Lack of imagination on Cotswold line

[whole diary]

[Steve Bray]

I agree with BT Line as so far, all the benefits of re-doubling do not appear to have been realised. Yes, this topic has been done to death so I'll keep it brief. I have given examples before of how an existing service such as the 0534 ex Hereford could have its slack cut out and run from Charlbury in the times of the new 0713 (that would really please Oxford commuters), and the stock for the 0713 starting from Moreton in the times of the 0534 ex Hereford. Also, that Great Malvern now has 2 less well timed services since September, and indirectly has lost a peak commuter service to Worcester. You could argue that delays on the Cotswold Line were largely caused by trains running late out of Paddington to Oxford; the single track then made those delays worse. On the other hand how many times do we see frequent late running of the Cross Country service between Oxford and Reading; surely the amount of late running trains on that route have quite an impact on other services? Also, though it is a pointless saying it now, I would have doubled Norton Junction to Evesham rather than Honeybourne to Moreton. Ascott under Wychwood has some shiny new platforms but no more trains; this week (half-term), it would have have been an idea to maybe stop 2 off-peak trains a day in each direction to try and glean some extra journeys. 

[IndustryInsider]

My point is there is simply no need to re-double to achieve the stated objective - just timetable in recovery time, which was done by 'padding'. I just can't see why you then spend ^60 mill to achieve what you have already done.

I think it's very valid to point out two things:

1)  More trains now run on the route east of Moreton-In-Marsh.  Those services could not have been accommodated unless the infrastructure had been upgraded.
2)  Padding is only half the story really.  What has been achieved with spending all that money is a route that is far more robust for service recovery when there are problems.  Before the redoubling, as an example, there were occasions when a delay of say 40 minutes to a Paddington to Worcester service early on a Sunday afternoon would then knock on to services many hours later, whilst waiting for the long Moreton-Evesham section to clear of the previous delayed train (and to a lesser extent the Wolvercote to Ascott section).  All of these delayed trains would then potentially cause problems west of Worcester for London Midland services, and south of Oxford on the London route which invariably has tightly pathed trains working to a two track timetable on a Sunday at some point between Didcot and London.  Now things are hugely improved.  It's unlikely that the 40 minute delayed service will do much more than delay one other train by about 10 minutes or so, and as a result those delays, which might not have originated on the Cotswold Line, are soon absorbed and recovered.

However, I do share peoples views that the service levels and timings remain disappointing.  I feel there is scope to improve the weekday service west of Moreton-In-Marsh so that it has a near hourly service.  I feel there is good scope to close those two two-hour gaps on Saturday lunchtimes in the up direction between Worcester and Oxford, and I feel there is scope (and much demand) for a better up service on Sundays with an earlier train starting at Moreton-In-Marsh as well as plugging one of the two two-hour gaps that exist on Sundays - having only two trains from Worcester arriving into London before 3:30pm, both Turbos, is not good enough.

I'm pretty sure FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) said that they looked forward to seeing what journey time enhancements could be made. Of course, after Reading I expect London to Oxford to be cut to 50 minutes. At least 10 minutes could be cut off the rest of the journey time to Worcester in an instant by removing slack.

Journey time wise, there are a few tweaks that could be done, Steve's suggestions for example, but until a timetable recast is done there's little other scope.  I've been taking an interest in potential journey times now that drivers have got used to the increased speeds and later braking points, and reckon the optimum time for a journey from Oxford to Worcester (Shrub Hill) with all the 'usual' stops is about 1h 06 minutes for a Turbo.  Add a few minutes for padding and a regular 1h 10m schedule is workable.  Add a couple of minutes to that for a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) due to the dual menace of doors being left open and bikes, and potentially take a couple of minutes off of that for an Adelante with it's better acceleration and top speed.

So, working on a 1h 10m ideal schedule time, how many trains currently achieve anywhere near that?  Well, more than you might think.  On a weekday: 

• In the Down direction the 06:45 ex Oxford does it in 1h 14m, the 08:04 in 1h 11m, the 10:25 in 1h 09m (omitting Honeybourne), the 12:19 in 1h 12m, and the 18:49 (omitting Hanborough and Honeybourne, but including Shipton) in 1h 14m.
• In the Up direction things aren't as good.  The 05:11 (omitting Honeybourne) does it in 1h 14m, but everything else creeps towards and sometimes quite a way over the 1h 20m mark.  Oh, except for the Didcot flyer which omitting Honeybourne and Hanborough is scheduled for a blistering 1h 04m!

The trouble is, most of those trains are not the really busy services for commuters and business travellers, who've seen little, or no improvement in their journey times.  That's where a timetable recast could make some real inroads.

[Btline]

I acknowledge that extra trains run South of Moreton. But it's a drop in the ocean to have the odd service extended.

It is good to see that a 2 hour 10 minute journey time can become routine on the infrastructure, and I hope FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) work together to work out a timetable that allows this for a basic hourly service. I also hope that a few more trains can be extended to Charlbury in return for fewer Hanborough stops. (what has happened to the Charlbury - Didcot shuttles that were promised?) This may need extra redoubling of course. The extra trains can stop at Shipton and one out of Combe and Finstock, building up demand.

I stand by the controversial idea that one peak train in each direction misses out the halts plus Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore, saving a further 10 minutes, allowing the possibility of a 1 hour 50 minute journey time to Worcester (50 mins to Oxford, a further hour to Worcester) sparking demand in the region.

I dispute the claim that padding helps reliability. As we've already established, the addition of padding just results in slack railway operations. Indeed, some of the operation I have witnessed on the Cotswold line has been shocking, with no apparent urgency to get the train away on time. The result being that the trains are even later despite having more time in the timetable. Padding is purely put in to help TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) pay less in fines. All this padding needs to be axed (or at least shoved to the penultimate stop like Chiltern do) and operations made slicker.

Remember, there's a reason people are prepared to drive all the way to Warwick Parkway/Birmingham International. Many people just do not even consider using Worcester's train service: be it a business trip to London, or commuting from the Vale to the City. The re-doubling is not enough, we need a new timetable and a fanfare of publicity about it.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Most of the above comments are pretty on the ball. There are now very few incidents that occur on the CL that delay trains off the CL and that was the main justification that got the 20 mile redoubling project approved. Remember that in the previous RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) (not the most recent one) redoubling of the CL was rejected on the grounds that there was no economic case for spending the necessary money. It was only when CL performance sank to very poor levels a few years ago now that redoubling was approved because delayed CL trains were causing substantial probelms to other trains when they came off the CL at Worcester and Oxford.
With regards to doubling of the two remaining single track sections, in the most recent RUS NR^» (Network Rail - home page) included an "aspiration" to redouble the Charlbury/Wolvercote section, but that cannot be done at present until the major resignalling of the Oxford area has been done as there is no spare capacity at Oxford to control double line points. I suspect that at Norton Junction there are similar constraints.
Today I was travelling back towards Oxford on the 10.49 Turbo that departed Moreton about a minute late. However at Charlbury it was delayed as the Down arrival at Charlbury scheduled for 11.06 was late by about 4 minutes resulting in our train departing 5 minutes late. The Down train is one of the new services introduced since redoubling that only goes westwards as far as Moreton. This was an example of the type of delays we mow experience.
Incidentally, my train was almost full at Moreton and I had one of the few remaining unoccupied seats. By Kingham it was standing. By Charlbury the vestibules were full and by Hanborough, where about a dozen boarded, iyt was standing through the carriage seating area. I just wonder how many people there would have been on the next Up train that started from Moreton an hour later. I know it is school half term but there seemed to be only between 10 & 20 school children on board. Such is the growing use of the CL.

[Andy W]

I think it's very valid to point out two things:

1)  More trains now run on the route east of Moreton-In-Marsh.  Those services could not have been accommodated unless the infrastructure had been upgraded.
 

Absolutely - but that's not in the plan.

I firmly believe that doubling the East and West ends rather than Honeybourne-Moreton would have been far better. They could have not only got the reliability they need but also build a far better service offering at both ends of the line. Seems to me a big opportunity was lost by only considering a very narrow brief.

[Andy W]

.................I dispute the claim that padding helps reliability. ............... Padding is purely put in to help TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) pay less in fines.

Hi Btline,

The reason that TOCs pay fewer fines is because they meet their reliability targets, proof that padding does work. I agree it's crap but if your sole objective is an improvement in reliability then padding does it.

CPLG hits the nail on the head - the market is there at the East end of the line (as there would be at the West if LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) ran thtough to Evesham).
You don't really need to redouble either Wolvercote or Norton, just run the double track to 100 yards of the relevant junction.

[Lee]

Incidentally, my train was almost full at Moreton and I had one of the few remaining unoccupied seats. By Kingham it was standing. By Charlbury the vestibules were full and by Hanborough, where about a dozen boarded, iyt was standing through the carriage seating area. I just wonder how many people there would have been on the next Up train that started from Moreton an hour later. I know it is school half term but there seemed to be only between 10 & 20 school children on board. Such is the growing use of the CL.

I have to say that does sound impressive usage-wise for an off-peak service.

[Btline]

I agree that LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) to Evesham also needs to happen. But I doubt there are enough 170s to run, as it would require a doubling of Worcester - New Street (also desperately needed) service off peak. It's a shame an add on order of 172s wasn't put in.

There is such a lack of rail imagination in Worcestershire. This is surprising as it must have some of the worst traffic problems in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). I have driven in urban Newcastle and can say that it is less stressful than driving in most parts of rural Worcestershire!

_{The only other place other than London & Oxford I've been more stressed driving is and East Northamptonshire, where again, there is a poor rail service (the County only having 6 stations, one of which is Kings Sutton so doesn't really count).}

[jdw.wor]

Having been a reader rather than a contributor for the last two and a half years Btline's comments have got me into action! Like others I agree with him that excess "padding" creates a sloppy operations environment where a minute here or there doesn't matter (as an ex SR^‡(resolve) SM I know every minute can count crucially). I have witnessed some truly awful discipline at Shrub Hill.  Numerous times I have seen an up train take three to four minutes in the platform and I do know what can and cannot cause delay. The lack of urgency (or dare I say pride) that sometimes occurs is really annoying. Having said this the above comments do not apply to the majority of staff. I have been generally impressed and sometimes delighted by the performance of the vast majority... but there are some. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were able to run a 2 hr Worcester to Paddington train fifteen years ago in the "rush hour" without the new infrastructure, so why not now.
As to additional services on the line, the suggestion of LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) services  running through to Evesham could be enhanced with the trains running on via Long Marston to Stratford (it's good to dream) and complete the link and perhaps the Moreton terminators could run through to Startford as well (time and trains being available of course)

[IndustryInsider]

I think it's very valid to point out two things:

1)  More trains now run on the route east of Moreton-In-Marsh.  Those services could not have been accommodated unless the infrastructure had been upgraded.
 

Absolutely - but that's not in the plan.

I'd be interested to hear your comments on point two of that post - which attempted to answer your question about what the money has helped achieve?  Also, what your thoughts are on the Class 180 reliability modifications I mentioned in reply to your post regarding those?  Also what you'd have done to resolve the Combe/Finstock conundrum should that section of the line have been redoubled?

Just a quick note about padding, restating what I've said before.  If there were no allowances in the timetable for recovery, i.e. if everything was operated to the optimum schedules, I would expect the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) national punctuality figures to drop down to below 80% from the 91% that NR have announced today.  You have to have a small amount of buffer, be it to allow for engineering speed restrictions, delays due to occasional problems like bikes loading or passengers boarding in wheelchairs, and finally for pathing issues.  The key is to make sure that additional slack in the schedules is the appropriate amount, and I think we all agree that the Cotswold Line timetable (virtually all slack due to pathing issues that still remain) still has too much.

Reference CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about)'s comments about the 10:49 Turbo ex Moreton - yes it's a busy old train that one, especially in half-term week, but even at other times there are usually people standing from Oxford.  A 180 to be introduced soon will ease that crowding slightly, but it will remain busy, and if they try an Adelante on the previous service from Worcester (and keep the existing stops) then that will be very full every day of the week and a total nightmare during the holidays!

Let's hope that things are tightened up, timetables are recast and extra trains are added, but be mindful that the Olympics and change of franchise (as well as the upcoming improvement works) have all made this a little more awkward to achieve quickly.  And, finally, I reiterate that I hope everybody who's posted on here with their comments will be contributing to the franchise renewal consultation?  You still have more than a month to get your thoughts in.

[Andy W]

I'd be interested to hear your comments on point two of that post - which attempted to answer your question about what the money has helped achieve?  Also, what your thoughts are on the Class 180 reliability modifications I mentioned in reply to your post regarding those?  Also what you'd have done to resolve the Combe/Finstock conundrum should that section of the line have been redoubled?

Hi II,

Many thanks for your responses (which were excellent as ever).

Regarding your explanation I understand that the redoubling allows for a more robust schedule but I feel that so much more could have been accomplished. With both Pershore & Hanborough on single lines this counters some of the advantage. A stop at a station would add around 4 mins to the time the train is in that section (allowing for slowing down, stopping and accelerating back up to line speed). If you are running at say 70mph those 4 minutes equates to 4.5 miles of track! So by redoubling to cover those stations you would have the effect of adding roughly 9 miles of track. My point has always been that if the redoubling had been done more thoughtfully then not only would you achieve those things you have rightly pointed out, you would also provide a far better infrastructure for both the East & West ends of the line.

Regarding Coombe & Finstock they are so close to Charlbury / Hanborough that I would like them to go the way of Stoulton / Wyre Piddle / Fladbury / Littleton & Badsey / Chipping Camden / Adlestrop et al.

As far as the 180s are concerned, from a passenger's viewpoint I thought they were excellent. Better seating arrangement that the refurb Mk3s and on the whole a nice travelling experience. The downside was the reliability & the fact that a 5 coach 180 has almost the same seating capacity of a 3 coach Turbo - so replacing a Turbo with a 180 doesn't necessarily give more seats, although the seats are more useable in a 2+2 configuration rather than a 2+3 where the middle seat of 3 is often not used.

80% availability is frankly pitifull. Would you buy a car that would be off the road a day and a half a week?

Regarding padding, there are far more subtle ways of adding time to a journey rather than standing at a station. If, for example, you ran at a timetable speed of 60mph rather than the line speed of 80 mph the driver would have some opportunity to catch up if running late. You could also stop some of the practices that cause delays - I'm thinking, particularly, of banning bikes.

I'm not for padding, it's just that it could save a whole lot of money if the only objective is punctuality.


[/quote]

[gwr2006]

The upgrade was never predicated on the basis of a service improvement

Why not? If you want to maximise your ROI you need to look at more than improved relaibility which was already improved by padding the timetables.

Network Rail carried out exhaustive option analysis before deciding on the section of route to be redoubled, and option 6 was implemented as it gave the best results.

Can you point us to the options and the objectives? Gave the best results for what? What cost / revenue benefits were modelled? The best result would be to re-double the entire length so there must have been an initial budget restricition. What was it?

The objectives for redoubling were very simple, and were:

^   To improve performance along the route to 92% PPM^‡(resolve) for the existing service pattern; and
^   To enable the introduction of an hourly service, also at 92% PPM

The justification for the investment was that improved performance on the Cotswolds Line directly leads to improved performance in the Thames Valley, and especially between Reading and Paddington.  Simulation was carried out on six iterative options, all intended to deliver the 92% PPM performance level, using a route and timetable simulation model called RailSys.  The options tested were:

Option 1: Evesham remodelling;
Option 2: A dynamic loop centred on Evesham;
Option 3: Options 1 & 2 plus dynamic loop at Honeybourne;
Option 4: Option 3 plus Moreton remodelling;
Option 5: Redoubling from Evesham to Moreton; and
Option 6: Option 5 plus Redoubling from Ascott to Charlbury.

Option 6 gave the best result weighing up benefits and costs and was chosen.  The budget was then negotiated between Network Rail and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and value-engineered to achieve the desired output within the funds awarded.  I recall the figure went up a little before being fixed at ^67 million.  The scope was not fixed by the funding; the scope led the financing.

The project was never remitted to provide an hourly service, although the new infrastructure will now allow that to be operated to the same level of reliability.  Whoever said anything about there being a CBY-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) shuttle ^ that was never a proposal.

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has always said they would review the timetable in December 2012 once they had one years experience of the new infrastructure and the new timings had bedded in.

Norton Junction cannot be improved until the Worcester area is resignalled, and the same applies for Wolvercot Junction.  Oxford is due to be resignalled in 2015 but only on a like-for-like basis as something called Electrification needs to be up and running very soon afterwards.  Always the chance to revisit track layouts after that as part of the Oxford Corridor Enhancement in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019).

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Further to the above options, it should be remembered that these took into account the practical constraints, i.e. the lack of signalling resources at Oxford and Worcester that prevent doubling immediately east of Norton and west of Wolvercot. Had that been possible the exercise might have come out with different proposals.
With regard to the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) promise to review the timetable after December 2012 it should also be remembered that since then FGW has decided to terminate the franchise at 31 March 2013. It seems to me that they are very unlikely to spend o lot of time looking at timetable changes with less than 6 months left on the franchise.

[Btline]

A rather limited pool of options were looked at...

Obviously Coombe/Finstock must be axed, though I doubt anyone will have the balls to do it. Just reduce the service to one train per week in one direction (on a Sunday evening) to keep it out the way and make it unusable! Ditto for Ascott. There'll be Daily Mail style articles in the local press with quotes from locals complaining they have to travel 5 minutes to Charlbury for about a month then it'll die down. Some urban areas don't have stations that close together! In this age of austerity, we should axe these money sinks.

It looks as if nothing much will be done until the new franchise, as such, we should get as many people to respond to the consultation. Hopefully it'll get better...

[IndustryInsider]

Thanks for your comments, Andy W - the point you make about time lost on a station stop is an interesting one, probably nearer to 2.5-3 minutes per station stop on linespeeds of 75-90mph rather than 4 minutes, but it is very relevant to the time a train takes to get through a section as you say.

Regarding Coombe & Finstock they are so close to Charlbury / Hanborough that I would like them to go the way of Stoulton / Wyre Piddle / Fladbury / Littleton & Badsey / Chipping Camden / Adlestrop et al.

You could also stop some of the practices that cause delays - I'm thinking, particularly, of banning bikes.

I'm sure, off the record, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would be delighted to be able to take such measures, but I can just imagine the negative publicity it would cause.  I don't think it's going to happen, so you have to consider that when you come to making a decision, and that adversely affects your proposals as it will add a lot to the cost.  GWR2006's points regarding the restrictions on signalling at both ends also have to be considered.  His comments on the franchise renewal and upcoming electrification also echo my thoughts as to why we've not seen many improvements yet (with the Olympics thrown in for good measure).

80% availability is frankly pitifull. Would you buy a car that would be off the road a day and a half a week?

It's not the best, but then again you don't rag your car for up to 18 hours a day, every day, at speeds of up to 125mph!  My point on reliability is that with only 5 units in the fleet, you either ask for 60% reliability and have three daily diagrams (achievable but pitiful), 80% reliability with four daily diagrams (achievable and realistic*), or 100% reliability (obviously not achievable).

* But 80% availability is only pretty easy to achieve as long as you have a large fleet and can absorb bad periods, with four daily diagrams you can have one unit out of service for routine maintenance, but if another then goes bang (which the 180s aren't exactly averse to doing) then all of a sudden you're a unit short.  That might equate to six or more separate trains a day.  I'm not sure what the plan for weekend utilisation of the 180s is, but if they all stay in the depot at weekends then perhaps that will be a way of better achieving the 80% mark as most of the routine maintenance could take place then.

As a side note, Train Managers at Paddington have started to learn (or re-learn in most cases) the route from Oxford to Great Malvern in readiness for their re-introduction.  Driver (re)training has yet to commence as we haven't got the units back, but can't be too far off.

As a final side note, here's the planned alterations as part of the Oxford Corridor Enhancements (taken from the Sept 2011 Initial Industry Plan) - let's hope they get the go-ahead:

CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) output driver
The objective of the scheme is to improve capacity and capability on the ^Oxford Corridor^ to
meet the Initial Industry Plan objectives for capacity enhancement and reduction in end-to-end
journey time. The project aspiration is to allow up to three additional train paths an hour in each
direction to accommodate the future capacity requirements forecast in the Great Western RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy)
(established March 2010) and the SFN forecast up to 2030.

Scope of works
 Implementation of an Oxford Up side south-facing bay. This element has been
developed previously to GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) stage 4 (for the platform only). The proposed location of
the new platform necessarily uses part of the existing station car park (approx. 200
spaces). The project will consider how these spaces can be replicated and consider
proposals for linking this new platform with the existing station (access deck);
 provision of bi-directional (bi-di) signalling between Didcot North (Appleford), Hinksey
North, Oxford North Junction, Wolvercot Junction., Tackley, and Aynho Junction.
 reduction in headway between Wolvercot and Aynho using 3-aspect signalling to align
with Oxford area resignalling scheme and Banbury South resignalling;
 developing options for Down and Up passenger loops either at Hinksey or north of the
station with higher speed entrance connections to facilitate passenger trains passing
freight at increased length;
 increasing linespeeds in support of reduction in end-to-end journey times; and
 a double junction at Oxford North to facilitate increased capacity of connection to the
Bicester line (subject to the progression of East West railway).

Significant interfaces
Planned resignalling of the Oxford area programmed to commission in May 2015.
Key assumptions
 This scheme will align with the resignalling works at Oxford to achieve the maximum
synergy and cost benefit to this project;
 the resignalling team will be in a position to undertake the enhanced works; and
 the Strategic Freight Network upgrade programme is conducting a feasibility study into
the provision of a 775m loop on the Down-side of the layout Nth of Oxford. This loop
would carry passenger trains while freight trains were detained on the main running
lines. If this proceeds then the Down loop elements of this project are not required.


Also mentioned in a separate part of the document:
line speed increases - study into line speed increases on the South Wales main line and
on both the North and South Cotswolds lines.