May 2026 timetable

[Watershed]

there is a 2-hourly stopper from Oxford to Banbury (so total of 1.5 trains per hour on the southern part of the route which is said to be 'too busy' to stop at..

On Sundays there are only 3 stoppers a day, operating between May and September. A very poor alternative to XC.

 

[nw1]

As mentioned previously in this thread, they have stopped running those services for so long that freight services have now "stolen" their original path. The new paths do not allow for a stop at Banbury (without an unacceptable journey time increase, I presume).

I do find it questionable that such practices are allowed - yes, "use it or lose it" makes sense on a congested network, but ultimately the railway primarily exists because of passenger traffic. I don't think the average taxpayer would exactly be pleased if they knew that the heavily subsidised railway is putting profit-making freight operators ahead of local passengers' interests.

Indeed, I would say that passenger paths need to take precedence and freight just needs to fit round the passenger services, so that if a passenger service - particularly a long standing one - needs the path, freight just has to fit round it.

Freight traffic is considerably less time sensitive than passenger - you can probably loop a freight train for 15 mins in the middle of nowhere to allow other trains to pass while this would probably be unacceptable for a passenger service.

I wonder how BR dealt with this? Did BR prioritise passenger services and get freight to use whatever was left over?

 

[Ian Hardy]

Indeed, I would say that passenger paths need to take precedence and freight just needs to fit round the passenger services, so that if a passenger service - particularly a long standing one - needs the path, freight just has to fit round it.

Freight traffic is considerably less time sensitive than passenger - you can probably loop a freight train for 15 mins in the middle of nowhere to allow other trains to pass while this would probably be unacceptable for a passenger service.

I wonder how BR dealt with this? Did BR prioritise passenger services and get freight to use whatever was left over?

At the present with the amount of subsidy that the passenger services get, it is the freight that makes the money and the passenger trains should be the ones that are looped for the money making services to have precedence. Especially if that passenger service is formed of fewer than 6 vehicles in the consist, as that is not effective use of the path.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Indeed, I would say that passenger paths need to take precedence and freight just needs to fit round the passenger services, so that if a passenger service - particularly a long standing one - needs the path, freight just has to fit round it.

Freight traffic is considerably less time sensitive than passenger - you can probably loop a freight train for 15 mins in the middle of nowhere to allow other trains to pass while this would probably be unacceptable for a passenger service.

I wonder how BR dealt with this? Did BR prioritise passenger services and get freight to use whatever was left over?

Are you sure?
Intermodal traffic to ports - do you think that deep sea bboats wait for late running trains?
Distribution from terminals (eg DIRFT) - road deliveries to supermarkets planned and booked to half hours.
The advantage of rail over road is accurate timetabling allowing Just In Time distribution.

The answer to the second question in your last paragraph is no.

 

[Watershed]

At the present with the amount of subsidy that the passenger services get, it is the freight that makes the money and the passenger trains should be the ones that are looped for the money making services to have precedence. Especially if that passenger service is formed of fewer than 6 vehicles in the consist, as that is not effective use of the path.

Freight services are only "profitable" on paper because the FOCs get access to heavily subsidised infrastructure at marginal cost. If they had to pay their fair share of the fixed operating costs they would virtually all go out of business.

Network Rail doesn't get a multi-billion annual subsidy for the FOCs to run a handful of daily trains. It's to provide the passenger services that millions of people rely on.

 

[nw1]

At the present with the amount of subsidy that the passenger services get, it is the freight that makes the money and the passenger trains should be the ones that are looped for the money making services to have precedence. Especially if that passenger service is formed of fewer than 6 vehicles in the consist, as that is not effective use of the path.

If you believe making money trumps public service and subsidy is bad. That is unambiguously a right-of-centre political point of view which many of us do not share.

To be quite honest, the concept that a passenger service should be looped for a freight to pass, just because it doesn't make enough money, is completely unacceptable, IMO.
Moving away from railways and making a more general political point: not everything's about making money. There is such a thing as public service.

And "fewer than 6 vehicles"? In my day I've known many, many services formed of 5, 4, 3, or even 2 coaches. They have been an integral part of the rail system since heaven knows when.
Why is that "not an effective use of the path"? It might be that the service is necessary, but the loadings do not justify more than 2-5 coaches.

Let's say there's an hourly service, for example a stopping train on a secondary mainline, connecting a semi-rural area to a provincial city, which is operated with 2-car units off-peak because 2 cars is adequate to cover demand. A very common type of service: might have been formed with a 2-car 150 since Sprinterisation or a 2-car heritage DMU before that. Should you reduce that to once every 3 hours so that you can run it with 6 coaches? Can't see that going down well at all when people have been used to an hourly service for decades and you'd end up with passengers abandoning the railway because the hourly service they've known all their lives has been reduced to three-hourly.

Or let's say there's a 3-car service. Should all 3-car lines have their service halved? Or 4-car routes have their services reduced by a third so they can all be 6-car?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Freight services are only "profitable" on paper because the FOCs get access to heavily subsidised infrastructure at marginal cost. If they had to pay their fair share of the fixed operating costs they would virtually all go out of business.

Network Rail doesn't get a multi-billion annual subsidy for the FOCs to run a handful of daily trains. It's to provide the passenger services that millions of people rely on.

The Office of Road and Rail show that, in the quarter July to September 2025 4,105,000,000 net tonne (i.e., about 16,400,000,000 net tonne-kilometres annually) - kilometres of freight were moved by rail - about 8% of total freight moved. Is that really a 'handful?'
If most of this were, as you seem to wish, transferred to road, I wonder how much rail subsidy would be saved, and how this compares to the increased road maintenance costs incurred by those extra maximum-capacity artic. lorries. What would be the effect on road congestion, I wonder. Freight trains rarely kill or injure members of the general public, but that volume of extra road freight traffic might also increase the number of people killed or seriously injured in rad accidents.
But perhaps it's just possible that part of Network Rail's subsidy is, indeed, to 'provide for FOCs to run for a handful of trains', and someone in government has thought things through.

 

[Watershed]

The Office of Road and Rail show that, in the quarter July to September 2025 4,105,000,000 net tonne (i.e., about 16,400,000,000 net tonne-kilometres annually) - kilometres of freight were moved by rail - about 8% of total freight moved. Is that really a 'handful?'
If most of this were, as you seem to wish, transferred to road, I wonder how much rail subsidy would be saved, and how this compares to the increased road maintenance costs incurred by those extra maximum-capacity artic. lorries. What would be the effect on road congestion, I wonder. Freight trains rarely kill or injure members of the general public, but that volume of extra road freight traffic might also increase the number of people killed or seriously injured in rad accidents.
But perhaps it's just possible that part of Network Rail's subsidy is, indeed, to 'provide for FOCs to run for a handful of trains', and someone in government has thought things through.

I am all for freight. Just not at the expense of passenger connectivity, as is happening here. They only pay marginal costs, so they should fit around the passenger service the government pays the TOCs to run - not the other way around.

Under any sensibly run, vertically integrated railway you would never cut passenger stops just to make way for a slightly better freight path. It's a nonsense that has resulted from the overcontractualised current mess.

 

[Falcon1200]

Freight traffic is considerably less time sensitive than passenger

Not necessarily, particularly (but not only) for intermodal traffic.

you can probably loop a freight train for 15 mins in the middle of nowhere to allow other trains to pass

And now the freight is running at least 15 minutes late, and under this method of operation will now be looped again to allow further passenger trains to pass. With who knows what implications for further workings.

Back in the days when I was Network Rail Controller for the Glasgow & South Western Route between Kilmarnock and Gretna Junction, and we had coal trains, I was sometimes asked to loop a southbound freight at Thornhill for a passenger train to pass. I usually refused, because the delay to the coal train would have been out of all proportion to that to the passenger - Around an hour to the 2000t freight as opposed to a few minutes to the 2-car passenger. It was not unknown for delays to a freight on Day 1 to react on Day 2's services, thanks to the intense nature of Driver, loco and wagon utilisation.

If you believe making money trumps public service

Is freight traffic on the railway not also providing a public service, just less directly, by transporting goods around the country and keeping lorries off the roads?

 

[nw1]

Not necessarily, particularly (but not only) for intermodal traffic.



And now the freight is running at least 15 minutes late, and under this method of operation will now be looped again to allow further passenger trains to pass. With who knows what implications for further workings.

Back in the days when I was Network Rail Controller for the Glasgow & South Western Route between Kilmarnock and Gretna Junction, and we had coal trains, I was sometimes asked to loop a southbound freight at Thornhill for a passenger train to pass. I usually refused, because the delay to the coal train would have been out of all proportion to that to the passenger - Around an hour to the 2000t freight as opposed to a few minutes to the 2-car passenger. It was not unknown for delays to a freight on Day 1 to react on Day 2's services, thanks to the intense nature of Driver, loco and wagon utilisation.

I'm talking about "planned loops" whereby freight is timetabled to sit in loops to allow faster passenger services to pass, rather than what's done in the case of delays. This arising from the whole Banbury discussion above.

Is freight traffic on the railway not also providing a public service, just less directly, by transporting goods around the country and keeping lorries off the roads?

I see what you mean but presumably it doesn't matter too much if a freight service takes 7 hours rather than 6 (planned timings, not reaction to disruption), but if a passenger service has to skip stops which have been historically present (e.g. Banbury in this case) it's a bigger deal.

I was responding mostly to the previous poster though who appeared to be making the point that freight is more important simply because it makes more money / costs less money than (stopping?) passenger services, and that if a service is subsidised it needs to move down the pecking order even if it's socially necessary.

 

[Falcon1200]

I'm talking about "planned loops" whereby freight is timetabled to sit in loops to allow faster passenger services to pass, rather than what's done in the case of delays.

Fair enough. Freights are of course timetabled to be looped for faster passenger services, the WCML north of Preston having many such examples. This only works however when every train is running exactly on time, which is not always the case!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I see what you mean but presumably it doesn't matter too much if a freight service takes 7 hours rather than 6, but if a passenger service is slowed by the same amount it's a bigger deal.

Yes it does matter, that’s a massive journey time increase. In the same way as passenger trains have turnarounds for the next working so do freight trains.

If freight journey time is considerably slower (which an hour is), similar to a passenger operation to run the same number of services you will need more physical trains and more crew. Suddenly the costs start to go up as everything is less efficient.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Suspect we are veering off topic (or being looped off the main?). I think several posters are massively simplifying freight operations here. There definitely are consequences to longer journey times and delays, that can be as costly if not more than for passengers. Equally it's not as simple as saying freight makes money so move over Northern.

The societal benefits of removing lorries from roads is also underestimated widely (not just in this thread).

Neither are more important than the other, the rail network is there to supply the needs of the economy and society. Both serve both, it needs sensible pragmatic discussions on capacity.

 

[Magdalia]

And "fewer than 6 vehicles"? In my day I've known many, many services formed of 5, 4, 3, or even 2 coaches. They have been an integral part of the rail system since heaven knows when.
Why is that "not an effective use of the path"? It might be that the service is necessary, but the loadings do not justify more than 2-5 coaches.

A train carrying 1000 people is a much more effective use of a path than a train carrying 100 people.

A path used by a 2 car passenger train can be much more effectively used by a longer passenger train, or a freight train.

Historically short passenger trains were only features of uncongested parts of the network, where capacity wasn't a constraint. On a congested network, short passenger trains are a very ineffective use of a scarce resource.

Moving away from railways and making a more general political point: not everything's about making money. There is such a thing as public service.

Making money is what provides the funds to pay for public services.

Freight traffic is considerably less time sensitive than passenger

In the case of Banbury, most of the southbound freight is intermodal to Southampton, and it has a ship to catch.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

In the case of Banbury, most of the southbound freight is intermodal to Southampton, and it has a ship to catch.

And like a passenger train has a next working back north from Southampton for which you potentially break the turnaround.

 

[nw1]

A train carrying 1000 people is a much more effective use of a path than a train carrying 100 people.

A path used by a 2 car passenger train can be much more effectively used by a longer passenger train, or a freight train.

Historically short passenger trains were only features of uncongested parts of the network, where capacity wasn't a constraint. On a congested network, short passenger trains are a very ineffective use of a scarce resource.

But is it a good thing to cut the frequency of these short passenger trains? What do you tell the people who have been using the 2-car passenger train since the 1980s, the 1960s, or whenever?

In practice, I don't think this is actually happening - AFAIK there are still plenty of 2, 3 or 4-car services about and no-one has yet tried to wield the axe on said services. But I'm just arguing against the principle of reducing the frequency of these short trains to below what has been historically typical. Should a 2-car hourly service, which has been 2-car and hourly since dieselisation, become a 6-car three-hourly service so that additional more profitable but perhaps less socially necessary services (let's say passenger services) can use the paths in the other two hours?

 

[Magdalia]

And like a passenger train has a next working back north from Southampton for which you potentially break the turnaround.

Missing a sailing going halfway round the world is of far greater consequence.

But is it a good thing to cut the frequency of these short passenger trains? What do you tell the people who have been using the 2-car passenger train since the 1980s, the 1960s, or whenever?

In practice, I don't think this is actually happening - AFAIK there are still plenty of 2, 3 or 4-car services about and no-one has yet tried to wield the axe on said services. But I'm just arguing against the principle of reducing the frequency of these short trains to below what has been historically typical. Should a 2-car hourly service, which has been 2-car and hourly since dieselisation, become a 6-car three-hourly service so that additional more profitable but perhaps less socially necessary services (let's say passenger services) can use the paths in the other two hours?

For the finances of the railway and the performance of the UK economy generally an emphatic yes.

While no-one tries to wield the axe on inefficient use of scarce resources, the railway will continue to require more subsidy and UK economic growth will continue to be be throttled.

Your hypothetical example is extreme, you're right that an hourly 2 car service isn't going to be converted into a 6 car service every 3 hours. But that situation could only apply on a route with very constrained infrastructure.

On busy lines that are full, switching 2tph of 2 car trains to 1tph of 4 car trains is likely to free up capacity that would be used by other services, with more financial benefit to the railway and the UK economy. The recent ECML timetable revision is an example of an attempt to use scarce train path resources more effectively. The railway needs more of that, not to be stuck with service provision that was appropriate 30 years ago but is inefficient use of resources now and into the future.

 

[nw1]

For the finances of the railway and the performance of the UK economy generally an emphatic yes.

While no-one tries to wield the axe on inefficient use of scarce resources, the railway will continue to require more subsidy and UK economic growth will continue to be be throttled.

Your hypothetical example is extreme, you're right that an hourly 2 car service isn't going to be converted into a 6 car service every 3 hours. But that situation could only apply on a route with very constrained infrastructure.

On busy lines that are full, switching 2tph of 2 car trains to 1tph of 4 car trains is likely to free up capacity that would be used by other services, with more financial benefit to the railway and the UK economy. The recent ECML timetable revision is an example of an attempt to use scarce train path resources more effectively. The railway needs more of that, not to be stuck with service provision that was appropriate 30 years ago but is inefficient use of resources now and into the future.

But what do you tell the people who have enjoyed the 2tph since let's say Sprinterisation in the mid-to-late 80s, for example?

 

[Kilopylae]

While no-one tries to wield the axe on inefficient use of scarce resources, the railway will continue to require more subsidy and UK economic growth will continue to be be throttled.

Indeed, this approach has yielded extraordinary dividends on each previous occasion that it's been tried! The greatest inducement to growth is always austerity - if a service improves regional connectivity but does not yet make money, no economic opportunity or momentum is lost by axeing it.

Perhaps we should consider replacing the passenger line with a guided busway.

 

[nw1]

Indeed, this approach has yielded extraordinary dividends on each previous occasion that it's been tried! The greatest inducement to growth is always austerity - if a service improves regional connectivity but does not yet make money, no economic opportunity or momentum is lost by axeing it.

I hope this is an ironic comment!

 

[Kilopylae]

I hope this is an ironic comment!

 

[Turbo004]

Indeed, I would say that passenger paths need to take precedence and freight just needs to fit round the passenger services, so that if a passenger service - particularly a long standing one - needs the path, freight just has to fit round it.

Freight traffic is considerably less time sensitive than passenger - you can probably loop a freight train for 15 mins in the middle of nowhere to allow other trains to pass while this would probably be unacceptable for a passenger service.

I wonder how BR dealt with this? Did BR prioritise passenger services and get freight to use whatever was left over?

In BR days I used to live near the Hooton - Helsby line. This used to have a half hourly 2 car DMU passenger service and many freight services mainly from the oil refinery at Ellesmere Port. The DMU services were frequently delayed by the freight services. It got so bad that it was reported in the local newspaper. In this instance it appeared that BR prioritised the freight services.

 

[Magdalia]

Indeed, this approach has yielded extraordinary dividends on each previous occasion that it's been tried! The greatest inducement to growth is always austerity - if a service improves regional connectivity but does not yet make money, no economic opportunity or momentum is lost by axeing it.

This isn't about austerity, it is about increasing capacity by making better use of existing infrastructure, it isn't cutting anything.

The greatest inducement to growth that the railway can provide is moving skilled workers between home and their place of employment, regional connectivity has some impact but it is much less significant.

But what do you tell the people who have enjoyed the 2tph since let's say Sprinterisation in the mid-to-late 80s, for example?

For regional connectivity impact on the economy of having 1tph of 4 cars instead of 2tph of 2 cars is tiny. Many people these days don't "enjoy a 2tph service", especially now that large numbers of those journeys are booked in advance. If capacity increases and the trains are less crowded, they are winners too.

Perhaps we should consider replacing the passenger line with a guided busway.

That will work well for intermodals to Southampton.

 

[Benjwri]

The greatest inducement to growth that the railway can provide is moving skilled workers between home and their place of employment, regional connectivity has some impact but it is much less significant

What so that people will drive and delay freight in its delivery to its final destination? A voyager worth of people creates far more congestion on the roads than a voyager does on the railway.

As already mentioned freight also isn’t profitable, and there are many examples of freight only lines being closed.

Leisure travel is the area of big growth since Covid on the railways, your suggestion that it is unimportant is just plainly untrue.

 

[Djgr]

If you ever want an excuse to swear at a freight train, try standing on Manchester Piccadilly Platforms 13 and 14, six deep with commuters, during the evening rush.

 

[158756]

"Other local services" southbound being the two-hourly GWR stopper to Didcot. Making this hourly would help, but I very much doubt that GWR have the rolling stock.

The other problem with this being that the stopper cannot run on the opposite half hour to the one XC that stops, and the stopper by necessity takes longer, so when it does run it tends to arrive/depart Oxford quite close to the XC service, making it far less useful than an even 2tph for Banbury passengers.

Given the scale of Oxford's traffic problems, the morning peak service from Banbury is not great - arrivals at Oxford are at 07:14,07:57,08:14,09:03,09:15. The XC service arriving at Oxford at 08:39 in the new timetable does not call at Banbury. I know it is a popular opinion that XC should not provide for local journeys, but as the dominant operator on this route should they not have a role to play here? The train in question only calls at Birmingham, Leamington, Oxford and Reading, so will it really be full of long distance passengers at that time in the morning?

 

[Magdalia]

What so that people will drive and delay freight in its delivery to its final destination? A voyager worth of people creates far more congestion on the roads than a voyager does on the railway.

Joining 2 trains together and running them in the same path does not reduce capacity, it increases it, by creating a free path either for another passenger train or a freight train. Either way congestion on the roads is reduced not increased.

there are many examples of freight only lines being closed.

In the case of Banbury, this is irrelevant. The freight trains at Banbury are mostly intermodals going to and from Southampton.

Leisure travel is the area of big growth since Covid on the railways, your suggestion that it is unimportant is just plainly untrue.

Leisure travel has a limited impact on the economy more generally, it is mainly about people spending money in place B instead of place A. If that expenditure is outside the UK, then that's a loss to the UK economy. Leisure does not generate high wage high productivity employment, which is what is needed to generate economic growth.

The growth in leisure travel on the railway since Covid hasn't done much for its revenue position, which is still worse than before Covid. Just because leisure travel raises some revenue doesn't mean that there are no better ways to raise more revenue.

 

[EMU303]

May 2026 timetables now posted on Scotrail, although no headline summary yet. One thing I did notice is that the Saturday 15 min frequency on Glasgow QS to Edinburgh starts one hour later at 10.15 but extends by one hour to 18.15 adding 17.30 and 18.00 departures from both stations, a sensible change which better matches seats to demand.

 

[cle]

The other problem with this being that the stopper cannot run on the opposite half hour to the one XC that stops, and the stopper by necessity takes longer, so when it does run it tends to arrive/depart Oxford quite close to the XC service, making it far less useful than an even 2tph for Banbury passengers.

Given the scale of Oxford's traffic problems, the morning peak service from Banbury is not great - arrivals at Oxford are at 07:14,07:57,08:14,09:03,09:15. The XC service arriving at Oxford at 08:39 in the new timetable does not call at Banbury. I know it is a popular opinion that XC should not provide for local journeys, but as the dominant operator on this route should they not have a role to play here? The train in question only calls at Birmingham, Leamington, Oxford and Reading, so will it really be full of long distance passengers at that time in the morning?

It’s a terrible decision and it was perfectly fine in the past - but you will still have some industry kapos defending it.

Chiltern should explore beginning their Oxford - Moor St service asap, and undercut XC in a major way. Will maybe be moot under GBR…

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s a terrible decision and it was perfectly fine in the past - but you will still have some industry kapos defending it.

Chiltern should explore beginning their Oxford - Moor St service asap, and undercut XC in a major way. Will maybe be moot under GBR…

Because obviously under GBR there’ll be nobody in charge of timetabling and trains will be able to stop wherever they like?