The EWR company will exist as long as there is lots of money to be made from new houses between Bedford and Cambridge. The questions are, how many trains will various companies under Great British Rail run through Bicester Town in, say, 2035, will it really be more than (for example) Portslade now, and could they run them, accurately, to a timetable such that they crossed at London Road, this optimising sharing the planet with the car-dependent?
Indeed so. Maybe we need a new speculative thread about resolving car/train competition at Bicester London Road. Meanwhile, I think the only new train services we'll get till 2035 (at the earliest) are the 2 ph Oxford<>Milton Keynes, and the only construction still required is opening up the footbridge to Bletchley High Level.
I genuinely dont see the need for one at Islip. Its too close to Bicester. There are some big assumptions that a load of paths through Northampton to Denbigh Hall will be there as well.
Chances of them being used in that manner is slim, you can do that at Fenny Compton, Dorridge etc but its once in a blue moon.
I think it makes it easier to thread through Oxford - somewhere to hold a freight and let terminating services overtake and use their dedicated path to platform 1/2. The southbound at Oxford can get pretty congested as they thread fast XC / GWRs through not just 2-track to Didcot but also thinking ahead for east of Didcot. Today they sometimes hold back southbound containers from Banbury direction just north of Oxford North Junction. As it currently stands, they don't have any way to do that for things coming off Bicester route.
They have the loop at Bicester MOD, it seems very odd to need a loop within 6 miles.
It's hardly Nimbyism to be concerned about a crucial road you use being chopped in two. This isn't a quiet country lane, it's a an important route through the town and the ONLY road crossing of the railway inside the bypass. London Road is the former route of the A41.
Commercial traffic is unlikely to use Church Street and Market Square. It'll access the centre via St John's Street or Launton Road.
Is all construction activity at Winslow station complete then? I thought some finishing off was still ongoing - but that was a little while ago.
It was still a relatively quiet market town in 1991, with ample independent shops along Sheep Street being a key source of our day-to-day needs. "Park up, pop in and purchase".
Presume that will change once the route opens though?
The loops at Bicester and at Claydon also provide access to the MoD facility and future HS2 maintenance depot respectively. A train can arrive from either direction and then depart back to where it arrived from. Or if necessary you could arrive in Claydon loop from Bicester, run round and head towards Aylesbury or Greatmoor EfW (when the connection is restored that is).
I had always taken the bi-di capability to be linked to its future role as an access to the HS2 maintenance Base (e.g. a train from Crewe via Bletchley), and the capability to loop a westbound train is simply a bonus. Officially isn't it 1 loop and 1 siding?
As someone who walked the permanent way round the curve from the London Road crossing to the bridge under Chiltern's main line, back in 1992, the fact you traversed it at 90mph is utterly astounding.
That would have been Bicester North that you went through not village. The level crossing and signals right outside the station prevent anything from passing through Village at a high speed.
Phew - there was me thinking it was a truly brave driver, or a heck of an upgrade to the old LNWR line...
Should still be a long time between it opening and the level crossing being closed though!
I'm pretty sure @12LDA28C knows what he's talking about and did indeed mean Village!
Agreed
Thanks. The reconstruction has impressed me greatly. I'm rather envious that you had the line to enjoy - all I could do, was marvel from the lineside.
Post #2088 incorrectly stated that: ".... The level crossing and signals right outside the station prevent anything from passing through Village at a high speed."
Keep the existing route for buses, taxis, cycles, pedestrians etc. But ban cars, lorries and vans from using it. Much like a bus lane would be my suggestion.
What would that achieve though? If you're keeping the crossing open, you may as well keep it open for all users. I'm guessing the risk profile probably doesn't change that much by removing a subset of the traffic (though I'm not sure about that, maybe it does...?)
You would at least stop queues building up either side, and taxi/bus drivers are (hopefully!) less likely to run the risk of going through the barriers
I think they're very good at knowing what rules they can get away with breaking, and seem to know where all the speed cameras are. I'd hope that they would know they can't get away with jumping the lights at a level crossing, particularly if they put up a camera there to catch people doing it!
