Reopening projects that might have to wait for other projects

[Waddon]

I'm curious what will happen on the Oxford to Bletchley line now that it seems that it is going to be reopened.

Firstly, will this announcement delay the Chiltern Evergreen 3 project? Some of that was planned on a reduced capacity/money saving basis with single track sections and a single platform at Islip which will need to be all redesigned, not to mention ideas for an enlarged station at Oxford...

also, because the route crosses the HS2 proposed alignment, will they have to build all the bridges and embankment infrastructure first even before works on HS2 begin? Does anyone have any information on this?

Finally, I feel it's inevitable that the line will get electrified at some time, now that the electric is coming to Oxford, giving the potential for through electric services from the west country and south Wales... I wonder if they will electrify as part of the first build?

 

[MK Tom]

Evergreen 3 was always planned with EWR in mind, so I'm pretty sure that'll go to plan provided everything works out with the bats in Wolvercote Tunnel. HS2 is still in an early planning stage compared with EWR and we can't even be sure that's the route it'll finally take as alternatives keep getting proposed so whether or not EWR has to take account of HS2 will probably depend on where HS2 stands planning-wise at the start of 2014.

 

[swt_passenger]

If it sticks to the proposed route it is HS2 that passes over the E/W rail route. Details of the junctions to allow for access from NR to the HS2 maintenance depot is also shown on the DfT's existing drawings.

I don't think EWR will have to contribute to the costs of the crossing, as their line already exists at that point (theoretically it is only mothballed...)

 

[The Planner]

Makes no difference to Chiltern. EG3 was based upon them providing the infrastructure to run their services to Oxford, if E-W want to come along and increase that then they pay for what is needed.

 

[Waddon]

I just think Chiltern may not be keen on opening their service if the line is going to have to be dug up and rebuilt within only a year or so of opening, all the effort they put into publicising and building up traffic on the route would be wrecked by bus replacements and other inconveniences. Some parts of Chiltern's current proposals are not compatible with the east-west plans, for example single platform at Islip... I know they had it in their plans to accomodate East West, I just feel they probably thought it was further in the future than it has turned out to be. Still, maybe the works for both can be carried out simultaneously?

 

[The Planner]

Can't see it needing to be dug up, EG3 will just build what they need on one side of the formation. As the revenue from the Oxford services is likely to recoup a big chunk of what has been paid out, I seriously doubt they would want to hold back.

 

[swt_passenger]

I just think Chiltern may not be keen on opening their service if the line is going to have to be dug up and rebuilt within only a year or so of opening, all the effort they put into publicising and building up traffic on the route would be wrecked by bus replacements and other inconveniences. Some parts of Chiltern's current proposals are not compatible with the east-west plans, for example single platform at Islip... I know they had it in their plans to accomodate East West, I just feel they probably thought it was further in the future than it has turned out to be. Still, maybe the works for both can be carried out simultaneously?

According to the Chiltern evidence to the TWA enquiry, the whole project is arranged to minimise disruption caused by EWR. (They would say that, wouldn't they...) In broad terms though, the design for EWR between Bicester and Oxford has already been done. EG3 is phase 1, Wolvercot tunnel gauge clearance and double tracking (phase 2A) is not required until EWR but is being funded by DfT for simultaneous completion, and 'the rest' is phase 2B.

It is phase 2B that is mainly down to EWR, and the new Islip station seems to be the only significant bit of rework.

However, the new down side platform at Islip should be able to be built before the existing extended platform is taken out of use for the new up line to be installed, so there should be a possible workaround to allow for the passenger service to continue using the single track and new platform.

 

[OliverS]

However, the new down side platform at Islip should be able to be built before the existing extended platform is taken out of use for the new up line to be installed, so there should be a possible workaround to allow for the passenger service to continue using the single track and new platform.

Surely a new Up platform. I vaguely recall from the TWA that the directions will be reversed. When I used Islip station a year ago I think the current platform blocks the southern side of the formation, i.e. the down line. But I agree with you that a new platform on the north side could be built for the current line, then the current platform removed, a new one built and then the down line put in place.

If I am correct in the Up line being North out of Oxford & then to London. What will happen if E-W goes ahead. Will that cause confusion at Bletchley?

 

[swt_passenger]

This is how the source reads, which should clarify what they mean. I was referring to a new down platform as seen from Oxford - as you suggest that will probably become the new up platform towards Marylebone:

4.201. In Phase 1 of the scheme the existing station will remain largely unchanged. The existing platform will be extended towards Bicester by approximately
97m. This will make the platform suitable for use by trains of up to 6 cars in length. This work will necessitate the permanent removal of a strip, around 0.5m in width, from the car park although it will be possible to retain the existing number of parking spaces.
4.202. A ticket vending machine will be installed together with a full public address system and customer information system displays. CCTV cameras will be installed around the station site.
4.203. The existing waiting shelter will be retained and refurbished.
4.204. The Phase 1 layout is shown in Figure 14.1 (Appendix 2, page 99).
4.205. The station is not affected by the Phase 2A works.
4.206. In Phase 2B, the second track through the station will be reinstated. This will necessitate the removal of the existing platform (and its Phase 1 extension). The existing platform will be replaced by two new platforms, one to serve each track. Each platform will be 147m in length with provision for future extension (at the northeast end) to 195m length.
4.207. The construction of the new Down platform will result in the loss of a further strip of land from the station car park. As a result, it will not be possible to retain the existing number of parking spaces although by use of an alternative arrangement of spaces, parking for 23 cars plus two motorcycles will be provided.

Up/down direction changes are fairly common, should not be a problem at all. There's a couple near where I live, such as Farlington triangle, (north of Portsmouth) and St Denys (near Southampton).

 

[lancastrian]

Evergreen 3 was always planned with EWR in mind, so I'm pretty sure that'll go to plan provided everything works out with the bats in Wolvercote Tunnel. HS2 is still in an early planning stage compared with EWR and we can't even be sure that's the route it'll finally take as alternatives keep getting proposed so whether or not EWR has to take account of HS2 will probably depend on where HS2 stands planning-wise at the start of 2014.

Well if the planners had any sense (don't presume that they do by the way), then all the work required for both Chiltern Evergreen 3 and the East - West line between Oxford and Bicester would be done at the same time. And that time would be the planned timetable for EG3.

Whats this about bats??? Why are what is basical a pest allowed to hold up a project that is desperately needed. While I am not against considering varis habitats and have no wish to see them deminished, it seems that their 'rights' trump ours everytime.

The tree huggers cause a greater increase in costs than all the useless regulations out of the EUSSR in Brussels.

 

[The Planner]

Why should it all be done now ?? Chiltern are paying and building the infrastructure they need to run Marylebone Oxford, not for the E-W services.

 

[lancastrian]

Why should it all be done now ?? Chiltern are paying and building the infrastructure they need to run Marylebone Oxford, not for the E-W services.

Well surely if the work together the costs for both should be reduced, that will also give a bonus for Chiltern in that they will have a double track all the way right from the start.

A win/win for both parties I would have thought.

 

[Tim B]

Wouldn't it be great to see Verney Junction rebuilt in its former glory ? Well I can dream ....... Though I was sorry to see the nearby Verney Arms pub/hotel shut down recently.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Whats this about bats??? Why are what is basical a pest allowed to hold up a project that is desperately needed. While I am not against considering varis habitats and have no wish to see them deminished, it seems that their 'rights' trump ours everytime.

The tree huggers cause a greater increase in costs than all the useless regulations out of the EUSSR in Brussels.

Nothing to do with tree huggers, its about treating the enivronment with a bit of respect. At the end of the day we encroach on their land constantly so least we can do is be nice about it. Make sure they are moved safely and with as little distress as possible to a suitable habitat.

 

[OliverS]

Well if the planners had any sense (don't presume that they do by the way), then all the work required for both Chiltern Evergreen 3 and the East - West line between Oxford and Bicester would be done at the same time. And that time would be the planned timetable for EG3.

And the money would come from where? What you are suggesting, i.e. building EG3 fully up to EW specifications could happen. It is just that it would happen on the EW timetable not the EG3 timetable. Personally I prefer the solution they have, build EG3 future proofed to make EW simple and cheap, and the only place where they can't do that, Wolvercote tunnel, the money is being spent now on the EG3 timetable.

Thinking about Oxford and Bletchley services. Given how nicely isolated the EW line is going to be from the GW lines, I do wonder whether they will run them past Oxford. There are obviously benefits to passengers if they do, but there is also the risk of GW disruptions affecting EW & Chiltern services.

 

[cle]

They could continue the double tracking, signalling and new track at Bicester a little past the Chiltern Mainline, just so that Marylebone - Oxford services aren't disrupted.

Won't the tunnel be doubled at some point? Surely cheaper to just do it now?

 

[The Planner]

As mentioned before, who is going to pay for it ? Chiltern certainly won't and E-W isnt sufficiently far enough down the road for it to be signed off.

 

[MK Tom]

There is always the [in my opinion high] chance that Chiltern may be the operator of the EWR services. Were that to be the case investing in it would certainly be in their interests.

 

[Trog]

Whats this about bats???

They have to be moved to a new home as they are conspicuous and hence vulnerable to predators while wearing little orange jackets. I believe they will be issued with tiny little residential passes to allow them to commute to the bat cave under the south flyover at Rugby.

 

[OliverS]

There is always the [in my opinion high] chance that Chiltern may be the operator of the EWR services. Were that to be the case investing in it would certainly be in their interests.

Look at the TWA order for EG3. There is so much in there about designing the Oxford-Bicester link with EW in mind that you would think it was a done deal. The only thing they have done is said that they can't afford it so this is how they are going to do things for now and this is how what they are going to do can be upgraded.

I only read the TWA because I used to live in Islip and was interested, but I was impressed by it.

 

[Andyjs247]

They could continue the double tracking, signalling and new track at Bicester a little past the Chiltern Mainline, just so that Marylebone - Oxford services aren't disrupted.

Won't the tunnel be doubled at some point? Surely cheaper to just do it now?

I would also have thought it would be cheaper to just do it now, particularly since Water Eaton Parkway and Bicester Town stations are getting 2 platforms as part of Evergreen 3 - they are required for the London trains even if Islip will still only get a more limited service for now. I must have missed the detail about Islip not gaining a second platform until E-W comes to fruition.

I thought that basically the whole route from Oxford to the new chord at Bicester (including the chord itself but excluding Wolvercote Tunnel) was to be built as double track as part of EG3. Incidentally NR has recently replaced / relocated the barriers and lights at London Road level crossing (adjacent to Bicester Town) and they have also cleared vegetation to allow the second track across the road. Also there are two further barriers waiting to be installed on the Up Oxford side; I guess as part of some further pedestrian upgrade to the crossing.*I can imagine London trains leaving Oxford (on the Down Oxford line maybe) but transferring to the Up Marylebone line at the point they leave the existing formation to join the new Bicester chord. There would be no need for future E-W trains to apparently change direction en route between Oxford - Bicester - Bletchley.

Does anyone know if the double track route is planned to be bi-di signalled? Presumably there will be some crossovers needed both at Water Eaton (for the stone terminal) and Bicester (access to the military railway) so maybe it is just about feasible to have one platform in use at Islip initially even if both Water Eaton and Bicester Town are double track with 2 platforms in use, whether or not the line through Islip is doubled. Water Eaton would then be a loop - I don't see any other way to get 4tph without a loop somewhere (plus allowing flexibility for a couple of freight paths at odd times).

 

[OliverS]

I would also have thought it would be cheaper to just do it now, particularly since Water Eaton Parkway and Bicester Town stations are getting 2 platforms as part of Evergreen 3 - they are required for the London trains even if Islip will still only get a more limited service for now. I must have missed the detail about Islip not gaining a second platform until E-W comes to fruition.

I thought that basically the whole route from Oxford to the new chord at Bicester (including the chord itself but excluding Wolvercote Tunnel) was to be built as double track as part of EG3.

The problem with Islip is the current platform is built on the southern trackbed. So to double track through Islip you need to reconstruct the station; if you have cashflow problems it is easier to delay doing that even if it costs more in the end. The original plan as I read it was to double from Wolvercote to Bicester but it was too expensive so got pushed to the EW timescale as it wasn't strictly necessary for EG3.

 

[The Planner]

Does anyone know if the double track route is planned to be bi-di signalled? Presumably there will be some crossovers needed both at Water Eaton (for the stone terminal) and Bicester (access to the military railway) so maybe it is just about feasible to have one platform in use at Islip initially even if both Water Eaton and Bicester Town are double track with 2 platforms in use, whether or not the line through Islip is doubled. Water Eaton would then be a loop - I don't see any other way to get 4tph without a loop somewhere (plus allowing flexibility for a couple of freight paths at odd times).

The last EG3 plans I saw basically had Water Eaton Parkway as a loop, it is bi-di on the Down only (Down is towards Bletchley in this case) so trains can reverse or terminate there. There is a crossover for Banbury Road aggregate siding more or less on the platform but it won't be used for passenger trains. There is a loop at Langford Lane to access the Bicester MOD site. I doubt very much that E-W if completed will be bi-di.

 

[Andyjs247]

The last EG3 plans I saw basically had Water Eaton Parkway as a loop, it is bi-di on the Down only (Down is towards Bletchley in this case) so trains can reverse or terminate there. There is a crossover for Banbury Road aggregate siding more or less on the platform but it won't be used for passenger trains. There is a loop at Langford Lane to access the Bicester MOD site. I doubt very much that E-W if completed will be bi-di.

I don't see why you'd need a loop at Langford Lane if its going to be double through Bicester. The rebuilt Bicester Town station will see construction mainly on the south (up Oxford) side as there is more space. The current siding would become a through platform road. It would make more sense to continue the double track all the way to the Chiltern main line. If I'm right, this would mean having double track from just north of Wolvercote Tunnel to Water Eaton (ie a longish loop), then single (as now) through Islip to south of Bicester (Langford Lane?) then double from there on. To minimise future upgrade disruption and cost would it not be sensible to make those crossovers which are required for freight access (MOD etc) suitable for passengers too and design the single line route around them. This might be feasible at Water Eaton, though thinking about it at the Bicester end you'd still need a facing crossover at the start/end of the single line plus a trailing one to access the MOD site.

Also, by virtue of it having initially been a single track route, you could eventually have bi-di more or less from Oxford North Jn to the Chiltern line (which between Aynho Jn and Princes Risborough is bi-di already, and was also formerly single track of course) without too much effort, whether or not this was part of the initial plan.

 

[The Planner]

Can't see the point of bi-di, I'm not aware of any massive use of it on the mainline. It is fairly meaningless anyway as said before, Chiltern are paying for what they need to run the Oxford service and unless someone comes forward with a pot of cash to do any extra it isn't going to happen.

 

[daikilo]

Can't see the point of bi-di, I'm not aware of any massive use of it on the mainline. It is fairly meaningless anyway as said before, Chiltern are paying for what they need to run the Oxford service and unless someone comes forward with a pot of cash to do any extra it isn't going to happen.

I tend to agree that the economic equation is not obvious. I think it breaks down to:
1) if the route has no other means of overtaking then bi-di could create such
2) if the route is subject to closures of one of the duallines then bi-di could mitigate the impact on traffic flow.

Planner: I find your comment interesting as it suggests that the value of bi-di may not be fully understood, and/or exploited.

 

[Waddon]

But back to my earlier point, will Chiltern be happy paying for their works if they know a whole bunch of additional works are going to be required just a short time down the road?
They are not going to want to spend time and money and build up a customer base for the route and then have it all swept away by weekend closures and bustitutions caused by E-W works... so my concern is maybe Chiltern will now put their works on hold until E-W is ready to go, to prevent all the disruption, thereby delaying the Chiltern service by a few years?

 

[Andyjs247]

Another thought. If cash is so tight would it not be possible to put in temporary platforms at Islip to serve both lines; a quick solution similar to that put in at Workington North?

 

[Bald Rick]

I tend to agree that the economic equation is not obvious. I think it breaks down to:
1) if the route has no other means of overtaking then bi-di could create such
2) if the route is subject to closures of one of the duallines then bi-di could mitigate the impact on traffic flow.

Planner: I find your comment interesting as it suggests that the value of bi-di may not be fully understood, and/or exploited.

But bi-di is very, very expensive on conventional signalling. It can be justified only at the time of resignalling, and then only on the busiest of routes.

 

[The Planner]

1) if the route has no other means of overtaking then bi-di could create such

Im not sure what you would be trying to overtake on a route like this, and it is actually a pretty big capacity hog to try and do such a move on a twin track line.

2) if the route is subject to closures of one of the duallines then bi-di could mitigate the impact on traffic flow.

I don't dispute that one, but I think it only works best on 3-4 track lines, the Trent Valley and Rugby is the best example of this as it enables you to still run a 2 track timetable with the minimum of disruption.

There is the customer perception theory that they would still rather stay on a train that is going to take an hour longer during engineering works than change or use the bus so it must have some merit.

Currently engineering works do make use of single line working but again it is a serious restriction on capacity and you still need to remove schedules and make massive alterations as it tends to be a stone that is chucked into a pond. There is also the issue of the capability of doing it, many emergency crossovers have been removed over cost/maintenance issues making it difficult to actually do.

Bald Rick is also correct in that bi-di costs a fortune to implement and will only ever happen at a full re-signalling which is once every 40 odd years in most cases. Simple bi-di signalling (SIMBIDS) is often declined over cost aswell, even though I think the Crewe Shrewsbury modular installation is planned to have some bi-di capability.

Planner: I find your comment interesting as it suggests that the value of bi-di may not be fully understood, and/or exploited.

I think it is understood as it has always been looked at under "7 day railway" initiatives and that the maintenance regimes are meant to find faster and better ways of working (not my quote before Old Timer replies !!)

As for Chiltern putting it on hold, I seriously seriously doubt it, the revenue earnt from the Oxford service needs to come on stream as soon as it can to help balance the EG3 books so holding off isn't something they will want to do.