Banbury - all the changes

[t_star2001uk]

Here is an extract from the yellow peril for Banbury station area

 

[BanburyBlue]

I guess the big issue with the length of Platform 4 is the current station building. Earlier posts (no 26) do mention "133m platform with a passive for 300m". I'm assuming this means it could be extended in the future to 300m.

But, in order to do this, a lot of building work would be required on the east side of platform 3 to allow access to the new extended platform 4.

At this point it probably comes down to cost vs benefits.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Absolutely, but you can get a 165, 168, 172 or even a Voyager in the new platform 4 so it's fit for purpose even if it's main use will probably just be for the terminating trains coming in from Marylebone & Paddington before they head back to London. If you've got a knacker in the up main platform and a passenger train which is too long for platform 4 due to call at Banbury on the up then it can still be routed through the station via platforms 1 & 2. It's as flexible as it needs to be as far as I can see.

 

[swt_passenger]

I guess the big issue with the length of Platform 4 is the current station building. Earlier posts (no 26) do mention "133m platform with a passive for 300m". I'm assuming this means it could be extended in the future to 300m.

But, in order to do this, a lot of building work would be required on the east side of platform 3 to allow access to the new extended platform 4.

At this point it probably comes down to cost vs benefits.

Passive provision could be just a matter of there being sufficient space for the rear face of the platform to be extended out by 2 metres (which I think is the minimum clearance to platform buildings on an island) and then extend it past the stairs and extend the south end right out to match. Then cut a few openings in the wall (probably a simplification...)

I guess it depends mainly on two things. Firstly if there is a couple of metres space on the outside of the future up freight loop, so it would be a track slew only, with junctions and signalling remaining the same as the forthcoming changes. Secondly whether or not there is space to approach the slewed tracks under the nearby road bridge.

At least the footbridge extension over to the new car park seems to span a reasonable distance away from the back of the platform for any extension.

 

[MarkyT]

Passive provision could be just a matter of there being sufficient space for the rear face of the platform to be extended out by 2 metres (which I think is the minimum clearance to platform buildings on an island) and then extend it past the stairs and extend the south end right out to match. Then cut a few openings in the wall (probably a simplification...)

I guess it depends mainly on two things. Firstly if there is a couple of metres space on the outside of the future up freight loop, so it would be a track slew only, with junctions and signalling remaining the same as the forthcoming changes. Secondly whether or not there is space to approach the slewed tracks under the nearby road bridge.

At least the footbridge extension over to the new car park seems to span a reasonable distance away from the back of the platform for any extension.

Irrespective of any track slewing and building alterations required for future platform extension, I think the most significant element of 'passive provision' is in the placing of the signals, configuration of interlocking and control screens, and also all those downstream information systems there are today. In the event of future lengthening, as little further involvement as possible of those scarce and expensive signal engineers is thus ensured!

 

[L&Y Robert]

Passive provision could be just a matter of there being sufficient space for the rear face of the platform to be extended out by 2 metres (which I think is the minimum clearance to platform buildings on an island) and then extend it past the stairs and extend the south end right out to match. Then cut a few openings in the wall (probably a simplification...)

No - it's easy! The building has a reinforced concrete frame (1950s Modernisation Plan!) and the "Walls" are really brick panels within the structural concrete frame members. Whilst the panels do have a cross-bracing function, you could lose two or three of them - the ones remaining would do that job OK.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Here are the station area diagrams seperated

 

[BanburyBlue]

What is happening with the 'yellow plant' siding? In the original plans submitted by Chiltern for the new depot, I'm sure there was a statement saying space was left for Network Rail engineering train sidings, but this would be subject to a separate planning application. However, on the great track diagrams produced earlier in this thread, it seems to suggest these sidings will be near the stone terminal?

 

[t_star2001uk]

What is happening with the 'yellow plant' siding? In the original plans submitted by Chiltern for the new depot, I'm sure there was a statement saying space was left for Network Rail engineering train sidings, but this would be subject to a separate planning application. However, on the great track diagrams produced earlier in this thread, it seems to suggest these sidings will be near the stone terminal?

I believe that Network Rail stock will be stabled in the Reservoir sidings further north from the station. I will try and get some more of the diagrams posted tomorrow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here is the next bit going north from Banbury.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And here are the last 2 from the north end. Heading north is the existing signalling..

 

[BanburyBlue]

Great thanks.

So are Reservoir sidings 1 & 2 the stone terminal and Reservoir sidings 3 &4 the engineering sidings, or t'other way round.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Great thanks.

So are Reservoir sidings 1 & 2 the stone terminal and Reservoir sidings 3 &4 the engineering sidings, or t'other way round.

The LaFarge stone terminal is on Reservoir 1 and 2, the plant siding should be Reservoir 3 and 4. According to the book that is....

 

[mikestone1952]

Any chance of the section towards Ahyno please, as I believe there are several extra signals.
;
Interesting to see that JIs are being provided on the signals for up departures from the down platform - presumably that will be the only route with a main aspect - from the down but not for down trains from the up platform.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Any chance of the section towards Ahyno please, as I believe there are several extra signals.
;
Interesting to see that JIs are being provided on the signals for up departures from the down platform - presumably that will be the only route with a main aspect - from the down but not for down trains from the up platform.

The junction indicators that have been installed at the south end of the down platform are purely for future proofing. If at a later date the line between Aynho and Banbury is made reversible the signalling at the station end and the Aynho end will already be in place.

Now for some more signalling diagrams heading south

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
More

And that is as far as this book goes....

 

[The Planner]

Aynho to Banbury bi-di got chucked out fairly early on in the scheme, Oxford also couldn't afford to bi-di their section either.

 

[MarkyT]

The junction indicators that have been installed at the south end of the down platform are purely for future proofing.

Thanks for those diagrams. Very interesting. I will get around to adding signals to my little sketch in due course. I see your point about future proofing and it's true the JIs provide that as well, but the main reason for them is to make it absolutely clear to drivers that the only main routes from those signals are crossover routes to the Up Cherwell (i.e. so don't stamp on the gas yet!). There are many other examples of this around the network where signals at the end of bidirectional working are provided with a JI for the left turn but have no 'straight on' route as well.

 

[swt_passenger]

No - it's easy! The building has a reinforced concrete frame (1950s Modernisation Plan!) and the "Walls" are really brick panels within the structural concrete frame members. Whilst the panels do have a cross-bracing function, you could lose two or three of them - the ones remaining would do that job OK.

Ah, well that makes it even more reassuring that they probably have a cunning plan for when it is eventually needed.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Platform 4 work continues.

I'm assuming the wood framing we can see is the foundation for the edge of the new platform?

Apologies all, for some reason whenever I try to post photos it keeps turning the thing round - not sure what i'm doing wrong?

 

[L&Y Robert]

I see from Banbury Blue's picture that something which looks like a parking meter has been installed (together with long cable trench to it) on the existing platform just by the nearest lamp standard. What can this be?

 

[t_star2001uk]

I see from Banbury Blue's picture that something which looks like a parking meter has been installed (together with long cable trench to it) on the existing platform just by the nearest lamp standard. What can this be?

I think it may be a Signal phone....

 

[MarkyT]

I think it may be a Signal phone....

I agree with that. Today they tend to put them close to where the cab stops at around 14m to 20m on approach to the signal and in this case on the platform, rather than at the signal post itself.

 

[mikestone1952]

The hauled 06.04 Banbury and 17.21 Marylebone are being cut back to Bicester according to the back page of the Chiltern engineering leafle. It was previously shown on RTT stabling in the LMD reception so it may only be temporary.
On the upside the 13.43 Marylebone stopper that currently terminates at Bicester, because it clashes with an fGW stopper, is going through. Other changes are the 06.52 HW-Bicester extended to Banbury, (quite what this has to do with banbury signalling escapes me) the 19.12 Stratford-Hatton will go through to Leamington and the 00.40 Oxford-Banbury will call at Kings Sutton all week
;
The leaflet also makes the interesting statement that the engineering timetable will be printed off on demand by station staff!

 

[didcot]

Not sure when the depot is going to be completed but the contractors Buckingham last week signed a 20 month deal with Banbury United to lease part of the car park

http://www.banburyunitedfc.co.uk/news/part-of-clubhouse-car-park-sub-lease-1641351.html

 

[L&Y Robert]

Whilst having a look over the Grimsbury Bridge yesterday, I noticed a new H-pole-mounted substation has been installed (but not yet connected) on railway land immediately over the north-side fence of the bridge western approach ramp. Presumably all those points and signals need supplying with juice from somewhere.

 

[Elecman]

There will be 2 power supplies north of Banbury, 1 in the concrete plant and 1 on Hamilton Close( presumably that's the one you saw)

 

[L&Y Robert]

There will be 2 power supplies north of Banbury, 1 in the concrete plant and 1 on Hamilton Close( presumably that's the one you saw)

No - the one I saw is just by Grimsbury Green, a few yards down from the bridge itself. I suppose it could bethought of as 'in the concrete plant' - I didn't think of that. It puzzled me how the HT side of it would be arranged - 11kV from somewhere - but where?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Network Rail has put out a press release on the 9-day blockade starting this Saturday.
Like previous publicity it describes the blockade as being Bicester-Banbury-Leamington.
Then from left-field comes a remark by an XC manager about work at Hinksey.
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...amington-and-bicester-north-from-this-weekend

Andy Cooper, managing director of CrossCountry, said: “The area around Hinksey has often suffered from flooding, and it was only two years ago that the line was closed for several days because of this. While we are sorry that some customers could be inconvenienced while the works take place, and while the railway through Banbury is upgraded at the same time, we trust they will understand their importance in helping deliver a better and more reliable railway.”

This is the only reference to an almost complete closure at Oxford (only Worcester line trains operating M-F).
Only when you look at the NRE details do you find the overall closure is Didcot/Bicester-Leamington (at weekends as far as Solihull).
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/currentAndFuture.aspx?TravelDate=30/07/2016&TOC=xc

Major engineering work is taking place between Didcot Parkway and Leamington Spa, closing various lines.

 

[Freightmaster]

It's rather confusing, isn't it?!

From a freight point of view, it means that trains normally routed via Banbury
will be diverted via London for two weeks, but for different reasons each week...


MARK

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rail has put out a press release on the 9-day blockade starting this Saturday.
Like previous publicity it describes the blockade as being Bicester-Banbury-Leamington.
Then from left-field comes a remark by an XC manager about work at Hinksey.

Unless it has been amended, it does add a bit just below that quote to say:

Network Rail is also carrying out upgrade work at Hinksey, near Oxford, to reduce flooding incidents which have affected the railway in the past.

A total of £18m is being spent to make the railway more resilient which will mean services between Oxford and Didcot Parkway will also be affected between Saturday, 30 July and Sunday, 14 August.

But it is fairly ridiculous to not make this part of the overall article headline...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I see there is a separate press item on the 16-day Hinksey closure:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-improve-railway-reliability-for-passengers-1

I guess it's because two NR Routes are involved in the two blockades, with different objectives.
XC gets caught either way (now with its own Virtual Route of course)!

Just the time to get all those masts up Didcot-Oxford...

 

[swt_passenger]

I see there is a separate press item on the 16-day Hinksey closure:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-improve-railway-reliability-for-passengers-1

I guess it's because two NR Routes are involved in the two blockades, with different objectives.
XC gets caught either way (now with its own Virtual Route of course)!

Just the time to get all those masts up Didcot-Oxford...

The NR PR department just aren't accurate in the way they explain stuff are they:

The flood alleviation work, which involves raising the height of tracks to prevent them from being flooded, will take place between Oxford and Didcot Parkway...

No, the track lifting work takes place at Hinksey, alongside the Thames. It will be affecting services over the longer distance.