Chiltern Oxford Link completed

[jopsuk]

Given there is a bypass, would it really be that terrible to shut the road and replace it with just a pedestrian & cycle bridge?

 

[The Planner]

You would be effectively shutting the east side of Bicester off if you do that, I cannot imagine that going down too well. It would also be cutting your nose off to spite your face too as anyone who would want to drive to Bicester Village station, or North for that matter is going to struggle.

 

[L&Y Robert]

There's a lot of stuff on several websites about this crossing. Try bicestertag.jimdo.com for a start. Sometime recently, well - this year I suppose - I saw a website which gave actual plans for various alternatives to the crossing - bridges with approach ramps this way and that - and an underpass. There were some posts about flooding and the high water table, but I can't (i.e. haven't yet) find them.
Another thing - when a train is due from Oxford, and will stop at Bicester Town, when exactly do the barriers close across the road? As it approaches the station? When ready to leave the station? It will be infuriating to some to see the barriers close across the road, see the train approach AND STOP at the station, hang about there, then at last come forward and cross the road. Especially if another one Oxford bound is due. There is trouble ahead.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a lot of stuff on several websites about this crossing. Try bicestertag.jimdo.com for a start. Sometime recently, well - this year I suppose - I saw a website which gave actual plans for various alternatives to the crossing - bridges with approach ramps this way and that - and an underpass.

The detailed plans for potential road bridge alternatives etc were in the TWA Order inquiry evidence, I put the link to the drawings document in my post #1202 in this thread, jopsuk may find it illuminating.

Wasn't the train from Oxford approaching Bicester issue supposed to have been accounted for by the relocation of the platform well to the west of the original position, to allow for an overlap beyond the signal? As per post #1376 by Andyjs247

 

[alexx]

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, or even an amateur when it comes to level crossings. However... the London Road barriers do seem to go down quite a while - 3 or 4 minutes - before an Oxford Parkway-bound train appears. Is that normal?

 

[The Planner]

Quite possibly, the strike in point for the level crossing from the Princes Risborough direction is near signal ME353R which is around the 5¾ mile post on the Chiltern line, so a good 3 miles away. Factor in the linespeed and slowing for the station then it sounds about right.

 

[RPM]

Another thing - when a train is due from Oxford, and will stop at Bicester Town, when exactly do the barriers close across the road? As it approaches the station? When ready to leave the station? It will be infuriating to some to see the barriers close across the road, see the train approach AND STOP at the station, hang about there, then at last come forward and cross the road. Especially if another one Oxford bound is due. There is trouble ahead.

I've only done five trips so far, but every time I've been brought into Bicester Village with a red at the end of the platform and the crossing still open for traffic. Pretty much as soon as the train is at a stand the crossing lights start flashing and the signal clears just in time to close the doors for an on time departure.

 

[The Planner]

We had to inflate the SRT to incorporate that.

 

[jimm]

This is the link swt_passenger is referring to, showing options considered for bridges and an underpass in London Road.

Warning, it's a beast of a pdf and takes a long time to download - the plans are at Figure 19.1-19.3, from page 112 on

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/04Oct2010/CRCL-P-6-B2 - Appendix 2 - Stephen Barker.pdf

 

[L&Y Robert]

We had to inflate the SRT to incorporate that.

OK -what's the SRT then?
T could be 'Time' I suppose, and R might be 'Reaction'? But S in this context - nope! Can't get anything.
I wish you experts wouldn't do this to us lay people.

 

[berneyarms]

Sectional Running Time

 

[The Planner]

Has anyone ever considered a glossary for the forum?

 

[87015]

Healthy loading through to Parkway on the hauled turn this evening outward, probably single figures on the way back, no surprise there though.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Sectional Running Time

Ah yes - the Sectional Running Time. Well I never. Inflated it, too.
Sorry guys, it's more of the same - I don't know what you are talking about - and there'll be others equally bamboozled. It sounds important, though, especially if it had to be inflated. Could someone spell it out, please? What is it, how does it work, what's it for?
Yours humbly,
A mere by-stander.
PS
Yes - a glossary for the Forum - excellent idea!

 

[berneyarms]

Ah yes - the Sectional Running Time. Well I never. Inflated it, too.
Sorry guys, it's more of the same - I don't know what you are talking about - and there'll be others equally bamboozled. It sounds important, though, especially if it had to be inflated. Could someone spell it out, please? What is it, how does it work, what's it for?
Yours humbly,
A mere by-stander.
PS
Yes - a glossary for the Forum - excellent idea!

To be fair you did ask what it stood for - I answered that. I'd agree that the previous poster shouldn't have used an abbreviation without defining it though.

I would have though that sectional running time isn't that hard a concept to grasp?

It's the running time that a train is scheduled to take between two timing points, usually at the start and end of a signalled section of track.

They increased the normal time allowed for that section to allow for the level crossing.

 

[The Planner]

Basically the time it takes to get between two timing points. Each type of traction and freight has them (called timing loads and the usual source of confusion with Real Time Trains and what traction runs). Worked out assuming that the train is doing line speed, if it can, and on green signals, if possible. They are split into 4 moves if required, pass to pass, start to pass, pass to stop and stop to stop. If for example at Bicester Village you arrive on a red signal then the SRT needs inflating as a driver will treat it differently to coming in on a green.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Given there is a bypass, would it really be that terrible to shut the road and replace it with just a pedestrian & cycle bridge?

The by-pass has a level crossing as well!

SRT - Yes, understood now. Thanks everybody. I see that it's a tricky situation for the signalling guys.

 

[67018]

The by-pass has a level crossing as well.

The level crossing on the bypass is not on the line to London though, and so won't be a problem until services to Bletchley start. By which time it will probably have been replaced, as discussed on the EWR thread.

 

[L&Y Robert]

You would be effectively shutting the east side of Bicester off if you do that, I cannot imagine that going down too well. It would also be cutting your nose off to spite your face too as anyone who would want to drive to Bicester Village station, or North for that matter is going to struggle.

I don't really agree with that - a pedestrian/bicycle bridge would deal with some of the traffic (the green traffic), and as for the motor vehicles - well! The drivers are sat in comfy seats, under cover, in the warm and all they have to do is drive (probably something they like), follow the alternative route to get to the other side. The alternative routes - two of them -already exist, so a relatively easy answer. Oh dear, the car driver is inconvenienced! Well, we'll we'll build a road bridge - spend a million pounds - to aleviate the distress! Nope - let them deviate - or walk!

 

[The Planner]

Well considering one of the alternatives is to go round via the Bicester Village roundabout you are going to make a crap situation worse there as you will be contending with all the new housing development and people there. Again, I seriously doubt the good people of Bicester would agree with it!, especially those who live on the Langford side.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Bicester is, as its name suggests, a Roman town established about two thousand years ago. For 1,900 of those years its residents managed perfectly well without cars. Some 75% of urban car journeys are of less than two miles, i.e. eminently suitable for cycling or walking. Average speeds of those cars is about 15mph. The reason so much is wasted on providing facilities for cars is that all councillors, local government officers and highway engineers are motorists!

 

[alexx]

Not wishing to go completely off topic, but the residents managed for quite a few more than 1900 of those 2000 years as there wasn't random tinkering going on with road layouts.

If you close London Road completely you force the traffic from the Langford side of Bicester to go all the way around the bypass and back down Buckingham Road. At that point you used to be able to get into the town centre via North Street, but someone decided it'd be a good idea to close that - so instead you're carrying on further down the B4100 towards the A41 and A34 with all the other traffic (including those heading from Milton Keynes, etc to Bicester Village - whilst the signs try to send people around the bypass, satnav sends you the most direct route). Incidentally that section of the B4100 has recently been designated (or has been announced that it will be designated, to be precise) an Air Quality Management Area. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why...

If you were to go the other way around, you're on the A41 that runs behind Bicester Village, and then as The Planner said, you're stuck in the Bicester Village traffic coming off the A41 and eventually the A34/M40 flow. Yes there's signs that say 'car park full' everywhere, and a new shiny park and ride due soon, but again - satnav (and arrogant drivers) ignore signs.

Things are made worse at the moment by the weather, the increase in traffic to BV up to Christmas (and Black Friday is looming), and Launton Road - the former diversion route whilst London Road was closed - is closed itself. Guess where the official diversion route is? Yep, across the London Road level crossing. Genius.

Curiously enough, Google Maps still seems to be showing London Road being closed around the level crossing. Also, whilst it has been closed, people working in the office buildings near there have decided to use the road itself as a car park - which is annoying some locals.

Last but not least, there's been at least one 'crossing rage' incident, where, according to reports, someone saw the crossing start to close so decided to overtake a queue of stationary traffic and whiz under the barriers whilst they were closing. Not sure whether the CCTV was enough to get the licence plate...

 

[L&Y Robert]

Well considering one of the alternatives is to go round via the Bicester Village roundabout you are going to make a crap situation worse there as you will be contending with all the new housing development and people there. Again, I seriously doubt the good people of Bicester would agree with it!, especially those who live on the Langford side.

OK then, what do you suggest?
For myself, I don't think "Do nothing" is an option. Having seen some of the U-tube pictures of stupidity at other crossings, I can safely predict that there is going to be trouble at the London Road crossing. Then there will be political pressure to remedy the situation one way or another, and the planners will have to have an answer ready. And when the line to Bletchley re-opens the situation will be so much worse. Again, what do you suggest?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The level crossing on the bypass is not on the line to London though, and so won't be a problem until services to Bletchley start. By which time it will probably have been replaced, as discussed on the EWR thread.

Plenty of room there for a bridge over with nice gentle access ramps - nothing like the London Road situation.

 

[The Planner]

I suggest you build a road bridge at the LC, simple. It isnt beyond the wit of man to fit one in there someone just needs a big enough wallet.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well Chiltern have done some of the advance investigation work, they'll be pleased they were able to "pass the parcel" on to the next phase of the EWR project budget.

When the next EWR TWA inquiry starts (assuming that's the process to be used?) there'll be some real evidence of the effect of 4 movements per hour...

 

[The Planner]

It will kick off as it will be more than 4...

 

[edwin_m]

Bicester is, as its name suggests, a Roman town established about two thousand years ago. For 1,900 of those years its residents managed perfectly well without cars.

Did they also have to contend with barbarian hordes coming to buy last years fashions in top-end togas and sandals?

 

[Andyjs247]

Although I've not seen anything official, word has it that the preferred option is to build an underpass at London Road. The crossing would effectively close by the time EWR extends to Bletchley. This has come from sources within Cherwell District Council.

I think it's clear that "Do nothing" is not an option. Closure of London Road crossing without a suitable replacement would also be unacceptable. As I said, the minimum option would be to build a pedestrian/cycle bridge over the line whilst keeping the crossing open to road traffic. I'd also suggest that a bridge constructed from components straight out of Network Rail's standard Meccano kit wouldn't go down too well either (the powers that be will be mindful of the reaction to the similar footbridge constructed at Tubbs Lane). On the other hand something like the pedestrian/cycle bridge at Aylesbury station would I think be more acceptable, as well as an underpass. As The Planner says, it will need a big wallet - the council are trying to find £30m!

London Road is the main route into Bicester from the south including Langford Village. The town does have a bypass, however it's a lengthy detour. And Charbridge Lane crossing on the bypass is due to be replaced by a bridge. Planned developments suggest at least another 3700 homes will be built in the next few years and that's just on that side of town - so maybe a 3-fold population increase with the traffic to match. The bypass itself will struggle to cope!

 

[swt_passenger]

It will kick off as it will be more than 4...

Yes, what I meant is that they'll have real information about the effects on traffic of Chilterns current 4 per hour, so will be able to extrapolate for the effect of EWR.

 

[CarltonA]

I tried the service to Bicester Village/Town yesterday, it seems to be working ok and reasonably popular so far. There was a bit of delay due to leaves on the line and a faulty track circuit at Ashendon Junction but everything seemed to hold together.

Hopefully when things settle next year the timetable will be a bit kinder to my bit of the line again.

The level crossing seemed to be working well at London Road, though admittedly it was a Saturday and at peak times it may become a different matter.