Great Western Coffee Shop

I've not seen this mentioned elsewhere (mods - do delete or whatever if I'm being blind) but a letter in the Times today drew me to this:

http://www.clpg.org.uk/blog/cotswold-line-200m-upgrade-plan/

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-01-22/debates/88C42150-6CD6-49E9-BF68-16AE39F55D22/NorthCotswoldLine

An interesting read, even if it is only ever an aspiration.

I did mean to post that on here but forgot.  I think it's much more than an aspiration.  The key will be to get it on the list of projects on the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline, with the 'Decision to Initiate' stage almost able to be skipped so it can go straight to the 'Decision to Develop' stage if the Government stumps up half of the funding required, amounting to £1.5m.  If there's political will, a well organised group behind it, and a good business case it's surprising how quickly things can move.

The Taskforce's document can be downloaded here.

Crikey.  Isn't it amazing how we are having to put back what was taken away all those years ago in the 1970s.  I remember many happy days of travelling along there behind Hymek and Warship loco hauled coach trains at 90mph+ All double track and mechanically signalled. :D

From Chris Heaton-Harris, the rail minister, answering the debate.


Hmmm ...

a) I wonder why they missed the level of the demand when they were already in Government

b) Delighted to hear there will be a geographic spread - the was far from obvious to me with so much talk of the North and Midlands, and how it would bring them up to(wards) the level of London and the South East.  No previous mention of the South West - of the need for extra capacity on the north Cotswold line (as per the debate),  on the Salisbury - Exeter line, or between Chippenham and Trowbridge.

And with a full restaurant car on some services, or, at least a buffet.

But far fewer trains.  It all became a bit disastrous after 1974, when the Class 31s came along to "replace" the D7000s

When I was a (very young) signalman at Moreton in Marsh I used to tease one or other of the Area Manager's team by asking how much extra was being spent in terms of delays, and brake blocks and fuel with the slowings and/or stops for token purposes, compared to the savings on maintenance on the lifted track.  Mostly, they didn't like it.

Indeed, that is always the objection to singling. You spend money to produce (say) one third (?) of the original capacity for (say) two thirds (?) of the original maintenance cost, then spend more money putting it all back again.

I can’t download the CLPG paper referred to. Are they really talking about re-doubling from Evesham West only to Pershore rather than Norton Junction? Here’s an idea. Restoration of the second platform at Pershore would be very difficult. So redouble throughout but just use the siting down platform at Pershore for both directions with crossovers. The ridiculous idea of opening Parkway with only one platform instead of redoubling the couple of hundred yards from Norton will end in tears.

It would be good to have the additional benefits you describe.  The problem is you have to make something vaguely within a realistic budget and the solution(s) the document details do provide for the service enhancements that were the objectives of the Taskforce's remit. 

If we're looking at £200m for what they've proposed (which will no doubt rise!), then if you added the second platform at the new Parkway station, with lifts and so on as well as a single span bridge that would need replacing between Pershore and Worcester, as well as signalling changes that would be needed at Norton Junction then all of a sudden the price rockets up to £300m or more and it becomes an unrealistic price for little extra benefit on what the £200m would get you.

Nor can I and someone else who has put a comment on the page. The publicity would probably have more impact if the report could be read.   

I agree it is never easy. At the other end, redoubling to Hanborough does look a good idea. I think I read somewhere that the key to the timing there is the renewal of Wolvercot Junction.

But the trouble is II, that this country always ends up doing things in 'bits and pieces'. Eventually the whole line will end up being redoubled at three times or more of the cost of doing it all properly now......

Going slightly off topic, but to illustrate the statement............. A local council has the choice of spending £50 for a temporary repair to a pothole that will last for 12 months or £150 for a more permanent (10 year) solution. Inevitably, because of budget constraints, they will choose the £50 solution and spend £500+ instead of £150 over 10 years. Everything in government is short-termism (except where the government knows that it will be somebody else's problem way down the line (e.g. HS2) ).

But sometimes phased improvements are the best approach.  Trying to rush GW electrification increased costs.  Now the roof of Temple Meads and Bristol East Junction are being done in advance of electrification at much less cost.  The key is to have an effective long term plan with stages so that the amount of abortive work is the minimum. 

So getting back to the North Cotswold Line, filling in the remaining double track at the East end needed to wait for both Oxford resignalling (or do I mean relocking or recontrol?) and as II says need to wait for Wolvercote Junction to be renewed. What would be bad is if Wolvercote junction were not improved to provide the short stub of double track to start things off. 

I didn't actually say that.  Wolvercote Junction isn't due for renewal until 2040, and there's no problem with Oxford signalling any more as it was sorted last year.  The big stumbling block at the Oxford end is Combe and Finstock with the cost of adding another platform at Combe and demolishing the existing platform at Finstock and replacing it with two new platforms - that or the politically sensitive alternative of closing them both.

Like I said, to achieve what the Taskforce set out to do (two trains per hour each way), then they only need to do the bits they've proposed.  A £200m scheme is much more likely to get approved than a £300-400m one.  I agree with all the short-termism comments - If the Stratford-Upon-Avon line ever opens then they'll have to be another phase of work - but unfortunately that's the way things are, and I'm not sure it's specifically a 'this country' thing.

It would be nice to know what they do propose as the link to the document still does not work. 

Should be available to download on the supporting documents section at the bottom of this page:

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2020-0004

and from my mailbox - the CLPG website is aware of the problem (and that it's been reported here):


Thanks for letting us know!

(Posting again after the server ate my first reply the other day - stop me if you've heard this one before...)

The proposed infrastructure enhancements are obviously welcome.

Unfortunately, the service changes aren't: they are a seriously retrograde step for the busiest station on the line (Charlbury), are equally bad for Kingham, and offer nothing to the third busiest station (Evesham).

Charlbury and Kingham lose their direct services to central Worcester, the Vale of Evesham, Malvern and (for connections to Wales/the Borders) Hereford. Instead, they get a dubious direct service to Kidderminster and Droitwich (be still my beating heart), perhaps through some misguided notion that the thriving metropolis of Kidderminster needs direct trains to two London terminals. Charlbury and Kingham get no extra trains, whereas Hanborough goes up from 1tph to 4tph, and Moreton from 1tph to 2tph.

The report authors don't appear to have factored in that Chipping Norton is getting 1200 new houses, many of whom will want to commute from Charlbury or Kingham: Chippy has comparatively little employment itself and poor road connections. Nor that many off-peak Charlbury passengers, even those who live in the town itself, have switched to Oxford Parkway because of the more frequent, affordable and reliable service. If there had been any consultation then we (Charlbury Town Council) could have told them that... but there hasn't.

As these proposals stand, they are not a net benefit to passengers on the Cotswold Line, and I hope that DfT requires them to be seriously reworked.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18219337.charlbury-town-council-chairman-questions-cotswold-line-plans/

It's just been confirmed that Oxfordshire County Council will be run by a coalition of LibDems, Labour and the Greens. As the LibDems are the largest party, the leader of the council looks likely to be our own Liz Leffman, councillor for Charlbury & Wychwood - a division which also includes Kingham station though not Kingham village. Kingham village is part of the Chipping Norton division, which went from Conservative to Labour in the elections.

Liz campaigned locally on making sure that all the Oxfordshire stations benefit from any Cotswold Line upgrade. So I think it's fair to say that the NCLTF is going to have to seriously rethink its proposal if it still wants Oxfordshire County Council support.

Interesting times.

Recently from Liz Leffman: