Will off peak traffic on the Cotswold Line build up?

[irish_rail]

I'm afraid to say those values are excessive. Other 80x operators routinely plan coupling and uncoupling on 4-5 mins, and indeed that is a much more standard value across the network for other stock. There is no reason why excessive timings should be accepted by GWR.

Don't forget also when splitting someone needs to empty the rear set before the trains can be split and this in itself takes time as there are inevitably passengers in the rear set unaware it is being split off. All adds up. 4 to 5 mins from stopping to departing is extremely tight.

 

[Watershed]

Don't forget also when splitting someone needs to empty the rear set before the trains can be split and this in itself takes time as there are inevitably passengers in the rear set unaware it is being split off. All adds up. 4 to 5 mins from stopping to departing is extremely tight.

That is slightly different, although even then, with good coordination it should be eminently doable in 5 mins.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Don't forget also when splitting someone needs to empty the rear set before the trains can be split and this in itself takes time as there are inevitably passengers in the rear set unaware it is being split off. All adds up. 4 to 5 mins from stopping to departing is extremely tight.

Why's that necessary? Fairly sure that when the late night Southern services out of London Victoria split at Haywards Heath (one portion working to Eastbourne and the other to Worthing) they don't turf the passengers off the rear portion. Usually what happens are that the doors are temporarily locked whilst the split takes place.

 

[Mintona]

Why's that necessary? Fairly sure that when the late night Southern services out of London Victoria split at Haywards Heath (one portion working to Eastbourne and the other to Worthing) they don't turf the passengers off the rear portion. Usually what happens are that the doors are temporarily locked whilst the split takes place.

Because they aren’t splitting to go to different places, they’re splitting with one half going into the sidings.

 

[irish_rail]

Because they aren’t splitting to go to different places, they’re splitting with one half going into the sidings.

Indeed , and there are always people, with luggage etc in the wrong half and it takes time to ask them to move and then for them to pack up their stuff and get their suitcases etc. Unlike on Southern where most journeys are local and commuter ones, on the London to Penzance route most journeys are intercity and involve luggage and possessions being laid out on tables etc due to the long journey. Rushing people to get off quickly just wouldn't work especially if they are elderly , infirm etc. More good reasons for NOT splitting and joining intercity services, but PERHAPS Cotswold line type services, IF there was capacity at Oxford, which there may well not be...

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Why's that necessary? Fairly sure that when the late night Southern services out of London Victoria split at Haywards Heath (one portion working to Eastbourne and the other to Worthing) they don't turf the passengers off the rear portion. Usually what happens are that the doors are temporarily locked whilst the split takes place.

Dont forget the Southern stock is gangwayed, so presumably an announcement could be made in advance of Haywards Heath that pax in the wrong set need to move. With IETs such an announcement is fairly useless other than encouraging passengers to get ready to alight from the rear set.

4-5 mins for dwell, attach/detach and dispatch is extremely tight, given the various in-cab procedures that have to take place, plus walking time from front to middle cabs etc. Even with two drivers this takes time. I’d be interested @Watershed if you’ve got any performance statistics showing the percentage that such dwells are being achieved by other IET operators? I know the GWR values were extensively consulted and designed with the assistance of operating staff and timed trials, with a mindset to keeping them as low as possible to minimise impact on the timetable. 6 and 8 are the standard attach/detach values respectively, except at Bristol TM where its 8 mins for either operation, as there is an additional requirement to telephone TVSC and shunt across a mid-platform signal when attaching, except on P15.

 

[Basil Jet]

Would it help if the Cotswold service were cut off from GWR and made an extension (via reversal) of the Chiltern Oxford service? Would the needed train lengths east and west of Oxford match up better, or would coupling /decoupling be easier in the bay at Oxford while the driver was changing ends?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Would it help if the Cotswold service were cut off from GWR and made an extension (via reversal) of the Chiltern Oxford service? Would the needed train lengths east and west of Oxford match up better, or would coupling /decoupling be easier in the bay at Oxford while the driver was changing ends?

Removal of Intercity trains with First Class and catering and downgrading to an outer suburban service from Marylebone isn’t likely to go down well with the affluent Cotswolds.

 

[Techniquest]

Removal of Intercity trains with First Class and catering and downgrading to an outer suburban service from Marylebone isn’t likely to go down well with the affluent Cotswolds.

Absolutely. The demand for Reading and London is still pretty big, and forcing a change in Oxford on such passengers is not going to benefit anyone. Removing the IETs as well (unless they were to be cleared to Marylebone, and somehow room was found for a 9 car IET to reverse in Oxford), well you might as well just not bother running the service and invite all the passengers to clog up the roads even more.

In any case, Marylebone can barely handle big crowds as it is, imagine that concourse trying to cope with the evening peak!

From my uneducated viewpoint on Oxford's railway issues, and I will freely confess I know very little about it, only a thorough rebuild will sort out the issues. Just one more northbound platform would help a lot.

 

[Falcon1200]

Would it help if the Cotswold service were cut off from GWR and made an extension (via reversal) of the Chiltern Oxford service?

Definitely not ! For the reasons stated above, plus the greatly lengthened journey times resulting from the longer and slower route to Marylebone, and the reversal time at Oxford.
(Last Thursday I caught the 0550 Paddington-Great Malvern at Oxford, where it arrived, early, at 0639 - 49 minutes from London including two stops. Chiltern will never match that !)

From my uneducated viewpoint on Oxford's railway issues, and I will freely confess I know very little about it, only a thorough rebuild will sort out the issues. Just one more northbound platform would help a lot.

It does depend of course on future traffic patterns; Historically, many trains arriving at Oxford from the south have terminated there, ie half the Paddington fasts and three-quarters, at least, of the Paddington/Reading/Didcot stoppers; Which is why I have suggested bay platforms south of the Botley Road bridge. However more through capacity would certainly be very useful, if for example the Cotswold Line gains a half-hourly service, and even more so should the Morris Cowley branch regain a passenger service by extending Chiltern's trains.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Oxfordshire County Council has started to argue for full redoubling of Wolvercot-Charlbury, rather than the rather bizarre North Cotswold Line Taskforce proposal for Wolvercot-Hanborough only. If that eventually happens then you could run half-hourly through to Moreton or beyond, rather than worrying about splitting at Oxford.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, particularly on weekends. The mid-late morning departures from London to Worcester have been full and standing on recent Saturdays at least as far as Oxford, showing that 5-cars are not sufficient as a blanket solution.

This is just another example of GWR fleet not coping at weekends, there is a very similar thread on services via Bath to Weymouth and via Bath to Portsmouth.

I have recently visited Wells and Tetbury, both full of tourists, but both without stations these days, so appears there is more demand on the GWR patch at weekends than at first glance.

The current fleet formation is too clunky, 5car sets can’t cope, doubling them up for part of a route is time consuming, 9 car sets can’t really be spared.

Its rather a shame they didn’t grab some secondhand class 91 and mk4 sets (or even some old Norwich sets) to use on Paddington-Cardiff at weekends to release the hybrids for busy weekend services on rest of their network.

At the moment they seem to be paralysed and not know how to deal with their new weekend business, and seem to be acting as though it will go away, rather than proactivly sourcing stock to serve it.

 

[irish_rail]

This is just another example of GWR fleet not coping at weekends, there is a very similar thread on services via Bath to Weymouth and via Bath to Portsmouth.

I have recently visited Wells and Tetbury, both full of tourists, but both without stations these days, so appears there is more demand on the GWR patch at weekends than at first glance.

The current fleet formation is too clunky, 5car sets can’t cope, doubling them up for part of a route is time consuming, 9 car sets can’t really be spared.

Its rather a shame they didn’t grab some secondhand class 91 and mk4 sets (or even some old Norwich sets) to use on Paddington-Cardiff at weekends to release the hybrids for busy weekend services on rest of their network.

At the moment they seem to be paralysed and not know how to deal with their new weekend business, and seem to be acting as though it will go away, rather than proactivly sourcing stock to serve it.

Agree with pretty much all of this. With Northern just having had 20 odd new DMUs authorised I'd question why GWR can't be arguing for some new build coaches to extend at least some of the 5 cars to 7 or 9s. The benefit is spread right throughout southern England and Wales and so should be a winner from the point of view of a government which needs desperately to do something right now to please voters!

 

[Techniquest]

It does depend of course on future traffic patterns; Historically, many trains arriving at Oxford from the south have terminated there, ie half the Paddington fasts and three-quarters, at least, of the Paddington/Reading/Didcot stoppers; Which is why I have suggested bay platforms south of the Botley Road bridge. However more through capacity would certainly be very useful, if for example the Cotswold Line gains a half-hourly service, and even more so should the Morris Cowley branch regain a passenger service by extending Chiltern's trains.

Valid points there, I do doubt the Cowley branch will come back any time soon but it certainly would not hurt to have even just 1 bay platform on the south side.

Oxfordshire County Council has started to argue for full redoubling of Wolvercot-Charlbury, rather than the rather bizarre North Cotswold Line Taskforce proposal for Wolvercot-Hanborough only. If that eventually happens then you could run half-hourly through to Moreton or beyond, rather than worrying about splitting at Oxford.

Double-track to Charlbury would be very useful. I'd personally prefer the Norton Junction to Evesham bit to be doubled first, but that is me being biased with it being much more local to me!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Double-track to Charlbury would be very useful. I'd personally prefer the Norton Junction to Evesham bit to be doubled first, but that is me being biased with it being much more local to me!

The NCLTF proposals are redoubling Wolvercot–Hanborough and Evesham–Pershore, so not full redoubling at either end. They're very much geared towards a twice-hourly service from Worcester to London, and a four-per-hour service from Oxford to Hanborough (!), with basically no improvements for Evesham, Charlbury, or Kingham. The political make-up of the NCLTF (as was) explains a lot of that, but I am continually perplexed by Worcestershire's lack of interest in improving the Evesham–Pershore–Worcester service, which strikes me as having massive potential.

 

[Techniquest]

The NCLTF proposals are redoubling Wolvercot–Hanborough and Evesham–Pershore, so not full redoubling at either end. They're very much geared towards a twice-hourly service from Worcester to London, and a four-per-hour service from Oxford to Hanborough (!), with basically no improvements for Evesham, Charlbury, or Kingham. The political make-up of the NCLTF (as was) explains a lot of that, but I am continually perplexed by Worcestershire's lack of interest in improving the Evesham–Pershore–Worcester service, which strikes me as having massive potential.

Evesham to Pershore is better than nothing, but I agree that it really would make a big difference in Worcestershire. That said, to really make a difference, one would need to sort out the single track bits on the Worcester triangle, make both platforms available for trains to/from the Shrub Hill direction at Foregate Street etc.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How much of the 57 (or so) route miles between Oxford and Worcester Shrub Hill is still single track?

 

[Watershed]

How much of the 57 (or so) route miles between Oxford and Worcester Shrub Hill is still single track?

20mi2ch of the 57mi1ch between Oxford and Worcester Shrub Hill remain single track - 35.1%.

 

[ABB125]

I think that Evesham to Pershore doubling would be fine, so long as Worcestershire Parkway gets its second high level platform (and Norton jn gets doubled). And whatever works best operationally at the Oxford end. If I had spare time I might have a go, but I don't.

I don't think any of the 5(?) options in the NCLTF report included a second platform at WOP. A cynic might suggest that this is because people might then think "why didn't they build it with two platforms in the first place?". I cannot comment...

 

[30907]

with basically no improvements for Evesham, Charlbury, or Kingham.

2tph all day sounds fairly reasonable to me -- I can remember 50 years ago when it was barely 1 per 2hr, though I believe commuting has increased a tad from Chipping Norton

The political make-up of the NCLTF (as was) explains a lot of that, but I am continually perplexed by Worcestershire's lack of interest in improving the Evesham–Pershore–Worcester service, which strikes me as having massive potential.

More than 2tph? Though I wonder if Evesham-Worcester-Birmingham would be worth exploring.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The NCLTF is proposing 2tph for Worcester and Moreton only, and 4tph for Hanborough. Everywhere else would stay at 1tph until Stratford-Honeybourne reopened. Yes, quite.

 

[cle]

What is the rationale for Hanborough - somewhere to get Oxford terminators out of the way?
Would these be the slows which are currently truncated at Didcot - once all wired up?

 

[ABB125]

What is the rationale for Hanborough - somewhere to get Oxford terminators out of the way?
Would these be the slows which are currently truncated at Didcot - once all wired up?

I believe you're correct on both counts

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The line through Hanborough station is currently still single-track, yes?

 

[Watershed]

The line through Hanborough station is currently still single-track, yes?

Yes.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

That’s the railway half of the rationale.

The ostensible local authority rationale is that masses of housing is being built three miles down the road (Salt Cross Garden Village and West Eynsham), plus a bunch in Witney a few miles away, and Hanborough is envisaged as the railhead.

It may also not be coincidental that the former Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council lives two miles from Hanborough, as does the local (also Conservative) MP who happens to be a transport minister; and that the OCC representative on the NCLTF was the councillor for Hanborough. Since the NCLTF issued their report, the Conservatives have lost control of the council, and the new NCLTF representative (and leader of the council) is the LibDem councillor for Charlbury…

 

[cle]

I believe you're correct on both counts

It's interesting that the recent NR EWR report recommends those services running onwards somewhere. And all things Cowley seem to murmur about the Marylebones too. So it's a real theme - makes me think that even with a third through, it won't be enough and doesn't allow much growth.

The Oxford-Didcot/Reading shuttles were another contender to EWR. But EWR will be more frequent that these other services, in due course - hence the Chiltern bays and Cowley. I'd think sending all Chiltern services there might be a bit random, and perhaps another service might be useful too (1tph to MKC, or Banbury, or Worcester - horrible crossing I know) - but thinking of the employee hinterland of the Science/Biz parks.

 

[JamesT]

It's interesting that the recent NR EWR report recommends those services running onwards somewhere. And all things Cowley seem to murmur about the Marylebones too. So it's a real theme - makes me think that even with a third through, it won't be enough and doesn't allow much growth.

The Oxford-Didcot/Reading shuttles were another contender to EWR. But EWR will be more frequent that these other services, in due course - hence the Chiltern bays and Cowley. I'd think sending all Chiltern services there might be a bit random, and perhaps another service might be useful too (1tph to MKC, or Banbury, or Worcester - horrible crossing I know) - but thinking of the employee hinterland of the Science/Biz parks.

Adding a third through platform is only step one in the Oxford 'Masterplan'. The intention in time is that one of the current North-facing bays would be extended into a through platform which would give two through islands (plus a North-facing bay).
That should be able to cope much better with the increasing demands for services running through Oxford, especially if there are other places to terminate the services so they're not tying up platforms for ages like they do no.
I expect the constraint would then become the junctions North and South of Oxford which are currently all flat.

 

[Xavi]

The 5-car 802s operating some Cardiff - Penzance diagrams has now been confirmed by Hopwood. Didcots also reduced to 8 cars, and when the Elizabeth line is fully operational there will be further changes.