OxRail 2040 - plan from Oxfordshire County Council

[Zomboid]

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

It's not going to be Mossend, if access from the south via Oxford is truly essential for the one train every 2 weeks that'll go there, there's certainly enough tracks at Banbury to facilitate a run round. Or if that's not possible then there's a run round that's definitely away from the running lines at Fenny Compton.

 

[fishwomp]

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

Well, it's imaginary lines for imaginary freight trains - to match the imaginary funding and imaginary usage!

 

[zwk500]

It's not going to be Mossend, if access from the south via Oxford is truly essential for the one train every 2 weeks that'll go there,

If it's 1 train every 2 weeks it's not going to be built.

there's certainly enough tracks at Banbury to facilitate a run round.

For the initial traffic Banbury is probably good enough, although the goods loops there are by no means lightly used, and you'd need to pick your gaps as anything longer than the platform lines will need to use the Down Goods to Reservoir Junction.

Or if that's not possible then there's a run round that's definitely away from the running lines at Fenny Compton.

Fenny Compton would definitely be non-preferred, the need to get a path in to the very slow loop entry and extra runtime would be offputting enough, and you'd need bigger gaps on the Down Cherwell Valley to run round in as passenger trains would be going through non-stop, unlike Banbury.
Not sure if it'd be sufficiently annoying to justify providing an alternative facility though.

 

[67018]

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?

It's most definitely not too far from London for commuting, as demonstrated by the level of commuter flow from Banbury (which is further away) and Bicester (just down the road).

The existing village is already dwarfed by the Heyford Park development with a lot more bulding to come and, although residents there might drive, Oxfordshire Country Council have a very active policy of encouraging non-car travel. We're not talking about a small housing estate here, the plan is for 9,000 houses so a population in the tens of thousands.

 

[MarkyT]

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.

The radius is ~270m, well in excess of the freight minimum of 150m (125m exceptional cases), reference: RGS Track System Requirements GCRT5021. The radius also exceeds the normal passenger minimum of 200m (150m exceptional cases). The height difference is at most 6m. Over the chord length of ~1km, that's 1:166, though the gradient may vary a little over the length to best fit with optimal road levels at the new bridges and other constraints.

I envisaged a new passenger service between Oxford and Banbury, calling at Oxford North, Islip, both Bicesters, and Ardley. These trains could plausibly be extended to Stratford-upon-Avon to form a regular connection between several popular tourist sites: Oxford, Bicester Village, Warwick, Stratford. It would also serve to strengthen local frequency from Oxford on the EWR axis and provide a direct Ardley-Oxford link.

 

[fishwomp]

I envisaged a new passenger service between Oxford and Banbury, calling at Oxford North, Islip, both Bicesters, and Ardley. These trains could plausibly be extended to Stratford-upon-Avon to form a regular connection between several popular tourist sites: Oxford, Bicester Village, Warwick, Stratford. It would also serve to strengthen local frequency from Oxford on the EWR axis and provide a direct Ardley-Oxford link.

That's a rather roundabout way for anyone in Oxford to reach Banbury - distance 22m55ch. Oxford-Bicester Gavray Jct is 12m16ch, Bicester South Jct-Banbury is 15m13ch - so your new route is going to be within spitting distance of that 27m29ch, with one slow curve and more stops.

Even from Oxford Parkway, it'd be better to go into Oxford and out again. However, Islip would possibly get a better service, if you stopped there, but that's not really going to pay for the running cost, let alone the curve - and the freight terminal owners won't pay for that either..

 

[MarkyT]

That's a rather roundabout way for anyone in Oxford to reach Banbury - distance 22m55ch. Oxford-Bicester Gavray Jct is 12m16ch, Bicester South Jct-Banbury is 15m13ch - so your new route is going to be within spitting distance of that 27m29ch, with one slow curve and more stops.

It wouldn't compete with Banbury-Oxford journeys. Those passengers would most likely continue to take a non-stop Cross Country. Those from Oxford to Warwick and Stratford might find a direct train attractive.

Even from Oxford Parkway, it'd be better to go into Oxford and out again. However, Islip would possibly get a better service, if you stopped there, but that's not really going to pay for the running cost, let alone the curve - and the freight terminal owners won't pay for that either..

Going into Oxford and back out is still shorter from the parkway to Banbury than my route via Bicester, I grant you, but only by about one mile. A real journey time estimation would have to include interchange time and factor in connection resilience and performance, bearing in mind we're talking Cross Country here. A slightly longer but direct and more reliable journey, even just to Banbury, might be attractive for those who live in the parkway catchment.

 

[zwk500]

It wouldn't compete with Banbury-Oxford journeys. Those passengers would most likely continue to take a non-stop Cross Country. Those from Oxford to Warwick and Stratford might find a direct train attractive.

Going into Oxford and back out is still shorter from the parkway to Banbury than my route via Bicester, I grant you, but only by about one mile. A real journey time estimation would have to include interchange time and factor in connection resilience and performance, bearing in mind we're talking Cross Country here. A slightly longer but direct and more reliable journey, even just to Banbury, might be attractive for those who live in the parkway catchment.

Yes, but how much of that is going to translate into quantifiable or even qualitative benefits? Or perhaps, how much benefit is all that going to translate into?

 

[rmHawk765]

A real journey time estimation would have to include interchange time and factor in connection resilience and performance, bearing in mind we're talking Cross Country here.

I can see the sense in your idea but it's worth noting that XC isn't unreliable just 'because', it can be fixed by a competent government/DfT/GBR. It's a bit silly to create a new service to avoid one that is unreliable but not because of any genuine pathing or otherwise infrastructure-related issue.

 

[cle]

It wouldn't compete with Banbury-Oxford journeys. Those passengers would most likely continue to take a non-stop Cross Country. Those from Oxford to Warwick and Stratford might find a direct train attractive.

They might use an Oxford-Stratford service, via the actual real route - which could take over the various shuttles (eg Leamington, Ox-Ban) and connect a lot of local journeys, as well as providing some visitor benefit.

 

[fishwomp]

They might use an Oxford-Stratford service, via the actual real route - which could take over the various shuttles (eg Leamington, Ox-Ban) and connect a lot of local journeys, as well as providing some visitor benefit.

At one point there was a direct service to Stratford, operated by the 165/166s on the Oxford - Londons and an extension of those services. That possibly predates franchising and the split of responsibility, with Thames losing the route.

There was however until mid-2010s a last-train of the day from Stratford to Oxford, Ideal for theatre kicking-out time at the RSC and other towns en route, operated by chiltern.

 

[MarkyT]

They might use an Oxford-Stratford service, via the actual real route - which could take over the various shuttles (eg Leamington, Ox-Ban) and connect a lot of local journeys, as well as providing some visitor benefit.

That would be useful at minimal cost, I agree. The future of the Oxford-Banbury stopper is relevant. Assuming suitable stock was available, once electrification reaches Oxford, these might become battery extensions of some of the Oxford semi-fasts from London Paddington, restoring the traditional pattern before electrification. Operators likely will not want these sometimes long suburban trains periodically going on extended soujourns to Warwickshire. Maintaining an hourly service would be difficult and battery range could be more critical for an out and back from Oxford to Stratford.

My service, likely part of the Chiltern/EWR operating group, would use shorter trains and is routed via more populous places between Oxford and Banbury, clearly at cost, with extra distance and stations, of some journey time compared to via Tackley. At Oxford it would be accommodated in the Chiltern bays and have little interaction with GW services.

While there's much potential for improvements at XC, a train that has already travelled 200 miles through several major railway hubs is more likely to be delayed than a local train shuttling on a shorter, simpler network. Having an additional locally-resourced hourly service between St Austell and Truro was seen as a major benefit of the Mid Cornwall Metro, as it's likely to remain resilient at times long distance trains, which form much of the service in Cornwall, are disrupted due to problems many miles away.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2026 ==

A further enhancement to provide grade separation for Oxford-Marylebone trains.

 

[cle]

That would be useful at minimal cost, I agree. The future of the Oxford-Banbury stopper is relevant. Assuming suitable stock was available, once electrification reaches Oxford, these might become battery extensions of some of the Oxford semi-fasts from London Paddington, restoring the traditional pattern before electrification. Operators likely will not want these sometimes long suburban trains periodically going on extended soujourns to Warwickshire. Maintaining an hourly service would be difficult and battery range could be more critical for an out and back from Oxford to Stratford.

I would think that extending the Oxford fast (current terminator) to Banbury would be better than the semi-fast EMUs. And you could do that today. Hanborough was another option (if wired) - or a second to at least Worcester, but I don't know if that is happening.

Either way, it would clear P4 for the semi-fasts at Oxford, and/or the Bristol. The Bristol could also potentially go on to Banbury and pick up the shuttle. Being two-hourly, it might even serve to absorb the Leamington shuttle!

 

[Zomboid]

would think that extending the Oxford fast (current terminator) to Banbury would be better than the semi-fast EMUs. And you could do that today. Hanborough was another option (if wired) - or a second to at least Worcester, but I don't know if that is happening

I suppose this is imagining that enough 800s can be found from somewhere to do it, but it certainly makes sense to get the terminators out of the way. I'd send it to Hanborough (Charlbury, ideally) and have Chiltern run an Oxford to Stratford service to pick up the smaller stations, with electrification from Didcot to allow the Paddington semi fasts to turn round in P4, which should be able to handle that and the Bristol service.

 

[cle]

I suppose this is imagining that enough 800s can be found from somewhere to do it, but it certainly makes sense to get the terminators out of the way. I'd send it to Hanborough (Charlbury, ideally) and have Chiltern run an Oxford to Stratford service to pick up the smaller stations, with electrification from Didcot to allow the Paddington semi fasts to turn round in P4, which should be able to handle that and the Bristol service.

I agree with this - until the wires you could even run Stratford-Didcot and sweep up that shuttle too.

 

[MarkyT]

I suppose this is imagining that enough 800s can be found from somewhere to do it, but it certainly makes sense to get the terminators out of the way. I'd send it to Hanborough (Charlbury, ideally) and have Chiltern run an Oxford to Stratford service to pick up the smaller stations, with electrification from Didcot to allow the Paddington semi fasts to turn round in P4, which should be able to handle that and the Bristol service.

Even with the welcome relief of P5, the GWR/XC facilities at Oxford will be stretched. Long turnback layovers are highly undesirable, but empty trains can disappear into the down sidings for a while to clear a platform if necessary. The Bristols have a ~40m turnback today, and they go into the sidings, as they must with the constraints of the current two (through) platform station. The semis can probably bounce back more quickly if the timetable allows that, but you'd want 10 minutes at least for a resilient reversal. At a thirty-minute interval with re-occupation time, that's getting on for 30 minutes of the hour. The Bristols might use 4 or 5 on arrival as expedient but would still need to go to the sidings empty before returning to 4 for departure, between the semis.

 

[Zomboid]

I agree with this - until the wires you could even run Stratford-Didcot and sweep up that shuttle too.

Oxford to Didcot needs to be 2tph, but as today every 4th train extends to Banbury via the small stations, so if trains can be found to run it that could carry on the Stratford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2026 ==

Even with the welcome relief of P5, the GWR/XC facilities at Oxford will be stretched. Long turnback layovers are highly undesirable, but empty trains can disappear into the down sidings for a while to clear a platform if necessary. The Bristols have a ~40m turnback today, and they go into the sidings, as they must with the constraints of the current two (through) platform station. The semis can probably bounce back more quickly if the timetable allows that, but you'd want 10 minutes at least for a resilient reversal. At a thirty-minute interval with re-occupation time, that's getting on for 30 minutes of the hour. The Bristols might use 4 or 5 on arrival as expedient but would still need to go to the sidings empty before returning to 4 for departure, between the semis.

Ok, that's reasonable. Would be nice if there were a reversing siding or two between the running lines to deconflict that move, but if it's just the Bristol doing that once an hour it ought to be possible to find a slot to get it out into 4 (or possibly even 3).

 

[zwk500]

Oxford to Didcot needs to be 2tph, but as today every 4th train extends to Banbury via the small stations, so if trains can be found to run it that could carry on the Stratford.

What's the reasoning behind significantly extending the local Leamington services that must hit pretty tight slots over single lines? I know XC aren't great, but the existing 2tph service should be fine and surely the focus should be on getting that running properly before you go stuffing the Cherwell Valley up with stoppers so that freight gets squeezed even tighter.

 

[Zomboid]

What's the reasoning behind significantly extending the local Leamington services that must hit pretty tight slots over single lines? I know XC aren't great, but the existing 2tph service should be fine and surely the focus should be on getting that running properly before you go stuffing the Cherwell Valley up with stoppers so that freight gets squeezed even tighter.

Probably something from the other thread about linking Oxford with Stratford. Though whether the best mechanism for that is a train which stops at Tackley and Claverdon is perhaps a different conversation.

 

[MarkyT]

Would be nice if there were a reversing siding or two between the running lines to deconflict that move, but if it's just the Bristol doing that once an hour it ought to be possible to find a slot to get it out into 4 (or possibly even 3).

Assuming the overlap is clear, there will always be a slot for an empty move across the north end of 5 while each down express approaches and loads, so a middle siding isn't necessary.

The ladder from the sidings goes across the layout to 3, so it's possible to use it if available, though there can't be any freights trundling through at the time.

 

[zwk500]

Assuming the overlap is clear, there will always be a slot for an empty move across the north end of 5 while each down express approaches and loads, so a middle siding isn't necessary.

The ladder from the sidings goes across the layout to 3, so it's possible to use it if available, though there can't be any freights trundling through at the time.

A train standing on the running line between the signals at the north end of Oxford for up to 10 minutes while a driver changes ends is going to cause a fair amount of problems. It might not be strictly necessary, but it'd be very helpful.

 

[cle]

Oxford to Didcot needs to be 2tph, but as today every 4th train extends to Banbury via the small stations, so if trains can be found to run it that could carry on the Stratford.

The fasts make these calls too now, since Slough was dropped - so this would be a third.

edit to say - could P4 have some permissive working for shorter trains? Bristol 5 car 800 at A-end, Banbury (Stratford) shuttles at B-end?

 

[MarkyT]

edit to say - could P4 have some permissive working for shorter trains? Bristol 5 car 800 at A-end, Banbury (Stratford) shuttles at B-end?

In the post P5 world, with the current ~40m Turnback for the Bristols, if they remained in P4, there wouldn't be room for all of the semifast terminators in that hour. If the Bristols continued to reverse in the sidings, after they exit to 4 to depart again, another short up arrival could plausibly come in behind to reverse.

The moves would be marginally quicker and arguably safer if, rather than using a permissive call-on, there was a mid-platform signal the first train could draw ahead of, so an absolute warning route might be set into the clear rear portion.

 

[Farigiraf]

Probably something from the other thread about linking Oxford with Stratford. Though whether the best mechanism for that is a train which stops at Tackley and Claverdon is perhaps a different conversation.

If there is space between Leamington and Oxford for another limited-stop service then obviously that would be ideal for a potential Oxford-Stratford. But I'm fairly sure there isn't. An all-stops Oxford to Stratford-u-A service would take around 1h 30m, which is significantly slower than either driving directly there (as no doubt many tour companies do) or taking XC to Leamington and changing there.

So either way there's no great option (unless the Honeybourne connection ever reopens, that is), but if you want to achieve minor service improvements based on what is available, I still see the merit in it. Improves connectivity for the smaller stations, gets the GWR Banbury shuttle out of GWR's hands (which would be useful if Didcot-Oxford is ever wired) and still offers a (slightly slow) 1-seat ride between two tourist hotspots. Whether it's the best option to go for, I don't know - you could also explore Stratford-Marylebone or Oxford - Moor Street as potential new alternatives - but it's unlikely to make things worse.

What is actually required to get either the Oxford-Banbury or Leamington-Stratford stoppers up to hourly? If one's easy enough to increase in frequency while the other requires a major capacity upgrade project then it's probably better to keep them separated for the time being, but if both are likely to stay 2-hourly for the foreseeable future then that further supports a merger.

 

[Falcon1200]

could P4 have some permissive working for shorter trains? Bristol 5 car 800 at A-end, Banbury (Stratford) shuttles at B-end?

Doesn't Platform 4 have this already? IIRC some years ago a new (I presume) manager at Oxford published advice that in future short trains would all stop at the far north end of Platform 4 so that if necessary another short train could enter behind, rather than stand at the graveyard. However this method of working seems to have been abandoned; Possibly after complaints about the long walk to the lift and stairs?

 

[JamesT]

Doesn't Platform 4 have this already? IIRC some years ago a new (I presume) manager at Oxford published advice that in future short trains would all stop at the far north end of Platform 4 so that if necessary another short train could enter behind, rather than stand at the graveyard. However this method of working seems to have been abandoned; Possibly after complaints about the long walk to the lift and stairs?

Also, surely the point of adding another platform is to give options rather than trying to stuff everything into the same one? If something is sitting in 4, send the next one to 5? If you’re terminating from the North, there’s 1-3 to choose from.

 

[MarkyT]

What is actually required to get either the Oxford-Banbury or Leamington-Stratford stoppers up to hourly? If one's easy enough to increase in frequency while the other requires a major capacity upgrade project then it's probably better to keep them separated for the time being, but if both are likely to stay 2-hourly for the foreseeable future then that further supports a merger.

I reckon the Stratford shuttle could run hourly now, but it'd require two trains on the circuit, as the one-way journey time is about 38 minutes. I think they'd pass around Hatton and there'd be enough time for the elaborate empty shunt at Leamington Spa. Eliminating that lengthy unremunerative activity is one benefit of extending the service further south.

 

[Zomboid]

I don't know about the Stratford one, but I doubt there's the demand from Tackley and Heyford for an hourly service. Kings Sutton has Marylebone and Oxford each two hourly. Oxford to Banbury has the XC services so very few people will choose the stoppers.

Might change if the Kidlington/ Begbroke development happens and includes a station, but the size of what they're proposing there on addition to the existing developments would probably justify more than 1tph.

 

[fishwomp]

I don't know about the Stratford one, but I doubt there's the demand from Tackley and Heyford for an hourly service. Kings Sutton has Marylebone and Oxford each two hourly. Oxford to Banbury has the XC services so very few people will choose the stoppers.

Plenty of new houses built and coming at the top of the hill in Upper Heyford .. they will need a bigger car park if they get the frequency up - the current service is not adequate.

 

[Farigiraf]

I don't know about the Stratford one, but I doubt there's the demand from Tackley and Heyford for an hourly service. Kings Sutton has Marylebone and Oxford each two hourly. Oxford to Banbury has the XC services so very few people will choose the stoppers.

Might change if the Kidlington/ Begbroke development happens and includes a station, but the size of what they're proposing there on addition to the existing developments would probably justify more than 1tph.

Begbroke and Heyford alone will justify minimum 1tph due to housebuilding. Realistically, 2tph is required for the railway to make an impact. Kidlington could also do with a station in the north end of the town on Banbury Road.

Tackley getting an hourly service wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - it's a village with a few hundred people and therefore there will always be some demand (though 2tph would be overkill when there's also the S4 bus every hour). I can think of many smaller places with at least an hourly train service.

Though I highly doubt XC will be stopping at Begbroke so the whole timetable north of Oxford will likely need a rethink anyway - is there actually enough capacity between Oxford and Banbury for both a frequent commuter/regional service (e.g. 2tph, 1 to Stratford and 1 to Banbury/Moor St) and CrossCountry every half hour? I'd be surprised if there was, but if so then it has a lot of potential as a new commuter rail corridor, especially given that there'll be somewhere to send the trains on the other side of Oxford soon (Cowley).