazy or useless? No, those are your words.

What I am arguing is that the company's management has taken a position that it will not listen to perfectly reasonable points about deficiencies in its services - on the main line if you want to do something other than go to and from Marylebone or Bicester Village, as much as at Islip, or Stratford or the notoriously ill-served inner-London stations - because the fundamental focus is on Oxford, West Midlands and Bicester Village traffic and nothing else matters that much. Yes, I know the word deficiencies is a bit strong in the context of a train operator that in the eyes of many can simply do no wrong whatever, but there it is.

You simply cited the small size of Islip's population as justification for it getting a poor service. My point was that there is no direct connection between population and traffic. And in the case of Charlbury, I might point out that, due to its small size (all of 1,649 in the 1961 census), up until the mid-1960s, railway managers did not even consider it worth calls by the London expresses, only the Oxford-Worcester stopping trains.

Yes, there is an element of railheading there (in part because of the sketchy service offered at Shipton and Ascott-under-Wychwood just up the line, which 'serve' more people than live in Charlbury), but there is also a very high level of local traffic because the train beats driving a car or getting a bus to and from Oxford hands down - exactly the same reason people in Islip used the trains - and why, with a decent level of service from 2009 until recently, traffic at Islip doubled.

What Chiltern propose would mean that rail option is made far less user-friendly in Islip, to the point that getting in a car, even for the short run to Parkway, looks likely to become a preferred - more accurately, forced - option again.

I discount Barlaston because the politics of what went on there - and the other Staffordshire stations - is an entirely different matter. And because a sketchy, inconveniently-timed, unbalanced (in Shipton's case), service is often little better than no trains at all - just look at Shipton and Ascott-under-Wychwood's traffic levels.

As for Bicester North, the off-peak service goes to effectively hourly but this, as you say, was the expected effect of diverting Bicester/Banbury terminators.. However, the evening service is now also basically hourly, and the missing trains aren't going to Oxford Parkway - they sail through without stopping in favour of calling at High Wycombe.

The peak services are slower too, although that looks like timetable padding to me given how suspiciously close the timings are to when the trains actually run now!

Presumably to get people used to the idea of one train per hour at North and two at Town and to shift them off West Midlands trains to ease the pressure on those.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I discount Barlaston because the politics of what went on there - and the other Staffordshire stations - is an entirely different matter. And because a sketchy, inconveniently-timed, unbalanced (in Shipton's case), service is often little better than no trains at all - just look at Shipton and Ascott-under-Wychwood's traffic levels.

I don't think you should discount the politics there, because I think the same thing is happening again. The local service at the small station isn't "sexy" enough for the TOC and so you see a gradual reduction in the frequency and usefulness of the trains.

Lo and behold nobody uses the trains anymore, and so we end up with one train a day/week as a Parliamentary service. I don't think the small catchment area justifies this, as the loadings from that station are not that bad at present. I guess the replacement bus will kill off some trade and Chiltern aren't bothered about the rest of it.

I'm not surprised that Islip residents are livid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for Bicester North, the off-peak service goes to effectively hourly but this, as you say, was the expected effect of diverting Bicester/Banbury terminators.

Bicester Town will have a good service as well, so the town doesn't really lose out. It just means passengers will have to pay attention to times before choosing which station to go to.

 

[67018]

Did I say they were lazy or useless? No, those are your words.

I apologise, the language is a bit strong - maybe a reaction to some other threads on here that seem to think that railway staff can't be bothered to do a decent job.

But you are clearly implying that company management aren't listening, rather than having to make difficult priority calls. Their call is that a small village ten minutes drive from their shiny new parkway station isn't high on the list. (And traffic jams on the A34 are someone else's problem!)

Presumably the focus is on Oxford, West Midlands and Bicester Village traffic because that's where most of the volume is. I don't disagree that other places should get a better service, if possible, but realistically it won't happen if it's to the detriment of the majority. The results of the consultation will be interesting, as will the reaction of OBRAG whose response appears quite well balanced.

You mention inner London stations as well - it's really hard to see how they could ever get a better service without some fairly major engineering. As it is, the stoppers frequently get in the way of the Mainline service, which is probably one of the reasons for the aforementioned timetable padding being put in.

Presumably to get people used to the idea of one train per hour at North and two at Town and to shift them off West Midlands trains to ease the pressure on those.

Now there's an interesting question - how many will people shift from North to Town because the trains will be more frequent and (maybe) less busy? Town should be more convenient for anyone driving in from the south, but currently isn't because road access is not great. It would be fascinating to see how they have modelled the prospective passenger flows.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Yes, there is an element of railheading there (in part because of the sketchy service offered at Shipton and Ascott-under-Wychwood just up the line, which 'serve' more people than live in Charlbury), but there is also a very high level of local traffic because the train beats driving a car or getting a bus to and from Oxford hands down - exactly the same reason people in Islip used the trains - and why, with a decent level of service from 2009 until recently, traffic at Islip doubled.

This is 100% true and deserves emphasising. Look at any rush-hour arrival at Charlbury and count the number of people walking up the hill, or cycling, or taking the railbus. For most Charlbury residents, the train is the default option when travelling to Oxford or London; and even in a small settlement, that's a lot of passengers.

 

[D6975]

The proposed 6 and 7 minute connections at Leamington are a bit tight. The layover at Leamington for the Stratford shuttle is only 16 mins. This presumably means that the service won't shuttle between the up side and down side bays, so in one direction you'll have to go through the subway and walk up to/from the bay. Lots of luggage or limited mobility plus a service a few mins late will inevitably result in missed connections.

 

[Taunton]

The proposed 6 and 7 minute connections at Leamington are a bit tight. The layover at Leamington for the Stratford shuttle is only 16 mins. This presumably means that the service won't shuttle between the up side and down side bays, so in one direction you'll have to go through the subway and walk up to/from the bay. Lots of luggage or limited mobility plus a service a few mins late will inevitably result in missed connections.

That's OK, missed connections do not show up in the PPM figures which only show trains leaving on time. Any passengers who miss a connection can get stuffed. PPM is all that is important nowadays.

In passing, WHY does the PPM not pick up missed connections?

 

[The Planner]

Because PPM measures arrival time at the destination of the train, not a connection or a journey. 5 minutes is the standard connection time unless prescribed otherwise, like it is in the case of Leamington where its 8 minutes, oops.....

 

[jimm]

I apologise, the language is a bit strong - maybe a reaction to some other threads on here that seem to think that railway staff can't be bothered to do a decent job.

But you are clearly implying that company management aren't listening, rather than having to make difficult priority calls. Their call is that a small village ten minutes drive from their shiny new parkway station isn't high on the list. (And traffic jams on the A34 are someone else's problem!)

Presumably the focus is on Oxford, West Midlands and Bicester Village traffic because that's where most of the volume is. I don't disagree that other places should get a better service, if possible, but realistically it won't happen if it's to the detriment of the majority. The results of the consultation will be interesting, as will the reaction of OBRAG whose response appears quite well balanced.

You mention inner London stations as well - it's really hard to see how they could ever get a better service without some fairly major engineering. As it is, the stoppers frequently get in the way of the Mainline service, which is probably one of the reasons for the aforementioned timetable padding being put in.

Now there's an interesting question - how many will people shift from North to Town because the trains will be more frequent and (maybe) less busy? Town should be more convenient for anyone driving in from the south, but currently isn't because road access is not great. It would be fascinating to see how they have modelled the prospective passenger flows.

I'm not implying they're not listening, that's exactly what I'm saying. All the points about Islip were raised when Chiltern issued a draft timetable for the Oxford-London service - can't remember exactly when, perhaps two or three years ago. Nothing has changed since then.

At the moment, as Obrag note, they are even haggling over pledges made to provide eight trains each way, rather than the seven in the draft timetable - on one occasion made in front of the public inquiry inspector.

They did not listen to complaints from Buckinghamshire about how the Mainline timetable made journeys going north harder and quite how much demand there really is to go from Bucks stations into Oxford remains to be seen.

Yes, the Parkway station is just down the line from Islip, but the Parkway station is not really intended to serve inbound Oxford custom, although it will probably end up that way in the peaks due to the traffic in Oxford. It is aimed at London commuters... whereas at Islip all people there basically want is the ability to get into Oxford and back without four-hour gaps in the service, as they have been able to do in recent years.

You talk about 'the majority'. Well are the interests of Chinese shoppers making a one-off day trip to Bicester Village from London while on holiday more important than regular passengers from Islip who will be buying tickets for years to come?

Intermediate stations may not be gold mines on the same scale as key destinations but please let's not go back to the scorched earth policies of the 1960s, practised most notably by the Western Region, removing intermediate stops and/or stations here there and everywhere, including the first Haddenham station - its successor is on course to top 700,000 journeys a year when the next passenger figures come out.

Or, at the other end of Kidlington from the Parkway, a policy that saw the closure of the station serving a 'village' with a population that is now more than 15,000 while, because the roads were deemed less than ideal for buses, nearby Tackley (pop. 877) retained its station and currently has the sort of service people in Islip, much the same distance out of Oxford as Tackley, would like to retain.

 

[Taunton]

Because PPM measures arrival time at the destination of the train, not a connection or a journey. 5 minutes is the standard connection time unless prescribed otherwise, like it is in the case of Leamington where its 8 minutes, oops.....

I know that. My question was WHY is it not measured.

 

[67018]

I'm not implying they're not listening, that's exactly what I'm saying.

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I suspect they are listening, but can't please everyone so something has to give.

They did not listen to complaints from Buckinghamshire about how the Mainline timetable made journeys going north harder and quite how much demand there really is to go from Bucks stations into Oxford remains to be seen.

Well, there seem to be more Birmingham trains stopping at High Wycombe in the new timetable than there were a couple of years ago. And the demand for northbound journeys from Bucks stations is probably at least as dubious as that to Oxford.

You talk about 'the majority'. Well are the interests of Chinese shoppers making a one-off day trip to Bicester Village from London while on holiday more important than regular passengers from Islip who will be buying tickets for years to come?

Good question. This is where I'd like to see the figures they have used. But, at this rate, it's going to take quite a long time to run out of Chinese shoppers.

Nobody's suggesting closing the station, and the Haddenham and Kidlington examples you quote are cases where the situation changed thanks to significant residential development. Cherwell council seem keen on building houses by the thousand, so that's maybe the answer.

Incidentally, how do you see things developing once East West rail is up and running? A potential for more trains for Islip (since there won't be any conflicts at the London end to worry about) or increased demand for longer distance services creating another threat?

(As a side note, interesting that Charlbury came up in the discussion, as the first time I used that station it was to walk to... Islip!)

 

[The Planner]

I know that. My question was WHY is it not measured.

You said leaving on time, PPM doesnt measure that and how could you measure connections anyway? There must be countless combinations of connections to measure and what would it achieve?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

The proposed 6 and 7 minute connections at Leamington are a bit tight. The layover at Leamington for the Stratford shuttle is only 16 mins. This presumably means that the service won't shuttle between the up side and down side bays, so in one direction you'll have to go through the subway and walk up to/from the bay. Lots of luggage or limited mobility plus a service a few mins late will inevitably result in missed connections.

Southbound connections at Leamington Spa will be an adjacent platform switch as always, from the down facing up bay to the up main.

Northbound connections at Leamington Spa will require passengers to use the subway but other than changing onto the XC services to go to Coventry and Birmingham International (which leave Leamington at XX:12, so the 6 & 7 minute connection times are not representative) I'm not sure how many people will use the northbound connection. All of the stations on that Stratford shuttle route have alternative northbound services to use to reach Birmingham and beyond. Cross Birmingham transfers with luggage may be a thing, but it's been the case for years and maybe the new tram connection between Snow Hill and New Street will address that for the most immobile.