Banbury - all the changes

[150219]

Still using the station and the Depot Reception and Departure Roads can take more carriages than the former set of sidings. The last set of stock workings dictated that a departure in the morning had to be formed up in a somewhat complicated manner, and meant that all of the evening's arrivals had to be the correct stock type and arrived when they were supposed to. Things are simplified now, which always makes things easier.

The stock used for the early morning Oxford Parkway services has been using Aylesbury since the line was closed for remodelling and will continue to be the case, until the sidings at the depot are in place.

Flexibility at the station allows failures to be contained, with full bidirectional working available on each line.

There is siding space at Bicester North, which can stock as and when required.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Saw the new 'flexible' layout in operation yesterday. With the line side fire at Neasden there was a lot of problems with Chiltern services into Marylebone. The 06.38 Stourbridge Jcn to Marylebone loco hauled was terminated at Banbury and left standing on Platform 3. The 08.19 XC to Reading (5 coach voyager) was moved to platform 4. The Chiltern loco hauled set then formed an adhoc Birmingham Snow Hill Service which left from Platform 3.

 

[RailAleFan]

Apologies if already posted elsewhere - BBC News item "Saying goodbye to the traditional railway signal boxes"

There were once 10,000 signal boxes on Britain's railways, at stations and level crossings, beside goods yards and junctions.

However, the traditional box is being replaced by computerised centres controlling huge chunks of the network.

Nick Higham visited one of the latest to close, in Banbury, Oxfordshire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37602290

 

[MarkyT]

Final version 7 of my sketch updated as built, checked against sectional appendix.

http://www.townend.me/files/banbury.pdf

 

[BanburyBlue]

Looking at MarkyT's excellent diagram...

1, Is it a bit of a shortcoming that there is no crossover from the down main to the down goods loop north of the station? If a terminating train is idle at platform 1, if effectively blocks the whole of the down goods loop for freight?

2, What is happening with the yellow plant sidings? When the planning for new depot was shared on the local council website, it suggested that the yellow plant siding was going in there somewhere (subject to a separate planning application). On MarkyT's diagram these are north of the station. Coming back from Birmingham the other I couldn't see these sidings (but may have missed them)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Final version 7 of my sketch updated as built, checked against sectional appendix.

http://www.townend.me/files/banbury.pdf

Fantastic diagram - what program do you use?

BTW, minor minor comment, the road crossing the station is Bridge Street, not Bridge Road.

 

[The Planner]

Shouldnt be an issue once the new depot is sorted as it can shunt out of the way. Any connection to the down goods is unlikely to have been as quick as the one to the south.

 

[MarkyT]

Looking at MarkyT's excellent diagram...
2, What is happening with the yellow plant sidings?

All I know is Reservoir Sidings #3 & #4 are planned for this purpose. They are shown in the current sectional appendix.

Fantastic diagram - what program do you use?

BTW, minor minor comment, the road crossing the station is Bridge Street, not Bridge Road.

I use Libreoffice draw.

Street name corrected in v8 thank you. Name checked against google maps and openstreetmap.

http://www.townend.me/files/banbury.pdf

 

[150219]

All I know is Reservoir Sidings #3 & #4 are planned for this purpose. They are shown in the current sectional appendix.



I use Libreoffice draw.

Street name corrected in v8 thank you. Name checked against google maps and openstreetmap.

http://www.townend.me/files/banbury.pdf

There was an amendment to the SA to remove Reservoir Sidings 3 & 4.

 

[BanburyBlue]

There was an amendment to the SA to remove Reservoir Sidings 3 & 4.

So what does this mean? That Reservoir Sidings 3 and 4 will not be built? So will no provision be made for engineering vehicles, or will that be provided near the new depot?

 

[MarkyT]

There was an amendment to the SA to remove Reservoir Sidings 3 & 4.

Thanks for the update. That update is not in the publicly available online pdf yet.

So what does this mean? That Reservoir Sidings 3 and 4 will not be built? So will no provision be made for engineering vehicles, or will that be provided near the new depot?

I could show them 'planned but not built yet' on the diagram. But will they ever be built? If not I could remove them entirely. Decision pending further advice.

 

[BanburyBlue]

So, I was waiting at Banbury Station yesterday for the 11.07 to Birmingham Moor Street. While waiting, the 11.02 Marylebone to Banbury service terminated on Platform 1...

1. The terminating service stopped a long way up platform 1, right at the end of the platform near the Bridge Street bridge - does anyone know why? Was this an individual driver thing, or is this the new stopping place on the platform? I was wondering if this is to reduce engine noise in the ticket office?

2. After a minute or two, the ground signals came on and the train reversed away from the platform southbound. I assume this train then forms the 11.45 back to Marylebone, so is this just to clear the down goods loop. Again I assume the train stables down near the new depot? In which case why not just terminate the service on platform 4?

 

[The Planner]

You have the 1103 in on platform 3 so even though there is an overlap to get that into the station he would come in on a red, you try and avoid it if possible.

 

[mikestone1952]

It would appear that it is booked to detach a set on the depot reception to work the 16.45 to Marylebone.
;
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...4/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=CH
;
I wondered where the set came from that was in the reception when I saw the 11.45 leave from 1. I assumed at the time the inwards train arrived there rather than 4 to avoid a clash with a passing up train and couldn't check as the supposedly continual Chiltern wifi coverage doesn't seem to cover the south end of the platforms!

 

[BanburyBlue]

I happened to look at the Cherwell District Council planning site yesterday, and noticed that an amended planning application had been submitted by Chiltern Railways in relation to the depot...

The accompanying letter was saying that the DoT directed NR and CR to opt for a more 'future proofed' depot catering for the needs of the railway well beyond the specific requirements of Chiltern Railways for the remainder of their franchise. Having quickly scanned the application, looks like...

• Provision of a wheel lathe.
• Increase the maintenance depot itself to 3 roads (3 trains of 4 vehicles rather then 2 trains of 4 vehicles)
• Fuelling point moved to be adjacent to main railway and increased to 2 roads.
• The part of the site 'reserved' for NR, now becomes 2 short rail roads with a raised platform.

So...

• Does this mean that NR now have no plans for a stabling point for engineering vehicles in the area?
• The new plan would seem to take out most of the stabling sidings from the original plan, so where will trains stable now?
• I always assumed that the depot was for very light maintenance, akin to kicking the tyres and checking the oil and water before a journey. Sticking in a wheel lathe, makes me wonder whether I under estimated the site's capability?

Apologies Mark Townsend, looks like we'll need a v9 of your wonderful plan, as this changes some details around the shed bit?

BTW, if you want to find the application, go to the CDC 'view planning application' site, and type 'depot' as a keyword in the search section.

 

[OneTrackMind]

This one appears to of slipped my radar!

It would appear the depot is now going to be built in phased stages; absolutely no idea on timelines but does this in anyway effect Chilterns stabling capacity?

Cherwell DC Reference: 16/02386/F

See: http://pasteboard.co/8uBCNPMtZ.png

 

[moggie]

From the above link the diagram shows the depot construction spit into a number of phases and stages. It's all in a name at the end of the day but one assumes each 'stage' relates to a construction stage and by the looks of it, while each 'phase' relates to the incremental increase in activity / capability of the depot, starting with a simple pair of sidings for stabling right up to final capability.

Quite a challenge though to carry out safe construction adjacent to a working train depot in what is obviously going to be a confined space.

 

[L&Y Robert]

From the above link the diagram shows the depot construction spit into a number of phases and stages. It's all in a name at the end of the day but one assumes each 'stage' relates to a construction stage and by the looks of it, while each 'phase' relates to the incremental increase in activity / capability of the depot, starting with a simple pair of sidings for stabling right up to final capability.

Quite a challenge though to carry out safe construction adjacent to a working train depot in what is obviously going to be a confined space.

I have the feeling that it's not going to happen, and we'll finish up with just a pair of sidings to replace the ones lost on the 'up' side.

 

[Secret Insider]

What do you want to know about this proposed depot project?

Proposed delivery date?
Approx. cost?
What is actually being built?

If you ask nicely then I may just tell you...

 

[BanburyBlue]

Is this the case? Is there any 'official' suggestion that it won't be built?

The last time I went past on the train, there is an awful lot of activity on the site.

 

[jimm]

I have the feeling that it's not going to happen, and we'll finish up with just a pair of sidings to replace the ones lost on the 'up' side.

Initial facilities are due to open in stages between January and May next year, though I think access into the sidings has been available as of last weekend. Can anyone else confirm?

Chiltern are looking at further staged expansion of the site, as noted above.

 

[Secret Insider]

Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen... The depot has gone the way of the dodo! The squadron in charge of this turkey, who shall remain nameless **cough** Network Rail **cough** couldn't organise a grand old **** up in a brewery!
The Cowboys turned up, started making a lot of noise but produced very little and boom!

Bye bye dollar bills y'all!

Embarrassingly, there is a possibility that after the dust settles, the Cowboys retreat to the hills and this pungent carcass is laid bare... all that's left will be some really expensive sidings...

It'll be interesting to see the final bill...

Toodle-pip!

 

[BanburyBlue]

So, does anyone know what is actually happening, in plain straightforward English?

The map above just shows the build phasing - there is nothing here to suggest it won't happen.

Looking at the planning application, the way I read it is (and I do stand to be corrected) that Chiltern wanted a light maintenance depot, mainly for stabling and like touch maintenance (check oil, kick tyres). The amended application was suggesting that the DoT wanted the depot to have better facilities for long term use.

Not sure how the finance works. I'm guessing Chiltern have to pay for the depot? But if the DoT are asking for better facilities, do they then have to chip in?

As I said above, whenever I go past there is a lot of activity on the site. Someone must know the grand plan and what the issues are?

 

[Elecman]

Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen... The depot has gone the way of the dodo! The squadron in charge of this turkey, who shall remain nameless **cough** Network Rail **cough** couldn't organise a grand old **** up in a brewery!
The Cowboys turned up, started making a lot of noise but produced very little and boom!

Bye bye dollar bills y'all!

Embarrassingly, there is a possibility that after the dust settles, the Cowboys retreat to the hills and this pungent carcass is laid bare... all that's left will be some really expensive sidings...

It'll be interesting to see the final bill...

Toodle-pip!

What are you on about?? It has been explained the depot will now be a phased construction not an abandonment.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I can only speak on observations from the cab window as I go past but there's a whacking great slab of concrete which looks very much like a fuel pit in place now.

 

[OneTrackMind]

I can only speak on observations from the cab window as I go past but there's a whacking great slab of concrete which looks very much like a fuel pit in place now.

That is correct. It has also been reduced in size, see below.

Stage 1: 2 sidings, to stable four rail vehicles on each siding

Stage 2: Extension of the Stage 1 sidings to their full intended length (8
vehicles), together with two additional full length sidings. The approved
canopy is also provided at this stage, in preparation for Stage 3. The sidings
constructed in this stage will initially be used only for stabling train vehicles,
until completion of the next stage.

Stage 3: Fuel services are provided to the fuelling siding. The storage will
be provided in the form of one horizontal tank as opposed to a vertical tank
which will have even less visual impact. Following a reappraisal of the
fuelling requirements the tank size has been reduced to 100,000 litres.

Stage 4: This phase of works is largely outside the application site on
existing operational land, however the connection from the completed
works above to these works on the operational railway is within the
application site; this phase of works comprises forming a head-shunt and
carriage wash facility.

Stage 5: At this stage, the remainder of the approved depot is completed.

I also believe that the field behind the depot where there is a farm crossing has now been bought (I assume by the DfT?) to ensure future expansion opportunities for the depot if and when required.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It may be buried in this thread somewhere already, but remind me, what was the original planned capacity for the fuel tank? A hundred thousand litres seems fairly substantial.

I'm not sure what the capacity of a class 168 or 165 fuel tank is. A class 68 is 5000 litres as fas as I'm aware but they aren't being completely drained of fuel every day. All a smaller fuel tank will mean is that fuel deliveries to the depot will be more frequent if required at some point in the future, right?

 

[t_star2001uk]

165=1150 litres, 168=1700 litres, 172=1690 litres, DVT=1300 litres, Chiltern 68=5600 litres. 165, 168, 172 capacities are per vehicle..

 

[Ianno87]

165=1150 litres, 168=1700 litres, 172=1690 litres, DVT=1300 litres, Chiltern 68=5600 litres. 165, 168, 172 capacities are per vehicle..

A DVT has a fuel tank?!

 

[CyrusWuff]

A DVT has a fuel tank?!

The Chiltern DVTs contain a generator set to provide "hotel" power when the loco is shut down.

 

[fgwrich]

The Chiltern DVTs contain a generator set to provide "hotel" power when the loco is shut down.

As does the NR versions. It's a Volvo Penta Marine Diesel based generator, initially used to provide Hotel Power (as you say) for when the stock in stabled in depots such as Stourbridge - Which used to bring in complaints by local residents when the 67s were left idling overnight.

You can see the location of the Generator in the modified DVTs by the vent grills in the first set of doors.