Great Western Coffee Shop

"Oxford could get a new train service to London, via Bicester, under a ^200m plan drawn up by Chiltern Railways.  Chiltern's scheme, developing an idea it first suggested several years ago, would complement the East-West Rail Consortium's proposals to upgrade the Oxford-Bicester Town line and reopen the route from Bicester to Milton Keynes.

A new quarter-mile-long west to south connection would be built to link Bicester Town station with the Chiltern Line at a junction on the southern outskirts of the town, along with a new station alongside the Water Eaton park-and-ride site on the outskirts of Kidlington.

Chiltern Railways' chairman Adrian Shooter said that if the scheme was approved, it would make Bicester one of the best connected towns in the country, with four direct trains to London every hour - two from Bicester Town and two from Bicester North station, on the route to Banbury and Birmingham.

Two trains an hour would run between Oxford and London Marylebone, via an improved and expanded Bicester Town, in addition to the four trains an hour - two expresses and two stopping services - which First Great Western runs to London Paddington."

For full details, see http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.2430855.0.new_rail_link_is_capital_idea.php

Sounds like an ORCATS raid to me.  Chiltern will get a chunk of FGW revenue between Oxford and London which will help to pay for this proposal.

Along a similar line strong rumours that FGW want to run HST to Banbury.  Quite a few already sit at Oxford for over an hour before going back to Paddington.  More that enough time to go to Banbury and back.  Cost would be very low as drivers already go there so only fuel to consider and training a few guards.

AIUI the major problem is that the signalling does not allow to turn around in the platform at Banbury so a shunt would still be required which makes the timing quite tight.  Solve that and HST will be going to Banbury.

Shame that Chiltern are not re-opening the Ox-London line via Thame.

That is true, quite a lot of civil's work to do to re-establish the bit of the trackbed ripped out by the M40

But the upside of all this talk about new services between here and there is the authorities are now actually talking about not only reopening railways but even building new bits

It may have been said on here before, but this would lesson the pressure of the Reading rebuild and Crossrail construction with the Oxford-London punters diverted via High Wycombe.

It seems a very interesting idea, however, I'm not sure how Chiltern will fit these extra trains in South of Bicester as the line is already very full even with  the redoubling and the extra signals recently installed. They urgently need at least one loop between Marylebone and Risborough. This is especialy so  with the Wexham and Shrewsbury and Virgin Blockade busters plus diverted freight now using the line .

Of course the Oxford service could go to Padd (South Ruislip - Old Oak) after all Chiltern drivers already know the road for the daily "ghost train".

I like the idea of doing this before Reading starts.

Although how long the spur will take build with the current system it is not possible to estimate but I would guesstimate less than 18 months, but that doesn't take into account planning and the nimbys.

As for Oxford Thame once again the civl work to cross the M40 is actually not very difficult given modern machinery. Road builders have to shift more earth than rail builders.

This proposal actually highlights one of main critisims of the Beeching report in that he didn't look at the possibility of such links. Rather the approach was to look at individual lines and services, which as I've said previously were mostly still following pre grouping routes.

Ironically neihter route was included in the Beeching plan although Risborough Banbury was down for closure  of the intermediate stations/halts which were served by an irregular all stations push pull service. Similar to the golden valley service to Gloucester. But both lines had basically pre grouping services GWR/GC through Bicester North and LNWR through Bicester town.

The quoted journey time of 65 minutes would also be very tight to achieve. Currently non-stop trains from Bicester North to Marylebone take 55 minutes, so that just allows a further 10 minutes to get from Oxford to Bicester, even if the train runs non-stop from Bicester Town (I would have thought a High Wycombe stop would be required at least in order to make the service viable off-peak).

If it does run into Paddington (I agree that paths into Marylebone are now at a premium), then it will be likely that line-speed improvements would also be required between South Ruislip and the junction with the GWML at Old Oak common.

The two stations at Bicester are not close to each other either, so it's alright boasting that the town would have four trains to London an hour but it suddenly becomes less attractive when those stations serve different London termini and you have to park at one of them to get the train in the first place.

It's an interesting idea, but there are significant hurdles to overcome. It might take something like CrossRail and Reading to force those resonsible to write out the cheques!

Certainly there would need the double track reinstating and the signalling is dated also the Wycombe Line to Relief Line junction at Friars Junction (OCC) is not what it used to be.  There is also the capacity problems at Paddington which are likely to become acute while Crossrail is in construction as there is a lot of work to be done at Westbourne Pk.

The future if the the Padd Oxford via HW were built would be to electrify it and add it to Crossrail ........... but that is a bit to ambitious to hope for

I still think that the route via Thame is better. I think that the line still exists between Thame and Princes R and a short section near Oxford.

And I doubt there is platform space, let alone paths for these trains.

Certainy putting Crossrail up to HW if not Oxford would be an excellent idea instead of terminating 14 westbound tph at Westbourne Park. That would get rid of another 4 tph to a useful destination.

It is now a foot path / cycle way / bridle way although the route has been identified and safeguarded by Bucks CC for future transport needs

Won't waste space quoting people:

1. Yes, the quoted timing is optimistic, to put it politely, but makes it look a better comparison with the FGW time via Reading. I'd say 75 minutes is more realistic.

2. Extra trains. A number of services throughout the day turn round at Bicester North already, so their paths can be used.

3. You would need a hell of a lot more than ^200m to reopen the line via Thame to Cowley. The stub out to Thame closed in 1991 under BR and the track was later removed. Video of the last train of oil tanker empties out is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npj1tNHhDEk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npj1tNHhDEk) Apart from the M40, parts of the trackbed are missing elsewhere. See http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html (http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html) for photos taken along the route a couple of years ago.
The Morris Cowley branch is pretty busy with BMW traffic, parts in and cars out, so would need redoubling to handle any extra traffic.

4. Orcats raiding. Since this would be a new service, then all operators involved would have to sit down round a table and thrash it out. Chiltern couldn't just say 'we run to London now, give us a pile of money please'.

5. I'm dubious that this will actually happen unless the East-West Link from Oxford-Bletchley/Milton Keynes is approved, because I don't believe Chiltern would go it alone on the redoubling between Oxford and Bicester Town.

Some valid points there. Though the pathing issue is more complex than utilising existing paths on the Marylebone to Bicester North services. If you take the 'up' service for example there is only one train starting at Bicester heading towards Marylebone before 9am and those after that that do (an average of about 1tph, but it's a bit hap-hazard) take around 70 minutes with their 5 or six stops which would bump the journey time from Oxford to Marylebone to nearer 85 minutes which really wouldn't be attractive.

It would take some VERY careful planning to try and slot in more fast trains which wouldn't impact on the number of services serving the smaller stations. In the peak hours I could only see it being possible (even if extra passing loops are provided) with the replacement of the Aylesbury<>Marylebone via High Wycombe services with Aylesbury<>Princes Risborough shuttles as per the current off-peak. I wouldn't advise the member of OxRailAction to get too optimistic about this service!

As for the Thame route, wasn't it part of Chiltern Railways' franchise commitments to at least look seriously into re-opening the Thame route? Other potential projects are:

    *  The restoration of the quadruple track between South Ruislip (Northolt Junction) and West Ruislip, allowing trains to call at both stations without blocking the line.
    * Triple track currently exists at West Ruislip, with the up platform loop still in situ, and at South Ruislip, with the Down Main through line also in situ. This would involve the reconstruction of the down platform at West Ruislip, the reconstruction of the up platform at South Ruislip, and the demolition of West Ruislip signalbox. This 'Chiltern Metro' service was not programmed in to the last round of franchising agreements.
    * Restoration of fast through lines at Beaconsfield. This project has been shelved; the existing lines have been realigned and can now be traversed by locomotive-hauled trains at 50 miles an hour, and by the Chiltern DMUs at 75 miles an hour.
    * Double track the line from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury.
    * Remodelling Banbury Station and tracks.
    * Building of the West Hampstead Interchange to allow easy interchange with the Silverlink Metro, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and First Capital Connect service. This would also give Chiltern Railways an interchange with the future Orbirail line.
    * New Chiltern Metro Service that would operate 4+tph for Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Northolt Park, South Ruislip and West Ruislip. This would require a reversing facility at West Ruislip, passing loops at Sudbury Hill Harrow and a passing loop at Wembley Stadium (part of the old down fast line is in use as a central reversing siding, for stock movements and additionally for 8-car football shuttles to convey passengers to the stadium for events).
    * Re-opening the line between Oxford and Princes Risborough, which would provide an alternative to the Oxford Paddington route. The Oxford to Banbury spur would then be handed over to the Chiltern Main Line to create a diversionary loop from Princes Risborough to Banbury via Oxford. This option requires an expensive crossing of the M40 motorway.
    * Building a connection at Bicester to the Oxford to Bicester Line, allowing direct trains from Marylebone to Oxford via Bicester Town.
    * Re-opening the passenger line between Aylesbury and Bedford via Milton Keynes.
    * A new station is currently being constructed at Aylesbury Vale to serve a planned residential development in the area. This station will also improve access from those parts of Buckinghamshire not at present directly served by the rail network.
    * Opening a rail line from Aylesbury to a M6-M1 Parkway Station near Rugby.
    * Re-opening the Oxford to Bedford line. This would form part of a future Varsity Line.
    * Re open Gerrards Cross to Uxbridge line continuing the route to Heathrow Airport. This would give Birmingham a direct rail link with the largest airport in the United Kingdom.

The Chiltern franchise bid contained a long wish list of new services but thus far, unless you count the Aylesbury Vale Parkway extension - due to open in December - then nothing has come of any of it yet.

East-West and Aylesbury-Milton Keynes are all still mired in the Government's housing plans for the region and efforts to get housebuilders to stump up much of the cost (increasingly unlikely in the current climate in that industry).

Have obtained some more info on this from a reliable source.

Oxford Risborough via Thame Chiltern has looked at this but it would be too expensive even with their 20 year franchise. Just one of the stupidities of the way the railways were privatised but that's another issue.

However, Chiltern has to put positive proposals to the DfT for investment.

Hence Oxford to link at Bicester.

The whole package is too large to explain here but it starts with a desire to get London Birmingham (with stops) down to 90 mins. Involves re-engining whole fleet, increased line speeds, and several bi-directional fast lines to allow fasts to overtake stoppers between London and Banbury.

Oxford Bicester requires a link down from the mainline (land available) to the Oxford Cambridge line just East of Bicestrer Town. Most  of the route will be double track with 100 mph running with new stations at Bicester Village (apparently one of the most popular tourist destinations outside London).

A parkway station by existing North Oxford Park and Ride. With a 58 minute running time to Marylebone with it's good road connections this station is expected to attract a large number of users from a wide area of North Oxfordshire.

A totally new line parallel with Mainline from Oxford North Junction, to the old parcel docks on NE side Oxford station so no interferance with other services. Existing junction to Bicester line to allow through workings South of Oxford to remain. Also only gives one interface with Oxford panel.

Other points are:

Could be quite quick to implement 2 years?.
Would releive Reading rebuild.
Could serve new eco town proposed in the area the line is on Southern boundary, a possible station has been identified.
Designed to be compatible with East - West route proposal. In fact it would save them money having a virtually new line  with new staions between Bicester and Oxford.
Allegedly only 3 miles longer  to Marylebone than  Padd - Oxford
About 10th price of doing Oxford Thame and probably quicker running time. Oxford Bicester is virtually straight and level.

It seems a really well thought out scheme, so very likely DfT will reject it.








 

There is an article on this in the next issue of "Rail" out on Wednesday

"Chiltern Railways has hired environmental consultants and will hold three public exhibitions in Oxford, Kidlington and Bicester this spring."

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7854170.stm

Good to see Chiltern publising the scheme let's hope the nimby's don't try and kill the whole thing.

I don't know which nimbys you have in mind.

It's already all operational railway, except for the missing link between the two lines and that would be built alongside a part of Bicester which is business park central, with dozens of trains passing all day, every day, already, so unlikely to disturb anyone at all - unless there are some newts lying in wait.

Locally the plan is seen as a good thing, see http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/2430855.New_rail_link_is_capital_idea/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/2430855.New_rail_link_is_capital_idea/)
where this thread started out, though perhaps ignore some of the more oddball reader comments....

The councils are unlikely to have a problem, as anything that keeps cars out of Oxford. like a fast, frequent train service from Bicester in place of the current FGW trundle, will have their whole-hearted support, so if Chiltern can get the money together, it's likely to happen. Even DafT likes things it doesn't have to pay for.

FGW won't be happy, especially with Reading rebuilding looming, but their problem is that with the appallingly handled 2006 and 2007 December timetable changes, goodwill towards FGW among Oxford commuters is still in short supply, whatever improvements may have been made in the past 12 months. Plus there is plenty of express coach commuting on the M40 for Chiltern and FGW to bite into, rather than each other.

There is a recent presentation given by Chiltern to the South East regional assembly here http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/events/52/rtb_160109_chiltern_railways_pres.pdf (http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/events/52/rtb_160109_chiltern_railways_pres.pdf) nothing much that new, although the service start date now seems to have slipped to 2013.

Re nimbys not sure which but they do seem to pop out of the woodwork unexpectedly.

I was thinking of the exapnsion of the park and ride and obviously the new eco town next to the line against which there is a lot of opposistion. The possible provision of station on the upgraded line might be considered a factor in favour of the new town so if the line is not upgraded then there is less reason to build the eco town. A bit convuluted but I was surprised to read the thread about the Rugby nimbys and the reopening the old GC.

Hanborough's figures will fall, as people will drive to Water Eaton Parkway! ;D

You can pretty much forget the Weston Otmoor eco-town. It is so un-eco that a recent assessment scored it at the bottom of all the proposals, even below a last-minute lash-up scheme that Cherwell Council came up with, which is really a (far more sensible) urban extension of Bicester.

Water Eaton's car park is already huge and under-used compared with the other Oxford park-and-rides and surrounded by the main Oxford-Kidlington road, open space on two sides and the A34, the railway and a disused grain silo on the other, with the Banbury Road rail aggregates terminal close by, so no nimbys anywhere to be seen here either.

Water Eaton would attract people from Kidlington and northern and eastern parts of Oxford, but Hanborough will remain Witney Parkway. Getting to Water Eaton at rush-hour from west Oxfordshire is a long slog - unless you have actually driven in and around Oxford in rush-hour you really won't grasp how bloody awful it is, even when everything is working okay. Throw in an accident on the A34 or A40 and it's instant gridlock, even on the other side of the city.

Any space that opens up in the car park at Hanborough will be filled fast. Indeed, FGW and Network Rail must be cursing whoever sold or leased much of the old station yard to the Oxford Bus Museum, fine institution though it is, as they could probably fill every parking space that could be provided on that slice of land right now, never mind once there's a reliable (and hopefully more frequent) service from next year.

Rail suggests that the line between Ruislip and Aynho is to be increase in speed to 85mph. That surprised me, as I would have thought a line substantially rebuilt during Evergreen 1 & 2 between Princes Risborough and Aynho would have already be at that sort of speed.

What is the limit on the newly redoubled stretches? Anyone know?   

Running South from Banbury I believe the speeds are (for Turbos):

Banbury-Aynho Junction: 90mph
Aynho Junction: 70mph (Up direction) 40mph (Down direction)
Aynho Junction-Bicester: 100mph
Bicester: 25mph (Up direction) 80mph (Down direction)
Bicester-Princes Risborough: 100mph
Princes Risborough: 70mph
Princes Risborough-West Wycombe: 75mph
West Wycombe-High Wycombe: 50mph

Then it's largely 75mph to Neasden Junction with the odd drop here and there through stations.

Possible improvements:
1) You could improve the speeds through Aynho in the down direction (but not by much as the track sweeps over the main line at quite a cant).
2) Bicester North track realignment (or a through loop) could dramatically increase on the 25mph limit in the Up direction.
3) Princes Risborough and the line through to West Wycombe could probably be increased in places, but again track curvature is tight.

Other locations would be more difficult as the track winds through the Wycombe area with some sharp twists and turns so I doubt much improvement on 50mph could take place. South-East of Wycombe there's scope to increase the 75mph sections in a number of places, but again 100mph I would have thought is impracticable - the 85mph stated would make sense.

All in all though, I can't see really impressive linespeed increases being possible for the majority of the route. That's why I'm so sceptical of this 100 minute London-Birmingham schedule, and also think the Oxford-Marylebone aspirational timings will be very challenging to achieve.

Thanks. So the newly doubled stretch is indeed 100mph except for Bicester. So slightly inaccurate of Rail (nothing new there!). That will certainly reduce the scope for reductions in journey times as you say.

What timings are Chiltern expecting for Oxford?

Will the trains be extensions of Princes Ris/Bicester terminators, or will they be new "express" paths.

The other place where speeds could be improved is between Leamington and B'ham, if they re-quadruple tracked. This would help XC speed up, as any expresses always get held up behind Centro/LM stoppers.

Although Water Eaton Park & Ride has space for 800 cars it is normally almost full most days as it now serves as the main remote park & ride for the expanding John Radcliffe Hospital, and since the Summertown residents parking zone was introduced most of the employees working in that area have been forced to use the park & ride and the buses.

The site is in the Oxford Green Belt and the original planning application for the park & ride took several years as I think it went to an inquiry I believe. Any further development on a green field site is bound to raise objections, and if Chiltern want to build a 500 space car park that is inevitable.

They intend two trains will run every hour, calling at High Wycombe, Bicester Town, Water Eaton Parkway and Oxford. Some trains will also stop at Islip. The currentlky projected journey times are:

London Marylebone - Water Eaton Parkway in 58  minutes
London Marylebone - Oxford   in 1hr 6 minutes
Bicester Town - Oxford in 14 minutes
Oxford - High Wycombe in 38 minutes

So far they are saying these will be extra trains and existing stopping/fast services will remain as they are now, but I think that they will eventually remove some of the existing stops at Bicester North to reduce the West Midlands-London journey time. Also, Cross Country are looking at routeing all their services via Coventry and Birmingham International which should help with paths via Solihull.

65 minutes from Marylebone.

Oops - I see that was just answered!

And (picking up what was mentioned on another thread) it would then be a business case worth them investigating to extend on to Swindon, Westbury, Frome, Taunton, Minehead. 2 extra units needed for a service every 3 hours. Cycle - 07:25 off Marylebone, 08:35 off Oxford.  11:30 at Minehead, 11:50 return. 14:45 Oxford, 15:55 Marylebone.  Clever bit is that two units head West from Oxford one cycle earlier, and train divides at Frome with one half forming the 07:20 from there to Swindon (08:15) and Oxford (08:45) dealing with those two neglected commuter flows very effectively. In the evening, the 16:25 off Marylebone is the 17:35 off Oxford and the 18:00 off Swindon. Joins with the last train off Minehead at Frome to form the 19:20 final service up to London.  The early train to Minehead also plugs the early morning Westbury - Taunton gap; fly in the ointment is that it's awful timing as a Minehead - Taunton commuter. Other fly is that Turbos can't go through Trowbridge!

It's becoming clearer as the plan develops as to how important a part of the proposal the Water Eaton Parkway station will become. 58 minutes will be an appetising prospect for anyone in North Oxford fed up of battling their way through the traffic to Oxford station, or facing an uncertain parking situation and unreliable service (hopefully soon to change, relability wise at least!) at Hanborough.

As for Oxford, what are the platform arrangements expected to be? Is it just a case of opening up the current east and west former parcel dock platforms to passenger use? With very little modification the actual platforms could take a 2/3 car train respectively, though signalling would need to be modified and actually getting passengers to/from those platforms would need some looking into with barriers etc.

Water Eaton to London in under an hour?! :o

Wow - Chiltern will need some big trains as they will poach loads of commuters AND OFF PEAK TRAVELLERS who are fed up with FGW. :D

Either: drive to Oxford station, take a 2 tph FGW (i.e. unreliable, Cotswold etc.) service to London in an hour.

Or: drive to Water Eaton, take a 2 tph Chiltern (i.e. reliable, good service etc) service to London in an hour.

I know which I would pick! In fact, I would rather take the Chiltern from Oxford - as it is still more likely to be quicker than FGW!

Yes, traffic may be bad at peak times on the A34, but off peak......
;D

The Rail reference to raising the Chiltern speed limit may have been to loco-hauled trains, as W&S cannot run at the same maximum speeds as DMUs, indeed I have a feeling they aren't allowed to top 60 or 70mph the whole way between Aynho and London.

Yes there was a public inquiry about Water Eaton, but it is, as they say, a fact on the ground and even before the park and ride was built, it was hardly an oasis of tranquility, with the eyesore of the old grain silo and the traffic on the A34 thundering past, which was one of the key factors in the councils picking the location anyway, as it minimised any additional disruption, rather like building High Speed 1 alongside motorways for much of its length.

If Chiltern could get hold of the grain silo site, than that would give you pretty much all the land you would need for an extended car park and station. Indeed, I don't actually see anywhere else you could really build a station, except the silo, as it stands between the railway and the park-and-ride and its associated access road off Banbury Road.

Chiltern's service promise for Bicester is two trains per hour calling at North and two trains per hour at Town, which implies the rerouting to Oxford (and retiming as expresses) of the current hourly train that turns back at North.

The assumption at Oxford station is they would convert the parcel docks, as that Chiltern presentation to the SE assembly talks of two new platforms at Oxford, served by an "independent route" into the station with no need to wait for full Oxford resignalling, which I take to mean using the ex-freight loop, once the bidirectional signals are plugged in to allow its use by Bicester-bound trains.

Only issue I see with the parcel docks is access from the rest of the station, as they are cut off by the old Red Star office and the traincrew depot, unless you cut back platform 3 to a three-car platform and fill the track bed at its south end to give access that way.

If this does go ahead, by the time Chiltern run their first train, the Cotswold Line work will long have been completed, with all the benefits for FGW reliability and punctuality that that will bring. Remember a key factor in persuading the ORR to authorise redoubling was that Network Rail and FGW were able to demonstrate just how much disruption delayed Cotswold services also caused further afield on the network.

The timings are projections, not set in stone, and there is no way Chiltern could be quicker into central Oxford having to go up to Bicester and back down to Oxford, indeed the threat of competition might persuade FGW to trim some of the padding out and get back to 50-minute timings for HSTs.

And I'll say it again, if you can possibly avoid it, you do not try to get across or around Oxford in the peaks, so Water Eaton would attract custom from nearby parts of the city and Kidlington, but not from others. For example, it is probably almost quicker to drive from the south-east out to Haddenham & Thame and get a train there, or, as many do, board a coach at Thornhill park-and-ride. And off-peak, it's usually pretty straightforward to get to Oxford station, so no clear advantage at those times either.

Chiltern are looking at converting the parcel dock platforms to create (platforms 4 and 5!) and as a minum is looking at a 5-car platform, (but ideally 8-cars). To fit either in needs a new bridge across the sheepwash channel (very close to the old LNWR swingbridge) as the throat into the bays is too narrow for a dedicated track. The traincrew depot, storage and red star builidng will need to be demolished.  The route to and from the platforms will be a single bi-directional line running behind the Turbo Sidings and along the old disused LNWR trackbed to Oxford North Jn. This keeps it remote from Oxford PSB and means it could be controlled from Marylebone IECC which is also being expanded.

Yes, that is the case and the source of the Rail article I expect.


I agree, but that's quite a big catchment area. The potential custom of Kidlington, Yarnton, Cutteslowe Wolvercote and Marston residents would make Water Eaton Parkway a busy little hub.

Right, thanks for that information. It will be quite a big project then - and something no franchise of the typical current length would be able to consider undertaking, proving the sense in longer franchises like Chiltern's! Those enhancements would be sensible to ensure that trains and tracks have enough capacity at the peaks. Who knows, perhaps Oxford could have six platforms in about 5 years time then!

Chiltern comes up trumps again - what a great TOC! This sounds like a great project and is just the sort of thing rail privitisation should be producing on a much more regular basis. Just a shame that they can't get stuck into it now and have to jump through some silly hoops first.

Will FGW still have to run services to Bicester Town once Chiltern services start? The sensible solution would be for the unit freed up to improve local Oxford - Banbury services. But due to the ridiculous fare system I imagine FGW would keep a few token serives (not stopping at Water Eaton Parkway!) operating to grab some of the fare pot!

I like the Minehead idea but I think that is a step too far, even for Chiltern!

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a lucrative stop, merely that the prospects for it hoovering up traffic from all around Oxford are limited by the overall transport problems that afflict the city and surrounding area, due to its geography and history.

While what gwr2006 says Chiltern are suggesting doing at Oxford station sounds impressive on paper, I would argue that with the slippage of their service date to 2013 - originally they were talking in time for the 2012 Olympics - that it's going to be getting near enough to the main Oxford resignalling project that with the prospect of this work at the north end and  GW turnback platforms alongside the car park at the south end as well, perhaps Oxford station needs looking at in the round, in conjunction with the resignalling, so that what emerges is a station fit for the 21st century, rather than yet more piecemeal tinkerings with an inadequate basic layout created by the GWR in the 19th.

Unfortunately, due to the actions of a property company (which had the national rail network in its charge) known as Railtrack, the Rewley Road station site was sold off for the Said Business School and a chunk of land at the back of platform 2 for the new youth hostel, limiting the space for making changes to the existing station.

The two through platforms are inadequate now and even if you remove the need for terminating and starting London trains to use them, that only eases the pressure, not solves the problem. Were the East-West link to become a reality, there would surely be the prospect of something like a Bristol-Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes service, and with a Didcot-Moreton-in-Marsh shuttle suggested elsewhere on this site, you have yet more demand for through platforms.

Ideally, you need four through platforms and a couple of long bays at either end, plus through lines for freight but how you can manage that, and provide a decent station building, cab ranks, bus stops and car parking, I'm not sure. Is it time to revive the now-dead idea of moving the whole thing a few hundred yards south towards Oxpens? Or shunt it up to the area where the stabling sidings are, which has the necessary width, and maybe create overnight stabling at Hinksey sidings, Cowley or Didcot instead?

Any thoughts?

I've heard that the up line speed will be increased from 90 mph to 100 mph north of Banbury, reducing to 75 mph around the station and then back up to 90 mph as far as Aynho. Then the current 90 mph to Bicester North is going to be increased to 100 mph all the way to Princes Risborough before the current 75 mph limit is increased all the way to South Ruslip, with the exception of High Wycombe where it drops to 50 mph.

To achieve this they will reinstate the through road at Bicester North to avoid the 25 mph platform loop and this will be bi-directional too, and a similar arrangemrnt will apply at Princes Risborough so trains can pass through at 90 mph. There will be a new south facing bay on the down side at Gerrards Cross so trains can turnback clear of the through tracks. A new through track will be laid at Denham and a new crossover at West Ruslip.

All track will be bi-directional. At present up trains can only be regulated at Leamington and then 74 miles later at West Ruislip, but the new arrnagement means trains can be passed additionally at Bicester North and Princes Risborough. Down trains currently have to travel 68 miles to Banbury before they can be 'looped', but the new arrangements means this can be done at Denham, Princes Risborough and Bicester North too.

The changes to the engine and transmission on the 168 fleets is to reduce the power to weight ratio and enable them to accelerate to their top speed quicker. I've been told this will enable them to reach 100 mph in around 300 seconds compared to the 450 seconds it takes them now. That should make a big difference if the ROSCO agrees.

I doubt it. With 2 tph (4tph once E-W rail starts) it would be ludicrous for FGW to run a shuttle. And it probably wouldn't be able to be fitted in very easily at either end. I suspect it's a service that FGW would willingly drop.

This sounds great.

If FGW are forced to cut the slack, and reduce their timings to 50 mins - good.

That is what privatisation is about - competition, resulting in faster services.

Remember that Chiltern's fares will probably be lower.

If Chiltern do not call at Islip, I presume a FGW shuttle will have to serve every few hours.

Reading all this, it seems to me that the sensible answer would be to reopen Princes Risborough to Oxford. Not that easy but do-able. Couple that with a Parkway station near the Oxford Motorway Services on the M40, reinstate through lines at Princes Risborough, Beaconsfield and Denham and redouble Ruislip to Old Oak Junction and you're cooking.

Throw in electrification and hey.......!

Like the idea about reopening the curve to Uxbridge, but I guess the the old Staines branch would need huge investment. 

That wasn't the Major government's intention at all, it was to get the railways off the state's books.


First Group aren't above a bit of competitive pricing themselves, so don't count on it. If you are able to book advance tickets off-peak, then you can do Oxford-London and back for ^8, half the price of the M40 coaches, which charge a flat ^16 return all day.

Chiltern have already said they will serve Islip, though not with every train, so they could easily match the current level of service across the day, with the longer-term prospect of East-West stoppers being the main service. If that goes ahead, I'd expect Chiltern's service to be adjusted to something like that at Kings Sutton, south of Banbury, with several peak stops for travel towards London and return, and every couple of hours the rest of the day.

The route via Thame was already discussed when this thread began last summer and it just isn't practical, breached by the M40 and the Wheatley bypass, housing in Wheatley, etc, etc, unless you know where they can get their hands on a lot more than ^200m, plus it simply isn't as attractive in traffic terms.

Water Eaton taps into Kidlington, which is a 'village' of 17,000 people with rail lines to its west and south but no station and Bicester is slated to keep growing over the next few years but the county council are desperate to make sure that doesn't mean yet more cars heading into Oxford. Bicester North's (extended) car park is pretty much at full capacity Mon-Fri now, while Town is next to the Bicester Village shopping complex, which is a massive draw for overseas visitors doing day trips from London and has acres of parking space too and whose owners are under pressure to encourage more use of public transport after Bicester became gridlocked by shoppers' cars during the post-Christmas sales.

Pics of the current state of the Thame route are at http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html (http://disused-rlys.fotopic.net/c883855.html)

All fascinating stuff. I will be interested to see how Project Evergreen 3 pans out over the coming years. I think Chiltern's 'Design, finance, build, and transfer' method of providing these improvements is one which should be more widely encouraged throughout the country (Stroud Valley redoubling?!?) - though it might be a little harder to implement so smoothly when compared with PE1 and 2 when other operators will be inconvenienced or have their custom put at risk, as they will with the proposed Oxford alterations.

If I recall correctly, at least some of this route now has a sewer buried underneath it, serving a housing development built next to Port Meadow, probably about 10 years ago. The trackbed itself looks clear, but presumably any buried services like this will need to be moved, or an new alignment found if there is space?

Chiltern has set up a mini-website to outline progress on the project at http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/ (http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/)

This is great news. Chiltern really are a do railway.

I hope they get a franchise extension.

My only concern is whether they'll find sufficient paths and platform space at Marylebone.

It isn't that Chiltern Railways are a can do company but more to do with them being in the uneviable position of having the only 20-year franchise.

The Government is still paying for most of the investment through the subsidy payments it makes to Chiltern Railways but it does show that with a longer franchise the financial return for them and the franchise holding company, DB Regio (UK) Ltd. justifies them doing that.  One can only think what some of the other TOCs would do if they had the same terms.

But you have to ask why Chiltern were given such a long franchise!

Because they are so good.

Personally I think they are the best TOC in the country by far. Big shame that the North Warwickshire and Dorridge services were not handed over to them when Central Trains were disbanded. Their services are always comfortable, reliable and reasonable. Can't wait for them to get into Oxford, hopefully they will scare FGW into more action. I just hope that the plans for Oxford station are joined up and the various parties talk to each other to give the station well overdue extra capacity and better facilities.

Thame and Bourne End (from High Wycombe) next?

It would have been nice to have Chiltern running the Snow Hill lines; still, LM are doing a much better job than National Express! :o

It also would have meant 3 TOCs at Worcester, making timetable integration harder. The new LM Snow Hill timetable is a lot better for commuting to Worcester; ditto for the Hereford - Worcester - B'ham timetable.

But it could have meant reliable services to London from Worcester (with customer care thrown in as well)! :'(

Ok, a bit long at >3:10 mins... :D

Surely that's an enviable position to be in then?  ;)

Thats true...I should have read back what I'd written before pressing send!!!

No, because they were very lucky and got the deal signed before someone in Whitehall got cold feet about the idea of such long agreements. Southern was meant to be a 20-year deal, but ended up as seven.

But I expect that Govia will retain the South Central Franchise anyway.

At least I hope they do - they have re-branded all signage in South London and Sussex!

And I was under the impression that Chiltern were awarded the long franchise as a result of the improvements - long franchises are not given out lightly! Southern have had problems and complaints about the service.

As Will says, it was, for a short while, considered by those responsible in the Government to be the best way of letting a franchise. For some reason that perspective changed - probably because it resulted in less money flowing into the DfT's coffers more slowly than these silly deals that have been struck with the likes of National Express and First Group. Thankfully, the new team at the top in the DfT appear to be thinking of a shift back to longer franchises.

There's only one lasting 20 years - Chiltern. The only other approaching that is ATW, with 15 years.

And technically, if Chiltern don't deliver Evergreen 3 and other enhancements, then DafT can ask for its train set back long before 2022.

But then there is a General Election in just over a year, if / when (just to keep it balanced) there is a change there could be a change to short franchises because "that will let market forces determin whats best" to quote the 1990's privatisation mantra ...... I hope its not the case

There's also Merseyrail of course. Though that isn't directly let by the DfT.

Don't worry, Chiltern won't fail. They know how to run a railway!

But then there is a General Election in just over a year, if / when (just to keep it balanced) there is a change there could be a change to short franchises because "that will let market forces determin whats best" to quote the 1990's privatisation mantra ...... I hope its not the case

Not wishing to be controversial, in my personal opinion I believe Jeremy Clarkson's recent opinion expressed on Ozzie TV about a certain well known politician to be spot on - so you can guess my general political leaning - but I say renationalise. What did BR do seriously wrong within the constraints it was stuick wth?

Forgot that one, but your note about how the decision was reached says it all.

Can we please keep mention of Mr Clarkson's outpourings off this forum in any context whatever. That wasn't politics, just petty personal abuse. Or did I miss Jeremy's plan to save the world?

Here here Willc! Extremely harsh comments.

I'm not a fan of Clarkson - but he's spot on with this one. And I'm sure millions of others agree. But although my political leanings may be obvious (though I'm not entirely sure about David C's capabilities), I too say renationalise

Spot on? What's unpleasant abuse like that got to do with anything? People can make up their minds about whether Mr Brown is any good at his job without that.

Just as they will about whether Mr Cameron is up to taking over. And having met him a couple of times in a professional capacity and seen him handle public meetings in his constituency, I know he won't need to stoop to Clarksonesque silliness to make his case come election time.

Like him or loath him (and his policies); the man is no idiot!

Are you talking about Cameron, Clarkson or Brown?!

I think we can safely put Brown out of the question!

I was talking about Gordon Brown. He is certainly not an idiot.

Whilst you mention them - I don't think Clarkson or Cameron are idiots either.

But I dread the day Cameron becomes PM (which unfortunately he probably will)! :o (I think I'd prefer Clarkson, although you can't beat Brown :) )

Chiltern are staging public exhibitions about their plans later this month in Bicester, Kidlington and Oxford.

See http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/latest-news/proposed-new-oxford-to-london-route/ (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/latest-news/proposed-new-oxford-to-london-route/)

Go for it, big time!

But wouldn't it be worth reconsidering a reopening of Oxford/Cowley/Thame/Princes Risborough? The major issue would be bridging the A40 (abuttments still there) and skirting the Animal Rescue centre and Oxford motorway services plus bridging the M40. Surely not insuperable?

Would be desirable, but on reflection, the route Chiltern has chosen is probably for the best. It will improve services at Bicester and Islip (which, under Chiltern, will actually get a service!) and Chiltern will have a dedicated set of tracks into Oxford, so they won't be affected by the poor performance of FGW and XC. Chiltern will want to maintain their high service levels, esp with another 2 tph on their core route in Marylebone.

Thame does have a parkway station, a few miles down the road.

Chilltern looked at that route several years ago including a significant new alignment further south to avoid Wheatley where the original line ran in a cutting which has long since been filled in and redeveloped for housing, Hosparth Tunnel (now a protected wildlife habitat), BMW's Cowley plant through which the original line ran (and the remnants now terminate as the car loading facility). They concluded it was too expensive and technically challenging to achieve and that's when they came up with the idea of going via Bicester instead so its been considered and discarded.

Fairly. If you scroll back up the thread, I posted a link to photos taken recently along the length of the line and they aren't pretty, whereas the Bicester line is a live working railway.

And it would have few of the spin-off benefits that the Chiltern scheme offers, such as a station for Kidlington, and a fast, frequent service between Oxford and Bicester that would actually get people out of their cars, which the current amble through the fields with FGW never will.

Work has just started to add an extra modular deck to Bicester North's upper car park to further increase the number of spaces. It's a testament to Chiltern's success (and proactive approach) that this is being done only three years after the lower car park was opened which took the capacity up to nearly 600 spaces.

Looks like they'll be happy to accommodate peeved off FGW customers for some time to come...

And here's how the Car Park is looking as of yesterday. Less than two months on and it's virtually finished. By my estimation there'll be an extra 150+ spaces provided. I don't think it'll win any architectural design awards though...


(http://img149.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-11492/loc888/28157_001_122_888lo.JPG)

(http://img179.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-32346/loc348/28163_002_122_348lo.JPG)

On this topic what is the state of play on Chiltern's proposals?

I presume they've fallen into a large hole at DaFT, never to see the light of day again or am I being too pessimistic?

The public consultation has been completed and Chiltern now has to prepare its case for the DFT. This is part of its franchise commitment. The decision date is the 1st December, and if the DFT agrees with Chiltern's proposal, a Transport and Works Act will be submitted. That will take a year to get through, so physical work won't start until spring 2011, with opening scheduled for 2013.

Unfortunately, thanks to structural issues near Islip, part of Chiltern's route into Oxford will have to be single track.

This will cut the number of proposed Chiltern services from 5 tph to 2 tph. :-[ :'(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004bdyk/Malcolm_Boyden_15_09_2009/

That's disappointing news. I'll wait for an official announcement from Chiltern before I officially get unhappy, but there's obviously no smoke without fire.

Still, perhaps a solution can be found; eg. 1tph off-peak (which might be enough anyway) from Oxford to Marylebone and 1tph EWR Oxford-Bedford, and in the peak 2tph Oxford-Marylebone connecting with an EWR service from Bicester-Bedford?

I'm still confused what the fifth train was to be.

I think there might be some BBC confusion about service patterns here. Chiltern have only proposed a 2tph service to Oxford. It is the Chiltern AND East West Rail projects together that allow for up to 6 tph:

"...These [two] scenarios are set out below.
New Chiltern Railway services only (anticipated to be 2 tph (1) in each
direction); and
New Chiltern Railway services (an anticipated 2 tph in each direction) in
addition to the new services enabled by the East West Rail scheme (an
anticipated 2 tph EWR, and up to 1 tph freight, 1 tph inter-regional
passenger in each direction ^ ie an anticipated total of 6 tph in each
direction)."

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/images/Scoping%20report%20Evergreen%203%20Final%2022%2004%202009.pdf (http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/images/Scoping%20report%20Evergreen%203%20Final%2022%2004%202009.pdf)

So basically Chiltern seem to be saying they can afford to do enough just for their project - which is fair enough I imagine...

Paul   

Chiltern has found they cannot afford to repair the embankment which is in poor condition so have decided on almost 7 miles of single track between west of Bicester Town and west of Islip. There will then be double track as far as Wolvercot Tunnel where it goes back down to single track for the remainder of the route into Oxford. The track will use the best parts of the trackbed so expect to see it slewed from side to side (as it does now) to get the best line speeds.

Bicester Town station will have another platform and a 2nd track but that's it. Islip remains as it is but with a longer platform. Platforms are also reduced in length at all stations (max 6-car).

The track layout allows for only 2tph to/from Marylebone, 1tph to/from East West Rail (originally 2tph) and 1 tph existing freight, so East West loses out here and faces a much bigger bill to reinstate the second track if it wants to provide more than one train per hour. Chiltern originally signed a development agreement to provide track and signalling for both projects but has backtracked and pulled out of that so they deliver the minimum required for either but not both projects.

I would expect reliaibility will become an issue with so much single track - let's hope it's not the Cotswold Line all over again!!!

Yes, I suppose in this recession there is no money to fund the extra work. Are there any businesses or councils along the route who could stump up the extra cash? - I suppose it depends on the extend of the damage...

Will this affect journey times?

Remember, the main priority is for Oxford - Marylebone services in the short term. Perhaps extra services on EWR can go via Aylesbury or terminate at Bicester.

Cue Willc: do you know any more about this?

gwr2006 has summarised the situation pretty well.

It's come into the open due to an Oxfordshire County Council cabinet meeting yesterday.

We have a short report here http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4630476.Rail_link_plan_runs_into_problems/
 (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4630476.Rail_link_plan_runs_into_problems/)

The full agenda paper is here http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CA/ca150909.htm (http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CA/ca150909.htm) and if you scroll down to item 9, then there is a link to the Word document version of the report on Evergreen 3 to the cabinet's members by the head of transport, where section 13 outlines the problems encountered.

Whether all the freight paths would be taken up is a moot point and would depend on how keen Freightliner and DB are to switch Southampton container trains to running via Bletchley, as the current MoD trains to Bicester and the Calvert bins and spoil trains wouldn't need that all those paths, plus, of course, East-West is still hypothetical as no-one knows where the money is coming from.

Six-car trains makes a lot more sense, as I was never sure how on earth they would fit those into Oxford station - even if the buffer stops ended right next to the main building it always looked a big ask.

How will Chiltern run 6 car services with 4 car 168s? ???

Freight should play second fiddle to passengers in this case. If the infrastructure can allow for 2 tph to London, 1 tph to Bedford and 1 tph to Milton, then it's ok.

But of course ANY services on EWR are only speculation!

PS: V interesting documents.

By using the eight or nine 3-car class 168 sets Chiltern have in their fleet, I should think.

Freight won't be playing second fiddle, at least in the case of the already established services to Bicester and Calvert and Oxford's Banbury Road stone terminal.

No-one has yet fully established how keen the container operators are, but I recall seeing it said that they would like to route some of their services going to the north and Scotland via bletchley, as it would allow them to bypass the West Midlands and speed up journeys, plus it would offer a useful alternative if Oxford-Leamington is shut.

Would be interesting to know what the "structural problems" are

One of the previous East West rail reports suggested they might only use the 'new' route for Southbound freight off the WCML, to avoid northbound crossing conflicts coming off the Bletchley flyover, ie the northbound route would remain via Nuneaton. I suppose from the south coast a lot depends on the final destination, e.g. the Birmingham area and Daventry (DIRFT) are at opposite ends of the advantage scale... 

Of course there is also a potential freight route onto the MML, which seems to get little discussion.

Paul

Thanks for the extra details, gwr2006. I can't see how you can fit 8 train paths per hour into a section of single track that's almost 7 miles long though? Even if you allow only 7 minutes for a train to go through the section that gives you only 6 minutes an hour when the section isn't occupied? Allowing for delay recovery and so on that's pushing it! Six tph and no freight might just be workable. EWR running an hourly Bedford service from Oxford would probably be just about right to be honest - backed up with a service from Aylesbury.

You can have intermediate signals and 'flight' trains through the single track sections (ie more than one between direction changes). AIUI that's how they can get 6 tph on the Fareham - Botley line when FGW and SWT divert via Eastleigh when the Netley line is closed.  In extremis you could run half an hour each way IYSWIM...

[PS, you also need to be able to stand more than one train in the double track sections to make that work. IIRC someone reckoned that the Axminster 'dynamic loop' should be long enough to pass more than one train through in each direction, which may mean a different service next time FGW divert that way...]
Paul

Chiltern's Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line does this. (albeit with a lower train frequency)

Weak embankments - something Chiltern know all about from the very expensive redoubling on the main line, especially north of Bicester, where the bill for the 10 miles or so to Aynho was something between ^50m and ^60m, mainly due to serious work being needed on the embankments to make them fit to support double track again.

Yes, we have BR to thank for it!

Just like we have BR to thank for the millions spent on the Evergreen 1 and 2 projects, bringing the Chiltern line back to its former glory.

I think we actually have to thank BR's political masters - it wasn't as if BR had much choice about being given miserly budgets at a time when the kind of passenger numbers we see today would have seemed unthinkable.

They could have saved money by mothballing, instead of ripping up track and slewing the other.

That would not have prevented damage to the embankments, also the track would not be up to much now especially any wooden sleepers.

Still think re-opening Oxford/Thame/Princes Risborough could be looked at (as I suggested elsewhere on this site). Spending the dosh could be a serious alternative to quantitive easing...

Haddenham & Thame Parkway's new extra deck of parking has now opened adding another 230 spaces or so to this busy commuter station - http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?ID=22552 (http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?ID=22552)

This adds to Chiltern's track record of providing additional parking at its busiest stations.  As well as Bicester North's twice extended car park, in recent years two additional decks have been added at Beaconsfield, as well as an extension to Warwick Parkway's initial spaces.  I can't think of any First Great Western stations within the commuter belt that have had extra parking added within the last 10 years - with the possible exception of Twyford which I think had a few spaces added about 5 years ago?

Well if you count Kingham and Charlbury as commuter belt, they both gained substantially from work funded with the help of Oxfordshire County Council in recent years, with asphalt surfacing allowing spaces to be properly marked out, resulting in a decent increase in capacity, though not quite on a Bicester scale. Same applies at Radley more recently.

I suspect there would be some planning issues around decking car parks in Oxford or the Cotswolds. Can't see a cheap and cheerful deck going down too well at Charlbury. It would be an excellent solution to the loss of parking at Oxford that would arise if the new platform is built on the long stay car park but, again, planning permission would be very difficult. Stone cladding and a dreaming spire would probably be required! Whatever was required, the cost would no doubt be considerably more than Chiltern pays for its car parks.

Having been reminded about station carparks, I was interested to see posters announcing that site work on Southampton Parkway's new multi storey is about to start this month, with main construction starting in August.  They must think passenger numbers are about to pick up big time, as they are providing an extra 600 spaces over 5 storeys.  IIRC the plans were approved over a year ago, but work was deferred as numbers travelling eased off in the recession.

Paul

Yes, I've said before about the fact that getting the OK for a similar scheme at Oxford might be problematical.  With the new south bay platform hoped to be complete by 2012, there could be an awkward period of time between the loss of a significant number of spaces caused by that scheme, and the expected lower demand for spaces when Water Eaton Parkway opens in 2013.  I've mentioned before about the largely vacant land that used to be the South Yard, so perhaps that could be used in the interim as an overflow car park?

I doubt anybody would want to stump up the extra cash for a second level of parking before it is known exactly what effect Water Eaton will have on the demand for spaces, and it's a pity the two schemes aren't planned to be complete the other way round so that could be assessed.  Mind you, dates for this sort of thing slip and slip and I'd have more confidence in Evergreen 3 being completed on time than this other scheme, so perhaps it'll all fit in quite nicely anyway!

From  The Oxford Times (http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/8286350.Date_set_for_inquiry_into_new_rail_link/) (22/07/2010):


Also, a reminder that Chiltern Railways have a website dedicated to the 'Evergreen 3' project. http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/

Just a thought on the subject of Water Eaton Parkway, which I think everyone recognises will become quite a successful and important new station when it opens.  But, why call it Water Eaton Parkway (assuming that name is not just a working title)?  Water Eaton itself is loosely described at a Hamlet, but it hardly even justifies a title of that importance!  Wouldn't calling it Kidlington Parkway (or even North Oxford Parkway) give this new station much more of an identity?  After all, it's only half a mile away from Kidlington and its 14000 residents and only slightly further away from what you'd call North Oxford.

Probably because that's what the existing park-and-ride centre adjacent to the station site is called, so trying to call a railway station there something else might prove confusing. Plus people in Kidlington would still quite like their own station on the Banbury line back.

And the park-and-ride/Parkway site isn't actually in either the city of Oxford, or the Kidlington parish, lying in Gosford and Water Eaton parish instead, so much scope for parochial squabbling were another name to be suggested.

Yes, that probably explains it then.  A shame that such squabbles could lead to a missed opportunity in my opinion.  I mean, it's a bit like Bristol Parkway being called Stoke Gifford Parkway - I bet patronage of the station would decline slightly if it was!

There's always the compromise option of "Water Eaton and Kidlington" or something along those lines. Maybe even Water Eaton and Kidlington Parkway? Water Eaton and North Oxford...? The possibilities are, if not exactly endless, certainly mainfold!

But the name is established already, so people in the surrounding area whose custom Chiltern is after know exactly where you're talking about, which I suspect is why Chiltern simply adopted it from the off. Putting Oxford in the name would probably end up confusing tourists and if you used Kidlington, would you have to remove it if Kidlington proper reopened?

Perhaps.  If you used Kidlington Parkway, then if Kidlington gets a station on the main line (and to be honest I can't see it due to the lack of a suitable service to stop there), then you just call that 'Kidlington'  ;)

I don't really buy the tourism argument, they seem to be able to cope with the endless London termini, Bristol Temple Meads/Parkway etc etc, so why should Oxford be any different? Not that our railway system should be designed primarily around serving confused tourists in the first place.

Maybe in the best GW traditions, you could have "Water Eaton and Kidlington Road" (seeing as it's a little way from Kidlington, although not quite as far away as Builth Road is from Builth Wells...) and Kidlington General, if hell freezes over and the original halt gets reopened ;)

Not sure that's a 19th century habit (also favoured by the LSWR in places) worth reviving, especially when Oxford Road runs past the entrance.

As I say, the park-and-ride site has an established name and there's never been a vigorous campaign by Kidlington residents to get it changed (and you could probably have a similar argument about the names of some other Oxford p+r sites too).

That you certainly could - Redbridge, Seacourt, Pear Tree and Thornhill don't exactly shout out where they are to anybody driving in to Oxford who's not a local for the day - I doubt many Oxford residents could put the correct name to all four of them.  My slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion would be to take the opportunity to rename them logically, i.e. 'B':South Oxford Park & Ride, 'F': North Oxford Park & Ride, 'E': West Oxford Park & Ride and 'C': East Oxford Park & Ride, and then finally rename Water Eaton ('G' on the map) as South Kidlington Park & Ride containing the new Kidlington Parkway station! 

(http://mt0.google.com/vt/data=cOTU5bDSU1MncaKxHYJ0U9qQdGMZep4bE6yJ-231agjsJj9vYLWJZe0oYNDdF4DyFqZeXEPlrxrK8kJqg-_XlXsyvABYXhtTu6fyS82F8tjrlq6757ydkqd-TKEs3HkpJbRkyWudk9A6ZKR3hJDhAxSfGbAsggZtl-6bRfVWqpEPqRGyRxfcgTZwmqHGY75qF8kOzu9U1oju46KRc0XupctnX-VSnPTxvo2QpZCogsyn70P8LIv5l3TIlXVDlgPxQMQYyzNpX3fte-9jDt5xZ558B5ZRDpCdxOmOhdQnaP5VVzD0gu8U9EWjsoddxGklBHV2bRF7Uwg01plPY2Nq--f0xfw8tMw6-dk)

One other thing to consider is road singage. What is the Park and Ride sign posted as?

I would suggest this is name used for the station which if built would I understand be adjacent to the Park and Ride.

Then all that would have to be done to the road signs would be to add a red double arrow transfer.

What are you saying? Do you want to put the entire Britsh sign-making industry out of business?

 ;D

An excellent point, and one that I had over-looked as a result of overfamiliarity (I was a resident of Oxford for 9 years).

Water Eaton and Peartree are very close anyway.

And as the parking's free, I always wonder why people use others than Thornhill and Peartree!

Erm, because the parking's free at all of the sites (http://www.oxfordbus.co.uk/main.php?page_id=22) ??? The bus fares are identical too. Broadly speaking, there's a park and ride located on the ring road at each of the main "access points" ; Seacourt if arriving from Swindon and the west via the A420, Redbridge if you're approaching up the A34, Thornhill if you're arriving from London, etc. Travelling round the ring road at certain times of day can be an absolute nightmare, so having all those sites makes the whole scheme far more convenient and attractive to potential users.

Should anyone wish to read Chiltern's opening statement to the public inquiry into the Oxford-Bicester project it is online here http://www.obrag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Opening-on-behalf-of-Chiltern-Railways.pdf