OxRail 2040 - plan from Oxfordshire County Council

[PTR 444]

Didcot will likely overtake Swindon eventually, in usage - and it is a far smaller settlement. Swindon actually has a really high population for its rail usage, it's something of a Northampton - a massively overgrown, but fairly nothing place.

That’s rather surprising. My guess is that Swindon is quite spread out with low density sprawl and many of its residents work and shop locally rather than heading further out. It’s not really a tourist draw either like Bristol, Bath and Oxford are. The arrival of new stations on the east and west sides of Swindon might change local usage figures though.

 

[irish_rail]

So how many schedules off RTT etc do I easily find to show it does? Juat becauae you drive the route doesn't mean its correct. If it didnt work it would be changed. What you are implying is that GWRs own train planners and performance people, alongside all the data are wrong.

Just because some drivers may be ignoring the professional driving policy doesn't make it right. Trains should be timed taking it into account, frankly I think it's ludicrous that the management of drivers obviously isn't considered when timing trains! And for the record, I am one of the "harder" drivers out there, yet I'd struggle to provide a smooth , safe station stop from 125mph in under 2 minutes. The way many drive, you are looking at double that. I think it's time planners and driver managers began talking to one another.

 

[Magdalia]

Swindon actually has a really high population for its rail usage,

No, Swindon has a low rail usage for its population.

The reason for that is simple. The place that the people of Swindon (population 184k) would most like to travel to, other than London, is Oxford (population 171k). But they don't have any direct trains.

The one way flow Swindon-Bath (population 94k) is 149k.

The one way flow Oxford-Banbury (population 52k) is 230k.

If there was a direct Swindon-Oxford service then I would expect the flow to be similar size to Swindon-Bath, if not bigger.

 

[The Planner]

Just because some drivers may be ignoring the professional driving policy doesn't make it right. Trains should be timed taking it into account, frankly I think it's ludicrous that the management of drivers obviously isn't considered when timing trains! And for the record, I am one of the "harder" drivers out there, yet I'd struggle to provide a smooth , safe station stop from 125mph in under 2 minutes. The way many drive, you are looking at double that. I think it's time planners and driver managers began talking to one another.

So you are genuinely saying 8 minutes a stop? What schedules have you driven recently so we can take a look?

 

[stevieinselby]

So you are genuinely saying 8 minutes a stop? What schedules have you driven recently so we can take a look?

You wouldn't need to add 8 minutes for a stop, even if it takes you 4 minutes to brake from linespeed and another 4 minutes to accelerate back up to linespeed – you then need to subtract the time that it would take a train travelling at linespeed to cover the same distance to get the time penalty for a station stop.

 

[The Planner]

You wouldn't need to add 8 minutes for a stop, even if it takes you 4 minutes to brake from linespeed and another 4 minutes to accelerate back up to linespeed – you then need to subtract the time that it would take a train travelling at linespeed to cover the same distance to get the time penalty for a station stop.

That isn't what is being said. The poster in the past has said OOC will add a similar amount of time into a schedule. The point is that a station stop on a 125mph line does not cause that amount of penalty. My example of a Didcot stop is worked from exactly what you are saying, the time taken from Wantage Road to Goring, both mandatory timing points.

 

[fishwomp]

No, Swindon has a low rail usage for its population.

The reason for that is simple. The place that the people of Swindon (population 184k) would most like to travel to, other than London, is Oxford (population 171k). But they don't have any direct trains.

The one way flow Swindon-Bath (population 94k) is 149k.

The one way flow Oxford-Banbury (population 52k) is 230k.

If there was a direct Swindon-Oxford service then I would expect the flow to be similar size to Swindon-Bath, if not bigger.

There's also a bizarre price for Swindon-Oxford tickets:

	Distance (shortest/ish road, miles)	Distance (rail, miles)	Peak day return	Off-peak day return
Oxford - Banbury	24	23	16.40	8.70
Swindon - Bath	38	34	23.20	15.30
Oxford - Reading	27	27	24.50	12.60
Oxford - Swindon	31	30	63.20	15.60

I can't imagine anyone would pay to commute peak time at that price.. nor it is more expensive than a London bound ticket.

weirder still: the anytime return Swindon-Didcot is £65.20 (24 miles) - yes, £2 more than Swindon-Oxford

 

[irish_rail]

You wouldn't need to add 8 minutes for a stop, even if it takes you 4 minutes to brake from linespeed and another 4 minutes to accelerate back up to linespeed – you then need to subtract the time that it would take a train travelling at linespeed to cover the same distance to get the time penalty for a station stop.

Correct. It wouldn't be 8 minutes, as that is a relatively extreme example of some of the slowest drivers, however 6 maybe 6 and a half minutes would be more credible in my opinion. Though I'm sure those of us on the ground who are actually doing it don't have a clue compared with those sat in offices making calculations......

 

[The Planner]

Correct. It wouldn't be 8 minutes, as that is a relatively extreme example of some of the slowest drivers, however 6 maybe 6 and a half minutes would be more credible in my opinion. Though I'm sure those of us on the ground who are actually doing it don't have a clue compared with those sat in offices making calculations......

Becuase no one ever goes out on the trains from GWR or NR and times them either....

Again, let us know which trains you have driven recently so we can see where the time losses are occuring?

 

[MarkyT]

There's also a bizarre price for Swindon-Oxford tickets:

	Distance (shortest/ish road, miles)	Distance (rail, miles)	Peak day return	Off-peak day return
Oxford - Swindon	31	30	63.20	15.60

That's absurd. The 7-day season is only £106.90! Is the open one of those daft fares that exist in the database but actually have not been sold since BR days because cheaper tickets have no time restrictions as they're not routed Reading or London?

 

[cle]

No, Swindon has a low rail usage for its population.

The reason for that is simple. The place that the people of Swindon (population 184k) would most like to travel to, other than London, is Oxford (population 171k). But they don't have any direct trains.

The one way flow Swindon-Bath (population 94k) is 149k.

The one way flow Oxford-Banbury (population 52k) is 230k.

If there was a direct Swindon-Oxford service then I would expect the flow to be similar size to Swindon-Bath, if not bigger.

Hmmm... i think this is splitting hairs. You could say the same about Northampton (only mainline radial/London services) - but I think the lack of an inbound interest or appeal is more of a factor.

Bath has far more demand than Banbury, and population has little to do with it.

I'd be keen to see if a regular hourly to Oxford would materially impact Swindon's numbers - it's still a doable journey today. And we may have some limited data from the trail Saturday services. Swindon also doesn't have directs to Newbury, Slough, Birmingham or Bicester - all of which might be flagged as missing links responsible for low usage. This is a Bradford situation. Big, non-descript place, not much going on.

 

[Magdalia]

I think the lack of an inbound interest or appeal is more of a factor.

One thing we can't tell from any station pair data is which is most important as an origin and which is most important as a destination. But we can make some educated guesses.

Bath has far more demand than Banbury

The key point is that Oxford is a bigger attraction as a potential destination for Swindon than Bath, and Swindon is a bigger potential source of traffic for Oxford than Banbury.

population has little to do with it.

Population has a lot to do with it, it is people who get on trains.

Swindon also doesn't have directs to Newbury, Slough, Birmingham or Bicester

Newbury (population 42k) is less than a quarter the size of Oxford
Slough (population 167k) is about the same size as Oxford but is more than twice as far away.
Bicester (population 38k) is less than a quarter the size of Oxford, and is also further away

None of them have one of the top 10 universities in the world.

Demand for rail travel between Swindon and any of these is a drop in the bucket compared to Oxford.

Swindon-Birmingham is a slightly different matter but isn't going to compare with Oxford because of the far greater distance. There are very few really big station to station flows over distances of more than 50-60 miles. For example, Birmingham flows from Bristol, Leeds and Oxford are all about 60k, Swindon-Birmingham, even with direct trains, isn't going to be as big as that.

You could say the same about Northampton (only mainline radial/London services)

The two near big settlements to Northampton are Milton Keynes and Coventry, it has direct trains to both.

And people in Northampton do say the same about a rail link to Leicester.

 

[fishwomp]

That's absurd. The 7-day season is only £106.90! Is the open one of those daft fares that exist in the database but actually have not been sold since BR days because cheaper tickets have no time restrictions as they're not routed Reading or London?

Route not London (ie. via Reading) is £99 - although that's a 1-month return. The £63 via Didcot is day return..

 

[cle]

Newbury (population 42k) is less than a quarter the size of Oxford
Slough (population 167k) is about the same size as Oxford but is more than twice as far away.
Bicester (population 38k) is less than a quarter the size of Oxford, and is also further away

None of them have one of the top 10 universities in the world.

I was naming a few other unserved, but potentially useful destinations. My main point being that an argument, post-Oxford, could still be made that Swindon is untapped due to the other unserved places in its orbit. I think it is untrue and a direct link to Oxford would see far more users from Bath and Bristol, than from Swindon, but time will tell and I am happy to be wrong!

Population has a lot to do with it, it is people who get on trains.

Hmmm, it's one variable but not the main one. Railheads, connections, demographics, the hinterland (job campuses) - plus nearby attractions play more of a part than stark population. Bicester and Didcot are far smaller than Swindon (both growing rapidly though) and very close in usage. For different reasons.

Places like Durham and Wakefield have far more usage than Sunderland or Bradford - which have much larger in number, but depressed populations. Swindon is along those lines, with the mercy of a mainline! But it's not just the mainline, it's also the economy.

For somewhere like Oxford, population plays a much smaller role in rail usage. Several reasons:
- Tons of inbound demand due to having healthy jobs/economy, likely net 'recipient'
- For the same reason, locals can work well in Oxford - less bleed to other places or to London
- Huge tourism
- Business travel, conferences, other events.

I would wager these have much more of an impact than the population. I would add that if Oxford had better links to its hinterland and main 'supporting' towns - think Abingdon, Wantage, Thame, Witney etc - it would be far higher. Also, it is very old (bad for driving and parking)/

Adding to that, the Oxford Tube has historically taken a ton of London rail market share too.

 

[67018]

Also, it is very old (bad for driving and parking)/

As an aside, not only does Oxford's age make it bad for driving and parking, but it has a very pro-public transport council which is actively trying to achieve shifts away from driving. Including being about to introduce a congestion charge as a temporary measure until they can implement their bus gate scheme to further tilt the balance away from the car. This has caused a great deal of noisy complaint locally but they seem determined to see it through. You'd have thought that level of commitment would be a helpful factor in suppoting rail usage.

 

[Magdalia]

My main point being that an argument, post-Oxford, could still be made that Swindon is untapped due to the other unserved places in its orbit. I think it is untrue and a direct link to Oxford would see far more users from Bath and Bristol, than from Swindon, but time will tell and I am happy to be wrong!

I would also expect significant use of direct trains to Oxford from Bath and Bristol. If that came out higher than Swindon I'd be happy to be proved wrong too.

Hmmm, it's one variable but not the main one. Railheads, connections, demographics, the hinterland (job campuses) - plus nearby attractions play more of a part than stark population.

In many cases all of these are closely correlated with population.

For somewhere like Oxford, population plays a much smaller role in rail usage. Several reasons:
- Tons of inbound demand due to having healthy jobs/economy, likely net 'recipient'
- For the same reason, locals can work well in Oxford - less bleed to other places or to London
- Huge tourism
- Business travel, conferences, other events.

There are some relatively small places that "punch above their weight" of population. Here in the Fens we don't need to be told that because we see it in Cambridge.

I would add that if Oxford had better links to its hinterland and main 'supporting' towns - think Abingdon, Wantage, Thame, Witney etc - it would be far higher.

I agree, though Cambridge has poor rail links from all of the surrounding towns apart from Ely, Royston and Newmarket, and has rail usage about 50% higher than Oxford. Cambridge's equivalents of the places you list are St Neots, Huntingdon, St Ives, Haverhill and Saffron Walden.

 

[cle]

Both struggle from the rail network being regional (eg local calls are sporadic on a London service or so) - vs a dedicated local/urban services like out of Brighton for example. Or Exeter, Norwich or some other regional hubs.

Many reasons for that, but the parallels are interesting.

 

[AlastairFraser]

No mention for the Wallingford Branch either. I'm a volunteer there and we have been running more community services since the arrival of the 'Bubblecar' on loan a year ago with a reasonable degree of success. It might be a bit pie in the sky, but given that the Henley, Marlow and Windsor branches are all very useful and successful, could Wallingford ever run again? The station site isn't so much of an issue these days as the town comes out to meet the railway (it is only 10-15 minutes walk from the town centre anyway). Given it is only 2.5 miles long, a 25mph speed limit isn't actually that much of an issue, so it is concievable it could operate under the current LRO.

In fact Cholsey only gets mentioned twice in the report and nothing about improvements to improve accessibility - currently none of the platforms have step free access, and the underpass can best be described as tired.

Sadly Wallingford isn't really big enough to justify even a VLR shuttle sharing the heritage line from Cholsey.
If the original line went through to Watlington (and later the Chiltern Main Line at Princes Risborough) as planned, it may have survived on the national network with the sizeable military base with lots of housing in Benson and a potential through connection to Aylesbury (although this was never planned).
But, as it is, Wallingford isn't big enough to be a destination with enough passengers to justify a national network rail reopening.

One branch that would have potential as some sort of an Oxford heavy/light rail/ tram-train "Metro" network is the Abingdon branch. Abingdon has a population of nearly 40k now and the road-based connections are getting to the point to where congestion is going to be more than a serious issue in the near future (especially on the A34, which has much wider implications).

Radley station is useful for some of the town as a London/further afield connection, but it's too far away from the town to be useful for Abington to Oxford traffic and I suspect most of the town catches the bus/drives to Didcot for the wider variety of direct rail services available there.
So rail is the only real practical option for improving connections and it's only about 1.5 miles to a station around Crabtree Place on the old branch alignment.
You wouldn't really need parking with a frequent enough service and bus connections, and it could become a terminus of a cross-Oxford service from Banbury in a heavy rail Oxford metro scenario (in this scenario, Didcot-Oxford is electrified and the 387 operated Didcot Parkway stoppers are extended to Oxford as originally planned).

 

[daodao]

@AlastairFraser

Wallingford has a population of about 12,000 and could be re-connected to the national rail network relatively easily. If electrified, one of the 2tph from London currently terminating at Didcot could be diverted to serve it.

Re-opening the Abingdon branch would be more challenging, and historically the junction with the main line faced in the wrong direction away from London. There are no obvious rail services to be re-routed to serve it. Bus services are more than adequate for relatively short journeys from Abingdon to Oxford, and have the advantage over rail of serving the city centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2025 ==

I don't understand the desire to open a station at Grove to function as a Wantage Parkway. Surely Didcot is more than adequate for this purpose? The Swindon-Didcot section of the GW main line is best kept clear of intermediate stations to provide maximum capacity for express trains.

 

[JamesT]

I don't understand the desire to open a station at Grove to function as a Wantage Parkway. Surely Didcot is more than adequate for this purpose? The Swindon-Didcot section of the GW main line is best kept clear of intermediate stations to provide maximum capacity for express trains.

The roads in the area are frequently congested and the population is only growing. Trying to stuff more traffic down the single carriageway roads to Didcot station will only make it worse.
I also note that going past Grove the GWML is four tracks, which would be ideal to allow a local service without affecting the express trains.

 

[The Planner]

@AlastairFraser

Wallingford has a population of about 12,000 and could be re-connected to the national rail network relatively easily. If electrified, one of the 2tph from London currently terminating at Didcot could be diverted to serve it.

Re-opening the Abingdon branch would be more challenging, and historically the junction with the main line faced in the wrong direction away from London. There are no obvious rail services to be re-routed to serve it. Bus services are more than adequate for relatively short journeys from Abingdon to Oxford, and have the advantage over rail of serving the city centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2025 ==

I don't understand the desire to open a station at Grove to function as a Wantage Parkway. Surely Didcot is more than adequate for this purpose? The Swindon-Didcot section of the GW main line is best kept clear of intermediate stations to provide maximum capacity for express trains.

You wouldn't do that at all. Thats a waste of a Didcot path. You have a battery train shuttling from Wallingford into the back heritage platform at Cholsey.

 

[Magdalia]

I don't understand the desire to open a station at Grove to function as a Wantage Parkway.

The roads in the area are frequently congested and the population is only growing.

The 2021 census shows population for the Vale of the White Horse local authority was 139k, growing by 14.8% compared with 2011, yet it only has 2 stations, Radley and Appleford. On the face of it I think there looks like a good case for a Grove/Wantage Road station if a way can be found to serve it.

The Swindon-Didcot section of the GW main line is best kept clear of intermediate stations to provide maximum capacity for express trains.

I also note that going past Grove the GWML is four tracks, which would be ideal to allow a local service without affecting the express trains.

Stopping trains do eat into capacity, even if the platforms are not on the fast lines, unless there are 70mph turnouts a signal section away from the station.

I have been looking at the sectional appendix and sharpening my crayons for a rare appearance. I see that there is a two way relief line from Foxhall Junction to Steventon, plus the loops at Grove/Wantage Road already mentioned. If the two way relief line could be joined up with the Wantage Road loops, a distance of about 2 miles, then it would be possible to have an Oxford-Swindon-Bristol service, calling at Grove/Wantage Road, that was only on the fast lines west of the new station, reducing its impact on fast line capacity. Trains to/from Didcot on the relief lines could do the same.

I'm now expecting someone with local knowledge to explain why this is a bonkers idea that could never happen!

 

[fishwomp]

One branch that would have potential as some sort of an Oxford heavy/light rail/ tram-train "Metro" network is the Abingdon branch. [..]
Radley station is useful for some of the town as a London/further afield connection, but it's too far away from the town to be useful for Abington to Oxford traffic [etc]
So rail is the only real practical option for improving connections and it's only about 1.5 miles[..]

Largely agree, and the trackbed is mostly cycle path or unused. However, you end up with only the centre of Abingdon getting served - and Abingdon is a sprawling town, so you still end up with traffic.

Given the railway can't do anything for less than £100m these days, how many years of a 10-minute daytime frequency bus connection to Radley station doing two or three routes would that fund..? That would be pretty handy.Bus services are more than adequate for relatively short journeys from Abingdon to Oxford, and have the advantage over rail of serving the city centre.

Bus services are more than adequate for relatively short journeys from Abingdon to Oxford, and have the advantage over rail of serving the city centre.

Yes, it's a good bus service - but A34 and Abingdon Road traffic is horrific so peak hour is very unreliable from a journey time perspective.
.

 

[The Planner]

I have been looking at the sectional appendix and sharpening my crayons for a rare appearance. I see that there is a two way relief line from Foxhall Junction to Steventon, plus the loops at Grove/Wantage Road already mentioned. If the two way relief line could be joined up with the Wantage Road loops, a distance of about 2 miles, then it would be possible to have an Oxford-Swindon-Bristol service, calling at Grove/Wantage Road, that was only on the fast lines west of the new station, reducing its impact on fast line capacity. Trains to/from Didcot on the relief lines could do the same.

I'm now expecting someone with local knowledge to explain why this is a bonkers idea that could never happen!

Could save a platform doing it like that

 

[Topological]

Stopping trains do eat into capacity, even if the platforms are not on the fast lines, unless there are 70mph turnouts a signal section away from the station.

I have been looking at the sectional appendix and sharpening my crayons for a rare appearance. I see that there is a two way relief line from Foxhall Junction to Steventon, plus the loops at Grove/Wantage Road already mentioned. If the two way relief line could be joined up with the Wantage Road loops, a distance of about 2 miles, then it would be possible to have an Oxford-Swindon-Bristol service, calling at Grove/Wantage Road, that was only on the fast lines west of the new station, reducing its impact on fast line capacity. Trains to/from Didcot on the relief lines could do the same.

I'm now expecting someone with local knowledge to explain why this is a bonkers idea that could never happen!

To be fair the only road crossings on the two-track section are two level crossings. Whether you would be allowed to add tracks across a level crossing I do not know.

I had not realised that the suggested site in Grove is actually next door to Williams F1. That seems like an excellent science justification to tie into the theme in the OxRail plan.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Wallingford has a population of about 12,000 and could be re-connected to the national rail network relatively easily. If electrified, one of the 2tph from London currently terminating at Didcot could be diverted to serve it.

12,000 is nowhere near enough to justify reconnection to the National Rail network, especially as Wallingford has lots of local employment through the peripheral industrial estates and military base, so there's not a particularly strong commuter base either.

Once Didcot to Oxford is electrified, the 2tph from Didcot will be extended through to Oxford (as it used to be a London to Oxford service when operated by Thames Turbos, and traffic patterns make that arrangement much more sensible in terms of passenger flows).

Re-opening the Abingdon branch would be more challenging, and historically the junction with the main line faced in the wrong direction away from London. There are no obvious rail services to be re-routed to serve it. Bus services are more than adequate for relatively short journeys from Abingdon to Oxford, and have the advantage over rail of serving the city centre.

Most commuting from Abingdon is heading towards Oxford/Harwell, not London. The Abingdon branch's alignment is mainly intact, and you would only need a basic unmanned single platform station to deliver a decent frequency into Oxford.
The obvious service to reroute into Abingdon is the Banbury shuttle, but in the meantime before that is split again, East West Rail or London to Oxford Chiltern services are both options for extension.

Bus services do not attract enough people to adequately serve the 40-50k in the Abingdon area who often wish to travel into Oxford for work or leisure, because the congestion has reached saturation levels on the A34 and surrounding roads, with no reasonable prospect of extra road capacity being provided.

I don't understand the desire to open a station at Grove to function as a Wantage Parkway. Surely Didcot is more than adequate for this purpose? The Swindon-Didcot section of the GW main line is best kept clear of intermediate stations to provide maximum capacity for express trains.

There's a lot of demand for local travel to Oxford/Didcot and the large employment centres at Harwell/Milton Park.
This is not adequately served by local bus services and the roads (as another forum member has mentioned) are low quality and unlikely to be upgraded (due to their location bordering a protected National Landscape).

You wouldn't do that at all. Thats a waste of a Didcot path.

Precisely.

You have a battery train shuttling from Wallingford into the back heritage platform at Cholsey.

It's possible, but would it be feasible economically? It's a 25mph line with low projected traffic and a population of max. 20k within 5 miles.

I'm now expecting someone with local knowledge to explain why this is a bonkers idea that could never happen!

Extending the Grove and Wantage lines towards the western edge of Steventon shouldn't be an issue.
I don't think that you would be able to extend through through Steventon itself without lots of compulsory purchase and new bridges to replace the problematic High St bridge, and the level crossings. Housing is in close proximity both sides and Steventon is not known to be cheap!

Largely agree, and the trackbed is mostly cycle path or unused. However, you end up with only the centre of Abingdon getting served - and Abingdon is a sprawling town, so you still end up with traffic.

You do, Abingdon residents wanting London would probably still prefer Didcot Parkway, but with buses from the estates rerouted to pass Abingdon station, I reckon you could feed in a significant amount of passengers (especially when Didcot-Oxford is finally electrified and the London to Didcot stoppers run through Radley for regional connections up the Thames Valley, to add onto the huge Oxford flows that Abingdon would provide.)

Given the railway can't do anything for less than £100m these days, how many years of a 10-minute daytime frequency bus connection to Radley station doing two or three routes would that fund..? That would be pretty handy.Bus services are more than adequate for relatively short journeys from Abingdon to Oxford, and have the advantage over rail of serving the city centre.

Not as many as you would think - the road to Radley isn't particularly high quality, and a bus journey from somewhere like the south side of Abingdon (the Caldecott area) would be as much as 15 mins, with peak traffic (especially school traffic) making the final section east of Twelve Acre/Audlett Drive unreliable.

Buses were adequate when traffic levels were lower and this region's population was lower, but with the saturated local road network and inadequacy of the bus network to reach several key destinations outside of Oxford city centre (e.g John Radcliffe Hospital is over an hour away by bus, but around 30 mins by car), it's no longer adequate.

I had not realised that the suggested site in Grove is actually next door to Williams F1. That seems like an excellent science justification to tie into the theme in the OxRail plan.

Add the tourist potential with Uffington White Horse and scenic sections of the Ridgeway being nearby, you could run a shuttle bus serving visitors to that area from a Grove/Wantage Parkway station for additional passengers. It's much closer than Swindon is.

 

[fishwomp]

12,000 is nowhere near enough to justify reconnection to the National Rail network, especially as Wallingford has lots of local employment through the peripheral industrial estates and military base, so there's not a particularly strong commuter base either.

Tweedbank, population 2,000.
Galashiels, population ~15,000.

Galashiels to Tweedbank itself is 2.1 miles, same distance as Cholsey to Wallingford..

You could argue there's a catchment area for Tweedbank far larger than the village itself - but Galashiels would do the job just as well - so why the extra miles?

Leven and Methil is about 20,000 population between them, and got 5 miles of long abandoned track rebuilt.

But, Scotland. Different rules.

[on the topic of a shuttle bus to Radley for £100M] Not as many as you would think - the road to Radley isn't particularly high quality, and a bus journey from somewhere like the south side of Abingdon (the Caldecott area) would be as much as 15 mins, with peak traffic (especially school traffic) making the final section east of Twelve Acre/Audlett Drive unreliable.

The travel from Caldecott to the original station (~Waitrose) would be 9 of that 15 mins!!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Tweedbank, population 2,000.
Galashiels, population ~15,000.

Galashiels to Tweedbank itself is 2.1 miles, same distance as Cholsey to Wallingford..

You could argue there's a catchment area for Tweedbank far larger than the village itself - but Galashiels would do the job just as well - so why the extra miles?

Parking. Galashiels station has no parking as I understand it, and the Borders Line serves a massive rural hinterland, which means that you will need parking as well as public transport connections to serve the area.
So Tweedbank was the most convenient location to build a big car park, because it is close to the junction of the A7 (for Selkirk/Hawick) and the A6091 (for Melrose + Newtown St Boswells/Kelso/Jedburgh via the A68).
You couldn't really build enough space cheaply in the middle of Galashiels, so it was easier to take it out a bit further and minimise journey times from the largest Borders towns not directly on the line itself.

 

[fishwomp]

Parking. Galashiels station has no parking as I understand it, and the Borders Line serves a massive rural hinterland, which means that you will need parking as well as public transport connections to serve the area.
So Tweedbank was the most convenient location to build a big car park, because it is close to the junction of the A7 (for Selkirk/Hawick) and the A6091 (for Melrose + Newtown St Boswells/Kelso/Jedburgh via the A68).
You couldn't really build enough space cheaply in the middle of Galashiels, so it was easier to take it out a bit further and minimise journey times from the largest Borders towns not directly on the line itself.

Thanks - I did not know the reason.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Leven and Methil is about 20,000 population between them, and got 5 miles of long abandoned track rebuilt.

But, Scotland. Different rules.

Yes, Scotland does have different rules and usually for the better, but there are a couple of differences between the Leven and Wallingford business case here.
Firstly, the Levenmouth area is quite deprived, and part of the investment was to help ensure access to well paid jobs in Edinburgh and other parts of Fife.

Wallingford and most of the rest of South Oxon has no significant concentrated area of deprivation.
The only part of South Oxon with a significant area of deprivation is Didcot, which already has a great rail connection and lots of great jobs nearby.
To relieve the poverty issues in parts of Didcot, you'd need to focus on access to those jobs in terms of education to upskill the poorest for work in the local prosperous science and technology sector, and opportunities offered by local companies for apprenticeships to give people a helping hand into the sector.

Secondly, there was no active and well-used heritage railway attraction on the Levenmouth line, while there is in Wallingford. It's not really viable for the heritage railway to share the line, unless you only operated the mainline railway service Monday to Friday, and the heritage railway operated on the weekend, but then you'd lose a lot of leisure traffic on the weekend, which would undermine the already thin business case.

The travel from Caldecott to the original station (~Waitrose) would be 9 of that 15 mins!!

With a 10 min journey time into Oxford station, and more capacity from Abingdon itself
than sharing existing services from Radley.

Thanks - I did not know the reason.

I'm pretty sure that's why.