OxRail 2040 - plan from Oxfordshire County Council

[Merle Haggard]

Geography might be a challenge with that one - there isn't a lot of undeveloped land near the railway around Banbury that isn't the Cherwell flood plain. It's not unusual to be travelling on an embankment across a large lake between Kings Sutton and Banbury after a wet winter. And I think it's already been mentioned that the big strategic benefit of Ardley is being on the existing road route from Southampton docks to the M1 as well as the M40.

My bold.

I'm puzzled by the logic on this.

Is it the suggestion that rail would be used from Southampton Docks to Ardley, then road onwards? If so, Ardley being on the route to the M1 is hardly an advantage. The route towards the M1 from Ardley is , after a shoert stretch of the B430 (20 mph through the village) then A43 and the point that route joins the M1 is very near to Northampton Gateway rail freight terminal. Daventry International rail freight Terminal is a few miles north along the M1.

Edited - half a sentence disappeared when posted.

 

[67018]

My bold.

I'm puzzled by the logic on this.

Is it the suggestion that rail would be used from Southampton Docks to Ardley, then road onwards? If so, Ardley being on the route to the M1 is hardly an advantage. The route towards the M1 from Ardley is , after a shoert stretch of the B430 (20 mph through the village) then A43 and the point that route joins the M1 is very near to Northampton Gateway rail freight terminal. Daventry International rail freight Terminal is a few miles north along the M1.

Edited - half a sentence disappeared when posted.

The proposal includes the construction of a bypass for Ardley village so the site will have a direct connection onto M40 J10/A43.

The point is that there's already a huge amount of freight going right past this site, some of which may then transfer to rail for part of its journey. Although there is also a suspicion that the handy road links mean that the rail terminal bit is just there to improve the chance of getting planning permission.

The orginal strategy document envisaged the Ardley passenger station as a later stage option (post 2038) - not sure if this development, if approved, might accelerate that.

 

[The Planner]

Thank you. What does Y path mean? Sorry if this is a silly question.

It basically means a train that starts at a single origin but the path splits at a point and goes to location A or location B as required, so like the letter Y.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

If a rail freight terminal in Oxfordshire, and near the M40, is needed and can be justified, surely somewhere around Banbury is a better location? In rail traffic terms at least.

A better option might involve the tracked of the old Banbury-Buckingham line, which currently runs straight into an existing industrial estate and could be connected directly to the Banbury goods loop!

 

[The Planner]

A better option might involve the tracked of the old Banbury-Buckingham line, which currently runs straight into an existing industrial estate and could be connected directly to the Banbury goods loop!

I doubt there is anywhere near enough room for the amount of tin sheds the development needs to be profitable.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

I doubt there is anywhere near enough room for the amount of tin sheds the development needs to be profitable.

The tin sheds are already there alongside the old trackbed, and one of them is going to become vacant very soon when HelloFresh vacate it. Had there been a genuine need for an M40 road/rail interchange, that would've been the place to put it, rather than a greenfield site connected to the wrong part of the rail network.

 

[The Planner]

The tin sheds are already there alongside the old trackbed, and one of them is going to become vacant very soon when HelloFresh vacate it. Had there been a genuine need for an M40 road/rail interchange, that would've been the place to put it, rather than a greenfield site connected to the wrong part of the rail network.

Are there enough though? Looking at Googlemaps, there are five warehouses, nowhere near the size of those at Northampton.

 

[Falcon1200]

Being cynical, one might think Ardley has been chosen as a rail freight terminal precisely because it will be awkward to serve by rail....

 

[Merle Haggard]

The proposal includes the construction of a bypass for Ardley village so the site will have a direct connection onto M40 J10/A43.

The point is that there's already a huge amount of freight going right past this site, some of which may then transfer to rail for part of its journey. Although there is also a suspicion that the handy road links mean that the rail terminal bit is just there to improve the chance of getting planning permission.

The orginal strategy document envisaged the Ardley passenger station as a later stage option (post 2038) - not sure if this development, if approved, might accelerate that.

My bold.

I'm still intrigued by the logic.

Rail 'intermodal' (= containers) is at its most competitive against road for shipment traffic. Both road and rail have the transhipment costs at the port. The second transhipment, inevitable by rail but not needed by road, increases rail's costs but is balanced by the reduced costs of transit by rail as the distance increases. There will be a distance at which rail and road costs equalise, ie the reduced per mile cost of rail at that distance equals the increased cost of the second transhipment. It's just over 80 miles from Southampton to Ardley, and this in my view would probably below that break-even point. Freightliners soon abandoned the shorter transits. The regular Southampton - Northampton flow is probably very close to the break-even point, but helped by being a distance close to the maximum road driving distance before a break is required.

A second consideration is that the opportunity of road distribution from Ardley northwards is limited by the existence of rail/road terminals not much further North, as I've already mentioned. Lots of container lorries do indeed pass the A43/M40 junction near Ardley, but I think almost all of them that take the A43 & go to the M1. there's not much in the way of traffic objectives just in the next few miles where they might go, before Northampton Gateway or DIRFT become more suitable.

The third point is anecdotal. I drive down the A34 a few times a year and so I am sadly familiar with container lorries on the route, To me, there seems to be a majority of 20' boxes on short trailers which suggests that they are comparatively small volume consignments better suited to road transport throughout anyway. Freightliner has done a good job over the years of getting all thetraffic from Southampton that is suitable for rail. The transhipment costs of a 20' box and a 40' & tall box are the same, so the break-even distance (on the assumption that charges relate to size as well as distance) is greater for the smallest box.

I am not trying to be dogmatic, just puzzling about what market the new terminal is aimed at. Unless, as has been mentioned, it's just an attempt to game the planning rules ...

 

[Farigiraf]

What will a station at Ardley actually be useful for?
It's situated on a part of the Chiltern Mainline only served by long-distance services, but the station itself is not much of a regional hub so I'd imagine it'd only get a call on the London-Banbury terminators which I think will extend to Birmingham soon. If it's the same as Kings Sutton then it's only 1tp2h, but I reckon it'll instead be served hourly. Not terrible but not amazing either.

Then there's the question of demand. It's too far from London for commuting, it'll have no trains to Oxford, and travel northwards will likely be faster and cheaper using the M40. So 'regular' use will be limited to short-distance trips, journeys by those who don't have the car as an option, and people who are willing to spend way too much time getting to/from work in London. Considering that the station won't actually serve the existing village, as I don't see a bus or fixed walking link improvements being funded, this station will be almost exclusively useful for people living in the new housing development, all of which will have driving as an option (as having amenities and retailers in walking distance isn't common in these types of developments). So why won't they just take the car each time?

 

[Palmerston]

It's just over 80 miles from Southampton to Ardley, and this in my view would probably below that break-even point. Freightliners soon abandoned the shorter transits. The regular Southampton - Northampton flow is probably very close to the break-even point, but helped by being a distance close to the maximum road driving distance before a break is required.

This may be partly why the official site refers to rail flow from Liverpool, London and Felixstowe.

 

[fishwomp]

This may be partly why the official site refers to rail flow from Liverpool, London and Felixstowe.

London is about 110 miles via M25. I don't see that cutting it for rail. It is also only in the right direction for mid-Wales and Herefordshire etc. You might as well have driven the container directly to Birmingham or started its journey north by going to Sheffield/Wakefield/Stourton. If heading south west, it's no advantage given the road network doesn't help you at Ardley to reach M4/M5.

Felixstowe would also lack a good reason for going via Ardley it is not en route to anywhere that isn't better reached via somewhere else

Fwiw, note that Southampton (DP world ) introduced a scheme that effectively gave £10 discount on containers traveling less than 140 miles by rail, to improve their environmental chops (and local relations), other ports haven't copied that (yet) - but that shows where they believe the economic switchover distance is.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This may be partly why the official site refers to rail flow from Liverpool, London and Felixstowe.

This is part of the reason I'm confused.

The report above also says 'to alleviate existing congestion' (I hope I can be forgiven for not quoting in full and it does continue) which I would think mainly comes from Southampton docks traffic heading North. However, the idea that building a terminal will magically obtain such passing traffic is a variation of 'Cargo Cult' sophistry.

Liverpool presumably means Garston. For containers arriving by sea (presumably the target) there's two transhipments involved, which puts rail at a cost disadvantage at the port end as well as the inland end. That's because as I understand it container boats can no longer use Garston docks. I'm not even sure that Garston container terminal is still open.

For the other two it's difficult to think of more than a few final destinations which would be better served by the proposed terminal than existing ones, as Fishwomp clearly explains.

 

[Snow1964]

Fwiw, note that Southampton (DP world ) introduced a scheme that effectively gave £10 discount on containers traveling less than 140 miles by rail, to improve their environmental chops (and local relations), other ports haven't copied that (yet) - but that shows where they believe the economic switchover distance is.

I wonder if we are all making an assumption that it will only be useful for containers from the docks (if trains actually serve it, rather than rail line added to get significant Infrastructure status for planning permission).

As an example there is currently a 90km section near Tarragona, Spain that is missing from standard gauge freight corridor to Murcia & Almeria area, where about third of UKs fresh salads come from, dozens of road trucks every day supplying supermarkets. There is intention to complete the standard gauge route and get all this fresh food delivered to the other side of channel tunnel in next few years. Could the economics of time critical fresh food to a distribution point in central southern England work, over loads of Lorrie's doing same thing.

Really if something like this will work, comes down to if the terminal can be served sensibly by getting off HS1 in Barking area. But there is the old UK problem of not being able to get an electric loco with last mile capacity within about 30 miles of it because we have no strategic plan to wire corridors with regular freight traffic.

On balance, I think the rail connection is for planning permission ease, than something that is likely to be regularly used.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I wonder if we are all making an assumption that it will only be useful for containers from the docks (if trains actually serve it, rather than rail line added to get significant Infrastructure status for planning permission).

As an example there is currently a 90km section near Tarragona, Spain that is missing from standard gauge freight corridor to Murcia & Almeria area, where about third of UKs fresh salads come from, dozens of road trucks every day supplying supermarkets. There is intention to complete the standard gauge route and get all this fresh food delivered to the other side of channel tunnel in next few years. Could the economics of time critical fresh food to a distribution point in central southern England work, over loads of Lorrie's doing same thing.

Really if something like this will work, comes down to if the terminal can be served sensibly by getting off HS1 in Barking area. But there is the old UK problem of not being able to get an electric loco with last mile capacity within about 30 miles of it because we have no strategic plan to wire corridors with regular freight traffic.

On balance, I think the rail connection is for planning permission ease, than something that is likely to be regularly used.

Transfesa managed quick wagonload transits from Spain to GB, geared up for the change of gauge. Even had a depot at Paddock Wood.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's an idea for serving Ardley from the south: A west-to-north chord between EWR and the Chiltern main line. This could allow intermodals to access the terminal directly from Southampton and points further west, avoiding London.

After thinking about various options, my favourite location is to the east of Bicester near Launton, describing a ~250 degree arc, approximately 1,200m in length with a radius of ~270m. It could hold a ~800m train clear of both routes with clear overlap while being capable of ~50mph through speed. It would join the Chiltern route in parallel with the divergence to Oxford. The connection also offers the intriguing possibility of a passenger service between Banbury and Oxford via Bicester, calling at Ardley.

EWR electrified as far as Bicester, then Chiltern between Bicester and Aynho could provide substantial wired charging opportunity for discontinuous battery operations on both Chiltern and EWR passenger service groups while dramatically increasing wired mileage of future bi-mode freights routed that way, going to Ardley or further north. With freights rerouted, more and better paths might be released for 100mph+ intercity services on the Cross Country axis.

 

[zwk500]

Here's an idea for serving Ardley from the south: A west-to-north chord between EWR and the Chiltern main line. This could allow intermodals to access the terminal directly from Southampton and points further west, avoiding London.

After thinking about various options, my favourite location is to the east of Bicester near Launton, describing a ~250 degree arc, approximately 1,200m in length with a radius of ~270m.

The picture shows fairly clearly why that won't happen for freight. It requires demolition, 2 skew bridges, and is really close to the houses.
It'd be far more cost effective to build a 3- or 4- road yard at Aynho jn or Banbury to runround.

 

[Falcon1200]

It'd be far more cost effective to build a 3- or 4- road yard at Aynho jn or Banbury to runround.

Even more cost effective not to build a railfreight terminal in such a daft (from a rail operating point of view) location in the first place!

Having passed Banbury yesterday there seems to be plenty of room south of the station, both on the Up and Down sides of the line, and presumably the facilities already there, such as Chiltern's Depot, do not suffer from flooding?

 

[The Planner]

Even more cost effective not to build a railfreight terminal in such a daft (from a rail operating point of view) location in the first place!

Having passed Banbury yesterday there seems to be plenty of room south of the station, both on the Up and Down sides of the line, and presumably the facilities already there, such as Chiltern's Depot, do not suffer from flooding?

Its not as though the railway doesnt have form in that activity.

 

[fishwomp]

Here's an idea for serving Ardley from the south: A west-to-north chord between EWR and the Chiltern main line. This could allow intermodals to access the terminal directly from Southampton and points further west, avoiding London.

.. and, the developers have already planned and agreed to fund this? If not, who.. and why not just put the park somewhere less road-centric..

 

[ox_chap]

What is depressing is how can we even think of improvements to "OxRail2040" aspirations when what we have at the moment doesn't work well. Today - massive number of Cross Country trains cancelled, to the extent that it looks like Banbury-Oxford-Reading buses are being substituted in some instances.

This is how it feels at the moment:

(1) Things keep going wrong on the line into Paddington.
(2) Still no trains to Milton Keynes.
(3) Cross-Country cannot be relied on, especially on a Sunday.

 

[The Planner]

What is depressing is how can we even think of improvements to "OxRail2040" aspirations when what we have at the moment doesn't work well. Today - massive number of Cross Country trains cancelled, to the extent that it looks like Banbury-Oxford-Reading buses are being substituted in some instances.

This is how it feels at the moment:

(1) Things keep going wrong on the line into Paddington.
(2) Still no trains to Milton Keynes.
(3) Cross-Country cannot be relied on, especially on a Sunday.

To be fair, thats not the problem of the proposers. They are just producing a shopping list of things they want.

 

[ox_chap]

To be fair, thats not the problem of the proposers. They are just producing a shopping list of things they want.

Yes, of course, and some of the plans are certainly well-considered. But part of the proposals could also be something along the lines of: "Ensure the robustness and resilience of what we already have."

 

[Zomboid]

That sounds

Yes, of course, and some of the plans are certainly well-considered. But part of the proposals could also be something along the lines of: "Ensure the robustness and resilience of what we already have.

Doesn't that go without saying? It wouldn't gain any headlines anyhow.

 

[fishwomp]

This is how it feels at the moment:

Keywords: moment and 2040

(2) Still no trains to Milton Keynes.

I really, honestly, believe this will be fixed by 2040, and am reliably informed that the tooth fairy exists..

 

[ox_chap]

That sounds

Doesn't that go without saying? It wouldn't gain any headlines anyhow.

Hmm, living around Oxford and how stressful Cross Country can be, I reckon if we said by 2040, "10 Car Cross Country trains at half-hour frequencies and with enough drivers so cancellations are extremely rare", then that would be welcomed and newsworthy as much as "We need to rebuild a railway to Eynsham and Witney". 2040 is only 16 years away. And procuring rolling stock seems to take the best part of a decade from start to finish....

OxRail 2040 is a great initiative though. It deserves to do well.

 

[MarkyT]

The picture shows fairly clearly why that won't happen for freight. It requires demolition, 2 skew bridges, and is really close to the houses.
It'd be far more cost effective to build a 3- or 4- road yard at Aynho jn or Banbury to runround.

The south bridge would be a straightforward span over the road. The north bridge would require regrading of the recently constructed ramp for the EWR bridge to insert a new bridge for the road to pass over. Part of the Fresh Direct facility would be required, expensive to relocate, but the alignment is clear of industrial sheds at the Chiltern junction end of the chord. The line doesn't require any other demolition and is about 100m from the nearest residential plot boundary, from which it is shielded by trees. An upmarket events venue is a little closer but is also shielded by trees. The venue's access road from the A4421 would be severed, however, so would need rerouting likely with its own new bridge over the railway. I'd expect some noise barrier mitigation. If such a chord was provided primarily for passenger purposes, then some freight might use it if suitable.

 

[zwk500]

The south bridge would be a straightforward span over the road. The north bridge would require regrading of the recently constructed ramp for the EWR bridge to insert a new bridge for the road to pass over. Part of the Fresh Direct facility would be required, expensive to relocate, but the alignment is clear of industrial sheds at the Chiltern junction end of the chord. The line doesn't require any other demolition and is about 100m from the nearest residential plot boundary, from which it is shielded by trees. An upmarket events venue is a little closer but is also shielded by trees. The venue's access road from the A4421 would be severed, however, so would need rerouting likely with its own new bridge over the railway. I'd expect some noise barrier mitigation.

None of this sounds like it's making it any easier, and 100m from the nearest residential property is still quite close given how much flange squeal there'll be.

If such a chord was provided primarily for passenger purposes, then some freight might use it if suitable.

Which passenger services would use this line? Passengers from South of Bicester don't need to interchange. Passengers from Bicester can go direct to the appropriate station. Passengers from Oxford have direct services to Banbury. So you're serving the relatively small market of Oxford Parkway, Islip, etc to Banbury or the West Mids for the fraction of the time connections are more convenient at Banbury than at Oxford.

If you really need a curve to get traffic from the south in to this terminal, one at Aynho would be far more viable:
Alternatively, the Airfield is long enough you could have a junction directly on to the Chewell Valley.

 

[Magdalia]

If you really need a curve to get traffic from the south in to this terminal, one at Aynho would be far more viable:

This is a classic example of what happens when people draw lines with their crayons on aerial photos.

There is a significant height difference here that you can't see on the aerial photo. Whereas the Oxford line is on the level in the Cherwell Valley, the Bicester line climbs up from Aynho Junction at 1 in 200 to reach the Ardley tunnel. This curve would be very tight radius and on a very steep gradient, not ideal for long and heavy intermodal trains.

Also, a 500m curve, with suitable signal overlaps, isn't going to be long enough.

 

[zwk500]

This is a classic example of what happens when people draw lines with their crayons on aerial photos.

There is a significant height difference here that you can't see on the aerial photo. Whereas the Oxford line is on the level in the Cherwell Valley, the Bicester line climbs up from Aynho Junction at 1 in 200 to reach the Ardley tunnel. This curve would be very tight radius and on a very steep gradient, not ideal for long and heavy intermodal trains.

As I posted upthread, I don't actually think a curve would be built (instead a runround facility being far more likely). I also was responding to a proposal that was proposing to climb the vertical difference between the tracks in Bicester on a minimum radius circle, so we're already well beyond 'idea' situations for intermodals.