Making Oxford & Reading more accessible from the North

[Philip]

Would a new service, possibly run by a new open access operator and connecting Manchester & the North West with Oxford & Reading without going via Birmingham, be a good idea?

Currently passengers making these journeys face a slow and rather inconvenient route through Birmingham; it's unrealistic to expect Cross Country to avoid Birmingham, so in conjunction with a new east to south chord being built at Coventry, could an OAO provide a useful and profitable service by operating say 5 trains per day each way, conveying coaches from Manchester & Liverpool, joining at Crewe? The service would then run non-stop to Nuneaton, then call at Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford & Reading. How much time would this save, compared with the current service via Birmingham?

 

[SynthD]

Crosscountry may reintroduce the missing half of their timetable in this area. Chiltern wish to add a Moor St to Oxford service. EWR also add to the future congestion north of Oxford.

Currently, half of the northbound trains go to Manchester. I don’t see how cutting a few minutes to a minority destination/interchange at the cost of avoiding Birmingham is good. Do the websites with journey starts and ends show a demand for this? Are Manchester customers affected any other way, like overcrowding?

 

[Topological]

There could be a market for trains using EWR, but they need to thread into already congested North-South routes in the WCML or MML. Therefore, there seems to be little real prospect of an additional through service.

I do not know how the timings via the WCML then EWR would stack up against via Birmingham (even if there were slots), but a train that did not serve Birmingham is likely to be quite empty.

 

[cle]

I do not know how the timings via the WCML then EWR would stack up against via Birmingham (even if there were slots), but a train that did not serve Birmingham is likely to be quite empty.

I agree re the likes of Nuneaton and Banbury vs Birmingham - but a Reading-Oxford-MKC-Stoke-Manchester routing might still be busy, and a good addition.

As for Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield, unclear but much smaller markets from Reading and Oxford. Still could be interesting as uncharted potential. Leicester/Derby/Sheffield is three sized decent markets in a line, maybe that is one for via Coventry and Nuneaton. But Brum is still bigger for those, and probably more so than Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Would a new service, possibly run by a new open access operator and connecting Manchester & the North West with Oxford & Reading without going via Birmingham, be a good idea?

Currently passengers making these journeys face a slow and rather inconvenient route through Birmingham; it's unrealistic to expect Cross Country to avoid Birmingham, so in conjunction with a new east to south chord being built at Coventry, could an OAO provide a useful and profitable service by operating say 5 trains per day each way, conveying coaches from Manchester & Liverpool, joining at Crewe? The service would then run non-stop to Nuneaton, then call at Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford & Reading. How much time would this save, compared with the current service via Birmingham?

What is the East to South chord for at Coventry? Getting across the job at Nuneaton is a test at the best of times.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let‘s put to one side that there are no spare paths out of Piccadilly to the south, nor space at Crewe for a split / join, and that deliberately avoiding the second largest conurbation in the country is not a recipe for economic success for an Open Access Operator….

A routeing Manchester - Stoke (or Crewe) - Nuneaton - Cov is still going to take 1h30 at best to get to Cov, more if it has a joining move at Crewe. That compares to 2h on the existing service.

A routeing from Nuneaton to MK would have to go via Northampton (the line via Weedon being full) which puts it at 2h to MK, over 2h30 to Oxford, barely quicker than the current service.


Bit as others have said, there aren’t the paths to do this, and certainly not the economics.

 

[Topological]

Let‘s put to one side that there are no spare paths out of Piccadilly to the south, nor space at Crewe for a split / join, and that deliberately avoiding the second largest conurbation in the country is not a recipe for economic success for an Open Access Operator….

A routeing Manchester - Stoke (or Crewe) - Nuneaton - Cov is still going to take 1h30 at best to get to Cov, more if it has a joining move at Crewe. That compares to 2h on the existing service.

A routeing from Nuneaton to MK would have to go via Northampton (the line via Weedon being full) which puts it at 2h to MK, over 2h30 to Oxford, barely quicker than the current service.


Bit as others have said, there aren’t the paths to do this, and certainly not the economics.

The via Northampton might need whispering as there are many who believe Northampton has insufficient connections to other major cities and such a routing would address that lack of connectivity.

The best way to add capacity from Oxford North remains longer trains on the CrossCountry routes.

 

[30907]

As for Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield, unclear but much smaller markets from Reading and Oxford. Still could be interesting as uncharted potential. Leicester/Derby/Sheffield is three sized decent markets in a line,

....Two of which had an hourly service from Reading/Oxford pre Covid, and will regain it before too long.

 

[Nottingham59]

All the premium business passengers from Reading to Manchester and the North West will go via Old Oak Common and HS2. There won't be enough revenue from Oxford and leisure customers from Reading to support Open Access services.

 

[A S Leib]

All the premium business passengers from Reading to Manchester and the North West will go via Old Oak Common and HS2. There won't be enough revenue from Oxford and leisure customers from Reading to support Open Access services.

A time-rich, budget-poor traveller can get walk-up tickets from Reading to Manchester via Waterloo and Atherstone for £90 return without a railcard (and even the not via London off-peak return's £104). Given that Grand Central's London to York off-peak returns are £126, I think any open-access operator would struggle to undercut that. That's without factoring in coaches.

Slightly off-topic, but would there be enough demand to bring back the bihourly CrossCountry Southampton extensions on York / Newcastle services, or is SWR traffic low enough compared to pre-Covid that getting passengers to change at Basingstoke and Reading (or getting the Manchester CrossCountry service and changing) would be seen as enough?

 

[coppercapped]

All the premium business passengers from Reading to Manchester and the North West will go via Old Oak Common and HS2.

But not for many years — and anyway in the first instance HS2 will only go to Curzon Street.

I cannot see this dog's leg routing being attractive until the now abandoned northern extension of HS2 to Manchester has been built. And that will be, when?

Oxford passengers will certainly not double back via OOC to use HS2, it adds three quarters of an hour to the journey.

There won't be enough revenue from Oxford and leisure customers from Reading to support Open Access services.

I agree with you. Even more so if the Open Access operator does not serve Birmingham.

 

[A S Leib]

Oxford passengers will certainly not double back via OOC to use HS2, it adds three quarters of an hour to the journey.

Oxford – Manchester's 2:50 directly; via OOC, assuming a 15 minute change / wait, it would have been under the two hour mark with phase 2. Even phase 1 should make Oxford – OOC – Manchester ~2:25. That would probably be even more so the case if HS2 services to Liverpool and Scotland run, given the additional time of waiting at Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Crewe etc.

Oxford – Manchester changing between stations in Birmingham would be ~1:45 on trains with phase 2, but I suspect it would be slightly longer than via Old Oak Common if following whatever the official connection times are.

 

[Harpo]

I suspect that the last thing the GWML needs is a massive surge in Reading to OOC demand to access HS2. Time to get Reading to Birmingham direct fit for purpose.

As for by-passing Brum, some observation of the re-occupation rates of XC seats, floors, bogs, gangways etc. at New St suggest the through-flows ain't huge.

 

[Mgameing123]

All the premium business passengers from Reading to Manchester and the North West will go via Old Oak Common and HS2. There won't be enough revenue from Oxford and leisure customers from Reading to support Open Access services.

Doubt it when they can’t even decide if they want to build Birmingham to Crewe or not.

 

[A S Leib]

As for by-passing Brum, some observation of the re-occupation rates of XC seats, floors, bogs, gangways etc. at New St suggest the through-flows ain't huge.

Coventry – Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke and Manchester's below 400 passengers per day (around half of that to Wolverhampton), below 100 from Leamington Spa and not much higher from Oxford or Reading (but with more demand for Oxford to Liverpool and Edinburgh than from Leamington Spa). Birmingham International – Wolverhampton, Stoke, Stafford, Stockport and Manchester's the same but slightly higher than Coventry (~400 passengers per day combined with the majority of that to Wolverhampton, and with COV / BHI – WVH having Avanti / TfW and more frequent services from Birmingham as well).

 

[The Planner]

But not for many years — and anyway in the first instance HS2 will only go to Curzon Street.

I cannot see this dog's leg routing being attractive until the now abandoned northern extension of HS2 to Manchester has been built. And that will be, when?

By the time any OAO gets going Handsacre will be open.

Doubt it when they can’t even decide if they want to build Birmingham to Crewe or not.

Handsacre says hello.

 

[Philip]

On a subject of the infrastructure along the route, how long was Harbury Tunnel meant to be, before they decided to dig a cutting?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2024 ==

What is the East to South chord for at Coventry? Getting across the job at Nuneaton is a test at the best of times.

My mistake, I thought the line from Nuneaton joined to the east of Coventry Station & the junction, but having checked the map I can see that it joins to the west.
The proposal in this thread, however, could strengthen the justification for doubling the Coventry to Leamington line, as well as the building of a flyover at Nuneaton, so that trains heading towards Coventry don't have to cross the conflict with all the lines through Nuneaton.

 

[The Planner]

My mistake, I thought the line from Nuneaton joined to the east of Coventry Station & the junction, but having checked the map I can see that it joins to the west.
The proposal in this thread, however, could strengthen the justification for doubling the Coventry to Leamington line, as well as the building of a flyover at Nuneaton, so that trains heading towards Coventry don't have to cross the conflict with all the lines through Nuneaton.

How are you fitting a flyover in at Nuneaton when you have the XC one north of the station, irrespective of the fact you would never build one for a service like this?

 

[43096]

How are you fitting a flyover in at Nuneaton when you have the XC one north of the station, irrespective of the fact you would never build one for a service like this?

Build it out of crayons!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

On a subject of the infrastructure along the route, how long was Harbury Tunnel meant to be, before they decided to dig a cutting?

Possibly 1130 metres (56 chains). Can anyone confirm?

 

[Topological]

How are you fitting a flyover in at Nuneaton when you have the XC one north of the station, irrespective of the fact you would never build one for a service like this?

I thought there had been a discussion about a chord connecting the Coventry line to the Leicester line at Nuneaton, but that the chord would pass under the WCML and avoid Nuneaton station. I cannot remember whether there had been any work done to plan, or whether it was just crayonista stuff. Connecting Coventry and Leicester again made sense, but I tended to agree with the consensus that a Nuneaton avoiding chord would not be a good way to create a connection.

 

[The Planner]

I thought there had been a discussion about a chord connecting the Coventry line to the Leicester line at Nuneaton, but that the chord would pass under the WCML and avoid Nuneaton station. I cannot remember whether there had been any work done to plan, or whether it was just crayonista stuff. Connecting Coventry and Leicester again made sense, but I tended to agree with the consensus that a Nuneaton avoiding chord would not be a good way to create a connection.

That is still there as an aspiration.

 

[cle]

What impact would raising Oxford and Banbury to Leamington and along to Coventry from 90/100 to 125mph throughout? And wired/doubled.

Not so grandiose but would help a lot of things including more local/Kenilworth service and freight. Also a path or two through Solihull (maybe for our elusive Oxford-Moor St service!) - But a few mins trimmed off a Manchester service, per the topic also.

 

[The Planner]

What impact would raising Oxford and Banbury to Leamington and along to Coventry from 90/100 to 125mph throughout? And wired/doubled.

Not so grandiose but would help a lot of things including more local/Kenilworth service and freight. Also a path or two through Solihull (maybe for our elusive Oxford-Moor St service!) - But a few mins trimmed off a Manchester service, per the topic also.

23 miles Oxford to Banbury would get you 2 minutes tops. 20 miles Banbury to Leamington, 1½/2 at best. Then you will come to a clattering halt along the Cov corridor northbound, or have to wait at New St to match a path and likely at Oxford southbound. You would probably hit a freight somewhere between Coventry and Banbury North as you can't recess one southbound, especially so if you redouble Coventry Leamington, and likely between Oxford Banbury and Leamington Coventry as you catch them up quicker. It would need a pretty big recast to see the benefits, which only HS2 can likely deliver.

 

[cle]

So Oxford-Coventry might be 6-7 tops? Reasonable but not mode-shifting. Maybe a EWR routing and faster pattern would be better, to Manchester. Switch the current Reading-Manchester to Liverpool or Preston.

 

[The Planner]

So Oxford-Coventry might be 6-7 tops? Reasonable but not mode-shifting. Maybe a EWR routing and faster pattern would be better, to Manchester. Switch the current Reading-Manchester to Liverpool or Preston.

No way are you getting two minutes out of Leamington Coventry.

 

[Topological]

So Oxford-Coventry might be 6-7 tops? Reasonable but not mode-shifting. Maybe a EWR routing and faster pattern would be better, to Manchester. Switch the current Reading-Manchester to Liverpool or Preston.

The problem with that switch would be reducing West Midlands to Manchester.

I could see a market for Bicester Village from the north. Milton Keynes will provide connections for that one though.

A big issue with all of this is stock. Any stock would be better served lengthening the existing CrossCountry and restoring missing Reading to Newcastle trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought there had been a discussion about a chord connecting the Coventry line to the Leicester line at Nuneaton, but that the chord would pass under the WCML and avoid Nuneaton station. I cannot remember whether there had been any work done to plan, or whether it was just crayonista stuff.

Professional crayoning, most recently.

There was a study into a diveunder there under WCRM 25 years ago, and it was frankly a horrible bit of engineering, maximum gradients, tight curves, low speed limits, difficult to maintain, the lot.

Can’t see it happening.

 

[cle]

The problem with that switch would be reducing West Midlands to Manchester.

I could see a market for Bicester Village from the north. Milton Keynes will provide connections for that one though.

A big issue with all of this is stock. Any stock would be better served lengthening the existing CrossCountry and restoring missing Reading to Newcastle trains.

I agree that XC services should be longer and reinstated first. I think these ideas are predicated on what might happen beyond the logical, shorter term fixes.

If a Reading service was sent to Liverpool, due to a EWR->Manchester addition, one of the 2tph Brum-Liverpools could redirect to Manchester instead. Manchester will have Curzon St services too no doubt, either via Crewe or possibly an extension of the Stoke stopper (I'd rather this but a faster pattern and another stopper created somehow - even if just to Stockport)

 

[Bevan Price]

I agree re the likes of Nuneaton and Banbury vs Birmingham - but a Reading-Oxford-MKC-Stoke-Manchester routing might still be busy, and a good addition.

As for Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield, unclear but much smaller markets from Reading and Oxford. Still could be interesting as uncharted potential. Leicester/Derby/Sheffield is three sized decent markets in a line, maybe that is one for via Coventry and Nuneaton. But Brum is still bigger for those, and probably more so than Manchester.

There used to be such a route for Sheffield, Nottingham & Leicester to Oxford & Reading -- The Great Central London Extension to Woodford Halse, and the connection thence to Banbury. As we all know, that was a financial failure - not enough users. I doubt if current potential demand is enough to justify regular interval through services.