Chiltern Evergreen 3 project - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[didcotdean]

Recall a suggestion somewhere that EWR could terminate many services at Didcot bringing Platform 5 into greater use which is relatively lightly used, in the process taking over some/most of the stoppers between Oxford and Didcot. Whether this was an 'official' suggestion or someone's own speculation I can't remember though - or indeed how popular that would be for people going from say Goring to Oxford.

[Electric train]

Probably also means no extended layovers for Chiltern - straight in, load/unload & out again. The original plans incorporated their own station entrance, ticket office and associated kit like drivers accom. I guess the latter could still feature if you had a quick driver changeover.

Separate train crew messing and welfare is not favoured, likewise entrances and ticket offices for National Rail services.

The EWR website shows services through to Reading which if the journey times are reasonable to Aylesbury and Milton Keynes will become a popular commute 

[paul7575]

It would be easier to just join the EWR services to the existing FGW^▸ (First Great Western) stopping services from Paddington, now that it's full electrification throughout, rather than an interloping DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) on an electric railway.  Perhaps announce them differently at Paddington, but as Milton Keynes or Bedford services from Reading, or something like that.  

The implication of the service patterns shown in the presentation referred to in post #8 of the Oxford redevelopment thread:  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=11850.0  is certainly that existing services will now be joined.

Paul

[Electric train]

Paul don't forget EWR is being electrified

[paul7575]

Paul don't forget EWR is being electrified

That's what I just wrote - 'full electrification throughout'... 

When GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification was news, EWR would still have been DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit). Electrifying both must inevitably lead to better through service possibilities, is what I meant.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

When GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification was news, EWR would still have been DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit). Electrifying both must inevitably lead to better through service possibilities, is what I meant.

And an ideal chance to provide a proper East-West Rail link, by running the Bedford service to/from Bristol in my opinion.  Running it to replace the stopping service to/from Reading will lead to pretty rubbish journey times on through journeys - which, especially post Crossrail, will probably be bettered from Reading to Bedford via London, but I suppose Reading/Didcot will be better destinations than just Oxford, which is why the East-West Rail Consortium have taken that view over the last few years.

Thanks - the additional bay platform isn't yet part of the resignalling plans and is just an option, according to Chris Aldridge on Saturday. i.e. a possible future option, imho, possibly if/when the new through up platform is installed.

Do you mean the new down platform?  Cost and hassle wise installing a new up platform (although allowed for passively in the diagrams) would involve demolishing the concourse - much more likely is a new down platform running behind platform 2 as described in the diagram which would only use land vacated by the closure of Oxford Panel and much less important buildings.  As I said, I think the layout in the diagrams is pretty good:  A new down platform, the current platform 2 becoming bi-directional, an extended bay and new north facing bay, together with revised track layouts and increased speeds - it ticks all the boxes it can now that the station looks like it is staying in its current location.

One final point regarding the development of Oxford station, as ChrisB says, should there just be an extended Platform 3, turnround timings will have to be very short in order to make that work, and, even if it becomes bi-directionally signalled the Jericho Passenger Loop is quite restrictive in that a train arriving/departing from Platform 3 cannot do so at the same time a train arrives/departs from Platform 1.  I can see performance issues in trying to squeeze those extra trains in, even with short dwell times.

[John R]

I agree running to Bristol would provide a really useful service. The reason the previous Bristol to Oxford service ceased was allegedly down to improving reliability. With 100mph emu stock and the loss of coal traffic to Didcot I would imagine this is less of an issue now.

There would then inevitably be pressure to reopen other stations on the main line, such as Corsham, Royal WB, and maybe Wantage Rd, though these would then make journey times less attractive, and reintroduce the pathing problems eased by having 100mph emu's.

[JayMac]

What is the absolute limit for paths on the two track section between Swindon and Foxhall Junction? Can a 100-110mph service to Oxford be slotted in between the 125mph services from Bristol/South Wales/Cheltenham-London?

Of the latter there are currently 4tph with a fifth every two hours. That is set to increase with IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to 6/7tph.

Not to forget the odd freight path as well.

Should four-tracking the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) between Didcot and Swindon not be considered?

[John R]

At 100mph, emu's only lose 7.5 seconds per mile against 125mph running, so 8 miles for a minute lost, thus no more than 3 minutes maximum.  I'd have thought one path an hour could easily be slotted in, given the considerable reduction in freight , as those paths will have been the biggest user of capacity.

[IndustryInsider]

I agree, I'd have thought a 100mph capable EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) service (or even 110mph as looks increasingly likely to be the stock we end up with), could be pathed OK between Swindon and Foxhall, indeed it might be the Chippenham/Bath/Bristol corridor that proves more difficult in that respect.  

That would, as 'John R' says, be the best chance new stations like Corsham, Wootton Bassett and Grove/Wantage have of ever opening as it would be an ideal service to stop at those stations. Grove/Wantage could be built on the 4-track section that already exists to allow faster services to overtake - though a two-track railway might make things a bit more problematic at the other potential stations, though with a of planning and a bit of money a similar looped station could be built at Wootton Bassett.

A through Bristol to Bedford hourly electric service via Oxford would open up so many more journey opportunities, and, if you ask me, is a much more compelling prospect than an all stations Reading to Oxford and onwards to Bedford service.  By all means run the other Milton Keynes service to/from Didcot or Reading, but Bristol to Bedford (and eventually Cambridge/Norwich) ticks so many boxes.

[TonyK]

And an ideal chance to provide a proper East-West Rail link, by running the Bedford service to/from Bristol in my opinion.  Running it to replace the stopping service to/from Reading will lead to pretty rubbish journey times on through journeys - which, especially post Crossrail, will probably be bettered from Reading to Bedford via London, but I suppose Reading/Didcot will be better destinations than just Oxford, which is why the East-West Rail Consortium have taken that view over the last few years.

I think I understand - using the left turn at Foxhall Junction to avoid having to call at Didcot and turn back. I believe the Bristol - Oxford route lasted 4 years until 2004(?), when the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) asked for it to be closed to avoid congestion. Whether Bristol to Oxford could again be viable is not clear, as there are few intermediate stations and not many people going the full journey. Weston s Mare to Bedford could certainly work, though.

As for four-tracking Swindon to Didcot, I think at some point that will become inevitable. IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services to Oxford, Bristol, and South Wales, more local services, and an increase in freight paths - partly offset by the end of coal trains to Didcot power station - will mean something will have to be done. But let's have Four Track, Now between Temple Meads and Filton Bank. After that, we can look at Four Track, Then from Swindon.

[Red Squirrel]

As for four-tracking Swindon to Didcot, I think at some point that will become inevitable.

I was just having a quick squizz on google maps to see what this would entail, and was rather delighted to see this trundling down the track...

[JayMac]

The colour, outline and shadow of that kettle makes it look suspiciously like 60163 Tornado.

Only hauling one though....

[IndustryInsider]

I think I understand - using the left turn at Foxhall Junction to avoid having to call at Didcot and turn back. I believe the Bristol - Oxford route lasted 4 years until 2004(?), when the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) asked for it to be closed to avoid congestion. Whether Bristol to Oxford could again be viable is not clear, as there are few intermediate stations and not many people going the full journey. Weston s Mare to Bedford could certainly work, though.

I do think there is a suitable market out there.  Not only is there the market for direct journeys between Bristol/Bath and Swindon to Oxford that the old Turbo service provided, but this new service would build on that by also providing direct links from those stations to Bicester Village (and Bicester itself), as well as links to the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) at Bletchley/Milton Keynes/Bedford meaning one easy change to get to places like Northampton and Luton which are poorly served by rail from the west as it stands.

I was just having a quick squizz on google maps to see what this would entail, and was rather delighted to see this trundling down the track...

Though it won't be long before it comes across a log jam of HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s a bit further down the track by Trow Lane Farm.   

[ChrisB]

Do you mean the new down platform?  Cost and hassle wise installing a new up platform (although allowed for passively in the diagrams) would involve demolishing the concourse - much more likely is a new down platform running behind platform 2 as described in the diagram which would only use land vacated by the closure of Oxford Panel and much less important buildings.

No, I did mean up platform - passively provisioned to destroy the concourse, yes.

It is marked as a dotted line on the plans if you look carefully - and as already recognised, Oxford station is about to be redesigned/rebuilt - so probably taking this into account.

The additional bay platform (in red on that plan) is also for that stage. Not to be installed currently when the station is resignalled/rebuilt, but passively allowed for in case it is needed. So not part of the EWR works either. The through up extra line will use an extended platform 3 route through the concourse, so removing the bay platform - which would be replaced by the new bay platform (marked in red) - They'd be built at the same time.

The resignalling is reducing the headways to Didcot to 3 minutes and to Banbury to 6 minutes.

The extra down platform from what Chris said was likely to be part of the resignalling project, hence it being marked as a solid line on that plan. The widening of the Botley Road bridge will mean it taking 'part of' (Chris's words) the YHA building, so not sure what would be left of that!