Great Western Coffee Shop

Any thoughts on the chances of this being signed off in the light of the Government spending all its (ie yours and mine) money on bailing out the banks. Any chance of anything being spent on the railways for the next 5 years?

It's fingers crossed time. This crazy financial situation has no precedents, and so its impact is very difficult to predict - but it won't be good news!

Not sure whether it's because of orders from the Government as it eyes our empty piggy bank or because ORR and Network Rail are still arguing about what can be spent and where but the ORR announcement on spending in the 2009-14 control period was apparently due yesterday but has been put off until October 30th.

One bit of work that does appear to be going ahead, as it's in the 2008 NR budget, is the upgrade to passenger standards of the goods loops north of Oxford. New rails are being dropped and laid out ready for new sleepers, so looks like no more Cotswold trains sitting blocking platform 2 while waiting for the single line, or Bicester branch trains weaving across the main lines.

Chris Bates, who is the FGW customer panel rep for the Cotswold Line and Cherwell Valley stations, as well as a leading light in the Cherwell Rail Users Group, has posted the followng on the Charlbury.info site,  which may be of interest.

"The line work is no longer split into individual phases, but will be completed as one, with an earliest completion date of May 2010. THe ORR decision is slated for 30th October, and a lot more definite information will hopefully be available within 10 days after that date.

"What I can say now is that there will be some disruption obviously, which is currently be planned to be as least disruptive as possible. However, there will be one longish block in Summer 2009, with two further, shorter blocks in 2010. FGw are intent on running trains wherever possible where lines will be open. There will be 3 new platforms, 2 new footbridges and 1 new underbridge in total.

"I now understand that the clearance of vegetation will commence in about 2 weeks time in preparation for the works along with a survey of Chipping Campden tunnel."

That sounds like a much more realistic timescale for the considerable amount of work that will have to be done. Let's hope that the clearance of vegetation is not in vain!

The vegetation should be cleared whatever - last time I travelled the route there was the sound of the lineside vegetation smacking against the carriage windows - quaint.

The way Boris Johnson's spokesman explained the decision to scrap the Docklands Light Railway extension to Dagenham Dock could be interpreted as a warning sign as to the prospects for expanded infrastructure schemes (link below) :
http://www.politics.co.uk/news//opinion-former-index/transport/boris-pulls-plug-on-dlr-extension-$1244307.htm (http://www.politics.co.uk/news//opinion-former-index/transport/boris-pulls-plug-on-dlr-extension-$1244307.htm)

I'm no economist, but for economy to prosper, an expanded infrastructure is needed!

I couldnt agree more, Liam.

However, I have a horrible feeling that the now doomed Docklands Light Railway extension to Dagenham Dock wont be the only rail-related expanded infrastructure scheme to be affected by the current economic climate.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

Not sure the Dagenham extension is exactly the best example to pick on though. The area is already served by C2C trains, so the line would be of little value for travel into central London, and it's a distance out of Docklands proper anyway. It could be argued it's more a case of nice to have it, rather than need to have it, and with the drain the Olympics will be on London's finances, recession or not, it's probably not entirely surprising it's been put on ice.

In the case of the Cotswold Line, the problems its infrastructure causes won't go away unless they are tackled. Due to the pathing issues, these trains are the first that are written in when the timetable out of Paddington is planned - that's how big a problem it is.

As I said earlier, I think the ORR delay is more to do with wrangling than anything else - the Government has already said how much it expects to spend on rail in coming years. Rail magazine managed to fill two or three pages a couple of weeks ago with coverage of all the things Network Rail says should be funded that ORR knocked back in the spring, so some extra time was probably inevitable.

Hopefully the petition, which ends in December, will add a push as well. it is well over the minimum required for someone to read it. They will see it and cancel something else instead!

<ref>In the case of the Cotswold Line, the problems its infrastructure causes won't go away unless they are tackled. Due to the pathing issues, these trains are the first that are written in when the timetable out of Paddington is planned - that's how big a problem it is. </ref>

Don't forget knock on effects at the Reading and Worcester bottlenecks.

Its more the fact that Johnson's spokesman specifically used the current financial turmoil as an excuse to cancel the Dagenham extension that worries me :


I dont think we can rule out others finding this line a convenient one to take, regardless of the merits of the schemes involved.

It's convenient, but I think it's more a handy peg to hang blame on, which has fallen into their lap. You don't make these sort of decisions off the cuff on the back of a couple of weeks' headlines, so they have probably being looking at this scheme ever since Boris got elected in the spring - and let's face it, Dagenham isn't exactly his natural constituencey, so no votes to lose out there, plus it saves them having to come up with any more substantial reasons.

That was pretty much my point, and my worry is that others looking for an excuse to ditch schemes will act as Industry Insider describes in the link below.
http://canber.co.uk/?q=node/43

Given the prominence the Cotswold scheme was given in Network Rail's Strategic Business Plan in April, flagged up alongside upgrading the ECML's overhead power supply, I would be astonished if it were to be dropped now.

With Reading rebuilding coming up, the prospect of late-running Cotswold Line services continuing to foul things up when capacity on the GWML will be at an absolute premium doesn't bear thinking about.

And this is one project where the leader of the Conservative Party WILL put up a very strong fight if there is any suggestion of backtracking at this stage.

I'm sure the credit crunch will be used an excuse for not doing all manner of things, on the railways and elsewhere, but probably not this one.

And governments do tend to take a long-term view of paying back their borrowings - we only made the final repayment on a huge post-Second World War loan from the US two years ago.

Personally, I hope you are right. It will be interesting to see what the ORR announcement on October 30th brings, both in terms of the Cotswold line scheme and others.

So the Tories have a use then??!

David Cameron expressed his wish for the Cotswold Line redoubling when he came to Worcester few weeks ago.

I'm rather hesitant to post this, as I'm slightly unsure of my ground (technically speaking) - but here goes:

I attended the TravelWatch SouthWest meeting in Taunton on 4 October, where Dave Ward, Route Director, Great Western Zone, Network Rail, explained that funding has already been brought forward to enable work to start on the preparatory clearance of vegetation on the Cotswold Line.  This is because, without such work, starting now, he couldn't guarantee that the re-doubling of the track work would be completed on time.  As he said in his talk, no civil servant or politician is going to authorise the spending of millions of pounds now, only to say later that the rest of the scheme has been scrapped?

I don't see any reason why this view would have changed - even given the turbulent events of the past week.

Previous quotes regarding the vegetation :




How many millions are being spent on vegetation clearance, and what percentage of the cost of the overall redoubling scheme does this represent?

Gulp!  Sorry, can't remember! Erm .. grahame ... Ollie - help!  :-[

I dont wish to cause you panic, Chris  ;D

Look, no-one would be more pleased than me if this scheme went ahead. I am utterly convinced of the case (especially as my initial concerns about it appear to have been addressed) and I fervently hope that willc, Dave Ward and others are correct.

Let's hope so. Though don't forget that beaurocracy means millions of pounds are routinely wasted by the Government or other bodies in studies and surveys that are not necessary. I doubt the removal of vegetation would be more than a couple of ^100k in the grand scheme of things.

I've recently had the chance to be at the 'sharp end' of a couple of trains down the Cotswold Line with one eye on what work will need to be done to achieve the stated aims. There will need to be:

* Three new platforms with access.
* Replacement of some bridges.
* Level Crossing replacements/infrastructure at four locations as well as mods to countless other unworked/foot crossings.
* Embankment strengthening work.
* Movement of miles of cables (mostly freshly laid 2 years ago!)
* Several new/re-aligned junctions.
* Tunnel work at Campden.
* Additional signalling equipment.
* 20 route miles of additional single track line.

Added to that, I would estimate that the track will need to be totally lifted for about 20% of the route as it is either too central to allow another line to be placed by it, or is slewing from one side of the old double track to the other.

Bearing in mind the inordinate costs of doing anything on the railway I would hazard a guess that the ^50m costs for the whole scheme as outlined originally will fall well short of the total cost. Even a budget of double will be difficult to achieve in my opinion. At least completing the work as one project rather than two seperate ones will mean nobody can get cold feet once one bit is done!

Veg clearance has to take place in the winter months because of nesting birds. If it isn't finished by March (ish) then everything has to wait.

 

What will the line speeds be? Hopefully fast(er)!

I believe they were looking to increase them to 90/100mph where practicable - that should be possible for most of Evesham to Moreton (Aston Magna curve and probably Worcester side of Campden Tunnel excepted) - though if they do run into trouble with funding, that'll be the first thing to be dropped in preference for retention of the current 75mph limit!

I thought it was mainly 90 -100 at the moment. ???

Of the bits I'm most familiar with, speed limits are 100mph Wolvercot to Ascott - usually only achieved by trains which don't call at Hanborough - then 90mph Ascott to Moreton - though Kingham stops usually mean HSTs rarely seem to hit this, but the halts train is a good bet to fly along for a few miles at 90, as a two-car Turbo doesn't have air con to drain off the power. Beyond Moreton it gets more twisty and undulating down into the Vale, so as Industry Insider says 75mph prevails here, while distances between stations in the Vale limit speeds achieved before you have to brake again.

Aston Magna curve will always remain a constraint on speed, especially with double track - thinking about it, it's a most un-Brunel like feature, though short of demolishing much of the medieval part of the village or giving it a wide berth, he couldn't do much else. With Campden bank, trains climbing from Honeybourne face four-and-a-half miles of 1 in 100, so I wouldn't have thought you'd manage much more than 70mph going up it anyway - unless the line was electrified.

As for cost, Arup, who looked at the plan for the ORR, said it could hit ^105m, while the range Network Rail gave me in April was ^74m to ^92m, already up from the ^51m it cited in the strategic business plan, from which ORR came up with ^48m, which always looked like a case of 'just slice a bit off and that will do'.

It's interesting to hear your speed perceptions as a passenger, Will. They're mostly pretty accurate, but from my cab observations I can confirm the following (using a down HST as an example):

* WOLVERCOTE-HANBOROUGH - Will reach about 80-85mph.
* HANBOROUGH-CHARLBURY - Will reach linespeed of 100mph around Finstock (after a Hanborough stop).
* CHARLBURY-KINGHAM - Will reach about 85mph before braking for the 75mph restriction Ascott-Shipton then back up to 85mph before Kingham.
* KINGHAM-MORETON - Will easily reach 90mph (usually by just after Adlestrop).
* MORETON-HONEYBOURNE-EVESHAM - Reach line speed of 75mph.
* EVESHAM-PERSHORE - Will reach linespeed of 95mph just before braking for Pershore.
* PERSHORE-NORTON - Will reach 90mph before braking for Norton Junctions silly 25mph restriction.

Speeds the other way are much the same, except Campden bank after Honeybourne where the severe gradient means that a HST will reach 75mph but it will take longer to do it (usually about a mile before the tunnel). If the speed was increased to 90mph a train would not get up to that until coming down the hill after Campden Level Crossing. A turbo will struggle to get up to more than 65mph until after the level crossing.

Finally Aston Magna curve is very sharp for 70mph and I believe it was part of a BR research project back in the 70's, when the linespeed was raised from the previous 40mph limit?

Sounds like a pretty sharp bit of driving. Wish it was always like that.


But will it be allowed to stay at 70? With two tracks to fit in and the road bridge dictating the alignment, may it have to be reduced, or is this one of the bridges to be replaced, to give some more room to work with? If something is going to be done about it, then this is the time.

Just an average over several trips I have witnessed. Virtually all drivers will take notch 5 of power by the time the train is doing 30mph. That's the maximum power output and the speeds I stated will be achieved doing that with a normal HST - wheelslip is the only factor that might seriously affect it. The main differences between drivers occur with their braking technique.

The perception of speed differs quite a lot as it always feels like you're going faster in a turbo with windows open and an engine powering beneath, than it does in a virtually silent Mk3 saloon - even more so at night.

One driver told me that whenever he's on time leaving Moreton he gets the train up to 90mph and then coasts for about 3 miles before braking for Kingham. The slight downhill gradient means the trains speed only drops to about 80mph and so only a few seconds are lost and an on time departure from Kingham is easily achieved and 3 miles worth of fuel is saved. Sensible driving I say.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Aston Magna as you say. I can't see 70mph being possible if the curve is sharpened any more that it already is. Legend has it that It actually gained the nickname of Microwave Curve for a little while after a HST went round there a little too quickly and a Microwave went flying in the buffet vehicle!

Quite agree. The thing is, I sometimes get the feeling that some drivers are more confident about their knowledge of the route than others. It may be unfair, but my impression is the Bristol HSS link drivers and the Oxford crews (for obvious reasons of local knowledge) are happier than those from Reading or London, who seem to prefer belting up and down Brunel's magic carpet to getting fully to grips with one of his more testing creations, where technique and the kind of skill and knowledge you describe play an important part in punctual running.

If I'm on a Hereford service (Bristol crewed) that's five minutes down at Moreton in the morning, I'm pretty confident it will be back near time at Oxford, unless checked at Wolvercot, whereas on other workings, even with three or four minutes of timing allowance built in, no time is clawed back.

Can anybody tell us anything more about Aston Magna curve - I'd always assumed that this was a fix for a landslip problem on the previously-straight(er) alignment, but I've never found when the fix had to be done.

No, it's an entirely original section of the line. I think Brunel just found that it was the best thing he could do in the situation, as the rising ground between Moreton and Aston Magna means the line is forced up above the floor of the valley of the Blockley Brook here and the position of the village pushed him against the hillside, which pretty much dictated that the curve would be tighter then he would normally have liked.

I suspect he wasn't overly bothered, as every train on the line stopped at Moreton, so trains would either be starting to slow down or accelerating after the stop and in the days of steam locos 40mph probably didn't seem too restrictive.

I'm surprised to learn that it's original. Always seems to me (as you go past) that there's a widening of the formation at the two 'ends' of what I'd assumed was the deviation - at grid references 196362 and 200355.

You can look at the 1:50000 OS map at http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=aston+magna&countryCode=GB#map=52.02065,-1.70849|15|4&dp=904&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:52.01938:-1.71329:14|aston%20magna|Aston%20Magna,%20Moreton-in-Marsh,%20Gloucestershire,%20England,%20GL56%209 (http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=aston+magna&countryCode=GB#map=52.02065,-1.70849|15|4&dp=904&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:52.01938:-1.71329:14|aston%20magna|Aston%20Magna,%20Moreton-in-Marsh,%20Gloucestershire,%20England,%20GL56%209) (wow, that's a link-and-a-half!)

What's the linear water feature at 197358, on what I'd assumed was the "straight" alignment?

Good photo of the curve at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/68385 (http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/68385).

The wide formation is partly a legacy of the old Aston Magna siding, which served a brickworks next to the line until 1957. There was also a small signalbox on the opposite side of the line until the mid-1940s. The linear feature may well be something left on the site of the brickworks. Next time I'm passing that way, I'll try to have a closer look.

It looks as though the track is more on the inward side in that photo. They should be able to fit the new track on the outer radius.

Yes - I think that there's room throughout the curve for an extra track (including the road bridge at one end), and so hopefully double track 70mph running can retained. Whether the 75mph and 100mph sections can be retained, and even enhanced, after the additional track is added is less certain from what I've seen.

Thanks, chaps!

Please excuse me for being a bit of an amateur here, but if that curve is original (as in, built by IKB, I mean), would it have been designed then for broad gauge - and thus there is room for doubling now?

Cotswold line was not broad gauge as it was built by the "OWW" - Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway (aka Old Worse and Worse).

If the track has been slewed across the formation in order to ease the curve, then you'd expect it to be on the inside at that point. It probably slews back to the "other" side as it straightens out - which would mean that you couldn't maintain the existing speed limit with double track.

It certainly was built to broad gauge, or, more accurately mixed gauge. The clearest evidence which remains today, apart from the wide, flat-arch Brunel bridges spanning the line, is the spacing of the platforms at Moreton-in-Marsh. Although the GWR rebuilt them later in the 19th century, their position remained unchanged, so there is a far wider gap than usual 'four-foot' between the tracks through the station.

Only one or two broad gauge test trains ever ran on the line, and one got all the way to Wolverhampton. This epic trip began from Oxford at 11.30am on Maundy Thursday 1854 - after a row at Oxford station which saw Brunel banned from travelling on the train. It reached Wolverhampton at 6.30pm. Due to missing a broad gauge crossover at Bilston, the train was then propelled by the locomotive all the way back to Evesham before it could be moved to the front of the train (the broad gauge facilities were somewhat skimpy apparently). They finally returned to Oxford at 5am on Good Friday! The only regular broad gauge services on OWW tracks were GWR trains between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, which used the short section from Priestfield to Wolverhampton Low Level in the 1860s.

For an account of the shenanigans over the gauge of the line, see John Boynton's book The Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway, published by Mid England Books in 2003, which draws on Michael Hale's Brunel's Broad Gauge in the Black Country, published in 1997.

The road bridge at Aston Magna predates the singling of the line, so no problems fitting double track through it.

None of the line between Oxford and Wolverhampton was broad gauge/ mixed. It was not GWR. Perhaps some was engineered that way in case, but I expect money ran out/ there were arguments.
 
There is no way the line was broad gauge - take a look at Rainbow Hill tunnel at Worcester (and a lot of the other bridges, tunnels and platforms I dare say).

There was a broad line from Oxford to Wolverhampton, but it went via the Cherwell Valley and Birmingham.

Broad gauge never reached Worcester.

I have a book with a map with the gauges (including mixed gauge). Cotswold was standard only.

A couple of quotes from Wikipedia to try and clear up the confusion...

The line between Oxford and Worcester was constructed under an 1845 Act of Parliament and opened in 1851 as part of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway.

The Act required the line to be built to Brunel's broad gauge (7 ft 0^ in / 2,140 mm) but delays, disputes and increasing costs led to its being completed as standard gauge (4ft8^).

The Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway was a company authorised on 4th August 1845 to construct a railway line from the Oxford and Rugby Railway at Wolvercot Junction to Worcester, Stourbridge, Dudley, and Wolverhampton, with a branch to the Grand Junction Railway at Bushbury. This would be known as the Oxford-Worcester-Wolverhampton Line.

The company was overseen by the Great Western Railway (GWR) from the start, and was taken over by West Midlands Railway not long after the line was completed, which in turn was amalgamated into the GWR in 1862.

So, in some respects you're both right, though Will has the edge on accuracy I think!

That makes sense! :D

Clearly Morton was built before the cash ran out, and Rainbow tunnel after! It would be Worcester that gets the c**p track layout! ::)

I am very confident that no Kidderminster - Worcester section is broad gauge. Neither Shrub Hill (there are gaps but these were for four tracks once), not Foregate Street are broad.

The map I spoke about should mention the fact that broad gauge construction (even if no broad track was laid) got as far as Morton.

Is Aston Magna broad or not? What about the other stations.

I don't want to labour the point but I am not making things up. The account I gave of the broad gauge test train was published in The Times on April 17, 1854.

The OWW was authorised as a broad gauge line in 1845, but in the following period, after fallings-out with the GWR (which had agreed in 1844 to lease the OWW for 999 years), the directors began to favour standard gauge.

The GWR eventually went to court and the outcome was a ruling in 1852 that the line should be "formed of such a gauge... as will admit of the same being worked continuously with the said Great Western Railway" but added that this did not prevent the OWW laying other rails of a different gauge.

When the southern end of the line was finished in 1853, there was a single, mixed-gauge track throughout from Evesham to Wolvercot, over which a broad gauge GWR inspection train made a return trip from Oxford on June 2, 1853, carrying Board of Trade inspector Captain Sir Douglas Strutt Galton. When the OWW laid a second track between Evesham and Honeybourne, to standard gauge only, the Board of Trade got a court injunction forbidding its use from March 1854 until March 1855, when the OWW backed down and made the second track mixed gauge as well.

The inspection train and the train to Wolverhampton and back at Easter 1854 are thought to be the only broad gauge trains that ever ran on the route. The OWW never owned any broad gauge stock itself and the railway and the GWR came to an agreement in 1858 that the broad gauge rails could be removed. An Act of Parliament in 1859 removed clauses from the 1845 authorising Act about broad gauge.

That there is little evidence north of Worcester today isn't surprising, as the GWR rebuilt many of its stations in the late 19th century and did move platforms, eg at Evesham, but Boynton's book includes pictures from the 1960s of Brierley Hill, Priestfield and Tipton Five Ways stations, all with the same wide gap between tracks as at Moreton. North of Worcester was always intended to be mixed gauge, as the 1845 Act spelled out.

The precise situation at Aston Magna appears to be that it initially opened with a mixed-gauge single track and this area and the route throughout from Chipping Campden to Charlbury was doubled in 1858 as standard gauge only - but Brunel had engineered the entire trackbed to allow for broad gauge, double track, eg the clearances at the bridges, Campden tunnel - it was the OWW's finances which dictated that some parts were only given a single track initially.

At Worcester, the Hereford & Worcester line (Foregate St and Malvern) was built to standard gauge.

And don't trust Wikipedia too much - the only bit of OWW open in 1851 was the Worcester loop, actually opened in October 1850, which was being used by trains between Birmingham and Bristol. Worcester-Evesham opened in 1852, Evesham-Oxford 1853. And relations with the GWR remained fraught for some years. For example, through coaches to London went via Bicester and Bletchley to Euston from 1853 until 1861.

If you want to know more, buy John Boynton's book, which is a thorough and well-researched account of the line's first 150 years.

Whatever the history, it's good to know that the line has had a history of anomolies, contentious issues and financial troubles that have survived to the present day!  ;)

Gosh - thanks, everyone!

In all honesty, when I posted my original question:


I didn't expect I would be opening up such a very interesting debate!

Thanks very much to all who have contributed!

Chris  ;)

I can only echo Chris's comments : Gosh, thanks everyone!

Does anybody know why the proposed re-doubling scheme includes provision for a 1 mile section of double-track west of Evesham station? I can't see any benefit in having this, as trains will still have to wait at Evesham for the Norton Junction-Evesham section token to become available.

Network Rail did computer model all the permutations to death, so it must be there for some reason.

Might you be allowed to issue a token for a Worcester-bound train to set out from Evesham, but with the starting signal at the end of the double line interlocked, so it could not be released to clear the train to proceed until an eastbound service had been checked out of the single line by an axle-counter? At least that way, you wouldn't have to wait for the token from Norton to be put into a machine at Evesham.

I would have thought an interlocking to do this would be relatively straightforward, though any time savings would be marginal.

On a related note, at present can a token for Norton to Evesham be issued at Shrub Hill when the Cotswold Line is occupied or does the train have to go to the junction and wait for the signaller to hand over a token once the line is clear? Any of the Worcester contributors know?

As far as I'm aware there is no occasion when a token can be issued before another one has been returned to a suitable machine. That is how the 'total safety' of the section and train is maintained as only one token will ever be released ensuring that whoever has it knows that they are the only train in the section. In the event of a failure of the system a 'Pilotman' acts as the token. I agree that interlocking the signal to other equipment could in theory still maintain that safety level, but you run into all sorts of problems if, for example, the section signal failed and had to be passed at danger.

At Norton Junction the Signaller cannot issue a token until the previous one issued has been returned either to him/her directly or been returned to the auxiliary machine by the staff at Shrub Hill.

As the additional double track section is so short, then, as Will comments, the time saved would be marginal anyway. The only possible benefit I can see would be in times of service disruption, moving the section signal a mile west (and providing a token machine there) would allow a train to wait there, whilst also allowing a train running behind to arrive at the station rather than sit outside. You'd also save about a minute in terms of delay. Hardly enough to justify the expense in my opinion!

If the incoming train from Evesham to Worcester is running late, then the outgoing one goes to Norton and waits (at a signal well before the signalbox). The incoming train stops and hands over the token at the box. Then the outgoing one can move up to the box and collect its token.

Does the improvement scheme involve a new single-track signalling system? Wolvercot to Ascott doesn't have tokens (even if the axle counters aren't as reliable as they ought to be).

That's what I initially wondered, but I can see no mention of anything regarding that in the specifications. With one token section definitely going if it is double-tracked, it would make some sense to get rid of the other one too.

I don't want to labour the point either, but it does not add up.

The viaducts at Blakedown and Kidderminster, the tunnel at Worcester and all of the bridges are standard. There is no more room.

Are you suggesting that they rebuilt Kidderminster viaduct to make it narrower?
Are you suggesting that they rebuilt Worcester tunnel to eliminate a few feet of gap?

And I doubt that broad gauge would have fitted in at Hartlebury, as the platforms are narrow enough today, and that's with the removal of buildings and a footbridge.

Reference the extra double track west of Evesham, I recall Worcester bound trains pulling out of Evesham only to stop at the signal box - I assumed for the purpose of collecting the token for the stretch to Norton Junction. Likewise I remember Oxford bound trains stopping at the box before moving on to the station, again I assume to handover the token.

Does this explain it?

Six original OWW viaducts were largely made of timber - classic Brunel - but were replaced in the 1870s and 1880s - though one was buried in an embankment and another near Round Oak was encased in brick. John Boynton's book has pictures of the timber viaduct at Stambermill in Stourbridge in the 1860s and work under way at Kidderminster on the brick viaduct, alongside the timber one, in the early 1880s. Loads of original timber bridges, 70-plus, were also replaced around this time.

I don't know what the clearances are like in the tunnel at Worcester, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could get broad gauge through it - the stone bridges on the Cotswold section are a bit wider than normal, but not exactly gaping chasms.

Hartlebury's platforms are certainly of later vintage. As I said, Evesham has standard gauge clearances today, but again, John Boynton has unearthed a photo of the station in about 1880, pre-rebuilding, with a main building just like Charlbury's, and Brunel-style baulk track of the kind used for broad and mixed gauge on one line - and a big gap across to the other set of rails.

Boynton also mentions a derailment at Hartlebury in 1854, when a loco shed a tyre and derailed but was helped to stay upright, according to the OWW loco superintendent, by the longitudinal timbers of the baulk track, which ran under the rails. If there hadn't been broad or mixed gauge track in the area, it's highly unlikely anyone would ever have bothered with baulk track - it was hard to lay and to maintain.

And OS Nock, in his biography of Brunel, cites a letter from Brunel to Charles Saunders, secretary to the board of the GWR, complaining about the lack of proper facilities for broad gauge trains on the OWW, meaning a loco would have to run backwards for 40 miles if making a return run on part of the route.

I think it's likely that there will be changes to the signalling systems, and that token working will disappear, to be replaced by either tokenless block or acceptance levers.  There'll be no need for axle counters between Evesham and Norton if the signalboxes remain in-situ.  The signaller observes the each train has completely cleared the section by checking the tail-lamp on the last vehicle.

Not if the section ends in the copuntryside west of Evesham he won't. At least not if that extra mile or so of expensive new track is to be of any use. Something slightly more sophisticated than the human eye is required as a back-up, so axle counters would seem obvious.

Sorry, back to gauge again....

Ah!!! You have explained a mystery I have had with the viaduct for a while.

Take a look at it below.

I am now assuming that the orangey brickwork to the left of the current viaduct is where the broad gauge timber bridge used to go.

Ditto, but less clear on the other side.

Why did they replace the Brunel viaducts? Were they rotting?

Strang to think that broad trains ran through Kidderminster once. For how long did they run for?

Ok, urls don't work. Sorry.

Have replaced with a screenshot attachment from the url:

http://maps.live.com/#JndoZXJlMT1LaWRkZXJtaW5zdGVyJmJiPTU1LjI0MTU1MjAzNTY1MjUlN2U3LjY0NjQ4NDM3NDk5OTk5JTdlNDkuMzEwNzk4ODc5NjQ2MyU3ZS0xMS42MDE1NjI1

(which doesn't work!).

Ok.

As I said, the only broad gauge trains known to have ever ventured west of Oxford were an inspection train to Evesham in June 1853 and the epic trip to Wolverhampton and back just before Easter in April 1854.

Without seeing them, I'm guessing what you're referring to are the footings of the old viaducts. The OWW ones were different from the Cornish ones, in that they only had small stone or brick bases, with most of the piers being timber, as well as the deck and 'arches'.

John Boynton says their demise was because although Brunel designed them to use standard-sized pieces of timber, so you could just replace one piece at a time as needed, the particular type of Baltic yellow pine wood (from modern-day Lithuania) he specified had become scarce and had rocketed in price by the 1870s and nothing else as durable was available, so the GWR decided to build the current structures.

And they didn't hang around. Stambermill used four million bricks but went up in just four months in 1881-2! The Cornish viaducts lasted longer (the timber could survive up to 60 years in favourable conditions), most until the main line was doubled in 1908, with the last three on branches replaced in the early 1930s.

Another factor may have been consumer resistance - people just didn't like travelling on them. They don't look especially sturdy, although they apparently were.

About the only other major timber viaducts I know of in the UK were at Denby Dale and Mytholmbridge on the Holmfirth branch. Today a stone viaduct carries Huddersfield-Sheffield trains across the valley at Denby Dale, but the original structure was a timber trestle, like the sort you see on old films from the US. Both suffered damage from gales during construction in 1849-50. As early as 1851, Robert Stephenson was asked to inspect them but gave them a clean bill of health. Mytholmbridge was replaced with stone (at the second attempt, after a collapse during initial construction) in the 1860s. Denby Dale's timber structure lasted until the early 1880s.

There is a slightly fanciful representation of it here - and certainly not from 1737!
http://www.mctague.co.uk/details/views_general/denby.html (http://www.mctague.co.uk/details/views_general/denby.html)

There is a well-known photo of it part-demolished but I can't find it on the web.

It perhaps doesn't count as 'major', but there was a timber viaduct near Torrington:
http://ndrailusers.wikispaces.com/Marland+Viaduct (http://ndrailusers.wikispaces.com/Marland+Viaduct)

Sorry to bring this up again, Willc, but I was just wondering about Campden Tunnel. Do you know whether the financial problems the line faced meant that the tunnel was built for a single line broad gauge track? I know it had a double track standard gauge railway (and will soon have that status again), but having looked at the tunnel entrance there appears to be no room for a double track of broad gauge width.

From John Boynton's book "Broad gauge rails were not always provided for both lines of double track, but the broad gauge was uninterrupted and capable of carrying a train." As WillC has already posted one broad gauge train did do the full trip.
It is most likely the both Campden and Rainbow Hill tunnels would only have a single broad gauge track laid.

I  recall reading in a book I think called Great Western in the West Midlands that the OWW got into a lot of trouble with the Board of Trade with the twin gauge. As I remember there seemed to be a single separate standard and broad gauge track at least between Worcester and Eversham. The BoT ruled that standard and broad gauge trains could not pass on these single tracks. However, when a timetable was published it seemed that trains were timed to pass each other on this section. As it was sometime after publication the BoT got to hear about it suggests there might have been broad gauge trains over part of the line to Worcester.

Of course the timetable in question could have been one of the many gallent attempts by the railways to  create new fiction. A tradition with timetables that still flourishes today.

Interesting redoubling detail contained in a lengthy interview in the new issue of Rail with Dave Ward of Network Rail and FGW's Projects Director Matthew Golton, where Golton explicitly says he is hoping for it to be completed in time for the May 2010 timetable change, rather than the December, which seems to move the schedule back to the first target date given, rather than that December, which became the stated goal later on. Timetabling options for the revamped route are being prepared.

Golton adds: "It is so critical to get the work done before Reading". And Dave Ward says he thinks the redoubling is even more vital than Reading, due to the impact of knock-on delays from Cotswold problems.

Although the report says possession times have been agreed and plans drawn up to extend Cheltenham workings to and from Worcester during a blockade, no timetable for work is given, beyond the usual formula of school holidays and the summer.

Yes, though the article was a bit too much like a party political broadcast for my liking. Talk of the work to upgrade the loops north of Oxford station as being completed already may have just been an editorial error, but it is several months off and all that has been done so far is the dropping of rails and sleepers ready for track work.

Also, as far as I am aware, the southbound bay platform at Oxford has not yet received funding - yet the article reads as though it's already all been agreed. I also wonder what alternative provision will be made for the car park spaces that will be lost due to the construction?

The usual trendy phrases are all included. There's lots of talk about lessons from the WCML being learned, and step changes in performance - but until they have been proven to have been learned I remain sceptical. May 2010 will be a very challenging time-scale as will the current budget for the Cotswold Line project.

Another over-the-top statement concerns the relief line speed enhancements between Reading and Paddington. The article states that "There have been instances where the fast lines have been closed, but the HST's have run on the relief lines. Previously this would have caused huge delays". What nonsense! Granted the speed increases will have had a small impact on the delays any incident that closes the main lines would result it, to suggest it has prevented huge delays in itself is a total fallacy!

Perhaps, but unless you know the issues inside out, it can be hard to get a handle on every single thing going on in this neck of the woods and I'd rather FGW and NR are making the right noises and talking to each other, rather than at each other's throats. Though they do need to start delivering all these projects on time and to budget.

And yes, actual work on the Oxford loops upgrade hasn't started and no, there's no funding in place for the south bay, though I expect the hope is that NR can find some money out of its general enhancements pot and get a contribution from the county council, who aren't exactly innocent when it comes to talking about this platform as if it's a done deal either.

I'm not sure parking spaces are in that short supply though. Ring-Go's introduction put an end to non-rail users taking advantage of FGW providing the cheapest all-day parking near the city centre and there always seem to be spaces available at about 10am when I pass on my way to work, whereas you'd be doing well to find one at Swindon and at Banbury you would usually have a hike from the most distant of the industrial units Chiltern is renting for overflow parking.

Thought you might like this job description that landed in my inbox from a recruitment agency.

Requirement for a Signalling Project Engineer.

The project is to re-double portions of the Oxford-Worcester line (OWW) totalling 20 miles. The portions to be double tracked are from East of Charlbury to the existing double track section at Ascott-under-Wychwood, and from West of Evesham to the existing double track section at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. The work also includes extensive signalling alterations for Ascott, Moreton and Norton Junction signalboxes, together with abolition of Evesham signalbox and all the existing token sections.

The scheme has recently been authorised for GRIP 4 design (full scheme) and full design for advance enabling works, including extensive cable diversions. The major project milestones are a 6 week blockade during the 2009 Summer school holidays (tunnel formation works, drainage and track laying, bridge waterproofing and various track renewals/track slews) followed by full signalling installation works and track laying for a signalling commissioning in late 2010.

Full authority for the GRIP 5-8 elements other than enabling works is expected in April 2009.

Early emphasis is therefore on scoping the enabling works (cable diversions), scoping signalling and location case moves prior to track laying, and scoping the full GRIP 4 design.

Thanks for that signalandtelegraph. The abolition of Evesham Signal Box - blimey, that's the first time I've heard that mentioned?!

From my observations there's usually around 30-50 free spaces on a weekday come midday when it's busiest. That's increased by about 10% on the quietest days, Monday and Friday, so yes there is spare capacity. But if they're installing a full length platform that would surely have to take out one whole row of spaces which is more than 50, and surely it would be foolish to remove spare capacity that might be needed in future years with a regular East-West Rail and Chiltern Railways service on the cards? There is the possibility of using railway land on the old South Yard as an overspill car park perhaps - or has NR sold that off now? Perhaps a second deck could be added to a smaller car park too, in a Beaconsfield type way?

;D
;D ;D
;D ;D ;D

I thought it was strange thing to say  but other people I have spoken to today have heard that Norton- Evesham is being doubled (it did say west of Evesham so it is possible!).  Don't know what contol method will be,  presumably Absolute Block MiM to Norton?

It would certainly make sense to double Norton to Evesham so trains no longer have to queue.

Or even double Evesham to past Pershore.

I'm no engineering expert, but I had thought that there were issues about redoubling all the way to Norton or Wolvercote due to antiquated signalling around Worcester and Oxford.

But, hey, any extra redoubling is welcome. I've long thought the current scheme is welcome as being a good, but temporary, solution to the problem of redoubling the whole line.

It would be better to double Honeybourne to Pershore, than Evesham to Morton, because it allows more flexibility.

With the current plans, train will be passing close to the edges of the loop.

With two loops, trains could be timetabled to pass in the middle of both loops (i.e. at Evesham and Kingham), with leeway provided by the double track - not padding.

It would also catalyse station improvements at Pershore station (unlike the current plans, which ignore Pershore), which is needed to increase passenger numbers, and be satisfactory for the area.

This explanation for not altering the interfaces at either end of the line had been put forward before, Which is why Norton to Eversham and doubling  a short stretch from Wolvercote to allow a train from Oxford to get on the line and not block the Banbury line are not in scheme. The upgrading of the freight loops North of Oxford has been put forward to slove the latter problem.

I suppose trains will still have to queue to get between Eversham and Norton. Thus extension from Eversham to Pershore would seem like a good idea.

But as stebbo says any redoubling is a start. Let's hope it doesn't suffer the "boiling frog syndrome". Newtworkrail really has to pull out all the stops  on this one and get it done on time and budget. If not the Board members ought to face a considerable pay cut. It's a good time to do it as contractors are desparate for work and there's lots of earth moving equipment going spare.

As I've said before, this scheme was modelled to death by Network Rail before they came up with the plan that is to be implemented.

While it leaves two roughly equal stretches of single line at either end, it also reduces the time needed to clear these remaining single sections to about 10-12 minutes, as a rule of thumb, rather than the 15-20 which currently prevail, so that's a clear gain already, even if trains have to wait in the event of disruption, while removal of the long Moreton-Evesham single section takes out the biggest obstacle of all to improved running.

With train meets no longer dictated by the infrastructure, the timetablers have far more room for manoeuvre and I'm sure will take full advantage of the extra flexibility.

This flexibility will mean trains won't be "queuing" unless something goes badly wrong, so you won't get the situation I suffered the other week where Moreton station was occupied by a preceding train and my train sat at the edge of town for half an hour waiting for it to leave, while a train ahead of both these services reached Evesham and another then came the other way. If the double track had been down now, that situation couldn't have happened. Keeping the single line all the way to Honeybourne wouldn't have helped keep things moving in those circumstances

"West of Evesham" has always been in the plan, with about a mile of track towards Pershore due to be redoubled. Even if they have yet to publicly pin down the final budget for the project as it stands - estimates vary from the ORR's published ^48m up to the ORR's consultants' ^100m+ with Network Rail offering various figures in between - the priority now is, as eightf says, to just get on and deliver this scheme. With all the other demands on NR's funds, there just isn't any money there for another 10 miles of new rails to Norton Junction.

And for the umpteenth time, NR has made it clear since the spring that they view this as phase one of redoubling the line, with the rest very much in their thinking once Oxford and Worcester resignalling schemes fall due in the middle of the next decade, with all the opportunities those will present for increasing capacity on a number of routes.

Where do people think trains will cross (in the standard off peak clockface times)?

Hopefully not near the edges, otherwise there will be queuing.

It would be rather silly if, having spent over ^100m on a scheme, the timetable planners schedule trains to cross near the two single sections, wouldn't it? If you break it down you're looking at a 45 minute middle section of double track, with two single sections of about 10 minutes either end (including two intermediate station stops, one at each end).

If you're looking at running an hourly service, then if that leaves Oxford at xx:00, it will clear the single line section at about xx:15. It will then go on to the single line west of Evesham about xx:00 and pass Norton Junction at xx:10 to arrive Worcester Shrub Hill at xx:15.

If you run the train coming the other way at xx:30 from Shrub Hill (which gives ample time for the down train to clear Henwick) it will pass Norton at xx:35 and reach Evesham at xx:45. Then it will reach the other single section east of Charlbury by xx:30 and carry on to Oxford for an xx:50 departure.

Below is how a sample hourly service would look if that was the case. It allows for a sensible layover at Great Malvern for a HST to go to Malvern Wells and turn round in (40 minutes), and would mean trains cross at the following locations every hour:

1) Shipton
2) Littleton & Badsey L/C (halfway between Evesham and Honeybourne)
3) Just east of Newlands signal box (between Malvern Link and Henwick)

As now, you could curtail some trains at Shrub Hill/Foregate and extend others through to Hereford but be able to keep the basic pattern below.


Oxford                  1000    1100    1200    1300                    Great Malvern           1215    1315    1415    1515
Hanborough              1008    1108    1208    1308                    Malvern Link            1220    1320    1420    1520
Charlbury               1016    1116    1216    1316                    Worcester F. St.        1230    1330    1430    1530
Kingham                 1026    1126    1226    1326                    Worcester S. Hill       1235    1335    1435    1535
Moreton-In-Marsh        1036    1136    1236    1336                    Pershore                1243    1343    1443    1543
Honeybourne             1048    1148    1248    1348                    Evesham                 1250    1350    1450    1550
Evesham                 1057    1157    1257    1357                    Honeybourne             1258    1358    1458    1558
Pershore                1105    1205    1305    1405                    Moreton-In-Marsh        1310    1410    1510    1610
Worcester S. Hill       1115    1215    1315    1415                    Kingham                 1320    1420    1520    1620
Worcester F. St.        1120    1220    1320    1420                    Charlbury               1330    1430    1530    1630
Malvern Link            1130    1230    1330    1430                    Hanborough              1338    1438    1538    1638
Great Malvern           1135    1235    1335    1435                    Oxford                  1348    1448    1548    1648

Of course it's only an example, but a train would have to be over 10 minutes late at any point to run the risk of conflicting with something coming the other way that's on time. I can't see any way of making it much better than that?

Thanks, v interesting.

Let's hope the trains are not more than 10 mins late!

But if they were, the service recovery would be very quick rather than still be affecting trains several hours later.

Quite. And that still applies with a 30-minute peak frequency, or even 20-minute, should you want to try to fit an extra train or two into the morning flow towards London, or in the early evening going back to Worcester or beyond and it makes pathing trains running against the peak flows, especially services into Worcester in the mornings, a far simpler exercise.

The track layout is designed to handle a 15-minute frequency if necessary, though that would obviously push things hard and would require very punctual running, but even then, as Industry Insider says, the ability to recover fast from disruption is hugely increased as a result of the changes, plus the line can handle diversions between Oxford and the West Midlands for XC or, if clearances permit, freight.

Hi Guys,
First post, although been watching for a while.

A signalman at Oxford told me that FGW is intending to run an "intensive local service" from Moreton-in-Marsh to somewhere South of Oxford once the track has been doubled to see if they can increase trade and (in conjunction with Oxford City Council) reduce car journeys into Oxford. 

How much this is a plan, and how much is gossip/wishful thinking I do not know.  But it sort of makes sense and sounds like a good idea.  Closing Evesham is apparently true with Norton Junction gaining a small panel to do Evesham's job, and closing the signal box at Ascott is being considered with the work going to a small panel in Moreton-in-Marsh.

Thanks for posting, Don, and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!

Interesting times in your part of the network, by the sound of it?

Yes, interesting post Don.

Would be interesting to see an hourly Turbo shuttle running Moreton-Kingham-Shipton-Ascott (served perhaps every two/three hours off-peak) Charlbury-Hanborough-Oxford-Radley-Culham-Appleford-Didcot, with peak-only calls added for Combe and Finstock instead of the current all-stations services, which are lightly used west of Moreton. On current running times it would be a tight squeeze and need some slick turnrounds to keep to a regular interval but certainly sounds feasible.

But before those at the western end of the line go 'a-ha, now you can cut out all those pesky stops at Hanborough', a lot of peak custom here is through to and from Reading and London and has been built up thanks to the through trains, so you can't just drop them, especially while FGW's rolling stock fleet is stretched to the limit and adding even one extra HST working in the peaks from 2010 looks like a tall order.

And if the idea is to keep cars out of Oxford, then you need to look long and hard at station car parking, especially at Hanborough, which would be a key location for extra park-and-ride traffic, but where there is nowhere left to expand parking, short of paying for the bus museum to move to a new site, and also Shipton, which would be a key beneficiary of a better service but has no proper parking area at present.

The recent improvements at Charlbury's car park have given a little breathing space, but an improved service could mean the need to look at creating more spaces on the old allotments land between the station approach road and the Burford road, especially if making room for a ramped footbridge took out several of the existing spaces. South of Oxford, more trains serving Radley would make best use of the newly improved parking facilities.

The signalling experts will know the rules, I'm sure, but if you shut Ascott box, the Moreton signaller would then be supervising four level crossings (Ascott, Bruern, Blockley, Chipping Campden) which sounds rather a lot for one person who is also handling train movements.

Thanks for throwing these plans/rumours into the pot, Don - it makes me wonder even more about the budget for these works with all these extra little bits being added on to what we thought was the original specification!

Can we have some extra local trains into Worcester as well - commuters, students and shoppers would use a reliable service. Why not have some cheap fares to fill the seats?

Although it is good that Hanborough passengers are going up - it is nice for longer distance passengers not to be stopping every five minutes - it is rather frustrating, and must put people off, who get the feeling that driving is quicker.

You'll find the signalling situation at Worcester would prohibit more than a scant handful of extra trains. Not that the two stations are that busy, but just that long Absolute Block sections (especially in the Malvern direction) and inflexible working at Shrub Hill and Foregate Street make it impossible.

My suggestions of what could be possible for Worcester are in an old CANBER post here: http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/37 (http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/37)

Foregate Street is full (with the present signalling and trackwork), although Shrub Hill could probably cope with an extra train hear or there.

I agree that the signalling needs to be sorted (like in your Canber post).

And the track is dreadful. It would only need one crossover (+ associated signalling) to reap benefits in flexibility and service recovery (as well has switching HSTs to platform 2, where it curves the right way, reducing the VERY long dwells).

But if all was done like in your post, it would be even better.

Don't forget Droitwich signal box which is a few miles north, it too could be axed. ;D

But before they do anything, they need to make up their minds about the opening of Norton Parkway, and the axing of Shrub Hill.

Actual physical works on this project are due to commence in the next week or so with a target completion date in good time for the December timetable change.

One asset to be removed during the work is the pointwork and ground frame north of Rewley Road carriage sidings. Whilst not in daily use, it has proved to be very handy over the years when there have been issues preventing trains leaving the sidings via the normal signalled route into the Up platform. It's a shame this flexibility will be removed.

Two steps forward one step back. Why remove something which might prove useful in the future. I presumme the "bean counters" have worked out that it is cheaper to pay the TOCs for blocking their trains in the sidings than to maintain the points and ground frame.

The poor passengers don't count, so next time the main points fail the poor commuters in the Thames Valley will have to put up with short and cancelled trains.

This is a case of "too much attention to the wrong detail".

Well when the Ox area gets new signalling, there will be the opportunity to upgrade the track work properly (+ loop on Cotswold line). :)

This is assuming the planners use some initiative. :-X

AFAIK the ground frame at the north end of the Oxford Turbo Sidings is being removed so Network Rail can create the new Down Jericho Line. This is part of a scheme with Oxfordshire County Council to provide more and faster services between Oxford and Bicester Town.

The existing through siding which leads into the Up Goods Loop is being upgraded to passenger trains to use it as far as Oxford Nor6th Jn. in the down direction. This means trains heading towards Bicester will not have to cross over the up and down main lines twice when departing Oxford platform 3 and again to cross back over at Oxford North Jn.  This greatly increases reliability for CrossCountry and FGW services (particularly those to and from the Cotswold Line) as it will allow parallel moves to be made clear of the main line. It also saves around two minutes running time.

It will also aid flexibility and reliability for services starting from Oxford as currently all trains departing platform 3 have to use the same ladder crossover as trains departing from the Down Carriage Sidings and heading to platform 1. Given the infrequent use of the ground frame its removal will benefit a far greater number of passengers.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the "Down Jericho line"? ???

This is the name being given to the upgraded up through siding by Network Rail, when it can be used by down trains heading towards Bicester.

Now that does sound like progress so perhaps removing the ground frame will not cause any problems.

Is this the line that Chiltern are porposing to use in conjunction with their proposed Marylebone service and bringing the mail dock into use as passenger platforms?

Yes, that's the whole purpose of the project (along with similar measures for the down goods line). It won't save two minutes in running though as it only takes a train to Bicester just over two minutes to get from Oxford to Oxford North Junction anyway. However, my point remains (sorry about the pun!), I see no reason why work on this modest, but useful, project means the ground frame has to be removed though?

GWR2006, do you know what the state of play with the other parts of the improved Oxford-Bicester scheme are at? I heard talk of 55mph running on the branch a while ago, but everything seems to have gone quiet on that front?

I think until the fate of the Chiltern scheme for running to Oxford via Bicester is decided, Network Rail won't be doing anything other than maintaining the status quo on the branch. Why bother if there's the prospect of a major improvement project on the horizon, which will involve renewing most, if not all, of the track?

Hi! this is my first post but have been reading with great interest mainly about the plans for the Cotswold Line.    Does anyone know if the old bullhead track at Moreton and Evesham main station areas will be replaced as part of the redoubling scheme?   I respectfully realize this could be difficult with the 1960's signal box/signalling infrastructure and that the semaphores will remain at Moreton-in-Marsh and maybe Evesham (unless Evesham box closes).   However places like Abergavenny and Kidderminster have got modern track with old signalling equipment.   Any thoughts?   :)

Those were my thoughts too, but I noticed that GWR2006 made specific reference to these enhancements as being part of a package with the OCC, so I wondered whether other improvements on the branch were still taking place?

I believe Network Rail has completed a GRIP2 report for the county council which has identified a number of options, and a range of costs between ^3m and ^12m.  Both are also working with Chiltern Railways to ensure that abortive work is kept to a minimum or some enhancements with short-term and long-term benefits are identified.

Certainly a 50mph line speed is still being considered as the track is capable of that but level crossings at Oddington and Langford Lane are problematic as it could involve changes to the strike-in and strike-out treddles to activate the warning lights. The current line speed on the approach to these crossings reduces from 40mph to 30mph. Some form of differential line speed for DMUs/freight is being looked at to remove the 20mph speed restriction near Islip. A review of sectional running times has already been done to optimise the timetable, and some journey time reductions should be possible in December. A large scale upgrade of the route is unlikely now that other rail-industry projects are coming forward.

Chiltern Railways and East West Rail are working together to deliver the infrastructure for both projects, with Chiltern leading on this west of Bicester (as part of Evergreen 3) and East West Rail leading east of milepost 19, both reporting to a joint project team. As they need track with a line speed of 100mph it is likely that the existing track will be taken away or relaid on more appropriate sleepers/formation.

Apart from track work, the extra evening and Saturday services that were introdcued from December are being funded by the county council, and more daytime, evening and Sunday trains are to be introduced in May, again funded by the county council. Both stations have also been repainted/improved over the past couple of years, and the council is now working with FGW to install new brighter lighting.

OK, thanks very much for that update.

Welcome to the forum.  I am not sure about this, but someone else will know! Hopefully, most of the signal boxes will be axed on the route.....

I doubt it. Everything stops at Moreton and Evesham anyway, so the wear and tear on the track is low, due to the low speeds in the stations and bullhead rail will last for years in such situations. The redoubling budget is going to be tight, so no point spending money where you don't need to.

As for all these extra trains on the Bicester line, I hope someone is going to use them, because numbers on the current service are very low whenever I see them at Oxford. Sometimes it would be cheaper to hire a couple of taxis. Neither Oxford station, nor Bicester Town, is exactly brilliantly sited for the centre of either place.

And that's with an off-peak return available at ^2. The whole Bicester Village thing is worth exploring to the maximum potential, but the trip with 30/40mph maximum speeds is painfully slow, and although quicker than the bus it's much less frequent and when you take into account time walking to/from the centre of Bicester/Oxford it's not that attractive. But knock off 5 minutes - which with 50mph speeds you'd be able to do, and ramp up the off-peak frequency to 1tph and the peak service to every 45 minutes and that may well tip the balance in the favour of the train for enough people to make remedial investment worthwhile, before Chiltern and East-West Rail realise the full potential of the route. As GWR2006 said, the track is mostly up to the job of 50mph already especially between Islip and Bicester which was totally re-laid with steel sleepers about four years ago. As a single 165/2 would operate this service there is little impact on resourcing the stock and crew above what is needed now.

The notorious jams on the A34 (currently made worse by the major bridge replacement at Wolvercote which will last well into 2010) mean the peak trains load quite reasonably with around 50-60 on the service in from Bicester in the morning and the same loadings spread over the two evening peak trains, but off-peak numbers sometimes don't hit double figures.

Loadings are probably low due to Chiltern and Bicester North.

How do you make that out? Chiltern don't provide a service to Oxford. It's a completely different market. 

Industry Insider, agree with much of what you say. The journey time is the key factor and I'm not even sure 50mph will quite do the trick.

While increased frequency could help, don't forget you still need to provide paths for MoD freight traffic to Bicester and the odd binliner to Calvert. Also, the MoD is touting for non-military freight traffic to use its facilities at Bicester - there's an open day for potential customers next month, according to an advert in the current issue of Rail, so it could get a little crowded on the branch.

Bicester Town is well sited for Bicester Village, but unless you live near Oxford station, the time taken to get there means it's easier to drive yourself to Bicester - except perhaps last week, when the town was gridlocked much of the time due to the sales.

In Bicester itself, some sort of feeder taxibus service, like Chiltern operate from Bicester North, might be useful. Much of the new housing is a fair way from the stations, but a reliable link would probably encourage people to use the trains. Not forgeting a bit of targeted marketing!!!! I bet if you did a random survey in Bicester Market Place, most people wouldn't have a clue they could get to Oxford and back by rail for ^2.

The Moreton fare cut scenario gets even dafter - the relief clerk who was on today had no idea the off-peak Oxford fares had gone down until I said what a bargain it was now. Someone, somewhere at FGW Towers must have made the decision to do it, so why hasn't it been followed through, with some promotion to make sense of the change - or are they going to leave it until 2010?

I expect the bullhead rail will remain in both station areas and the new track will be connected to it as necessary. This is a scheme that must be delivered within a very challenging budget so any unnecessary works (like upgrading existing platforms to match the length of the new ones or replacing track) won't be included.

At Evesham it is more than likely the signal box will be closed and demolished to make way for the western extension of the passing loop. The existing engineers sidings will be lifted with the tamper/stoneblower moving to Honeybourne. The boxes at Ascott-under-Wychwood and Moreton-in-Marsh are also earmarked for closure and a new signal centre for the whole line will be built at either Evesham or Honeybourne. This would be a WestCAD VDU-based system so I also expect that will mean the end of semaphores, and it will also monitor the CCTV from upgraded level crossings.

Thanks for the info gwr2006.
I didn't think they were resignalling the semaphores until both the Oxford and Worcester area resignalling happens after 2015.   A new signalling centre and colour lights would be a great improvement between Evesham and Ascott which still mostly rely on semophores near signal boxes, although it would be sad to see these go.   I also believed that Moreton signal box would stay for the forseeable future with Ascott and/or Evesham closing with the control panels going to Moreton box.  Presently at Evesham the existing signal box looks over a siding and both the running lines, these become single again a few yards west of the signal box.   It will be interesting to see what upgrading will happen.

Boxes to close as stated above but new control centre at Evesham. SSI control, sidings at Evesham to go.

You don't need to demolish the Evesham box, as it was built when the track layout there was far more extensive and already has three tracks in front of it, the two loop lines through the station and a siding, see http://eclipseandy.fotopic.net/p45061312.html (http://eclipseandy.fotopic.net/p45061312.html)

If this is a short-term fix, with the interlocking presumably being plugged into the Didcot centre after Oxford resignalling, it might make more sense to use the existing box - or is it all going to be built into a shipping container?

As for engineering equipment, unless the sidings at Moreton are also going, then tampers and the like can very well be parked up here, as they often are at the moment.

Network Rail has not finally decided what is happening with regard to the signalling of the track doubling of the Cotswold line.  What is currently happening is:

1.  Track-side vegetation is being cut back to provide space for the double line;
2.  A detailed land survey is being completed along the route;
3.  Preliminary work is taking place this weekend just north of Oxford to enable the goods loop there to be upgraded for Passenger services in the near future this will provide space to park passenger trains outside Oxford which are going to either come up the line, or be overtaken;
4.  The 8 or 9 options for signalling which range from keeping all the boxes open to building a new signal box for the Worcester area - and lots of options in between - are presently being discussed with regard to presenting a shortlist of options to Network Rail management for the extra funding needed for each option.  Even the exact site of where the single lines at each end are not totally finalised (although all of the recent track plans seem to be using the same locations).

What has been decided is that:

• the track will double except for a few miles at each end;
• Honeyborne will be able to cope with platforms for a new town at Long Marston and trains from the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway, so 2 platforms with the ability to add 2 more.
• Moreton-in-Marsh will retain a turn-back facility for trains in both directions
• Platforms will be built where the track is doubled with ramp access for wheelchair users to all platforms
• This Summer's blockade for up to six has been agreed in principle with FGW

The final decision has yet to be made.  At one stage it was announced that Evesham was to close, then both Evesham and Ascott, then that none closing. The current line from Network Rail is that the decision has not been made yet.  Am I right in thinking that Norton Junction was three days from closing back in the late 70s, it's still there today, so don't count on anything just yet.  I will keep my ear to the ground and tell you when I hear more.

Excellent summary, and good for me as that's near the top of my list of issues to catch up on.

Surely not.  That would mean that all the replacement signals and point motors would have to be in place.  Unless you think BR could have resignalled the whole junction in 3 days  ;D 

Ha Ha, you'll never believe it.... 

Apparently, BR spent a lot of time and money putting in new signals and cables so that the lines would run as a single line between Worcester Shrub Hill and Evesham and a second single line between Worcester Shrub Hill and Gloucester. About 3 days before the box was due to close..... they changed their minds and then spent a load more money taking the signals et al out again. Unbelievable, truly unbelievable, the cost  of planning, fabrication & installation, just to cancel it at the last minute.

Oh, note the two single lines from Worcester, so no point motors.

Good job they never did that, Worcester would be even more of a bottleneck today!

Why on earth were they attempting to remove yet more flexability from the area? :o

Financial I suppose.  One less signal box.  Remember back then the railway was reducing the number of trains, were most of the Cross Country ones not stopping at Worcester by then?  They must have worked out that it was not necessary.  Perhaps they only kept Norton Junction for off the main line diversionary reasons.

Some of those cables at Norton junction must still have come in handy, as the distant sempahore signal on the gantry for trains heading towards Gloucester is actually controlled by the signal box at Gloucester, not by the junction box, as it works in conjunction with the colour light protecting the junction with the Birmingham-Bristol line.

Lots of orange jackets out on the line today, with new cable troughs going in at Charlbury, and some very enthusiastic tree felling going on at, er, Hanborough, though I suspect that's in an effort to end problems with leaves on the line affecting westbound trains starting from the station. And lots of people at Oxford getting ready for the weekend possession to start work on the loops.

From the Charlbury.info website, posted by local FGW customer panel member Chris Bates:

FGW are organising 4 roadshows to advise on this summer's closure of the railway between 18th July and 30th August - although the actual closure affecting Charlbury towards Oxford & London may only be 2 weeks or so.

First details of passenger options during this closure should be available, along with actual details of what's planned for Charlbury station.

FGW Managers will be on hand to discuss the current plans for this work at the followong stations:

Evesham - Tuesday 10 February from 1830 to 2000hrs.
Kingham - Wednesday 11 February from 0700 to 0830hrs.
Moreton-in-Marsh - Wednesday 11 February from 1900 to 2030.
Charlbury - Thursday 12th February from 0700 to 0830hrs.

These are only the regular Meet the Manager sessions that FGW hold at key stations every few months rather than being a roadshow to tell the public about redoubling.

The final scope of the redoubling works will not be known until the end of March once vegetation clearance has taken place and earthworks and drainage have been assessed. Design work is ongoing with the changes for Charlbury station, and other than saying there will be replacement buses, I'm not sure FGW can say much more about alternative arrangements until the timing and extent of the possessions are confirmed.

No they're not. They don't hold MtM events at the stations on this line, only at Oxford - they're hardly key stations out here! The best they do on the line is to ride on a train or two, every so often, which is happening next Tuesday on the 13.20 from Hereford to London. There is no mention whatever of these events on the MtM page of the FGW website.

As I said, the post was made by the local customer panel member, so has someone at FGW misinformed him?

You keep telling us the final scope won't be known until March. Fine, but that's really about the fine detail and fixing the overall budget. The broad scope of the work has been known since last April.

And it doesn't take a genius to work out that Charlbury will be getting a second platform, a waiting shelter and a disabled-accessible footbridge, which will likely be set as near the road overbridge as possible to minimise its impact on the view from the town across the valley. 

Yes they are the post is accurate! I saw it  displayed at Evesham the other day.

Yes, they are Meet the Manager events - I've had it confirmed by FGW. You should welcome the fact FGW are making more effort to talk to their customers at stations along the Cotswolds Line. I don't know where the customer panel member gets his information but clearly it has been misunderstood.

No it doesn't take much to work out what is going to happen at Charlbury, but if you regard "fine detail" as decisions on the location and configuration of the new footbridge okay but most local people will want to know that and those kind of decisions are still to be made.

I should imagine they are Meet The Manager sessions that are being held at those stations mainly because of the re-doubling scheme and the fact is that many of the questions they face will no doubt be concerned with that topic. I should imagine/hope they go equipped with the latest information regarding the re-doubling, and as such I suppose it is a kind of 'Re-doubling Roadshow'?

Well, whatever they are and whatever they are called, maybe someone with FGW ought to put the information on the Meet the Manager pages (which currently features other events up to the end of March) and the page about the redoubling project on the website. Nor have I received any email notification, despite signing up for this service.

On the subject of the redoubling page, there was a link to it from the home page for about a week, which has since disappeared, and the page is still not anywhere to be found on the site map, nor under the advance notice of long-term engineering work in train times, which would seem the obvious place, but then like so many things about FGW's approach to marketing and publicity, the obvious is the last thing which seems to be done.

If these events are to be become a regular feature at the stations on the line, great, but I'll reserve judgment on that until 2011, when spending an evening in Moreton-in-Marsh might not seem such a pressing concern after redoubling is complete.

At Charlbury a bridge can only go in two places, north or south of the station building, and south of it would, if the bridge is anything like the one recently built at Moreton, have a far greater impact on the setting of the listed station building and create an eyesore visible from all around, which would be bound to make the natives (very) restless, never mind whether they were getting a better train service in the end.

Bumped into the station manager for the stations on the line. 

She stated that these meetings are meet and manager type but she is believes that by these dates, much of the more... exact information, will be available from on high for these managers to announce.

So everyone in this thread is right.

Details of likely pattern of summer closures for track work, posted on Charlbury.info by chris Bates, with this proviso: "However, the schedule is still not yet set in stone, and could change slightly."

From the 18th July -
2 week block whole line - Wolvercote to Norton Junction
3 week block West of Moreton to East of Evesham
1 week block whole line - Wolvercote to Norton Junction.

What will happen to the trains?

I assume there will be a 2 hourly service from Great Malvern to London via Cheltenham Spa (with 4 extensions to Hereford).

Then a bus Worcester - Evesham - Moteton - Chipping Norton - Charlbury - Oxford.

I would have thought taxis/minibuses would be cheaper for other stations/ halts...

Worcester and Malvern will certainly be served by extensions of Cheltenham services, though not sure how many will be to and from Hereford - it takes so long running via Worcester, Cheltenham and Stroud that surely going via Newport is the obvious thing to tell people to do for the duration.

Bus links will probably be similar to those during a two-week August blockade a few years back, and as you suggest basically running A44 between key stations, with Moreton acting as a railhead when trains can run there.

Kingham and Charlbury will most likely be served separately, as they are such a hike off the A44. I'm also assuming they'll do a deal with Stagecoach to take rail tickets on the route 20 (S3 from this weekend) buses between Chipping Norton, Charlbury and Oxford, which they did during the flooding closure in summer 2007.

I'd expect that from the Vale the focus will be to feed people into Worcester to join the London trains running from there.

I suppose the Hereford people might as well go to Newport....

Just a thought, but might it be worth running a few London - Bristol Parkway - Maindee Junction - Hereford - Great Malvern - Worcester services during the peaks of the blockade? I'm sure it has been mentioned before but it is probably quicker to get to Hereford via BPW and Maindee Junction than through Worcester and Oxford anyway. Could provide some interesting journey options.

More likely they'll run through Cheltenham and on to Worcester

Following the Westbourne Park crash and the loss of one HST set, the old 1820 to Hereford was cancelled and one of the Cheltenham services was extended via Worcester, so I assume FGW might go for that option this time around. Remember it well as my first time on the train coincided with Cheltenham Festival -absolute carnage from Cheltenham to Worcester with Irish racegoers.

Do you mean Ladbroke Grove? And I'm not sure you're right about this, unless it was a very short-term measure - I wasn't using the line to commute then, but you wouldn't be taking out one of the key trains on the Cotswold Line and what was one of only two evening peak HSTs then operating.

Some regular timetabled FGW services via Cheltenham did run through to and from Worcester until relatively recently - December 2004? There was one in the morning, (about 10-ish departing northbound from Cheltenham, I think), and an evening peak service. Both were shown in Cotswold Line timetables. It sounds like you were on the latter train, as the Festival is in March, about five months after the crash happened.

During the blockade, I would expect one or two morning Hereford trains to London and the same back in the evening, but just slightly sceptical that with the extra time required via Stroud and Cheltenham, including reversal at Gloucester (assuming they are going to be worked as extensions of existing Cheltenham services), that there will be any others the rest of the day, when changing at Newport usually gives a journey time of about 2hr 50min, inclusive of a 10-minute connection.

Current best via the Cotswold Line is 3hr 4min, thanks to a good 10 or 15 mins of padding added recently. Hopefully some of this can be cut out from 2010, though this does depend on Oxford-London timings, especially when the work at Reading gets under way in earnest.

My memory is a bit hazy, but I do remember one of the Cotswold Line HST trains being removed for several months due to the routing restrictions imposed after the Ladbroke Grove crash. There was an additional connecting Turbo that ran from Didcot Parkway to Oxford and (I think) on to Worcester Shrub Hill in roughly the timings of the cancelled train. Can't remember for sure whether a Cheltenham train was extended through to Hereford, but it would have made sense.

My memory of the Cheltenham trains being extended to Hereford for a period of time is very clear - I used them several times (viz. my recollection of the carnage at Cheltenham Festival time).

Fair enough. Though surprised it lasted so long.

And a footnote for all those who jumped all over me about the nature of the events at Cotswold Line stations next month. Posters promoting the local one have now gone up at Moreton-in-Marsh station headed "Cotswold Line improvements"...

And still no mention of them anywhere on the FGW website.

This week's meet the manager/roadshows/whatever have been postponed due to the weather - probably wise given that yet more of the white stuff was landing all the way from Oxford to Moreton tonight.

New dates to be arranged.

Network Rail update on what will happen over the summer:

COTSWOLD RAIL SCHEME HITS NEW MILESTONE

The Cotswold redoubling scheme, which will bring new tracks between Evesham and Charlbury, has entered the final stages of design, moving a step closer to delivering work on the ground.

The scheme aims to bring a marked improvement in the level of train punctuality from 76% to 92%, which is the highest performance standard set by the Office of Rail Regulation. The capacity boosting scheme will also enable more passenger trains to run on the line.
A key element in the scheme is the restoration of a total of 20-miles of track across Evesham ^ Moreton-in-Marsh and Ascott-under-Wychwood ^ Charlbury. At present, these sections of single line are limiting capacity growth and train movements, causing congestion and further delays when parts of the route fails.
Mike Gallop, route enhancement manager for Network Rail said, ^This is an exciting milestone for a scheme that has come far. In this final stage of design, detailed improvement work for the next two-and-a-half years will be nailed down. We have a big task ahead to bring the scheme to commission, and we will continue to work hard to progress these improvements. We are also really grateful for the support from the industry and community and this is vital for the future success of this scheme.^
The first intensive work is planned for 18 July ^ 30 August 2009, when the track, and underground signal cables between Evesham ^ Moreton-in-Marsh and Ascott-under-Wychwood ^ Charlbury will be re-aligned. The improvement will help create space for the new tracks and for engineers to access the railway without having to close the line for subsequent track work.
Delivery of the work will also be staged, so that parts of the railway line can remain open when improvements are being carried out. Alternative services will also be available for trains that are not running during this period. Engineers will be maximising the time available with an aim to complete the work as early as possible.
Majority of the subsequent improvement work will not affect train services and will deploy efficient engineering techniques to reduce construction time on the site.
Notes to Editors:
The railway line will be closed during the following times and passengers are advised to contact National Rail Enquiries on 08457 48 49 50 to check their travelling times before they start their journey -
Oxford ^ Worcester, 18 July (00:10) ^ 3 August (05:00) 2009
Moreton ^ Evesham, 3 August (05:00) ^24 August (05:00) 2009
Oxford ^ Worcester, 24 August (05:00) ^ 1 September (05:00) 2009

Thanks, Will.

Hopefully FULL details of the replacement bus service and altered trains will be finalised in time to be included in the summer pocket timetables, and nice and early on the website, rather than appearing in separate booklets a week or so before the work begins.

This is excellent stuff.

When will the benefits be felt? Will it be the December 2010 timetable?

December 2010 is the target for a new timetable on the line.

I agree it would be good for the pocket timetable to be as comprehensive as possible and can't see why not, as FGW have relevant experience to draw on.

They had a kind of dry run for this sort of closure a few Augusts back, when it was shut Oxford-Moreton one week and Moreton-Evesham the next for track replacement and bridge work.

A fleet of First Group coaches was brought up from South Wales for the duration and it all seemed to work well. And not forgetting the flood damage closure in 2007.

I gather that due to a requirement to advertise for contractors in Europe, there may be a delay which would push this back to the May 2011 timetable. 

Hi everyone, as a Worcester lad with a keen interest in railways, have thoroughly enjoyed reading this forum, and thought Id post my first thoughts about the Cotswold Line, a route Ive travelled on (and suffered on) many times!

Delighted that the redoubling has gone ahead, but am wondering what the level and speed of services will be after the work has taken place.

I gather an hourly London service is planned - this is excellent.  But Ive worked out that this can be done now with the current infrastructure.  So I assume that the work is purely to increase reliablilty and delay recovery.

But I sincerely hope that there will be a significant reduction in journey times.  I have a copy of the 1986 timetable for the route.  This shows the 10.10am HST from Paddington reaching Worcester Shrub Hill in 1 Hour 52 Minutes.  The fastest HST these days, including the "crack" commuter HST's in the peaks, take 2 hours 15, on the same infrasturcuture as 23 years ago !

Of course there are more trains on the line now, but what this route REALLY needs with the new infrastructure is two-hourly sub 2 hour trains from London to Worcester, that are extended to Hereford in 2 hrs 45. The other two hourly service would stop at more places (ie Hanboro, Honeybourne and Pershore) and terminate at Worcester.  There could be 1 or 2 additional services in the peaks, with an infrequent stopper from Bicester - Oxford - Moreton using a 165.

Any thoughts?   ;D

Hi, Burty76, and a warm welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!

I'm afraid my personal knowledge of the Cotswold Line is, frankly, non-existent - but you will probably have seen already that we have a number of other members here who are 'experts' on this subject.

I'm sure they will be delighted to answer your points!

Burty, don't get your hopes up about any reduction in journey times. Almost all the Cotswold Line trains form part of the standard interval service between London and Oxford, which isn't going to be speeded up any time soon, especially not with the rebuilding of Reading station on the horizon. A good chunk of the extra time has gone on to timings south of Oxford.

If, fingers crossed, electrification happens, things might start to change, but as the Network Rail release makes clear, the key reason for the redoubling is punctuality and reliability. It will make planning the timetable easier, as pathing trains will be more straightforward, but again it's unlikely to produce huge time savings. You can run a near-hourly service now - see the weekend timetables -  but it requires near-perfect performance by every train.

While the 1986 time looks impressive, I'm guessing it involved a London-Oxford time in the order of 42-45 minutes or so, which was a lot easier back then, as there were far fewer other trains to get in the way east of Didcot. And in common with much of the GW network, the commuter belt now stretches far out from London and passengers expect relatively frequent services, not something every couple of hours.

We have gone over the ground of faster journeys to the western end of the line before. The key problem is that the stations at the eastern end (Moreton southwards) are where lots of the revenue is earned and traffic has been built up on the back of having regular through trains to London. That's why pretty much everything now stops at Hanborough. And Charlbury is the busiest intermediate station, having recently overtaken Evesham, despite being a much smaller community.

In the Vale, Honeybourne and Pershore both act as parkway stations and safety valves for Evesham, which was becoming overwhelmed when it was the only place the morning expresses to London stopped. Its car park is inadequate and can't be expanded so it makes sense to spread the load out.

If a cross-Oxford shuttle, running Didcot-Moreton, suggested further back in the thread, comes off from December 2010, it may ease some of the pressure by giving the likes of me more options for getting into Oxford but it should not be a substitute for the London trains. You won't retain custom at Hanborough by halving the through service there and telling them they have to change trains at Oxford minutes after setting out or a few miles short of the end of their journey.

And while lots more trains to Hereford might sound good, there simply isn't the traffic to pay for running them - nor enough HSTs available in the FGW fleet to allow for the time taken to get there and back while maintaining services to Oxford and Worcester. I believe the current service of five through trains to and from London actually matches the best that the GWR ever offered.

Interesting thought re an hourly service of fasts and stoppers alternatively. This is the pattern on many DB routes where you have a 2 hourly ICE/IC/EC at premium fare although there are good bargins to be had with advance tickets see post on Colgne to Berlin.

The second train is an RE/R on which Lander tickets are available so that 5 people can travel together for less than 30 Euros.

Maybe the Cotswold line at least from Hereford to Oxford is one to try this service pattern out. Of course you have to get your hours right. Do you go for a 9 and 11 or an 8 and 10 arrival in Padd for the fast?

It would be nice for a "key" train each way to make the journey in about 2 hours.

Hopefully, as platforms will be longer, dwells will decrease as there will be no SDO.

There won't be much difference there, after all the only longer platforms will be at Charlbury and Honeybourne in one direction only.

That might be a more realistic target to be honest. It might also be prudent to have the new track and signalling infrastructure up and running for a couple of months before any new timetable adds extra trains into the mix.

And therein lies one of the main problems. For many years now on this route, people have got used to being pretty much able to turn up for any (roughly hourly) train and know it will stop pretty much everywhere along the line. In the past couple of years, FGW have actually reinforced this, by stopping most of the Hereford peak trains at Honeybourne and Hanborough as well.

If you don't give a damn about your passengers, then yes, you can do the kind of thing Virgin has in recent weeks and tear up established calling patterns, but you will soon find your name is dirt and your customers have gone elsewhere - the Chiltern line or the car.

It's very easy to indulge in an armchair exercise of sitting there striking out Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore stops - and hey presto, you have a super express to Worcester and beyond, but the world has changed and these places bring in good money.

If Hanborough weren't such a constricted site, it would long ago have been developed into a proper parkway station for places north and west of Oxford, with a huge car park - that traffic has developed as it has is a tribute to NSE, Thames and FGW management down the years, aided by the county council's help on expanding car parking to the absolute limit.

Were you to drop stops in the Vale, then you would go straight back to the old situation of everyone driving into Evesham and parking in residential roads around the station, so they wouldn't have to worry about which train to catch to get home.

And if you're going to discriminate against these places, then what about intermediate stations west of Worcester too? They produce far fewer passengers for London trains than the stations east of Worcester. Make it Great Malvern only and you could get to Hereford quicker too....

Plans I have seen include passive provision for stations at Chipping Camden and Worcester Parkway

Wiilc.....you mention earler about diversionary trains being extentions of Cheltenham services, very much doubt this will occour as peak cheltenham services are really busy at times.
probably the services will be diverted with limited stops, missing out gloucester, with road transport taking passengers either to shrub hill or Oxford

Thanks for your replies guys, espescially willc.

A couple of things in reply to will's posts.

The 10.10 Paddington in Malvern in 1986 stopped as follows;  Reading 10.35, Oxford 11.00, Charlbury 11.14, Kingham 11.23, Moreton 11.30, Evesham 11.45 and Shrub Hill 12.02.

Also you mention that 5 through trains a day to Hereford is the best ever.  In the sixties and seventies there were 7 or 8 through trains at two-hourly intervals.

I totally take your point about revenue at places like Hanborough.  Surely though the bulk of this revenue comes from commuters in the peaks.  With the track doubling there would be provision in the peak for 2 HST's to/from London calling at all stations (except the "halts") and 2 fast HST's to/from Hereford.  Outside the peak then its perfectly reasonable to have an hourly service, alternating between stopper from Worcester and fast from Hereford.

But in the 60s most of those Hereford 'trains' were portion working, with a handful of coaches, not a full train (and there weren't all those LM Birmingham services on the route back then), which surely better reflected the available traffic west of Shrub Hill. When I caught the mid-afternoon HST back from Hereford one day last year, everyone on board by the time it reached Worcester would have fitted in a couple of coaches, with many seats to spare.

As I said, and the recent meddlings with Cotswold services indicate, FGW just doesn't have enough HSTs to run its advertised service now with any certainty, so won't be sending any more off to and from Hereford off-peak with a load that a connecting DMU could easily carry and then not stopping at stations further east where there is custom available, especially if the intention is to offer people travelling to and from Oxford a half-hourly service south of Moreton-in-Marsh - getting towards turn-up-and-go.

From most stations on this section, the train beats driving or buses into Oxford almost all day (and from Hanborough with a Cotswold Railcard off-peak is an absolute bargain at about ^1.60 return), even with the short walk to the city centre (which has some of the most expensive car parking in Britain) from the station.

I expect that what emerges post-redoubling will be a basic hourly Worcester-London pattern Monday-Saturday, with a roughly half-hourly peak service through to and from London (with various extensions to and from Malvern and Hereford) - ie not that different from now, but with the gaps in the off-peak service filled.

Hopefully this will be backed up by some sort of cross-Oxford shuttle between Moreton and Didcot, that would provide the halts service in the peaks. And an improved service for commuting between the stations in the Vale of Evesham and Worcester, where passengers have been poorly served for many years.

It may be the case that some Worcester trains run independently of the Cheltenham service during the closure but there is of course that lovely bit of single line between Swindon and Kemble with all the problems that poses for pathing extra services.

If they can squeeze them through, great, but remember that summer peak travel falls off a cliff, especially in August. Peak HSTs with a single Mk3's-worth of passengers departing Moreton are not unknown at that time of the year, so I suspect you could accommodate people on Cheltenham services if necessary.

In my experience the single line section between Kemble and Swindon single line junction takes about 12 min and causes only occasional delays

I gather that there may be up to three turnback sidings (to turn reverse a turbo and send it back to Oxford) in the new track plan, One is certain at Moreton, whilst those planned for Ascott and Charlebury, may happen, or one, or both, may be removed before the track is laid.  The plan is definitely to run some kind of extra Oxford local trains and to try to move more of the traffic to/from Oxford away from the car and onto the trains.

Having said that, one wonders where the car parking is going to be found.

On another note, recently, the word "Didcot" and phrase "MGR coal trains" are being attached to the phrase "Cotswold Line".  so perhaps this is also on the cards in the future.

I think this would be viable. 1 peak HST (Cathedrals Express) from Hereford which skips the halts, Pershore and Honeybourne; which has a faster journey time. And 1 peak HST from Worcester which stops everywhere except Ascott, Combe and Finstock. Turbos serve the halts and perhaps an extra Turbo into Worcester from Evesham and Pershore.

Off peak, 1 tph from Great Malvern calling every where except the halts. Turbos serve the halts.

Evening peak - reversal of above.

I wondered if the HSTs would be non-stop from Moreton to Oxford with Turbos providing connecting services - all stations from Moreton to Oxford.

This would provide a faster service for Moreton, and beyond whilst providing a frequent connecting service for all the other stations.

No factual basis for this, just a thought.

Would be nice, but no. Because Charlbury has the highest passenger usage on the line, and passengers south of Morteon need direct trains to London as well as Oxford.

Yes I wondered about Charlebury.  But I could see a turbo all stations from Moreton arriving at Oxford a few minutes before a Malvern-Paddington train is due as a option for the train planners.  Whether the locals like it or not.

I guess that the Malvern-Paddington service would be 14+ minutes quicker as a result of missing three station stops, in addition to the further time saved by the reduced headway and faster speeds of the new track.  Perhaps Malvern to Paddington could be as much as 30 minutes faster.

Well you'd better wonder about Kingham and Hanborough as well as Charlbury - lots of London (and Reading) seasons, lots of car park revenue, lots of passengers to keep happy, all built up on the back of through trains - and lots of reasons why the line can sustain the service frequency it does along the full route - it's not because of the custom from Worcester and Malvern and even a faster train or two won't change that.

If a stopping service out of Oxford is to make sense, it is as part of a half-hourly frequency, otherwise nothing will have changed and no-one will be leaving their car at home, or the station.

Charlbury's car park can be extended - at some expense admittedly though the county council may well help - by filling in the allotments hole between the station approach road and the Burford road - and people do walk from the town; Kingham may be tricky, as all the spare land has now been sold off but there are usually some spaces available; Ascott (if it gets more trains) would be walk-up traffic, as the station is right next to the village; which leaves Shipton needing a proper car park, though there is a bit of room around the Oxford-bound platform to do something - and a footbridge would also be needed for returning passengers. Hanborough is a problem, but if the idea is to attract off-peak Oxford custom, then that may well be walk-up from the village too. Beyond the Oxfordshire boundary, there are usually spaces available at Moreton too and trade from the town itself tends to be walk-up.

As for freight, why not? The lack of a diversionary route whenever Oxford-Banbury-Leamington is shut is a long-standing problem, so even if it is a bit of a great way round via Worcester, it would make sense.

Swindon-Kemble only causing occasional delays? I can hear the hollow laughter from someone I work with who lives near Cirencester and whose children use the line to get to school.

Couple of interesting points in the last few posts:

1. Somebody else agrees with me that Hereford used to have a basic two hourly service (for which I got ridiculed by another member on another post);

2. Herefordshire dwellers like me will shy away from the FGW Hereford services for so long as they don't run fast services - I've resolutely avoided the service since they started introducing stops at Pershore and Honeybourne, let alone Hanborough. Easier to drive to Cheltenham or Swindon. Mind you I might just change my mind if the redoubling improves timings.

Oh and a third point following my post just now, contrary to what a previous post said, I've never been held up on the Swindon to Kemble stretch - although I use the line randomly but reasonably regularly.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough HSTs to run a 2 hourly service to Hereford. I, too, think it would be a good idea.

Be grateful that LM have magiced some 170s out of thin air to run an hourly service into B'ham! (and while their wand was out, they somehow managed to transfer the Rugely - Walsall - B'ham services to 170s and double the frequency! :o ). Life has some mysteries.

I think FGW could do with borrowing LM's wand. ;D

They didn't have a magic wand, they just got a lot of new class 350s for the Liverpool trains among other things, which freed up the class 170s that previously ran the service all the way under the wires.

Why would it be a good idea to run lots more empty HSTs to Hereford? Could one of you please explain how this makes sense, other than looking nice and neat on a timetable? Even if they did run and drew a few more passengers, they will never pay their way - not a strong argument for them when FGW is staring down the barrel of hefty premium payments to the Government, especially in the current financial climate.

The population of Hereford is 50,000. It has always had some sort of through train service to London (five each way on weekdays at present). Wrexham, which didn't for a very long time, until getting five W&S and a Virgin service in very short order last year, has a population of just under 132,000. But you seem to be saying Hereford should be getting 10 trains a day each way.

Pure economics is the reason for extra stops between Oxford and Worcester, because the custom that part of the line generates is how the service pays its way. The reason there are mid-evening services from London now is because Thames Trains pushed a couple of trains beyond Oxford to Moreton as an experiment, then, having found there was sufficient custom, extended them on to Worcester. In its turn, though the need to keep a train at Hereford overnight also played a part, these experiments some years ago could be argued to have eventually led to the change last December that now sees the 19.22 run all the way to Hereford.

As I said previously, the 1960s service was provided by PORTION working, typically a BSK, SK and a corridor composite - a grand total of 120 seats Hereford-Worcester, even with armrests up in the SK and BSK - and it wasn't very fast either, including 10 minutes or so shunting at Shrub Hill.

Frankly, it makes little sense to run lightly-loaded HSTs as far as Worcester and Malvern in the middle of the day now but when FGW has such an inflexible fleet, with nothing in between HSTs and Turbos, with the last three 180s on borrowed time, there aren't any other options.

RE Kemble-Swindon, my colleague has often arrived at Kemble station to put his children on a train towards Gloucester to see a late-running Swindon-bound train pulling out, with the westbound service held at Swindon, meaning it is going to be a good 20 minutes late. Stebbo, you may just be lucky with your journeys, others aren't.

And if the single line there is not a problem, as you seem to suggest, why is every MP, council and passengers in that part of Gloucestershire demanding a rethink of the ORR refusal to sanction redoubling? Only last week the MPs were told that DafT has sanctioned spending ^900,000 on further engineering development work after they went mob-handed to see Lord Adonis to protest about the ORR decision.

I agree Will. It would never make sense financially, or even environmentally, but you could argue that from a regular, high-quality service standpoint it would make sense. Depends on what your definition of what a train service is for I suppose. It's largely an academic argument though as the money talks standpoint isn't about to change any time soon.

My view is that it would be nice to see one more through train each way to give a better spread of arrivals at Hereford; 11:47, 13:48, 20:37, 21:36 and 22:57 could then turn into 10:47, 13:47, 16:47, 20:37, 21:37 and 22:57 and would close the gaping 7hr gap in through trains in the afternoon. A post-redoubling journey time of 3hrs would be attractive, and an Adelante for traction on the first three arrivals would have been ideal too!

willc, i'm guessing you live near the Oxford end of the line !
I do agree with your point on through Hereford trains - I wasnt suggesting we had a 2 hourly service now, just that there used to be one.

I'd suggest 5 trains a day is fine - leaving Hereford at approx 6am, 7am, 10am, 1pm and 5pm.
And leaving London at approx 7am, 10am, 2pm, 5pm and 6pm

It's all very well saying that commuters at Hanborough have got used to through London trains - thats true, but its come at the expense of limited stop expresses.  What Stebbo says is quite true - many people avoid the Cotswold Line from Hereford and Worcester because they dont want to be stuck on a train stopping at every village in the Cotswolds on its way to London, and taking almost two and a half hours to London from Worcester ! (You can get to Darlington from London in less time on the train!!!)

 My dad preferred to drive to Birmingham International and get a train to Euston because, as he put it "I may have to drive for half an hour, but at least when Im on the train it doesnt stop every 5 minutes!".

I dont see why this scheme cant provide the best of both worlds - through commuter trains to London from the smaller stations, mixed with expresses that are sub-2 hour from Worcester and 2h45 from Hereford.

Exactly, Chiltern seem to have got the hang of this. The longer distance peak services are non/mostly non stop south of Banbury (ok, it's because the trains are full as well - but why are they full?!), and they run additional peak trains to serve the other big commuter towns. Virgin as well. A non stop B'ham to London train, which is followed by another which calls at the cities in between.

There is non reason why peak trains can't be expresses.

Wrong. Even Central Trains ran Desiros on the B'ham to Liverpool service (part of their "Citylink" brand) - I saw one of these at Wolverhampton once. Where Desiros were unavailable, Class 321s and even Class 323s stepped in. 170s would not be able to keep to the timetable, or be long enough.

The new Desiros arriving recently have all been used on the new B'ham to Euston (replacing 321s), Euston - Crewe services (new).

The only other LM route 170s are used on is the Shrewsbury to B'ham route. And in December, LM successfully "squeezed in" an additional peak train in each direction! So that another unit conjured from nowhere.....

How can you compare lines purpose built for fast running (even in the 19th century) and linking major conurbations, with a rural route, through difficult terrain, serving small communities and two of the smallest county towns in England? Even Bristol-London trains typically make four stops these days. Are they still expresses?

Different routes call for different solutions and what this route needs is a reliable hourly service all day, stepped up to half-hourly in the peaks (towards London am, towards Worcester pm), with a consistent stopping pattern that means the average passenger (ie not most people on this board, I venture to suggest) can grasp that departures are the same time every hour, and turn up and go, without fear of zooming past the place they want to get off - rather like the current timetable attempts to do in its slightly disjointed way.

Unfortunately for those further west, that means consistently stopping at all our lovely 'village' stations, which produce the money that means Oxford-Worcester gets 15 trains each way now, hopefully going up to 17 or 18 post-redoubling.

Have your super-trains by all means, but if someone were to start breaking down the revenue generated from different sections of the line, the bean-counters would probably decide it was a good idea to turn back a good few trains at Moreton - so no hourly service (or even half-hourly in the peak) for Worcester, even if it is too slow for your tastes.

This breakdown would, of course, be rather like the situation that prevailed until 2004, when Thames and FGW shared the route. The express operator, FGW, added not one train to its service and seemed quite happy with its slice of the Orcats take. The operator providing the bulk of trains and serving all the stations, Thames, was the one that built up services and took up the spare paths that then existed.

However, with the strange powers LM apprently possesses, maybe they could be brought in to turn logic on its head and show that Worcester and Hereford truly are the source of all income from the Cotswold Line - even if everyone living there drives to Birmingham International, Warwick Parkway or Cheltenham.

The reason why passenger levels are so low at the West of the line is (a) the poor reliability/punctuality of the service and (b) the fact that the service is so slow!

You would find that passenger numbers would rise if you slashed journey times.

PS: Any idea where the 170s came from?

As a Worcester person, I agree entirely.
 
Also remember that the car service to London is hampered by:
1. No good direct good roads / Motorway to London
2. The London congestion charge and parking in London

This provides opportunity for growth of the London service from Worcester and Hereford and I for one hope that future fast services only stop at Evesham, Moreton and then Oxford, on their way to and from London, so long as local stopping trains are pathed to meet the fast trains and serve the small stations.

I agree. I know of people who drive, instead of taking FGW from Worcester.

Yes, they could driver to Kidderminster, Warwick Parkway and Birmingham International. But once you are in the car.....

Look at other towns/cities a similar distance from London: Peterborough, Salisbury, Leicester, Warwick....

They all have good rail links - hence lots of commuting.

I wonder why the London commuter belt has not extended to Worcestershire? The SLOW rail link (and lack of motorway, which should be EMBRACED by the rail operator).

Given what London commuting has done to inflate property prices around Oxford, Charlbury and Kingham, you should be profoundly grateful the service deters commuters from Worcestershire.

If you care to consult the First Great Western service commitment - the specification for all its passenger services -  then without getting it rewritten by DafT, FGW cannot withdraw any current stops at Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton and Evesham. And they will not choose to miss the honeypots of Charlbury and Kingham. Never, ever.

They can allow four weekday trains to skip Hanborough each way (four already do Oxford-bound, two do so in the other direction) and two can skip Honeybourne (as is the case both ways. I believe the 05.02 from Worcester, which would make three, is exempt from this count, because the section of its journey as far as Moreton is not a specified requirement). One each way can miss Pershore but none do (except the 05.02 again).

Should you wish to see the document, it's at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/fgw/fgwcommitment2b.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/fgw/fgwcommitment2b.pdf)
The Cotswold Line section starts at page 53 but it obviously includes specs for the rest of the FGW system.

A while back, Modern Railways did a very interesting comparison of the Worcester-London and King's Lynn-London routes, on the peg of both having largely rural outer reaches but calling at the two old university cities en route. I suspect it has been closely studied at FGW Towers by people planning for post-2010 on the Cotswold Line.

FCC run a basic hourly pattern all day but with a 30-minute interval running with the peak flows, with 22 trains each way and an extra evening train to the country on Fridays. The trains call everywhere north of Cambridge (five intermediate stops at intervals of six to nine minutes - sound familiar?), irrespective of the size of the community, then run fast to London King's Cross in about 55 minutes (usually calling Royston and Letchworth - aka Reading and Slough). And XC runs additional trains Ely-Cambridge (like a Moreton-Oxford shuttle?)

Where this service scores over the Cotswold Line is that the performance of the electric traction makes mincemeat of the frequent stops in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, giving a typical 1hr 50min timing Kings Lynn to London. So what would actually suit everyone's needs along the line is redoubling, swiftly followed by electrification.

PS Class 170s. Haven't come from any other operators, so can only assume it's better stock utilisation by LM and that the repaint/clean-up programme has finished now, giving an instant extra set. They were already operating a good number of Rugeley trains anyway - cutting out running Rugeley TV to Stafford helps (took about 30-35 minutes for a round trip including turning round at Stafford) - and getting a set off Walsall-Wolverhampton.

That SLC will of course be totally rewritten after the redoubling. Just like it was when HST's replaced the Adelante's to take into account the additional journey times. Whether stops at Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton and Evesham would ever be removed is unlikely though in my opinion, especially given that all four stations will then be on double track sections of the line.

If extra trains mean that the same frequency of service could be provided as is now, I think that FGW will look carefully at whether all trains in the peak hours would need to stop at Honeybourne and Pershore, and possibly Hanborough. That (along with time taken up with such things as token exchanges and waits at Evesham for trains the other way to arrive, no longer being a problem) would allow some Worcester-London times to be reduced by about 15 minutes potentially. Enough to tempt a few people back onto the trains I'm sure.

WillC
"The population of Hereford is 50,000."

Charlbury has a population of 2649 so your point is?

WillC
"two of the smallest county towns in England?"-

Cities is the word we are looking for. A train that runs between cities is an INTER-CITY

What are some of the features of an INTER CITY? It doesn't act as a glorified park and ride. (^1.60 Hanborough - Oxford is cheaper than a park and ride!!)

By all means have your Oxford park and ride - but not on a long distance train .

II
"Worcester-London times to be reduced by about 15 minutes potentially. Enough to tempt a few people back onto the trains I'm sure."
Not if they run Turbos it won't.

Sorry willc, not wanting to get into an argument here !

I do take on board a lot of the points you make, but youre comparison with the Kings Lynn line is as inappropriate with mine comparing London to Darlington (which wasnt intended as a compare the route- more "look at how much further you can get in the same time it takes to get to Worcester!").

If London to Worcester was opeated by Electrics with quick acceleration, and stopping at all stations bar "the halts", every hour, then it would only take 2 hours, and no one would complain about stops every 6 or 7 minutes to Oxford.  An hourly electric service to the capital in 2 hours from Worcester, would be extremely marketable and attract lots of new custom.

But the fact is, the route is operated by diesel HST's, which have poor acceleration and are designed for express operation.  Therefore stopping at more stations delays the journey and is extremely off-putting to customers at the Western end of the line.  Why do you think the bulk of the custom on the route is at its Eastern end - because the service to Worcester and beyond is off-putting slow and unreliable.

Hanborough has gained a huge amount of revenue in the last few years - because its service has been drastically improved.

What I, and others here, are compaigning for is, a similar improvement for longer distance travellers.  And that means, a fast, limited stop INTER-CITY service from Hereford and Worcester.  The re-doubling gives the opportunity to implement this.

Lot of good points regarding the Hereford services here. Just to reinforce the points made:

1. I was for many years a regular user of the Cathedrals Express as - generally - it was "roughly" on time within acceptable bounds. No Pershore, Honeybourne, Hanborough, Didcot, Reading stops.

2. First of all, the Cotswold line got more congested and reliability declined.

3. Then the extra stops came in and it became quicker to drive to Swindon or Cheltenham - or even Bristol Parkway.

4. I worked in Birmingham - on a business park close to the airport - for 2 1/2 years. If I had to go to London, I often stayed over with my mother in Stratford and caught the train from Warwick Parkway to Marylebone, getting the train that runs fast from Bicester (although not always so fast as the through lines at High Wycombe, Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross, Denham were taken out). I did use the Hereford train once in my first week in the Brum job back in 2004 and I was half an hour late for an important meeting - only ever used it once since (late again).

5. All I want is one tolerably fast train to London in each direction. I don't care if it stops at Pershore and Honeybourne cos they have large car parks - just cut out Evesham and Moreton to compensate. And leave the Hanborough brigade to the Turbos. As a compromise I don't even mind stopping at Reading but surely we can give Didcot a miss just twice a day.

6. And the point about the loss of the Adelantes was well made. They were, if properly maintained, ideal for the daytime runs up to Hereford. Why you could have run two units to Oxford or Worcester and left one unit to continue to Hereford. That could have worked well for the peak hour trains like the Cathedrals Express.

7. One more thing, how about redoubling Shelwick Junction to Ledbury (and the rest of the Cotswold line).

Putting that figure back in the context it was used in, the point was that a place the size of Hereford was hardly likely to be able to sustain the two-hourly London service that some posters here are advocating - but have yet to justify beyond saying they think it would be a good idea. Wrexham is more than twice Hereford's size, but until last year no-one in the rail industry thought it was worth one through train to London. It wouldn't be the end of the world if the five through London trains from Hereford were mixed in with slick, reliable connections the rest of the day between hourly Cotswold Line and the hourly Birmingham-Hereford trains, which should be the case after the redoubling.

Charlbury - and all the other places nearer Oxford that upset you all so much - are a much better business proposition for FGW - regular, reliable, high-volume custom, which is exactly what they need to bring in the revenue they must find to make premium payments to the Government. Those fares from Hanborough soon mount up when they sell lots of them. And the service there was improved precisely because of the prospect of selling more tickets to Oxford and other places. Your 'delay' is also a revenue-generating opportunity in the eyes of railway managers.

One or two faster trains from points west may well bring in extra custom and cash from those places but if you cut someone else's service, or make them change at Oxford, you're likely to lose those very gains elsewhere. And these trains will have to fit in with the regular interval pattern and timings that are now rigidly enforced from Didcot to London to try to keep all the extra trains that are out there these days on the move. Unless wires go up, you are stuck with a 55-minute timing Oxford-London for some years yet.

Redoubling and a recast timetable could well deliver a typical two-hour London-Worcester timing, based on Industry Insider's indication of likely time savings, but with the HST fleet stretched to the limit now, even the supply of Turbos not infinite, and the new batch of DMUs not due until 2012 and no certainty as to how many the Thames Valley will get, there will still have to be compromises between trying to match the needs of different stations and markets with the available rolling stock.


It wan't the word I was looking for. County town is an idiomatic English expression - we don't say county city, do we? Most county towns are cities, but some aren't, eg Taunton.

As I said yesterday, the Kings Lynn comparison was not mine, it was Modern Railways - and I still think it is a far more valid comparison than a crude 'look how far you can go on an out-and-out express route' - it wasn't pretending to be precise, of course, but many of the flows the services handle (both London-bound journeys and local commutes, especially into Cambridge, cf Oxford) and the types of communities served are not dissimilar. Whether or not you like FCC's rigid standard pattern service, combined with a higher frequency than the Cotswold Line gets, is up to you.

Stebbo, since December hardly any Cotswold Line trains call at Didcot, just a couple of early morning and late evening services, and not many more did before that, as FGW realised very fast it had screwed up by adding stops in the disastrous December 2006 timetable. And I'm glad you don't mind stopping at Reading - one of the busiest stations in Britain outside London and an interchange for many routes - some people from Worcester and Hereford might want to go there too.

No-one is suggesting cutting services to the villages. Just that in the peaks, an extra fast service is slotted in.

If Evesham had a reliable and faster service to London, I think you would soon see passenger figures go back up. Worcester and places West would also contribute more.

How about splitting 2 180s at Oxford, 4 times a day for the Hereford trains? One continues to Hereford calling at Morteon, Evesham, Worcester Shrub Hill and all stations; the other continues to Worcester Shrub Hill calling at all stations minus Ascott, Coombe and Finstock.

For the rest of the day, a general hourly all stations (minus the halts) service runs to Great Malvern.

Additional Turbos for halts.

But there won't be any 180's left!

Just to clarify a couple of things:

* Im not advocating a 2 hourly service to Hereford.  5 a day is fine - but at better times (see a previous post)

* Im also not saying that the level of service to Hanborough (or Pershore or Honeybourne) should be cut - certainly not in the peak.  What I am suggesting is that, off-peak, a 2 hourly level of service to Han, Hon and Per is more than adequate, up to hourly in the peaks.

Therefore a timetable something approximate to : (from London, similar in reverse)

Pattern A Even hours - Reading, Oxford, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton, Evesham, Shrub Hill, Foregate St. Mal Link, Gt Malv (with some extending to Hereford)
Pattern B Odd hours - Slough, Reading, Oxford, hanborough. Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton, Honeybourne, Evesham, Pershore, Shrub Hill, Foregate St.

from london peak :

15.52  Pattern B
(Halts train Oxford to Moreton between these trains)
16.52  Pattern B
17.22 Pattern A to Hereford
17.52  Pattern B
18.22  Pattern A to hereford
18.52  Pattern B
19.52  Pattern A to hereford
20.52 Pattern B to Malvern
21.52 Pattern B


Surely this should keep everyone happy?  ;D

Yes, no cuts, but some "pattern A" trains in between Bs during the peaks to speed up the journey. I also like the idea of "pattern A" trains skipping Slough.

Remember, faster trains will take the pressure of the slower trains, allowing more Hanborough commuters to get a seat.

Burty, others did say they thought it should be two-hourly to Hereford.

As I have said, you can't divorce the Cotswold service from what happens beyond Oxford and Didcot. The Slough stops are part of the standard pattern off-peak timetable between Oxford and London, and provide the London fast services for Slough and the connections from Paddington for the Windsor branch. If you don't do it with the Oxfords, then you would have to make those stops with something else instead.

An hourly peak service at Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore would be a cut - Hanborough and Pershore get four trains (three Londons plus the halts service) in a roughly two-hour period in the morning and Honeybourne three now. If you take the evening peak as being the 15.51 to the 18.22 period, the H's get four trains and Pershore all five.

And you wouldn't want to drop the 19.22 as a Hereford service. I use it about once a week from Oxford at the moment and it loads well, especially Fridays. A Hereford arrival before 11pm is psychologically important. Lose the current padding (five minutes at Evesham, four minutes at Shrub Hill and four more Foregate St-Malvern Link) and it would start to look even better.

Off-peak, if there is to be a cross-Oxford shuttle, then it has to form part of a roughly 30-minute interval, all through the period of the day it operates, which means the London trains calling at Hanborough every hour off-peak. The whole point is to provide a service you don't have to look up the times for. As soon as people have to think whether it's the hour when the train doesn't stop, then they start thinking about driving.

Btline, how will faster trains take pressure off others? If there's a train departing every 30 minutes in the peak, people will use the one that arrives at the place they are going at the time they want to be there - and get the first available one home - not go early just because the previous train has a shorter journey time (and end up having to kill time before work or whatever) or wait for a later, faster train on the way back that still gets to the destination after the first one.

We seem to be talking exclusively about trains to/from Paddington.  With track doubling and a new signaling system designed to increase capacity, what perhaps we are looking for, and may possibly get, for the main part of the day is:

- An express service from Hereford/Malvern/Worcester stopping at major towns in the northern end such as Evesham and Moreton;

- A local turbo service running perhaps hourly, all stations between Worcester and Moreton and linking to the express London service; and

- A second local turbo service running, perhaps half-hourly between Moreton and Oxford linking again at both Moreton and Oxford with express trains to London. I gather that FGW has already stated that it wishes to run something as frequently as this with the turbos continuing beyond Oxford perhaps as far as Didcot.

Obviously the above is a more of a specimen idea with some peak expresses stopping at one or more certain extra stations as current loadings suggest, but lets not forget that the high loading that places like Moreton, Charlebury and Hanborough currently get are the result of getting a good service.  There is no reason why Worcester (pop 110,000), Evesham (pop 32,000) and perhaps even Pershore (pop 16,000) can not provide a greater income than little places like Charlebury, if FGW wishes to try to market to these areas. 
 

Thanks for the info on Didcot stops, Willc. I'm not up to speed with where the Hereford services stop now as I've stopped using them. I might risk it again when they've finished the redoubling.

Incidentally, driving from Stratford to Cheltenham this morning I noticed, as I passed under the line between Honeybourne and Moreton, pallets of materials laid out alongside the track. Something's beginning to take shape.

From an interal NR news item last updated: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009 15:19 GMT

"New tracks on the double for Cotswold

The Cotswold redoubling scheme, which will bring new tracks between Evesham and Charlbury, has entered the final stages of design, moving a step closer to delivering work on the ground.

Once complete, the scheme is set to bring about huge improvements in train punctuality, from 76 per cent to 92 per cent ^ the highest performance standard set by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). The capacity boosting scheme will also enable more passenger trains to run on the line.

Mike Gallop, route enhancements manager, said: ^In this final stage of design, detailed improvement work for the next two-and-a-half years will be nailed down. We have a big task ahead to bring the scheme to commission, and will continue to work hard to progress these improvements.^

Delivery of the work, which will begin in July 2009, will be staged so that parts of the railway line can remain open while improvements are carried out"

You could always extend the Oxford HSTs to terminate at Hanborough (obviously requiring more infrastructure).

Even if an hourly service is a cut - it is still a very good service for the village!

I am not sure how many fast trains Slough gets in total, but they should be confined onto the HSTs which terminate at Oxford, thus speeding up the longer distance trains.

If there are faster trains to Worcester, people will time it so they catch those trains, thus taking the pressure off the slower trains.

And I think that's where the issue that Willc was trying to raise becomes clear. Sometimes it's one train an hour terminating at Oxford, sometimes it's two. With the Cotswold Line trains slotting into the half-hourly Oxfords that means Slough (and Windsor) get a regular half-hourly fast service throughout the off-peak. You probably get between 30-50 people for that stop alone on an average train. If you were to alter the timetable to remove Slough stops then the whole balance of the timetable would be removed.

The other option is to run three trains to Oxford an hour, two that stop at Slough AND one that continues down the Cotswolds (pathing and stock issues galore), or you remove the Slough stop on one of the trains per hour and then make that service far less attractive to locals and tourists.

For the sake of two minutes in the schedule, I'd be very surprised if the status quo doesn't remain.

Ah - ok, if Slough gets 2 tph the Cotswold stops should remain.

This is new cable troughing that is currently being laid/sunk alongside the single lines to take the existing cables, moving them away from the course of the new double track bed.

Incidentally, I heard today that the Paddington-Cheltenham HSTs will definitely be extended to Worcester during the blockade

Oxford is getting a new bay platform at the south end of the station, designed to take the Oxford-Paddington HST service (and long enough to take the IEP trains). This will free up the main through platforms and save moves to and from the carriage sidings.  Both of which will help the Cotswold line service (with the upgrade of the goods loops) by increasing capacity at Oxford.

Confucius say: man who cannot spell "Charlbury" probably not best qualified to comment on it.

Charlbury, and the surrounding area, is London commuter territory and has been for decades. Even if you pulled out a couple of stops, Evesham is still - at a very, very generous estimate - 30 minutes further down the line (38 minutes at present). That's an hour's extra commute each day.

To remove direct fast London services from a major commuter railhead, just to slightly speed up the service to somewhere well out of commuter belt, would be the height of insanity.

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing Charlbury stops.

Its the stopping every train at Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore that I have issue with.

If you want to live in a village, then you shouldnt expect an hourly HST to London !  A stop every 15 minutes is plenty - if you want an hourly direct train to London, drive to Charlbury !  If you dont want to do that, then catch a local to Oxford and change.  Simples.

But if you are someone at FGW HQ working out how to maximise your income, you do it by stopping trains at the places that bring in money in a regular, reliable stream - that's even simpler.

Why shouldn't you expect an hourly train to London, if your community is lucky enough to have a station on a line with regular London services running on it? And is already being offered an hourly off-peak train by FGW during the periods of the day when they operate hourly now on the Cotswold Line. All those towns and villages north of Cambridge on the King's Lynn-London line get one - and two an hour in the peak.

As I said previously, one of the reasons behind the extra peak stops at Pershore, Honeybourne and Hanborough was to help ease the pressure at Evesham and Charlbury caused precisely by people driving in - as you suggest they should - to catch the morning peak HSTs from Hereford, who were overwhelming parking facilities that cannot be expanded without major expenditure. Indeed at Evesham, I just don't see where you could extend parking, short of buying up all the former Midland station site from its current users.

While it would be nice to have some sort of stopping service all along the line, as Don suggests, the fact is it is a line of two halves, with loadings dropping off west of Moreton.

Between Moreton and Hanborough (excluding the halts but including the Wychwoods stations), there are six pretty well-sited stations, in the towns and villages themselves, or a short walk/cycle ride away. I know Kingham looks like it's out in the fields, but it sits mid-way between Kingham and Bledington villages. Oxford is the local centre for work, shopping and leisure for all these places except Moreton - where we can pick and choose among Oxford, Cheltenham and Stratford - so if you can achieve a roughly 30-minute frequency most of the day, there's every chance it will do well. A (refurbished, please) two-car 165 should fit the bill for a shuttle. And while it might be logical to make London connections at Oxford, if it ran through to Didcot, that offers plenty of interchange opportunities too.

In the particular case of Hanborough, the road takes a roundabout route to Oxford, so the train wins hands-down journey time-wise. Beef up the service here and you will dominate the local travel market and sell a lot of tickets, the value of which will come out well ahead of adding three or four minutes on to journey times to Worcester.

The Vale is a different matter. To begin with there are just three stations. While Evesham itself has a well-sited station and big population, Honeybourne is a small community, even with recent housing development alongside the station, and Pershore station is a mile-and-a-half from the town centre and it's a matter of luck if the trains connect with buses here. I would be surprised if these three could sustain more than an hourly off-peak service to and from Worcester, despite the time advantage rail enjoys.

But there should be some sort of effort to do better for the Vale at peak times, rather than the take-it-or-leave it approach at the moment, though in the morning that clearly owes much to the difficulties of pathing anything through the current single-line sections against the flow towards London.

If the LM150s - and the new DMUs - give some much needed breathing space to the West fleet, then maybe a 150 could be found to run on peak Honeybourne to Malvern cross-Worcester shuttles. Can't see any great need to run it to and from Moreton, though if Chipping Campden eventually reopened that would change the equation.

I agree Willc, local travel along the Western part of the line should be exploited more.

RE Kemble-Swindon, my colleague has often arrived at Kemble station to put his children on a train towards Gloucester to see a late-running Swindon-bound train pulling out, with the westbound service held at Swindon, meaning it is going to be a good 20 minutes late. Stebbo, you may just be lucky with your journeys, others aren't.

And if the single line there is not a problem, as you seem to suggest, why is every MP, council and passengers in that part of Gloucestershire demanding a rethink of the ORR refusal to sanction redoubling? Only last week the MPs were told that DafT has sanctioned spending ^900,000 on further engineering development work after they went mob-handed to see Lord Adonis to protest about the ORR decision.

Don't dispute that it would be good to redouble Kemble to Swindon. Just I've always thought the Cotswold redoubling far more important as in my experience the Cotswold line is a bigger source of misery

In days of old there were 2 TOCs on the Cotswold line Thames & FGW. At that time the Thames trains stopped at most stations most of the time FGW ran long distance trains which didn't stop at the likes of Pershore, Honeybourne and Hanborough.

When FGW took the Thames franchise rather than keep the old model they have burdened the long distance traffic with the Oxford park and ride brigade which means a significant number of Hereford / Worcester passengers travel on other routes. All I'm saying is the old model was far more attractive for long distance (INTER CITY) travel.

This is the same model that runs on the Oxford Banbury route where only FGW stop at Tackley & Heyford with XC going straight through. Why aren't the XC services forced to stop at the 'village' stations to provide yet more Oxford park and ride custom? Because it's bad business.


Confucius also say: railhead is end of line - trains that go past end of line finish up derailed - exactly what the FGW policy is west of Moreton.

If you start on the rational that 'high speed trains' must stop at every station that is a 'major commuter railhead' as passengers won't change trains, then stations such as Pangbourne and Goring & Streetly could put up a better case than most stations on the Cotswold line.

Since when have Pershore and Honeybourne been sources of Oxford park-and-ride traffic? I suspect the large majority of tickets issued to passengers boarding London-bound trains at both points are for journeys all the way, especially in the morning peak - to the type of people who used to swamp Evesham and would do so again if the other Vale stops were dropped. And the Cathedrals Express still doesn't stop at Hanborough in the morning.

Such was the demand for the type of limited-stop service that FGW offered from 1997-2006, that it was itself very limited - two peak trains out and two back, the same BR had offered for years before as well - I discount FGW's lone off-peak service up to 2004, because after the Southall crash, it used a borrowed Turbo and stopped everywhere except the halts anyway. If there is the huge pent-up level of demand for fast trains from Worcester and Hereford that some seem to suggest there is, then why didn't the newly-unshackled private operator add more trains while there were still some paths available at other times of the day?

The Oxford-Banbury route is a quite different situation. The main fast flow between the two has always been separated out, because the village stations are just that - they only serve the immediate local communities, which are small - population of Tackley parish is about 1,000 v 3,000 for Hanborough (which is also widely used as a parkway station for Witney people off to London). In addition, Kings Sutton has always had direct London trains to Marylebone and people from Heyford drive to Bicester (10 minutes away) to get London trains rather than use the Great Way Round via Reading. Cotswold Line stations act as railheads for a wide area around them, as well as the communities they are in. PS railheads aren't always at the end of a line - that would be called the terminus.

The stations between Didcot and Reading are on a line which can sustain a far higher number and wider mix of trains, so FGW has more choices about what they can offer them - which does include peak high-speed services. The 6.12 from Didcot and 7.10 from Oxford are booked for high-speed stock and serve those stations - indeed the 7.10 misses Reading entirely - and the 18.33 return is also marked H on the timetable. An Adelante often appears on the latter at present.

Cotswold trains have to serve a series of different markets and as a result, stopping patterns have to be a compromise - and as I said, without the level of demand generated at the eastern end, the western end would not have the frequency of service through the day that it does at present. Thames ran a number of trains that terminated at Moreton, some of which were later extended throughout, because traffic at the eastern end made extending them to Worcester viable. We pay, you gain.

Quite so.
A compromise is exactly what Im suggesting.  Where we disagree is on the level of off-peak service.  Hanborough, Pershore and Honeybourne do NOT need an hourly service to London throughout the day, just at peak times.
And whatever the reasons for operators not running fast trains to Worcester, the fact is that the comparotavely low revenue at the Westenr end is simply because the service offered is so poor.  I know a great many people in the Worcester area who regard the London service as a joke, and always have done.  And many buinessmen, including my Dad before he retired, preferred to go to Birm International or Bristol Parkway for a PROPER inter-city service.
In summary - give the Western end a proper limited stop service and they will use it.

Oh and as an afterthought - what about a service via Cheltenham 5 times a day ?  This would give many advantages :
* A 2 hour Worcester to London journey time
* Direct service to the capital from Ashchurch for Tewkesbury
* Limited station stops
* A half an hour reduction on journey time for Cheltenham to London

Just a thought....

The comparative road journey is pretty poor too, so Worcester, Malvern and Hereford folk really do have a short straw when it comes to travel options to the capital.

I find myself agreeing with WillC here.

 

Look at Towns with a population of over 150k.  Swindon, Luton, Northampton etc. and then consider Cities like Wells, pop c10,000 and Chichester c24,500. 

Reading has an urban population of >230k and remains a town. St David's in Wales has a population of <1,5k, but is a city.

http://www.lovemytown.co.uk/CityStatus/CityStatusTable1.asp

As such, it is not merely the 'status' of an urban area which gives claim to an enhanced rail service, but more, its population, hinterland and therefore potential as a revenue generator.  Perhaps, with the rise of Unitary Authorities, the old definitions regarding City status are set to become even more obsolete, just as the Inter City branding has become, at least in the UK.

Indeed G.Uard - in fact there's villages (such as Kidlington) that have a larger population than several Cities - even if you ignore St. David's and the City of London.

There's a list here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallest_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hereford's 14th on the list and Worcester is 21st. InterCity is more snappy than InterPlacesWithASignigicantEnoughPopulationToWarrantARegularTrainService though...  ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railhead

Or are you confusing railheading?

Trains west of Moreton are lightly loaded - the reason is well understood outside FGW if not by the likes of WillC & II.

My office is a 2 minute walk from Pershore station but it is far better for me to drive to Warwick Parkway and use Chiltern.

Why?

Better rolling stock - no filthy Turbos
Normally Cheaper
Faster as not stopping to let the bike riding Oxford commuters on
Far more frequent
And the staff at Warwick are excellent.

Others from Worcester use Birmingham International - and it is a significant number of people who pay a great deal more than ^1.60 for their tickets.

FGW are the losers beleive me.

As for "we pay you gain" - you pay we go elsewhere.

How would you get a two-hour Worcester-London time via Cheltenham, and, in particular, cut 30 minutes off Cheltenham-London without running non-stop? And bypassing Gloucester, which is rather bigger than Worcester?

FGW hardly runs anything, anywhere, that you could call limited-stop any more, because the HST changed the map of the part of England it served, stretching the commuter belt far beyond Reading and Oxford, and, over time, changing the type of train service required. It would be interesting to see how many London season tickets were being sold from places such as Swindon, Chippenham and Bath pre-1976 and the numbers today - I'll wager the percentage increases are enormous.

Birmingham and Bristol have what you call 'proper' inter-city services (though Bristol trains typically make about four or five stops these days) - because they serve very large cities, which can support fast, frequent trains without the help of revenue from intermediate stops. The same cannot be said for Worcester and Hereford.

If Chiltern's route ended up at places the size of Hereford and Worcester, they would be making lots of intermediate stops at places like Denham Golf Club, because it wouldn't be worth separating out the long and short-distance flows in the way they can now.

And is what you all want a faster peak train or two, or faster Worcester trains all day? There seem to be different views in that part of the world. It's just that it seems to be the smaller Vale stations and Hanborough that are doing all the compromising - and losing the level of service they already have, both peak and off-peak, which is no way to encourage rail travel, whether or not anyone from Worcester changes their habits.

It all sounds rather like the brilliant wheezes of BR Western Region back in the late 1960s, when everyone was going to drive into Worcester or Oxford to get trains, that led to the singling of the line (and Salisbury-Exeter) and the attempts to close every station between Worcester and Oxford, except Evesham and Moreton. The steady improvements in the level of service provided ever since have come on the back of increasing services at the intermediate stations, which have also benefited Worcester, whether or not Worcester is grateful for that. In the late 1970s, the entire service was something like seven or eight trains that made the stops you like, plus the Oxford-Moreton halts service, and Hanborough and Pershore were little better off service-wise than the halts. Honeybourne didn't even have a station.

I don't believe anyone would want to go back to that but I do believe that most people in Worcester and everywhere else on the rest of the line would rather have a regular, reliable and punctual service, running throughout the day, than a grandstanding train or two that cut 10 or 15 minutes off the typical timing.

Especially when redoubling offers the prospect of recouping a chunk of that time across the board anyway, instead of the erratic timings many trains suffer at present, especially for anyone travelling east from Worcester in the late afternoon and early evening - eg, it doesn't take 18 or 20 minutes to get from Hanborough to Oxford, or 50 minutes from Moreton to Oxford with two or three stops. Sorting out that kind of silliness is far more important, along with the options the new track gives the timetable planners to even out the intervals between trains in the peak and slot in extra ones if they think they can fill them - none of which you can do with things as they stand now.

PS Railheading may be the practice described, but what word other than railhead would you use to describe the places it happens at?

A couple of points, Andy.

Depending on where you look on the internet, the term 'Railhead' can mean all sorts of things. Wikipedia is not always 100% accurate.

On one site it has two different meanings: 1. a railroad depot in a theater of operations where military supplies are unloaded for distribution
2. the end of the completed track on an unfinished railway. (taken from http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/railhead.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/railhead.htm))

If you use either of those definitions then there are no passenger Railheads in the UK that I can think of. I would suggest that it is more in use in the USA as a term rather than in the UK.


As for the service along the Cotswold Line, I fully support the idea of a more intensive, quicker service on the Cotswold Line west of Moreton. My issue is how you achieve that aim whilst striking the best compromise between capacity and frequency. Warwick Parkway does indeed have an excellent train service to London. It didn't until the whole of the Chiltern Line was redoubled, and until the WHOLE of the Cotswold Line is redoubled AND the antiquated signalling at Worcester is replaced then you are not (in my opinion) going to be able to improve things too much.

It's at least 1h 30mins from Warwick Parkway to Marylebone plus at least 30 minutes drive from Pershore, so how is that 'far better' than the average of 2h 10 mins from Pershore? I can appreciate the frequency argument, and I can appreciate not wanting to travel that far on a turbo (although a Chiltern Clubman IS essentially a turbo) - bearing in mind many trains are HST's from Pershore offering a nicer environment than a Clubman.

Can I ask what sort of service from Pershore to London you would consider appropriate? What stops it would make, and what sort of journey time. After all, it's one of the three station on the route (with Hanborough and Honeybourne) that people on here are suggesting should see more trains missing stops.

The redoubling will result in a decrease in the journey time, achievable by removal of tokens, less waiting for other trains to clear single line sections, improved crossover speeds at places like Moreton and Ascott. But as I said, I doubt that wholescale removal of stops like Pershore, Honeybourne and Hanborough will take place as it doesn't provide the best compromise in my opinion.

I'm working on a sample timetable showing what might be achievable through the redoubling. Until then, feel free to show us what you think it should look like - and I don't mean a vague list of aspirational journey times. I mean a fully workable timetable which doesn't involve conflicts on the single line sections, AND works well with stock and crew diagrams. You'll find it rather a challenge - as I am finding out...  ;)

Writing a sensible timetable taking everything into consideration is a great task.  Hats off to "Industry Insider" for trying.  It will be interesting to see how yours compares with the one that FGW/NR will come up with.  Perhaps you could end up with a change of job.  ;D 

I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum that the redoubling won't improve journey times much at all.

I personally think that Worcester and Hereford need peak services with a journey time of 2 hrs or less to Worcester.

I think that Perhore, Honeybourne and Hanborough can cope with one less train each way a day! I am not suggesting a total removal of stops. FGW need to realise that patronage on the Western part of the line WON'T pick up until the journey times come down.

Worcester to London in under 2 hours via Cheltenham? One word - no. :o ???

Anyone on this thread use the train to get to one of the two business parks within a 5 min walk from Hanborough station?  The timetabling to and from Oxford is a nightmare - there's nothing between the 07:03 and 09:31 arrivals.

Apparently, the 08:04 (I think) Cotswold line departure from Oxford is banned from calling at Hanborough and Charlbury because if it gets delayed, it'll then delay the next train towards London.  Fair point - but why is that particular departure to London so important that it absolutely cannot be delayed - over and above any other London-bound trains which would also be delayed by late-running trains heading towards Worcester...?

Welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, James_H!  ;)

From your first posts, I'm assuming you're another Cotswolds Line user?

I rather regret that's an area of which I have no personal knowledge - so I will offer the services of our existing members on that line, to respond to the interesting points you have raised!

Cool - thanks.  And yes, I have the misfortune to be a morning commuter to Hanborough from the Oxford direction...

I've also been in contact with the CLPG about this as well - but happened to find this site by googling 'Cotswold line redoubling' - so thought I'd see if anyone else had any thoughts...

Hi, James. Basically that's the premier London service of the day and does contain a number of the most important people of the day (in their own opinion at least) heading towards London for a days business. The stops were removed as squeezing a train through the gap between the morning halts train from Worcester and this London train was causing problems and resulted in your 8am-ish train from Oxford causing a knock-on delay. The decision was taken (which on paper is quite sensible) to remove stops at Hanborough and Charlbury so that the train could still run. I can appreciate that for someone like yourself this is frustrating though.

The redoubling might make enough of a difference to allow these stops to be reinstated as your train only needs to get as far as Charlbury before the train coming the other way can pass it, rather than Ascott - that's a difference of about 10 minutes, so should allow ample time for service recovery if it's running a little late. If I were you I'd write to FGW now and suggest that this should happen - by all means use the information in my post to help your case!

Thanks, Don! I'll pass up any offers of a job in train planning though - a short stint in that department in the early days of my career was enough. I dread to think how much more complicated it's got since privatisation!  :o

James, as Industry Insider says the basic problem was that when this train was introduced in December 2007 (I'm pretty sure it was that timetable change) it did call at Hanborough and Charlbury but it kept suffering delays before it got to Oxford, which meant it was delaying the Cathedrals Express in turn, hence a swift switch to running non-stop to Kingham.

It should be added that FGW had been warned the delays might happen, as Thames Trains had tried running a service at a similar time a while back, which was removed at the next timetable change because it was holding up the London train.

You do raise a good point though, about the paucity of services out of Oxford heading west in the morning peak, just as there are related problems with the level of service from the Vale of Evesham into Worcester at that time. Another example, though it would be a seriously early passenger service if ran as such, is that the Turbo set forming the 5.37 from Moreton-in-Marsh to Worcester runs empty all the way from Reading depot to Moreton.

It isn't allowed to stop anywhere to get it to Moreton in plenty of time to ensure an-on-the-dot departure so it can squeeze through to Evesham between the first two trains from Worcester to London - so tight is the timing that it isn't even allowed to stop at Honeybourne, but it then sits at Evesham for 16 minutes until leaving at 6.07. Again not the greatest use of scarce resources but a way of working dictated by the single-line sections.

I look forward to seeing Industry Insider's solution to the conundrum.

That was the bit I found surprising - would have thought that the trains arriving at Paddington before 09:00 would be busier and therefore more important.  When the 08:58 arrival still existed, it wasn't too bad... but now most people appear to have started driving in, which is a bit of a shame.  Presumably running the fast train towards London 5-10 minutes later wouldn't work either... what's frustrating is that for the month I used the 08:13 arrival from Oxford, it was never more than 3-4 minutes late - or is even that short a delay long enough to cause problems...?

I've also heard rumbles that the new timetable is unpopular to the extent that they're thinking about dumping it and going back to the pre-December 2008 schedule - not sure of any truth in that though - plus I've just bought a car so I'm not too worried any more!  ;-)

I don't think they'll be able to revert, as LM have re-done the Worcester - Hereford timetable.

Unfortunately, the current timetable is pretty much stuck until the re-doubling.

Is this service you are talking about a Turbo?

Hi, James. Basically that's the premier London service of the day and does contain a number of the most important people of the day (in their own opinion at least) heading towards London for a days business.

And what's wrong with business people going to London to do business? I work for an engineering (ie manufacturing) company that supports 1000 jobs in the UK, from which we export shed loads, and employs a lot more in 34 countries around the world. I'm not an unreasonable person but there is a point at which time is money. The Cotswold line does not currently deliver what I need so I go elsewhere, much like my company's customers will do - that's business/life.

I wasnt suggesting cutting out Gloucester stops, these would be extra trains.  On Sundays in March according to the NR Timetable, There are one or two direct Hereford - Worcester - Cheltenham - Swindon- London trains.  The journey times are pretty quick on some - 17 minutes Worcester to Cheltenham and 40 minutes Cheltenham to Swindon.  Add an hour to get to London and thats sub 2 hours Worcester to London, which is what Worcester commuters are looking for !

Nothing. That's why I said that it was sensible on paper to run the train the other way non-stop from Oxford to Kingham so that it doesn't get delayed.

Hi II,
"Can I ask what sort of service from Pershore to London you would consider appropriate?" - strangely I'm not hooked up on a journey directly from Pershore, the reason being that once it stops at Pershore the train will inevitably stop at other similar stations that I do not believe warrant anything other than a minimum service for long distances. I would rather go on a train that southbound stops at Evesham, Moreton, Charlbury, Oxford, Paddington. This would meet the Hereford/Worcester requirements (and those travelling to Paddington from the stations the service called at).

"It's at least 1h 30mins from Warwick Parkway to Marylebone plus at least 30 minutes drive from Pershore, so how is that 'far better' than the average of 2h 10 mins from Pershore?" because if I travel on the Cotswold Line I add around 30 mins 'Cotswold time'. ie. if I go to London via Marylebone for a meeting in the city I would take a train that arrives 20 mins before the meeting - for Paddington I take a train that arrives around 45 mins before the meeting because I cannot rely on it arriving on time. I also know that the longest time I need to wait for a return train from Marylebone is 30 mins, I've had to wait almost 2 hours at Paddington in the past - all these factors add to your real journey time which is different to the timetable time.

"I can appreciate not wanting to travel that far on a turbo (although a Chiltern Clubman IS essentially a turbo) - bearing in mind many trains are HST's from Pershore offering a nicer environment than a Clubman."
It's all a matter of taste, the pre-refurbished HSTs were great but I hate the refurbished ones, seats too hard & upright, I find them slightly claustrophobic, I like to look out of the window and not see my reflection reminding me I've gone grey!! Any train the needs the lights on in broad daylight has a serious design problem IMHO. The Clubman, while slightly noisier, is a better environment, seating is around tables that can extend, aligned to windows you can see out of, power points for laptops etc at table level. You can in no way compare the Clubman with the Turbo in terms of passenger comfort and while the basic design of the HST is clearly superior the refurbishment has wiped out the advantage (IMHO).

Finally, I feel there were far better ways of redoubling. As an example - rather than redouble from Moreton to Evesham they had redoubled from Honeybourne to Pershore (pretty much the same distance) the maximum delay would have been approximately halved. Additionally you would not have had a station on the single line which further adds to delays. The same could apply to the eastern section, with more shorter single line sections minimising delays.

In terms of timetabling I've not got a clue where to start other than I'd look for a 'local' stopping service to service Oxford commuters that arrives a few minutes before the 'express', and vice versa in the evening. I see less importance during the day.

Finally, finally - have they ever considered splitting HST sets with a pair of DBSOs in the middle? There are some things to consider operationally (nothing that's not fixable) and could run an HST 'lite' on the upper reaches of the Cotswold line or other similar lines.

Could you actually give us the full detailed station by station timings for one of these trains please? The only train running through that I can find in FGW's timetable alterations section for March is on the 29th, leaving London at 18.37 and calling everywhere you would expect along the way, including Gloucester, and taking three hours, 10 minutes to reach Shrub Hill. Change at Didcot and go via the Cotswold Line and you get there in 2hrs 39mins. Both, of course, inflated Sunday timings.

And for all those who think a two-hour timing will suddenly bring hundreds of extra passengers out of the woodwork in Worcester, a cousin of mine did, for a time, semi-commute at his employer's expense from York to London - a two-hour run - but gave up in the end, because it was just too wearing travelling four hours a day, even on non-stop expresses. Worcester isn't regular London commuting territory and never will be.

A two-hour London run may bring back a few of the 'drive somewhere else' business travel brigade but I refuse to believe they are so numerous, or such frequent travellers, to be able to support a series of limited-stop trains, all day, every day. If FGW, Thames and BR before them had thought there was such a rich vein of revenue out there in Worcester, they would have structured the entire timetable around it long ago and left the rest of the route with a 1970s level of service. The current timetable isn't an accident, it's the result of careful analysis of travel patterns over many years - not some conspiracy against Worcester.

Similarly, the current redoubling design is the result of careful analysis, one of the conclusions of which, not surprisingly, was that two sections of single line were better than having three, whatever their length, due to the obvious risks of added delay at each single section - not least between Honeybourne and Moreton, where an ailing Oxford-bound HST running on one engine will lose time hand over fist climbing Campden bank, holding up anything trying to go the other way and anything following it - one of the ways that a problem with a single train can destroy the entire morning peak timetable at present.

With more single sections, you would also almost certainly lose the ability to offer a 15-minute interval service and with it the option of running an extra fast train or two in the peaks. A lot of money was spent computer-modelling all sorts of service options before this one was chosen.

The project is meant to provide reliability and punctuality and allow you to remove 'Cotswold time' from your calculations, because it seems to me that reliability, punctuality - and frequency - are what you value in your journeys with Chiltern, Andy. Whether FGW can find enough trains, offering the right quality for the route, at the right frequency, is the factor that is outside Network Rail's control. They seem confident they can deliver the other two.

Agree - then there are 2 dynamic passing loops, instead of 1 overlong one.

In the current plans, Worcester bound trains will still get stuck at Evesham waiting for late running London bound trains. Look at the diagram of passing places (which will be similar as trains will be hourly, so passing points are at 1/2 hourly intervals) on the CLPG website.

This problem was brought up by Tory MP, Peter Luff, after the re-doubling was announced.

Dont think we're ever going to agree on this willc but I do take your points, and at least a reliable hourly service stopping everywhere bar the halts is an improvement.  I really wish FGW had kept the Adelantes as with their automatic doors and faster acceleration they could have done Worcester to London in just over 2 hours with the same stopping pattern.  This could have been supplemented by two peak Hereford-London HST's that missed out Pershore, Honeybourne and Hanborough.  As it is, with HST's having them stop everywhere will mean 2h 15 timings at the best I'd imagine.

You asked about the timings for the direct Worcester-Cheltenham-London trains....I was lookign at the wrong timetable, it was last years December to May TT.  The timings there are :

dep Shrub Hill  17:25
arr Cheltenham 17:42
Depart Cheltenham 17:44
arr Swindon  19:25

So as you can see it would be possible to run Worcester to London in less than 2 hours this way, bearing in mind you can do Swindon-London in under an hour(current timetable shows trains taking 55 minutes with a stop at Reading)

Unless I am missing something, it would be 3 hours. (5.25 - 8.25)

That's longer than the slowest Cotswold service!

The current morning Cathedrals Express reaches London in 2hrs 13mins from Shrub Hill, inclusive of stops at Pershore and Honeybourne - and the five minutes' extra padding everything between Reading and Paddington has at that time of day.

The latter won't change soon, due to Reading rebuilding, but at present the train has to hit a meet at Evesham with the 5.42 from London and can still be delayed at Ascott by the 6.48 if that is late out of Oxford. The redoubling will make the whole timetabling situation far more flexible between Worcester and Oxford, so I think near two hours is feasible, all the more so if the extra train paths allowed another London through train in the peak (which simply isn't possible now) which could cover, for example, the Honeybourne call.

It may be harder to hit this time in the afternoon/evening, but the issue there is that return travel from London tends to spread out over a longer period, so stopping most trains at most places is a must and what people really value is being able to know there's something going their way leaving Paddington every 30 minutes.

But there's still plenty of scope for reductions on evening journeys too, again by removing pathing issues - eg at present, the 17.51 loses six minutes sitting at Oxford, four at Moreton and five at Evesham - all due to the single line sections - and is allowed 15 minutes Oxford-Charlbury, which should take 12mins, and then gets 18mins over a normally 12-minute run from Pershore to Shrub Hill. Lose all that and you're on 2hrs 8mins, missing Hanborough and Honeybourne, but calling at Shipton.

PS: I'm assuming you meant 18.25 for Swindon - but did it make any intermediate calls between Cheltenham and Swindon? Bypassing Gloucester would account for 10 minutes or so, but I can't see where the rest of the reduction comes from, compared with a typical run between Cheltenham and Swindon of just over an hour.

Yes I meant 6.25 at Swindon, sorry. 
That train is non-stop between Cheltenham and Swindon, which is what id propose if this was a regular service.  Gloucester and the other stations on that line are currently served hourly by a London train or a Cheltenham - Swindon stopper.

In theory HST timings should or could be something like this following redoubling :

Paddington  12:51
Slough  13:06
Reading   13:21
Oxford arr 13:45
          dep 13:47
Hanborough  13:56
Charlbury  14:04
Kingham  14:13
Moreton  14:21
Honeybourne  14:32
Evesham  14:39
Pershore  14:47
Shrub Hill  14:58

and going the other way....

Shrub Hill  14:23
Pershore  14:32
Evesham  14:40
Honeybourne  14:47
Moreton  14:58
Kingham  15:06
Charlbury  15:16
Hanborough  15:24
Oxford  arr  15:34
           dep  15:37
Reading  16:00
Slough  16:14
London  16:32

So theyd pass at Evesham and between Kingham and Charlbury, and fit into existing Oxford-London paths.  Is that do-able?

Appreciating (even if I don't personally agree with all of them) the points made by Andy, Burty, Btline, and others. I usually find myself agreeing with WillC's standpoint in most regards.  What might appear nice in principle just doesn't make sense commercially for FGW. And if it doesn't then it simply won't happen.
 
I shall be interested to see what you all make of my little timetable experiment. What little hair I had left is in serious danger of being ripped out. Squeezing in any extra trains, whilst taking into account the seriously restrictive single line sections from Evesham-Norton and Worcester-Henwick really are making it difficult to improve things too much - even with all this nice shiny new double track further up the line.

Burty76's timings are fairly close to the mark - though I would say there needs to be the odd minute or two here and there for padding. Something like a bike waiting in the wrong place, or a door being left open at the other end of the platform need to be allowed for, and with those timings there is no slack at all. I've nearly finished mine now though...

Interesting points Industry Insider.  And youre right I expect there will be more padding, which would take the timings up to the 2H15 mark as I suggested.  Thats too long IMO.
Looking forward to seeign your proposed timetable  :)

Is it seriously worth spending that amount of money on redoubling if it's not going to allow any extra trains... thought having an hourly service each way was the main reason for this? 

Also, what exactly is the 'Cathedrals Express'...?

My previous post wasn't too clear. I should clarify; You'll be able to get the hourly off-peak service with no major problems and most trains can be quicker - in some cases quite substantially. It's mainly the peak hour service that it's difficult to improve on - offering an improved local commuting service from/to Worcester for example.

Also, don't forget, the main reason for the redoubling (and the reason the ORR agreed to the funding for it) is that it should allow FGW's punctuality on the line to improve from the pretty dire state it's currently in to something percentage wise in the early 90's. Too many extra trains will simply negate any extra flexibility.

For example, you could, in theory, have an hourly stopping service from Oxford to Moreton and an hourly fast service allowing for through trains from London to Worcester to be speeded up. In practice that would mean the single line between Wolvercote and Charlbury being occupied by the four trains for nearly 50 minutes out of each hour, which gives no scope for service recovery when things go wrong. You can just about get away with that level of service in the peak hours - indeed you have to, but to operate it all day would be asking for trouble.

Prove it. It's not passenger numbers that are important it's revenue.

Take Hanborough, what is the split of Paddington vs Oxford Park and Ride customers?

There are no figures I've seen to make any bold commercial statement - what I can tell you is the 'business' traveller on expenses is far more likely to travel 1st class - ^129 lost Wos - PAD against ^3.70 (you surely don't travel 1st for Park & Ride) Hanborough - Oxford.

Lots of passengers does not necessarily mean lots of revenue.

Quite right. Though my current job within FGW has no responsibility for service development or revenue splits and so I am not able to prove anything. Many of the passengers at Hanborough joining the first services of the day are bound for London though - and importantly they're regular season ticket holders which pay their way far more than a business traveller from Worcester on an occasional basis would do, 1st class or not! If you have, say 20 people,  joining at Hanborough then that's not far short of ^100000 in the coffers a year for standard class. That equates to a lot of 1st class business travellers! And I would ask the question, is that revenue worth risking by taking out stops and banking on the few minutes saved bringing in lots of extra custom from Worcester? I would say not, but that of course is only my opinion.

FGW's money making machine is not stupid. If there's revenue to be had they'll sniff it out it they can. I'm sure if they had some spare HST sets, and up-to-date infrastructure then I'm sure they would introduce faster trains from Hereford & Worcester to London (although I think there would be juicier cherries to pick on other routes first). Until such a situation is reached then there will be little change in the stopping patterns of trains - that I would be prepared to bet on.

Hi II

Unfortunately there are too many assumptions:-
1. That there are 20 people with season tickets from Hanborough -
2. Even if there are and some trains skipped on to Oxford FGW would lose their custom as there are not really many options
3. That 'occasional' business travel is an unreliable income stream
4. ^100,000 is 'a lot of 1st class tickets.

Well on 1 there are no breakdowns so it may or may not be reasonable but on 2 it is very unlikely that the revenue to Paddington would be lost.

On 3&4 there is a significant number of people who travel from Worcester to London using Virgin / Chiltern - this is lost revenue. If you take an average fare of ^70 at peak hours you only have to lose six people per day to have lost ^100,000 p.a. I can assure you the number is far higher than 6.

It's nothing to do with spare HST sets - it's all to do with understanding your customers (or more importantly potential customers). It is understanding that there is nothing more frustrating than sitting at Hanborough for someone to get their bike on the train to see them get off again at Oxford.

Some interesting points there, but I wasn't using assumptions, Andy. I was using a figure (20) as an example of what revenue that would bring in. The real number of season ticket holders from Hanborough-London is (I assume  ;) ) more than 20. Then there's occasional people heading to Reading/London/elsewhere on business (+ then you add all the extra revenue, albeit smaller, to  Oxford as well of course). The main business train from Hereford and Worcester already misses Hanborough station, others stop there and I think that with the available infrastructure that is the best compromise.

The other options for Hanborough passengers would be to either drive to Charlbury (where there is no spare parking), drive into Oxford (when at peak times it is an absolute nightmare traffic wise), or drive to Bicester and use Chiltern. I'd suspect they'd do the latter - so you're simply swapping gains for losses.

The number of people using Warwick Parkway from the Worcester area may well be more than 6 per day, but do you really think that missing a couple of stops and saving, at the most, 10 minutes will make them all swarm back to FGW? I think a reliable service punctuality wise is what people are looking for and that (combined with journey time improvements brought about by the effects of the redoubling anyway) will do more to entice new/lost custom.

I agree that bicycles can be annoying, especially if they are on a short hop to Oxford, though Charlbury is the biggest source of bicycle related delays (that is actually based on delay data).

And again I must stress that if better infrastructure was in place then I would be fully supportive of a limited stops service from Hereford and Worcester to Oxford/London. However it's not, and it won't be anytime soon.

Exactly, they are doubling the wrong section - probably to cut costs. :(

You make a good point - it is not only the Norton - Evesham section that will delay trains, but the whole Worcester area. Seeing as the Worcester area will not be re-signalled for a while, I would have thought NR would double the Perhore to Honeybourne section. A small bit of single line between Morteon and Honeybourne would be fine, as train crosses will be nowhere near here and the Aston Magna curve can stay at its max speed. I would also benefit Pershore (having a second platform, footbrige etc).

However, trains will be crossing at Evesham and in the Worcester area, leading to delays. >:(

Fully expecting howls of execration, I think that a blanket ban on non folding bikes during peak hours seems sensible, but outside of the rush, the railway must also cater for leisure/off peak cyclists.  I am by no means anti bike, but I can't understand why dedicated cyclists don't either invest in a folding cycle or else fork out, (no pun intended), for 2 cheapo tredders,leaving one at either station as needed during the course of a commute.  BTW, I ride my trusty bike to the depot on an almost daily basis.

Few people do park and ride to Oxford from Hanborough at present - the service is too sketchy for one thing, eg nothing into the city from 8.01 until 10.16 - and the car park is usually full by the end of the peak anyway. The current passenger mix is typically local walk-up or dropped-off custom from the village into Oxford, as well as locals and park-and-riders (from the likes of Witney) heading to Reading and London.

If there was something like a 30-minute interval service most of the day, that might change things, but unless someone can find a way to solve the parking question at Hanborough, it will be
Oxford custom from the village itself that gets a boost, by providing a regular, reliable service.

And I should think there are considerably more than 20 London season ticket holders there. I don't have to do it at present but in the past quite often travelled into Oxford on the first two trains of the day. The numbers boarding at Hanborough and Charlbury were always substantial.

The first train only started at Moreton then, so earned its corn entirely on the basis of custom at the eastern end of the route, but knowing that this revenue is there is what has allowed FGW to experiment with starting the train from Worcester at 5am since December. Just like money earned here allowed the eventual provision of mid-evening trains from London all the way to Worcester.

Revenue is important, but guaranteed, steady revenue that season tickets and regular commuters bring is even more so. Business travel is nice money, but it's harder to predict and can't be relied on, especially in the current climate. Your first class business traveller from Worcester is unlikely to use the train every day, whereas every morning peak train calling at Hanborough will bring in that ^129 - and a deal more with London and Reading fares in the mix - five days a week.

If all these business travellers are so set against FGW as you suggest and have convinced themselves that driving all the way to Warwick or Birmingham International is a better option, even if some of us can't see any time advantage, I can't see how anything less than about 30 minutes off the Worcester timing would bring them back - and that can't happen without Reading rebuilding, Thames Valley resignalling, complete redoubling of the Cotswold Line, Worcester resignalling and electrification. Even then, the stations nearer to Oxford would still fill more seats and generate more revenue, day in, day out.

Btline, more single-line sections, whatever the length and wherever they are on the line, equal more potential for delay. It doesn't matter where the timetable says trains will pass - it's what happens when they hit problems that counts and the more bits of single line, the worse the problems get. And if Industry Insider had to factor another section into his calculations, then he certainly wouldn't have any hair left!

The example of an ailing HST v Campden bank that I cited earlier is pertinent in the context of your suggestion - it does happen from time to time and it does destroy the morning peak timetable. It would still do so, though perhaps not so completely, if the line remained single-track here.

The fundamental premise of the NR plan was not to allow lots of extra trains, or substantially faster trains - it was to deliver reliability and punctuality across the whole FGW network - that was the basis on which it was flagged up in NR's submissions to the ORR.

Are you seriously suggesting that you know better than people at Network Rail, who spent almost a year running through every conceivable option, including the kind of thing you favour?

PS for James: the Cathedrals Expresses - marked CE in the FGW timetable - are the 6.43 from Hereford and the 18.22 from London. The name is from the train serving the cathedral cities of Oxford, Worcester  and Hereford.

PPS: In theory, if one believes the black blobs on the timetable, then bikes should not be loaded at any Cotswold Line stop on the 5.17 from Malvern and both the Herefords. The rule has never been enforced as far as I can tell and is practically unenforceable, since there are no platform staff and the guards are always in the middle of the train operating the doors, nowhere near the TGS, so anyone with a bike has loaded it before the crew can get anywhere near. It's not worth the trouble stopping them, but nor is it the crippling problem some make it out to be here.

In my experience, bikes cause far more delays with Adelantes than HSTs, because the crew have to open the bike stowage area doors, while the automated doors on the coaches mean the guards are ready to despatch the train quicker. And if an Adelante turns up instead of an HST, the cyclists are usually waiting in the wrong place on the platform as well.

What do you mean? Redoubling Pershore to Honeybourne would make no difference to the timetable planning, as trains will not be timetabled to pass on that stretch. It does matter where trains pass, because they have to pass on double line, thus the timetable has to work with this. Trains will pass at Evesham. Under the current plans, Evesham will be at the end of a passing loop. My idea would be to put Evesham in the middle of the passing loop (thus making the loop "dynamic" in both directions).

What it would mean is less delays, i.e. Northbound services which will have to wait at Evesham for delayed southbound services (or have 15 mins padding, which is no better).

About trains breaking down - this can happen anywhere, and there would still be disruption (esp at peak times) if a train broke down on the double line. Yes - the route would not be blocked, but I am sure the lack of bi- directional signalling would make passing the broken train a long and slow process.

How often do trains break down here compared to trains get stuck at Evesham? Relatively few I expect.

And I am certain that NR only chose the current option to minimise costs (new platforms etc), which is not their fault.

I use the Cotswold line for business and leisure (approx twice a month) from Worcester, I'm not a commuter.  For me my priorities for the line are:
1. - Punctuality
2. - Frequency
3. - Journey Time

I doubt there are many daily commuters from Worcester to London (prepared to be shot down!), so I'd expect that most of my fellow travellers might have similar priorities.  If I have to be at a meeting at a certain time then that's when I NEED to be there.  Punctuality has to come first.
The current journey times beat car travel (for me) and although I find all the stops soul destroying, it doesn't stop punctuality coming first.

So I support NR's efforts to improve punctuality without necessarily improving journey times.

Welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, Not from Brighton - and thanks for your input to this topic!

In principle, I'd agree - if I need to get to a meeting somewhere, I want to be sure I'll get there on time: whether it takes two hours or three hours is a pain, but not quite so critical.

 ::)

What I meant was - and I thought it was pretty clear - was that it doesn't matter where trains are timetabled to pass under normal circumstances. In theory, the current timetable is fine when all goes well, even if many journey times leave much to be desired.

But when things go wrong on a busy line with a series of single-line sections, then problems pile up. Have another of these - big or small - then when there is a problem it will exacerbate resulting delays.

The long double track stretch will help to minimise knock-on delays, as trains on the other line can just keep moving. If a single-line section is blocked/occupied then they can't - and the delays pile up, particularly between Moreton and Evesham.

There will still be crossovers at Moreton and new ones at Honeybourne (hopefully Evesham too), so with single-line pilot working, you would still be able to keep things moving if a train did break down and block one line.

And such situations are very much the exception - the fundamental problem and the one that Network Rail set out to solve was everyday punctuality and reliability and they concluded that 32 miles of double track in the middle of the line was the way to achieve this. Fewer single-line sections equals less waiting around.

As for 'dynamic' loops, Ascott to Moreton was one long before anyone coined the phrase, and they aren't really very dynamic. They are just long loops. If the single line at either end is occupied, then you still have to wait to use it. Most trains are currently timetabled to meet at Moreton and near Shipton anyway, which might not appear the most effective use of the double section. I would hope that in future train meets can be arranged a bit further east than Evesham, to give some extra time margin, as passing at the station would just be replicating the current Shipton/Ascott scenario, where a train only a minute or two late starts to delay one going the other way.
 

Will, the maximum impact ' delay' that can be caused by a single line (excluding a train failing on that section) is directly proportional to the length of the line plus the number of stops on the single section.

At present the maximum delay on the Evesham section is when a train is waiting at Moreton for a late running train to leave Evesham. In that scenario not only is it a long section (13.5 miles) but also the train stops at Honeybourne - add 5 mins (?) including slowing & accelerating.

There is a not dissimilar problem Evesham - Norton Junction - (10.6 miles) with Pershore in between.

If they doubled Pershore - Honeybourne - (10.5 miles) they would have the following advantages:-

The maximum delay would be Honeyboune - Moreton - (8.5 miles) so less that the delays today with no station stops - rather that the current plan which is Evesham - Norton (10.5 miles PLUS the stop at Pershore).

I hope that is clear.

Now that is a total of 10.5 miles, 3.5 miles less than the 13.5 miles Moreton - Evesham that is being done - so the improvements that would be needed at Pershore could be offset by doubling less track!!!

However I would go further - rather than double Ascott - Charlbury - I'd double Charlbury - Hanborough.

If this was done you'd not have Finstock, Coombe &  impotrantly Hanborough on single line. At present they are adding 3.7 miles of double line from Ascott - Charlbury. The distance from Charlbury - Hanborough is 6.2 miles so I'm suggesting an extra 2.5 miles i.e. I've already saved 3.5 miles of doubling Evesham - Honeybourne so use that budget.

So what now is your maximum delay on the eastern end - you've 2 single sections 3.7 miles Charlbury - Ascott (with one station Ascott)
and 3.7 miles Hanborough - Wolvercote - far better that what they are doing - 9.9 miles with 3 stations, 1 of which is frequently used.

Now there would be additional cost for the stations but the advantage is huge.

As you say it's about punctuality and that ensures that delays are kept to a minimum.

You see William, like many things in life, it's not so much about length but how you use it!!

As promised here is an example of how the Cotswold Line timetable could be improved following the redoubling of track just east of Evesham station through to Moreton-In-Marsh, and also between Ascott and Charlbury.  I MUST STRESS THAT THIS IS IN NO WAY AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, JUST MY ATTEMPT TO SHOW WHAT COULD BE DONE.

It is based on the following assumptions and aspirations:
1) It assumes the removal of token working along the line.
2) It makes near maximum use of track capacity, but is fully workable within the single line constraints that would still exist.
3) It is also fully workable in terms of stock diagrams.
4) It assumes the use of HST^s on most services, backed up by some Turbo^s where appropriate, and that Adelante^s are no longer available for use.
5) It attempts to address the following issues, compromising where appropriate:
     a)     An increase in off-peak frequency to 1 train per hour (tph) throughout the majority of the day.
        b)   A more ^clockface^ pattern of trains, so that customers will find the service easier to interpret and plan for.
        c)     An increase in peak services, especially at the western end of the line, to offer a more attractive commuting service between Honeybourne, Evesham and Pershore to Worcester.
        d)   A decrease in journey times where possible:
                1)   Most off-peak trains from London-Worcester are between 5 and 15 minutes quicker than they are now. Most off-peak trains from Worcester-London are between 5 and 10 minutes quicker than they are now.
                2)   Peak trains are also quicker. The two principal Hereford-London trains would be 15 and 7 minutes quicker than at present. The two principal London-Hereford trains would be 15 and 18 minutes quicker than at present.
                3)   Headline timings of 2hrs 3 minutes from London to Worcester (Shrub Hill) and 2hrs 56 from London to Hereford. Still slower than timings from the previous decade, but with additional stops still included.
        e)   Services between London and Hereford are increased from 5 per day to 7 per day and are much better spread to give a roughly 3-hourly direct service.
        f)   Services between London and Great Malvern are increased from 10 to 16 per day.
        g)   Services between London and Worcester are increased from 16 to 20 per day, with all except two running through to Foregate Street.
        h)   Additional trains in the peak hours running between Moreton-In-Marsh and Didcot Parkway which has been discussed as an aspiration for the new service.
        i)   No stations get a reduction in trains. I think ALL stations have an overall increase in the number of train stopping, except for Combe and Finstock which retain the current service on 1 train a day in each direction.

There are limitations in so much as the London Midland service between Worcester and Hereford would need to be altered (although no reduction in frequency would be needed), and also the services down from London to Oxford would usually run at xx:12 rather than xx:22.

Your comments on the timetable are of course welcome!

Click on the links below for details:

Down direction: http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=95999_Cotswold_Line_-_Down_122_764lo.jpg (http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=95999_Cotswold_Line_-_Down_122_764lo.jpg)
Up direction: http://img194.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=96008_Cotswold_Line_-_Up_122_43lo.jpg (http://img194.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=96008_Cotswold_Line_-_Up_122_43lo.jpg)

Andy,

It's not about length, it's about simplicity. How on earth adding another single-line section is supposed to help matters is quite beyond me. This isn't the West Highland Line, with three or four passenger trains a day and the odd freight or two in the very large gaps between passenger trains - it's a busy line now, which is likely to get busier.

Just to repeat for the umpteenth time - Network Rail computer-modelled every conceivable combination they could, multiple loops and all, including what happens if things go wrong - and ended up binning the rest. Why? Because the chosen scheme is simple and operationally straightforward and most likely to produce the reliabilty and punctuality they want.

Single-line; loop; single-line; loop; single-line, loop; single-line - of random lengths (the combination you seem to favour if I'm reading it correctly) isn't a recipe for reliability or fast recovery from problems - lots of switches between double and single track equals lots of potential for conflicts the minute trains aren't in their booked path.

Would you want to be the person in the signal box trying to sort out the morning or evening peak service when something goes wrong, with the sort of track layout you suggest? I wish you luck.

On a more positive note, I think Industry Insider deserves congratulations for his efforts, which make a lot of sense and show what the NR plan could deliver.

I'll forgive him for not trying to weave in Moreton-Didcot shuttles off-peak too, since trying to run them on a regular hourly pattern looks a bit of a challenge. And hopefully Turbo (3) can become new 2+2-seated DMU (4).

I'd make the following observations:

Out of London - there really needs to be a through service from London somewhere in the gap between the 15.51 and the 17.22 - preferably a 16.51 - that gap is just too long and puts too much pressure loading-wise on the other two trains. And not entirely sure if it would be worth that 19.25 from Didcot, though if it made a slick connection from a Bristol or Cheltenham train at Didcot it could be handy for anyone who missed the 18.22. In this direction perhaps also a morning westbound train from Shipton (stop by the 07.12?) and a mid-afternoon call (by the 14.10? a long-standing tradition that got axed recently) to give people the chance to get to Worcester and the West Midlands that way and back from Oxford or London earlier. Definitely on the right lines in terms of morning services into Worcester, though that early train towards Worcester should call at Honeybourne since the current timing constraint would be removed. But I would say that the 19.22 should remain the last Hereford train - 23.30 is too late to reach Hereford - an hour earlier feels better and you would be in time for the last buses from the city centre. The 07.12 should stop at Hanborough to allow out-of-Oxford commutes - or get a Moreton shuttle moving out of Oxford as the Cathedrals Express is running in - to give a Hanborough arrival before 9am.

Out of Hereford/Worcester. 04.52? Are there really that many insomniacs in Hereford? But the roughly three-hour journey times are good psychologically/marketing-wise. And again at Shipton I'd try out a call by the 09.25 ex-Malvern to give a direct off-peak journey into London from the Wychwoods, even if there was to be an Oxford/Didcot shuttle calling regularly (Shipton and Milton-under-Wychwood have a rather bigger population than Honeybourne). I would also observe you probably would want to do a bit better for late-afternoon/early-evening Hanborough to Oxford services, even with the looming pressure of the trains going the other way - as was noted by others earlier, people do travel out of Oxford to work at Hanborough and need to get home. And why not run that 17.45 Malvern-Moreton in passenger service to Oxford, even if it is held a while to allow the 18.22 to reach Charlbury? You can probably take a couple of minutes off a non-stop Oxford-Charlbury HST too, as they can manage 12 or 13 minutes without too much trouble given a clear run through Wolvercot junction - padding has slipped in here recently.

Thanks for the feedback, Will. Your suggested tweaks are by and large very sensible - and I'm sure others could think of more. I'm pleased that the general base of the timetable fits quite well with you though.

As for the 04:52ex Hereford, it's hardly going to be full and standing of course, but it was included as the stock stables at Hereford overnight at the moment, so (as with the 05:20ex Oxford the other way), it was a case of 'why run empty stock when you could have passengers on board? The same applies with the 20:22ex Paddington which ends up forming that return working the next day.

I did try and slot another service in from Moreton to Didcot (stopping at the usual stops and Shipton and Ascott) around 10am which would be useful for shoppers and take a bit of pressure of the following turbo (09:25 ex Gt.Malvern). But in the end the pattern of trains through the Charlbury-Wovercote section meant that is would have been very tight in terms of getting a train through the other way to form it, and then back through between the hourly fast off-peak service. That would also be the case the rest of the day and would impact badly on the 90+PPM aspirations that have led to the money being spend in the first place, so I rejected it.

Still, the timetable planners in FGW and NR might be able to do some wizardry - I'll be very interested to see what they come up with!

A small point - if I'm reading everything right - the xx:12 slot might be a bit hard to path without a significant recast on other GWML routes! Especially with the stop at Slough, it would hold up the xx:15 Cardiffs. Ideally, as the trains that run on the main lines but stop before Reading, the Oxford/Cotswold trains will depart shortly after a non-stop Reading, and before the next Heathrow Express (as they provide a 'buffer' before the next non-stop HST).

With the 'primary' HSTs leaving at xx:00/15/30/45 (and a few others like Cheltenhams and Plymouth/Penzance a few minutes later)and HEx at xx:10/25/40/55, the ideal slot for Oxford/Cotswold trains is the current xx:22/52ish or something like xx:07/37.

RE timetable slots, as I understand the present situation, the Oxford/Cotswolds trains are pretty much the first to be written in when the timetable out of Paddington is drawn up, due to the problems with pathing trains through the single-line sections, so don't be surprised if there is a wider shake-up of FGW services once that issue is resolved, or at least greatly eased, when the redoubling is complete.

Belated add and getting a bit off topic, but I think it illustrates the kind of tidying-up further afield that may become possible thanks to the redoubling - it is to be hoped that they can make adjustments to Oxford services in general, because at present the fasts from Paddington at 22 and 52 minutes past the hour are followed just five minutes later by the stoppers. By Reading, the following fast train has caught the stopper and they then depart almost simultaneously from Reading. Surely it would be desirable to arrange matters so that someone joining a stopper at Maidenhead and Twyford had the chance to switch to the fast service at Reading?

Same kind of bunching applies to departures from Oxford, with the 01 and 31 minutes past fasts followed by 07 and 37 stoppers and the same issue of departure times at Reading occurs eastbound, so you can't catch a fast from Oxford and join the preceding stopper if you want to go on to Twyford or Maidenhead, as there's only two or three minutes gap between them.

I think we're forgetting that the Cathedrals Express did use to run from London to Worcester in 1hr59. If I remember rightly, it was written into Great Western Trains' original service level commitment that there would be at least one such out/back service every day.

The stopping pattern at the time was London-Oxford-Charlbury-Kingham-Moreton-Evesham-Worcester Shrub Hill and onwards. One thing that's changed since then, of course, is the inclusion of a Reading stop, which makes a lot of sense given the town's rise as a commuter destination.

No-one's forgetting what used to happen - indeed those from the west of the line wish it were still so. But when that timing applied, the Cotswold HSTs weren't locked into the standard pattern and timings for Oxford-London fast trains, which they are now, and the typical 55-minute time for that leg (as opposed to past timings in the 45 to 50-minute range) and the current constraints and padding on the Cotswold Line mean getting near to two hours is quite an ask. Industry Insider's efforts show that the redoubling will speed up operations west of Oxford and bring that mark back in range.

New dates for the redoubling roadshows/meet the manager are as follows:

Evesham - Monday 30th March 1830-2000hrs
Kingham - Tuesday 31st March 0700-0830hrs
Moreton - Tuesday 31st March 1900-2030hrs
Charlbury - Wednesday 1 April 0700-0830hrs

The whole situation with morning timings from Oxford to Hanborough is just plain daft.

What they obviously need to do is to get the Cotswold line train that leaves Oxford around 08:00 onto the single line earlier, which would obviously involve getting the train that stops off at every single station off the single line earlier.

Why can't they just delete a few stops from this service and get it off the line.  Does Hanborough really need a train into Oxford at 07:34 and another one at 08:01?  Why can't they just send the second of these through Hanborough non-stop and get the northbound train onto the line earlier?

Alternatively, what is the point of Combe and Finstock stations?  I often ride the 06:53 from Oxford as far as Charlbury, go to the Co-op and then get the 07:48 (I think) back to Hanborough - more often than not, no-one gets on at either station (and it's never once been more than a total of three people at both stations combined) - so in all honesty, what's the point in having them?  There are a lot more than 3 people who want to go from Oxford to Hanborough at that time in the morning...!

Alternatively, maybe they could just bring the whole service forward by 5 minutes or so (although I guess this may well be impossible due to the single track sections)... but it's really hard to believe they honestly can't do better than a 2 and a half hour gap.

Rant over...

Well, the adverse publicity (and the sheer effort) that would have to go in to close them will probably prevent it from ever happening. The only chance would be if the remaining stretch of the line is redoubled and FGW puts a case towards the Government that it would be financially prohibitive to provide the additional platforms that would be needed.

Passenger number are very low- I would say an average of 5 per-day between the two stations. I've never seen more that 10. But, I doubt that there's many more than a handful who would want to make the Oxford to Hanborough journey - certainly not enough to use that as an excuse to close Combe and Finstock.

Certain forum members, such as Lee Fletcher, oppose any attempt to close a station (unless an improved facility is provided literally right by it) and I admire his stance, though in the case of Combe and Finstock they ARE clearly a burden on FGW financially and operationally AND are very close to alternative stations -

* Finstock is under 3 miles away by road (B4022) from Charlbury station for both Finstock and Fawler villages that it serves.

* Combe village is 2.5 miles away from Hanborough station via road, but Combe station is 1 mile away from Combe village anyway, so it's only an additional 1.5 miles.

In either case, there certainly would be no case whatsoever for a new station, but as I said I doubt either will be closing any time soon!

I'd be interested to know what the true costs and impacts on the timetable of keeping stations at Appleford and Culham; particularly the former as it is so close to Didcot. e.g if Appleford and Culham were closed, would enough additional capacity be available to provide more stops at Radley, for example, or to stop more Reading-Oxford fast services (e.g XC) at Didcot as well?

If/when they re-double past Finstock, it will probably close because the platform is on the trackbed!

The only halt definitely worth keeping open is Shipton - hence it is the only one served by more than one train. Ascott is too close to Shipton to warrant any more stops. I think that Shipton should be developed more now, with more parking to encourage more custom - ready for the Morteon - Didcot stoppers.

Perhaps Coombe would be worth keeping open (esp if Finstock were axed) but only with more parking, to get more custom when the new stoppers come.

I'll repeat what I said a few months ago: Surely it would be better for, say, 2 of the halts to be closed, and extra trains calling at those which remain. I would expect the locals would prefer having their station with 2 trains a day (but perhaps another mile's drive away) than just a single train at their local station (probably a mile's drive away).

I, too, am primarily against rail closures - but these are the exceptions to the rule. If they had not been in a marginal constituency in the 60s, they would be long gone; one case where Beeching was right (clearly, as passenger numbers are still low, despite the growth in rail travel).

It seems mad that FGW can't get the TransWilts up and running (ok - perhaps that's stock issues more than cash), but is spending money on 3 stations which serve a handful of people a year.

For interest, entries and exits for each station:-

Combe 2042  (-22%)
Finstock 1095 (-5%)
Appleford 8,183 (-22%)
Culham 46832 (+4%)

Remember that every 1040 entries and exits equates to 10 return journeys per week, or 2 per day.

So if the inclusion of the Finstock and Combe stocks has a detrimental impact on the overall performance of the Cotswold Line, one could argue a good case for closing them. Railways need to be dynamic, and sometimes this does mean making changes that at face value seem a backward step.

Combe in particular has nothing within walking distance, and Hanborough close by. Finstock is far enough from the village it serves that most people would jump in the car, and even though the alternative is not quite as convenient as in Combe's case. it's still only 2 miles away.

Interesting- thank you. Sorry if silly question, but what do the percentages refer to?

I'd strongly agree with that last point. If providing services at little used stations makes it too expensive to enhance services at much busier stations, or where there is far more potential for growth, then it is not sustainable to keep them without very good reason.

Not a silly question, answer is change over previous year.

There's evidence. No reduction in service at Coombe and Finstock, but a drop in passenger numbers!

It's Combe! Coombe is on the Looe branch line in Cornwall.

We've had this discussion about the halts before and I've said before that when passengers numbers are low to start with, then a change in the travelling habits of one or two people can send the figures up and down wildly from year to year, which is what will have happened at Combe.

If there were any common sense about it, then the two would close - and there's no parking at either because they were thrown up as bargain-basement roadside halts by the GWR - but as Industry Insider says, there's politics to consider. The past closure proposals were rejected because the bus services were no great shakes, even if the stations were a hike from the villages. Stagecoach now serves Combe village roughly hourly much of the day on Oxford-Charlbury services and Finstock village is linked by the railbus to Charlbury station, so closure may be less of an issue now but it won't be happening any time soon.

Amid all the chaos of recent times, the halts trains have been among the most punctual of the lot, especially since the afternoon working went back to starting at Oxford. Impact on other services is usually minimal, even allowing for the extra time taken to clear the single line. When it runs late, that's usually because of disruption to London-bound morning HSTs knocking on or late arrival of the connection from London in the afternoon.

South of Oxford, Appleford acts as a handy relief valve for Didcot, where there is enormous pressure on parking, and Culham isn't just used by people going into Oxford, Reading and London. There is quite a respectable flow to Culham of people working at the Culham Science Centre and business parks there.

Probably worth Ascott getting an extra train or two post-redoubling, even if as an experiment. It's well-sited, right next to the village, and there are precious few buses, other than the odd Charlbury or Kingham railbus. 

If the line is every redoubled through the halts that will be the time to do it. Given it costs millions these days to build a platform (a different debate, to do with privatisation, elf 'n' safety and builing frogs, but that's the reality), could you justify building the extra platform at each station for 2 passengers a day.

 

I understand that NR is evaluating the option of complete replacement of the signalling along the route as part of the redoubling. This would see closure of the 'boxes at Evesham, Moreton and Ascott, with modern signalling controlled from the new Didcot centre. Intermediate signals on the single line stretches would allow flighting of services at much reduced headways.

Sorry - typo! (although arguably, both Co(o)mbes should close!)

I can't see the benefit of Ascott getting extra trains. Yes it is right near the village, but it is also so close to Shipton station.

The only lines which can support stations as close, are ones in fully built up areas.

I wasn't suggesting vast numbers of extra trains at Ascott but given that the village is thought worth serving with the railbuses for much of the day, then why not give them a better train service? Particularly for travel into and back from Oxford.

While someone off to London would probably drive to Charlbury, if you're going to Oxford and don't like buses (and a lot of people in this country don't) you may well just drive all the way once you're in the car. Time-wise, the train wins hands down against a car on the journey between Ascott and Oxford, thanks to a far more direct route.

The present level of service is pretty much dictated by the fact that there's no possibility of running an extra train in the peaks and stops at Ascott occupy the single line as well. The one train a day service is a legacy of the 1969 BR cuts and Pershore and Hanborough were treated in just the same way at that time. As both those stations show, put on more trains and the chances are more people will use them.

And the likelihood of people using them at Ascott is far higher than at Combe or Finstock, since the station is actually in the village.

While it may be close to Shipton, the road journey between Ascott and Shipton stations is rather less direct than that by rail, so even if there was a better service available from Shipton, if you get in the car to start with, the temptation/incentive to complete your journey by car is there straight away. The point is trying to change people's habits.

There are plenty more than 5 people that would use a service arriving at Hanborough from Oxford... before the 08:58 arrival was scrapped in favour of the 09:31, around 20 people used to arrive daily.  I've not used the 09:31 much but on the couple of occasions I have, no more than 4 or 5 people got off at Hanborough.  Whose boss is prepared to accept them arriving at nearly quarter to ten... and from I've heard, the 09:31 has a reputation for being late more often than not(!)

The fact that a lot of the stations are served by the Railbus (which doesn't serve Hanborough) makes the huge gap in service all the more frustrating...

I can see your point. Although the reason why Pershore and Honeybourne passenger nos have gone up is due to their size (compared to Ascott).

I was thinking proportionately, both in terms of numbers of trains and likely custom. It couldn't possibly support the number of stops that Hanborough and Pershore can but I'm sure there are people living in Ascott whose journeys don't fit around that one train each way at present, but who would like the opportunity to just walk down the road and get the train.

Just as there were those like James who had a service and lost it, for reasons of operational convenience for FGW and Network Rail, not because it wasn't being used.

Hopefully, these kinds of things can be addressed from the end of next year - and FGW remembers to tell people about the service it is offering, so they can make back some of the money that Network Rail will have to spend on a second platform at Ascott.

Fingers crossed, it will be built long enough to take a three-car Turbo - and while they're at it, maybe they could take the opportunity to add the few extra metres on to the existing one that are needed to allow three-car sets to stop there - and do the same on the Oxford-bound platform at Shipton.

Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate

I had thought that the rail industry had progressed beyond the 14th century but maybe not.
Let's hope they didn't use the same computer that they used to plan the WCML upgrade.

At the Peak time on II's proposed timetable there are 10 trains in 3 hours (16:00 - 19:00) ie one every 18 mins. It will not exceed this until full re-doubling - that is not heavy usage even though it is hundreds of miles south of the Highlands.


The key if flexibility - and most important the maximum impact that late running can cause. The Willc / Network rail solution maximises the impact - and worse still on/off the junctions at Wolvercote & Norton.

As I said earlier one train in 18 mins should not cause too much difficulty, I have far more respect for the signaling staff than you / Network rail clearly have.

Endless potential for conflict where loops start and end is not flexible - it just piles delay on delay as soon as one train is out of sequence. If it's so easy as you seem to believe to run a railway with lots of loops every few miles, why don't they all look like that?

Think how much they could save without all that pesky double track to look after - the kind of thinking which got the Cotswold Line where it is now in the first place.

As for respect for signallers, the Network Rail - nothing to do with me - solution means that if there is a problem train, then the signallers and other staff can focus on sorting that out, while the service on the other line can take care of itself using the long double track section. Throw in lots of loops and keeping everything else moving is going to be what occupies the signaller, never mind that if a failure happens on single line, or something is limping up Campden bank, then everything grinds to a halt anyway - again double track keeps the service moving and offers the option of wrong-line working in emergency - that's flexibility.

More dribs and drabs of info about redoubling as a result of an announcement from DafT apparently linked to a visit to the area today by Lord Adonis, just that DafT forget to tell us media types it was happening and then put out a sketchy announcement at 5pm on a Friday.

What it does confirm is that resignalling will go ahead, with the line being controlled from the new Thames Valley signalling centre at Didcot, with Ascott, Evesham and Moreton boxes to close, and that the running speed through the points in and out of the single line sections at Charlbury and west of Evesham will be 70mph.

And no firm budget figure yet, just "more than ^50m".

As an aside I have been doing some unscientific, glance at watch, timings this week of trains between Wolvercot and the Cornbury Park road bridge where the single line will end - Turbos on the 8.52 from Malvern, with a Hanborough intermediate stop, manage it in 10 minutes, while tonight 180104 on the 17.51 ran from a standing start at the signal just before the junction non-stop to Charlbury station in eight minutes, so a notch over seven minutes to clearing the place the point will be. The driver was pushing hard, as we were late due to knock-on delay from the 17.22 but 180s have done similar times all week.

Although I haven't been on an HST, I know full well - and it was the booked timing for many years - that a non-stop Oxford-Charlbury run, with a clear run through Wolvercot junction, can and should be done in 12 minutes, again around about eight minutes over what will remain as the single line. Allowing for a Hanborough stop, say another three or four minutes, even an HST will be off the single-line in 11 or 12 minutes - a clear improvement on the 18 or so that is allowed at present for Wolvercot-Ascott - so the possibility of pushing through four trains an hour is there.

And the same will apply at the other end of the line too - on rather more gently graded track than that facing a westbound train from Wolvercot - for Hanborough stops read Pershore.

In the current climate much as I would like 4 tph I can't see anyone trying to push 4 tph through this section because of the tight margins on clearing the single line particulay with a Hanborough stop.

Bearing in mind that at Wolvercote an up train has to have clear run across the down Banbury (although that should not be a problem if trains are on time as it should be an down Cotswold waiting to get onto the single line)  and onto a clear Up line, no late running XCs.

If there were  intermediate sections both ways on the single line it might be possible to flight two trains in the same direction one after each other within 30 minutes. Thus get 4 trains an hour, 2*2 although whether this makes for a viable timetable I'm not sure. Can you fit an up all stations Charlbury Oxford in front of a Charlbury Oxford fast within 30 minutes? In the Down direction the stopper follows the fast.

The other way of ensuring 4 trains an hour in alternate directions is to double half to a mile from Wolvercote to allow the Down trains onto the single line whilst the Up train waits to cross the junction. This slightly shortens the running time on the single line and gives more leeway with late running trains as the Down train can enter the single line as soon as the Up train has cleared the point rather wating until it's  crossed the junction. It should give enough extra minutes spare to get 4 tph in alternate directions through with confidence.

Well, when Network Rail announced the scheme, they said the track layout could handle 4tph and on the basis of the running times I noted, it certainly could with punctual running, of the kind FGW and NR now seem to have got the hang of - even with four HSTs all stopping at Hanborough, not a traffic pattern you are ever likely to see.

Given there is to be new signalling - which, as Oxman previously suggested, brings the prospect of intermediate signals within the single sections - you could indeed flight following trains, which would be of particular value in the morning peak, when the traffic flow towards Oxford and London is concentrated into a shorter space of time and pathing trains running against the flow is most difficult.

Nothing is going to happen at Wolvercot junction because you can't touch the Oxford signalling system, plus the single-lead junction pointwork was relaid at great expense a couple of Christmases ago to allow trains heading towards Oxford to run faster.

Weekday mornings we already have that, with the first two trains - the 05:02 Worcester - Paddington is followed by the Great Malvern - Paddington (leaving Worcester at 05:36) and arriving at Oxford at 06:25 & 06:53. And then nearly an hour later, the stopper follows the Hereford - Paddington arriving in Oxford at 07:46 and 08:11 respectfully.

One assumes with less and shorter single line sections, that four trains per hour in one direction may well be an option.

After a number of accidents particulary in Scotland didn't HMRI suggest that single lead junctions although cheap weren't the best thing since sliced bread and recommended that they be no longer installed and replaced where possible? Yet Wolvercote was renewed a couple of years ago.

Comundrum which contributes more to the smooth operation of the railway and its overall safety, abolition of single lead junctions or platform end fences?

A friend of mine has come up with a variation of Parkinson's law "Work expands to fill the time available" namely:

 Health and Safety expands until it is no longer safe or healthy.

Wolvercot isn't strictly a single lead, as the 'branch' line itself - the Cotswold Line - is single track. In the case of Bellgrove in 1989, which I think you're referring to, that was where the branch point was single, but the 'branch' immediately divided back into double track. And I'm sure the apparently prohibitive expense of doing anything to the signalling kit at Oxford was a factor when the renewal was done, just as it was when the redoubling was being designed.

Returning to a couple of points touched on a while back. I was passing through Aston Magna yesterday and stopped to get out to have a look at the curve and surrounding area.

I'm not sure there's going to be any significant reduction in speed there - the current track sticks pretty tightly to the inside of the curve and is heavily canted and there looks to be room to lay the second track on the outside. The only problem may be through the road bridge at the Moreton end, as the track is laid towards the centre here at present, though removal of the disused abutments of another bridge just beyond it and moving the track across would allow a slightly straighter approach from Moreton.

The water feature on the map someone asked about was I think something to do with the old brickworks but is now an angling lake for the Shipston-on-Stour angling club.

And if you're interested in Brunel's wooden viaducts, I came across a book called Brunel's Timber Bridges and Viaducts, by Brian Lewis, published by Ian Allan in 2007. Lots of photos, many taken when replacements in stone, brick and metal were starting to go up and lots of drawings showing how they were put together, including old ones from Network Rail's plans office at Swindon and, in the case of the Black Country section of the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton, the original colour-wash drawings, which are held in the National Archive.

Would tend to agree on the Aston Magna curves. As I passed through yesterday, from what I could see in remaining daylight the track seemed to stick pretty much to the inside of the curve.

4tph on both remaining single sections would indeed be possible, though probably not for prolonged periods due to the fact the scheme is being funded to improve the PPM rating and that would probably be jeopardised with such an intensive service outside of the peak hours.

The renewals to the points at Wolvercote Junction were just a straight replacement and no increase in linespeed resulted. It's still 40mph both ways. You could probably knock that up to 50 or maybe 60mph but the sharp curve immediately after the junction would prohibit anything higher.

Has the 25mph restriction in the down direction at Norton Junction been mentioned at all in the press releases you've seen, Will? That could really do with a new 70mph cross over too.

Surprised the Wolvercot speed limit wasn't raised, Oxford-bound HSTs always seem faster through there. Maybe that's just that the crossover looks slightly longer than its predecessor, so making progress a bit smoother. I would have thought 45-50mph was feasible.

Nothing about Norton that I've seen, which makes me suspect it's going to be left until renewal work there comes due, or Worcester resignalling, whichever comes first, though I will take the opportunity of the roadshow visit to Moreton station next week to ask the question of Network Rail's representatives.

I suppose 4tph may be handy if XC are ever to use the line for diversions, clearances permitting - at least they would be running through flat out, so eight minutes or so for single-line transits, given that performance of a Voyager would be akin to an Adelante. Would be interesting to see what a non-stop Oxford-Worcester run would work out at.

Simple - because they didn't start in the mess that the Cotswold line is currently. It does not pile on delay at all it reduces delay which is,within reason, directly proportional to the length of single line


Gibberish, The Cotswold line got into a mess by people who's agenda was nothing to do with railway operations which is why people are now trying to undo the damage they did, not just on the Cotswold line.


I assume you are not suggesting that while one train limps up Camden Bank another runs wrong line to overtake it? The problems 'limping up Camden Bank are rare. The problem is far more general - why on earth does a single length offer wrong line working while multiples wouldn't? As for stranded trains - again multiple loops would impact less line.
Three 'loops' each many miles long - keeping stations on the double track - not on the single would be far more effective than we plan which both maximises the length of the single lines and the number of stations (Hanborogh & Pershore in particular) that remain on single line. It could also allow 4TPH as a bonus but that is outside the remit of the operation.

An odd description of the then Western Region of British Railways.

RE Campden bank, I was referring to the difficulties caused when a train is struggling on the single line. If your preferred track layout was adopted, retaining single track there, then that problem would continue - and it can cost southbound trains 10 or 15 minutes, even with a run at the bank without stopping at Honeybourne. I know, I have stood on the platform at Moreton waiting for HSTs that are running on one engine with no idea of when they will eventually appear.

I'm sure Network Rail would be interested to know why they have got it so wrong - perhaps you could tell them.

I tend to agree with Andy W that many of the rationalisations were dictated by people who knew nothing about operations.

Like all regions the WR was acting on orders to take out as much infrastructure as possible. The argument now is did they take out too much infrastructure at the time  hindsight suggests they did.

In some cases pre grouping rivalry played a part for example signalling West of Salisbury so that the LSWR would never again be a rival to the GWR for Exeter London traffic. So WR went for Westbury as the main line and singled West of Salisbury which at the time was seen as a way of saving the line from closure.

As the saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

And when you are handling six or seven Worcester/Hereford trains a day and a couple of Moreton stoppers, with the odd freight, as they were back then, 50 miles of double track probably looked like a luxury, whether or not those repsonsible knew anything about operations, especially in a climate where railways were regarded as something that had had their day.

If they had been told that by the late 1990s the line would be handing the kind of service it does now, they might have had second thoughts, but I have no idea how things will look 30 or 40 years down the line. Do you?

The rationalisation of the Cotswold and other lines was planned by professional railwaymen who were given a job to do. - To cut costs on a railway which was, at that time, being re-designed to run a much reduced service and without which, lines such as this could potentially have closed altogether.  It is rude and unfair to say otherwise.

The government of the day felt that the railways were an old expensive transport system partly due to the modern feel of the motoring and partly due to insider pressure groups from the road transport industry and as a result were biased and reduced the budget.

The present government has much the same pro-road insider pressure group power problem, plus a second pro-air travel one, but motoring is no longer seen as a panacea, and there is both the environmental factor to consider, and the modern look of our neighbours rail systems.

Having met two of the people who are designing the new Cotswold track layout and signaling, I can confirm that both are intelligent and professional railway men who are working from a list of requirements produced by Network Rail and First Great Western and who, with others, are working towards designing the right system for the job within the budget set.

Does anyone know what the requirements are the they are working from as this would be most useful to this discussion?

The fundamental baseline requirement is to get punctuality on the route up to the industry targets and keep it there - and stop knock-on delays from the Cotswold Line messing up the other services sharing the tracks between London and Didcot.

Network Rail's outline plan followed a year of work to decide the best way to achieve those aims and that was the basis on which the ORR approved funding in Network Rail's five-year plan.

Thanks willc,

In that case, then the only thing that we can reasonably expect is that the punctuality will happen.

That seems like a very good start, then the timetable can be reviewed in May 2011, after that other operators can look at the capacity, perhaps some Didcot Coal trains should come this way, rather than clog up the Main Line.

Not sure that the Network Rail engineers have coal in mind - almost all recent track relaying on the existing double track section has been steel sleepers and these are being torn out on the Leeds-bound track of the Settle-Carlisle a matter of years after being laid, thanks to the hammering they get from coal trains from Scotland.

Nice Freightliners with proper suspensions - that might be more like it. And Freightliner and EWS are both desperate for diversionary routes for trains to and from Southampton when Oxford-Banbury-Leamington is shut, hence their strong support for East-West to Bletchley. Lateral clearances on the Cotswold Line won't be a problem, thanks to Mr Brunel, but not entirely sure about the headroom under some bridges, especially the one just south of Charlbury where the double track will end.

Thanks, willc.

Just as an aside, to my casual observation, the same appears to be happening on the freight line between Bristol Temple Meads and Portbury Dock.  Network Rail seem to be busy removing the (fairly new) steel sleepers and stacking them in the old Railfreight yard west of Parson Street - and replacing them with concrete sleepers.  ::)

Spoke to Richard Rowland of FGW at Moreton station tonight about arrangements for the summer.

He said there should be at least one peak through working from Hereford and Worcester to London via Cheltenham and return (probably extensions of existing Cheltenham trains) but he is hoping to make that two. The final arrangements for these trains, shuttles and replacement buses should be settled by the end of this month.

When the blockade is Moreton-Evesham only, shuttles will run at both ends of the line, with the aim being to offer departures as near as possible at the times in the normal timetable, subject to stock and staff availability.

They are talking to local bus operators and other bits of First Group about obtaining vehicles for the replacement bus services.

Hmm... my understanding was as follows:

The first stretch where redoubling will be complete will be between Charlbury (or thereabouts) and Moreton and once this is complete, extra trains will be allowed to stop at Hanborough that currently go through non-stop (such as the 08:00-ish departure from Oxford) - but no extra trains will be introduced.

Then when the whole job is complete, an hourly service will run in each direction.

Surely when the job is complete, there won't still be 2 hour gaps between services...?

The new track will not be brought into use in sections but in one go at the end of the programme, currently estimated by Network Rail to be early 2011.

Track will start being delivered to site overnight from April and continue through the summer. The closure between 18th July and 1st September will be to reposition 7 signals and 60 location cabinets, to divert 20 miles of signal cables and to slew the track and prepare the formation for the new track.  This will involve completely removing the track and ballast and repairing the drainage in Chipping Campden Tunnel.

Track laying will start in January 2010 and take about 22 weeks to complete until June 2010. The new track will remain out of use until a closure later in 2010 to connect the new 70mph turnouts at Charlbury and Evesham and commission the signalling. This will be transferred to the Thames Valley Signalling Centre at Didcot.

The removal of token exchange, higher speed turnouts and new intermediate block signals should mean more trains can call at Hanborouigh but this is unlikely until the full scheme is completed.  There is still no business case for an hourly service as the redoubling has been justified on performance not service enhancement but FGW are looking to fill in some of the existing gaps if they can make better use of existing staff and rolling stock resources. What happens after that is all wrapped up in the new HLOS vehicles and the IEP programme and how they are used.

What is your source gwr2006?

I have been told that a new temporary signal box (something like a portakabin) will be built at Evesham (or perhaps Moreton) until being transfered to Didcot sometime after 2012.

The rest seems spot on, except to add that track laying may be done using Network Rails new fast track laying system if it is ready in time.  This system being one of the solutions to the requirement for saving money and running a 24/7 railway.

The Cotswold line is expected to be the last line added to the new Didcot signal centre, after Oxford.

Unless there is a rethink at a very late stage in the final design process, the signalling will be going to Didcot.

DafT put out a press release on March 20 when Lord Adonis visited the line saying this was what was going to happen, and while NR won't actually give a 100 per cent firm commitment, pending the completion of the design phase, what was said to me when I asked the question in a professional capacity makes it clear that's the way things are moving, see http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4234401.Signal_for_change_on_the_Cotswold_Line/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4234401.Signal_for_change_on_the_Cotswold_Line/)

I met Mike Gallop, the NR regional enhancements manager, last week and what he told me about the work programme tallies with gwr2006's account. People will be able to see more and more new track on the ground over the coming months, but commissioning will be done only when everything is in place.

My source is the Network Rail project manager and project team.  The signalling will now go straight into TVSC at Didcot, after the first relocation from Reading which I think looks like being the relief lines next spring and the Berks & Hants in summer 2010. The next panel from Reading then transfers after that. Oxford is not yet programmed but resignalling in 2016 is the current best guess.

Network Rail now believe it is more cost effective to do that, saving the running and staff costs of three smaller boxes at Ascott, Moreton and Evesham or the abortive costs of a temporary short-term solution. They will also update the equipment at the same time which should mean better customer information as a result of improved train detection.

I've not heard the project team talk about using any new fast track laying machine and at the moment it is the intention to deliver materials like ballast and sleepers to work sites overnight and for them to be layed and track connected during the daytime using green zone working. This avoids the need for regular possessions and minimises disruption.

Out of interest:-

1) when were the location cabinets & signal cables installed? If, as I suspect, it was done very recently why weren't they installed with doubling in mind at that time?

2) When was the track last layed that is now being re-layed because it is slewed?  Again, if that was done relatively recently why wasn't it re-aligned at that time to simplify re-doubling.

2) Other than to align for platforms, why is the track slewed? If, as has been suggested in the past, it was to allow for higher speeds does this mean that doubling will reduce the maximum speed allowed?

gwr2006 might be able to give a more definitive answer. but...

1) Some were installed as recently as two years ago. Long stretches of cable troughing was laid without any consideration for future redoubling, especially between Moreton and Evesham. Most of the cabinets were already there though and had been for many years following the original singling.

2 and 3) No track has been properly re-laid (i.e. rails AND sleepers/ballast) on the affected sections in the recent past. Single track has in some areas been moved to the centre of the old double-track formation because that is where the ground is most stable and the cost of maintaining the route is therefore reduced - that was all done many years ago though. Now that double track is being re-laid some embankment work will no doubt be required in certain places.

I think that linespeeds will largely be unaffected. There was talk of Aston Magna curve reducing to 60mph in the Down direction - can anyone confirm? The current track is laid towards the inside of the formation, but may have to be shifted inwards slightly further. Other areas should be able to stay as 75mph (Evesham to Moreton) and 100mph Ascott to Charlbury. It's a shame Moreton-Evesham can't be increased to 90mph in places as the track formation would allow it, but I believe it is being ruled out due to the cost of crossing modifications? Finstock is the most notable location where 100mph would be difficult to engineer with two tracks, but as that isn't part of the current scheme it doesn't matter as yet.

Hi II,

Thanks for the explanation. I would have hoped that even if re-doubling wasn't on the cards at the time, given the longevity of cabling etc. it would have been installed with re-doubling in mind.

Regarding replacement of track - I thought that rails & sleepers were replaced, judging by what is left by the track-side.

Also, why have 70mph points at Charlbury & Evesham within a mile of the stations, given that all trains stop at both stations? Wouldn't it be far cheaper to have slower speed points closer to the stations, there is little value in having double track in those positions (west of Evesham / east of Charlbury) as the time saved in those locations is minimal given their proximity to the stations?

But for trains accelerating away from both those stations, the ability to run at 70mph is invaluable.

The train crew posters will be able to say how fast an HST and a Turbo will be going after running a mile from a standing start, but a 70mph turnout means drivers won't even have to think about approaching these points, just keep the power on. Equally, when braking, they are still likely to be going at a fair pace at both locations.

I think most of the slewed track, certainly on the Oxfordshire section, dates back to the major renewals in the early 1980s, after BR decided to replace worn out track there.

I totally agree on the cabling issue, and vented my frustration on the subject a few months ago in another topic. Track renewals can take three forms; just the rails, rails and sleepers, and/or the ballast too. Sleepers (and ballast if tamped regularly) last longer than the rails, and none of the sleepers on the sections to be redoubled have been replaced in the last 10 years.

As for the 70mph points, I think that's the maximum speed for pointwork which just requires standard components. Any more and you have to have additional moving parts. So having 70mph doesn't actually cost much more than, say a 40 or 50mph crossover. The additional speed will be useful for empty stock movements as well as passenger trains braking for the stations - which can easily still be doing over 60mph at the Cornbury Estate bridge at Charlbury and more than that at the location west of Evesham where the re-doubling will end (provided signalling is altered to allow a clear run into the platforms).

Surely the crossings will be replaced as a part of the doubling and re-signaling?  Certainly some will have to change from single to double track and wouldn't crossing speed be mainly dictated by the distance from protecting signals?

If they are AHBs then increasing the line speed would mean moving the activating treadles further away from the crossing. With redoubling you can just move the treadle from the single line to the new second line at the same distance at the appropriate end of the crossing.

No new cables etc.

They are Full Barriers with CCTV monitoring, I had also been wondering why the Troughing in 2006 was placed in the formation, when Doubling was on the Horizon. I gather money is very tight.

To say redoubling was on the horizon in 2006 isn't true. The SRA shot down the idea in the last Great Western route utilisation strategy in June 2005 and it was a bit of a bolt from the blue when Network Rail announced in February 2007 that it was going to look at the idea - but the shambles that followed the December 2006 timetable change probably helped to focus minds.

Industry Insider is quite right though that someone ought to have been thinking 'what if?' when planning the troughing work, though in some places finding the edge of the trackbed would probably have needed the kind of major vegetation clearance carried out in recent months

At Ascott-under-Wychwood and Blockley one of the barriers will need to be moved across to the edge of the trackbed, but I haven't been past Chipping Campden or Badsey lately, so can't say for sure if that's the case at those two, though it would seem likely, as most of the barriers went in in the late 1970s, well after the singling was done. I think Campden was the only exception, being done around the time singling happened.

Not the major road crossings, more a problem with the numerous unworked farm/foot crossings that proliferate the route from Moreton-Evesham.

On a separate note, happy 75th birthday to Finstock - which was celebrated by morris dancers and locals on the one down train yesterday evening. Just out of interest here's the number of passengers leaving the all-stations peak service the last two evenings:

Combe: 0 and 1
Finstock: 4 and 8 (the second of which is partly due to the anniversary which saw about 30 people on the platform!)
Ascott-U-W: 4 and 3
Shipton: 10 and 5

An average of less than 4 per station stop. Figures from the same train for Hanborough were around 25, Charlbury around 30, Kingham around 25 and Moreton around 20 - though alternative tranins were available to these destinations.

Nice to know that the anniversary was celebrated. I was there for the 50th and would have been there yesterday had I known anything was going on, all I had heard was that there definitely would not be any celebration.

Welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, 4101.  :D

Thanks Chris, nice to discover a Cotswold Line forum!

No the farm crossings are easy - just re-route the phone line to wherever the signal box is. It is the major road crossings, each has some form of treadle-based device to inform the signal box that it is time for the barriers to be lowered and the signals cleared, an increase in train speed must require a movement of this treadle to give the same amount of time.  I gather that there is one south of Kingham that has the treadle north of Kingham station and that as a result, if a train spends too long at the station the barriers can be down for the best part of 10 minutes before the train arrives.

Welcome 4101

Happy birthday to Finstock!  Ha..... Another station with no passengers and limited parking, Close it.

Industry Insider is probably right about the farm crossings. There are a great many in the Vale of Evesham and memories are still fresh around here of the accident in July 2003, when three people died and six were injured when an HST crashed into a minibus between Pershore and Evesham.

There were particular issues over language in that case - that the driver didn't understand he needed to call the signalbox - but the area's farms remain heavily dependent on casual labour, from Britain and abroad, who have little or no local knowledge, so something like this could happen again, especially if there are more trains about, never mind what speed they are running at. And fitting indicator lights at each one would cost a packet and probably wouldn't be worth it for the extra 10mph, given that most trains are stopping at all three stations in the area anyway - and redoubling may put Chipping Campden station reopening higher up the priorities list at Gloucestershire County Council.

Treadles are easy enough to move if desired, and the line will be swarming with signalling technicians to do it. But given the proximity of Blockley and Campden crossings - less than two miles apart - you would have to keep the further one of the pair, depending on the direction of the train, closed for a good few minutes ahead of the passage of the train if the speed limit was raised.

And another farm worker - a British agricultural student I seem to recall - destroyed the barriers at Bruern - the crossing near Kingham - in 2001 by trying to race through with a tractor and trailer as they were coming down.

The Finstock celebratons were, I believe, a rather last-minute decision by some of the local CLPG people, though they did tell the local media about it. Before reading the story linked below, I should warn btline, stebbo and any others of a nervous disposition from Worcester and Hereford, that the district councillor and CLPG rep Mike Breakell says something likely to upset you - a lot!

 See http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4277859.Party_will_mark_railway_halt_s_birthday/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4277859.Party_will_mark_railway_halt_s_birthday/)

I trust someone is keeping a count on passenger numbers at times other than a week that is quieter due to school holidays. Around the Easter weekend on the Cotswold Line there always seem to be two different patterns, quiet the week before, then busier the week after, with day trips ahead of the return to school.

Indeed, willc, that was a sad day: for details, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/news/2003/07/train_crash_gallery.shtml and in particular http://archive.worcesternews.co.uk/2003/7/8/192632.html  :(

* * *

However, on a rather lighter note:


 ;) :D ;D

Hi All,
Im new to this forum as I am about to start commuting to London from Hanborough daily from June onwards. Im not really looking forward to the commute but my employer is willing to pay First class season ticket so i hope this should make it more bearable.

I am likely to take the 6.40ish train from HAN to Paddington and have a few questions please.

1. Are there usually seats in First Class for this time?
2. Does it tend to run quite punctually?
3. With the works being undertaken, will trains still go to/from HAN or will there be some of the times when I have to drive to Oxford and then catch the train from there instead? I was kind of hoping the trains would just terminate at HAN or start from there during all the works... :)
4. As a first class passenger, do you get any complimentary food/drinks on that train?

Anyway, thanks for any information that anyone can provide, and perhaps I will be seeing some of you on the commute soon!

Doug

Doug,

1. Yes, first class on the first couple of trains to London tends to be quieter, at least as far as Oxford, as traffic from stations west of Moreton-in-Marsh on these trains is pretty light at this time of the day.
2. On the whole, as the first two trains start their day's work at Worcester and Hereford, so less scope for picking up delays - unless someone from Network Rail cuts through the signal cables in west London like they did one night last week.
3. The summer closure is in three chunks. From July 18 to August 2 the whole line is closed. From Monday August 3 until August 23, there will be trains from Oxford out to Moreton-in-Marsh, so you will be fine from Hanborough then. Then for the next week the whole line is shut again, with services resuming from Tuesday, September 1. During the August 3 to 23 period, FGW have told me that the idea is to run at as near-normal times as possible on the section that is open, obviously subject to being able to get trains through the single-track section so they are at Moreton at the right time to start their journeys. Details of the timetable should be available within the next few weeks.
You can keep track at FGW's website at http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/northcotswolds
4. All the early morning services except the halts train to Oxford are advertised as High Speed Trains with the normal service offer, so there should be first class complimentary service.

I would say - provide a decent service, come up with a sensible answer to the door opening issues and provide plenty of space on trains for cycles (in the early 80s a good number of cyclists used to board at Finstock every day). All the above are possible, none are likely!

Look at Handborough, no passengers in the early 70s (locals actually thought the station had closed), now  with a decent service numbers are very healthy.

But in all honesty, Finstock is no Hanborough - the station isn't in the village, which is also smaller, and it isn't a handy parkway station for anywhere, whereas Hanborough is ideal for people travelling from Witney and Woodstock.

Welcome to the forum Doug.

Yes I quite agree, my point is that even with these advantages, back when Hanborough only had one train each way it had few passengers. Finstock would not generate massive numbers of passengers under the best of circumstances but it could do better and have a useful role.

But at the time when Hanborough had one train each way, so did a place the size of Pershore - in both cases it was patently absurd but Finstock just doesn't have the potential to justify more services - and many people use the railbus or drive to Charlbury, because everything stops there, especially if they are travelling beyond Oxford. The railbus even offers connections in and out of the halts trains there.

Not the major road crossings, more a problem with the numerous unworked farm/foot crossings that proliferate the route from Moreton-Evesham.

Faced with a van on a farm crossing, I wouldn't have thought there's a lot of difference between an HST at 75mph and 90mph - witness the accident the other year.

The Ufton Nervet crash was at a 100mph half barrier crossing and the results were quite different to the Pershore minibus accident.

I agree, but I presume there's a H&S ruling on the speed at which a foot crossing has to have a telephone and I assume that was why the linespeed wasn't going to get increased? The accident to which WillC referred to was on a 95mph stretch of line which had a telephone.

Probably had a lot to do with the car at Ufton Nervet being rather smaller and going under the train, derailing the leading bogie. Momentum then carried the train on to the point for the facing down goods loop about 100 metres away, which caught the derailed bogie, twisted the power car over and caused the rest of the train to derail - that loop point was absolutely crucial in what happened to the train. Had it not been there, there was every chance the train would have stayed upright and come to a stop, as only the leading bogie was off the rails before the train reached the loop. Plus the car driver wanted to die and deliberately positioned the car square across the down line at the crossing.

The minibus between Evesham and Pershore, being rather larger, didn't go under, and was shoved out of the way by the train - which was running on the 95mph limit at the time - and flipped over and rolled, which was what caused all the injuries and deaths. The main impact was on the engine bay. See picture on this BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3050658.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3050658.stm)

There are a lot of these crossings in the Vale. The crossing involved in the 2003 accident had been misused on 15 other occasions since 1995, usually when the phone had not been used by the road-user - that's 16 safety breaches at just one crossing in eight years, and several resulted in near-misses. And it's not just minibuses that use them - try harvesters and planters - these things aren't small and could do a hell of a lot of damage if a train hit one.

All crossings like this on InterCity and secondary lines should be automated, with flashing lights, a siren, CCTV linking to signalmen in the nearest box and full width barriers.

It is ridiculous that C21 Britain has crossings like this. Even small branch lines should have driver operated barriers.

So are you prepared to stump up the money from your taxes or fares to pay for all this kit? Or a bridge at ^1m-^2m a go? There are 7,600 level crossings on the network - someone else may have a breakdown of the various categories. And there are plenty of ungated or user-worked gated crossings on other railways around the world - including the likes of the US and Germany.

At the Vale crossing where the accident happened, there is actually a small underbridge nearby capable of taking vehicles up to the size of a minibus, at a squeeze, or a Land Rover. There's another example between Bruern crossing and Shipton station, where a minor road squeezes under the line, but there is a boarded flat crossing at rail level for larger vehicles - which is very rarely used, if ever, as is the case for most farm crossings outside certain busy periods of the year, such as ploughing, planting and harvest. I can't see any reason why on earth they should need the level of protection you advocate.

In many cases, the farm crossings cut miles and miles off a journey by normal roads - that's why they are there in the first place. For example, look at the Evenlode Valley between Moreton-in-Marsh and the Wychwoods. Over those 10 miles, there are just three road overbridges, plus the tiny underbridge mentioned and Bruern level crossing. If your farm straddles the line - and several do - you don't want to be going miles around. There are actually two or three more overbridges that are exclusively for the use of farm traffic, though they appear to owe their existence more to the different ground levels either side of the tracks than any specific rail safety concerns.

In addition to willc's comments,


Network Rail is no longer putting in half-barrier systems, not because they are unsafe, but because the car driving public are stupid and irresponsible, so full barriers are seen as the way forward, but full barriers are controlled by a signalman and will always block the car highway for much longer before a train arrives.  I am hopeful that many of the footpaths (and hopefully farm crossings) that cross the railway will gain red "stop" and green "safe to cross" lights when the track is redoubled too.


And this is one of the main reasons for the success of French style high speed lines - complete separation and no crossings at all.   But, in this country our government (regardless of colour), has not chosen to spend the large amount of cash required on high speed rail lines.

Farm crossings, were provided (with bridges) to keep the landowners happy when the railway was forced through their land - they needed to get to their fields on the other side.  Motorways have extra bridges.  But Btline is correct, they worked well in the slower pace of the steam railway, but really need removing now, however, like most things in this country, it seems like it will take a spate of accidents with multiple fatalities in order to provide the political will to do so.

For the record, when the red lights flash on a level crossing, this means stop.
Going past the red flashing lights can get you a fine and some points on your license, even if the barriers are not yet coming down. 

Or perhaps we could just ban the prats that seemingly are baffled by the concept of a level crosing from drivng?! It really isn't rocket science!

Unfortunately, irresponsible driving will not go away! :(

Willc, I am against removing crossings and building road bridges - a fully gated barrier is enough.

As to the cost - exactly how much profit do TOCs make? And perhaps the gov should invest in the railways a bit more! (like in other countries)

Crossings, like any other Network Rail infrastructure, are not the TOCs responsibility.

Paul

Network Rail has a level crossing policy at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/4424_Level%20Crossing%20Policy.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/4424_Level%20Crossing%20Policy.pdf)

It includes the detail that about 1,500 crossings are on public highways, the rest of the 7,000-plus are farm crossings, footpaths and bridleways, or private roads.

Going back to the topic discussed a few pages back, is it fair to say that Combe and Finstock stations are completely pointless and are only still open for political reasons? 

If you lived in either, surely you'd just drive to Hanborough/ Charlbury and park there to give yourself some flexibility in terms of what time you can come back...?

Also, does anyone know if the rail replacement bus service timetable is out yet?

I heard a few rumbles that there was going to be a shuttle to and from Hanborough and all the replacement buses would start/ terminate there but not sure if there's any truth in this...

When they extend the doubling down to Oxford, they will hopefully shut Finstock.

As for Combe - how about an accidental avalanche?

I know I'll be unpopular for this, but why do Finstock, Come (and Shipton) continue to exist?

Shipton is actually used.

It's the others which need to go!

It staggers me to find people actually advocating the closure of stations.

The railway should not be fossilied. If they are in the middle of nowhere, serve no purpose, and closure would reduce costs and probably improve operational efficiency then closure may be the best option. Finstock and Combe could come into this category.

I sometimes ride the 06:53 from Oxford into Charlbury in the morning, go to the Co-op and then get the 07:48 stopper back to Hanborough... and the fact is that more often than not, it doesn't pick up any passengers at either stop.  In particular, Combe station appears to be in the middle of nowhere... you don't seem to be able to even see the village...?  And then, it's only a two minute ride from Combe to Hanborough...!

The thing is, if these were closed, the 07:48 from Charlbury towards Oxford would be off the single line earlier, which hopefully would allow a stop at Hanborough (where several hundred people work on two business parks) on the 08:00(ish) from Oxford to Worcester as it could then get onto the single line earlier.

Surely the main objective isn't to keep every station open, but to look at how best to maximise use of the railways...?

Why not just have the "halts" train stop there in the morning and evening peak?

Why? If they are costing MUCH more than they earn. If passenger numbers are low even after years of being kept open. If there are nearby stations with better facilities and services. If they have NO social benefits ...

...they should be closed. We're not talking about shutting well used stations, only halts which should have gone ages ago. IN THE CASE OF COMBE and FINSTOCK, BEECHING GOT IT RIGHT!

In the UK we need to face it that new lines and stations need to be opened; but some are surplus to requirements.

That's all that does stop at Combe, Finstock and Ascott-under-Wychwood.


And you missed out Ascott-under-Wychwood, which I'm sure you didn't mean to. I explained previously that essentially because someone at BR messed up their paperwork in 1994 Combe and Finstock escaped the axe. The Wychwoods station are worth saving, because Ascott is slap bang next to the village, while Shipton, despite its erratic service - and adding all of two or three minutes on to the journeys of people in a hurry from Hereford - serves a bigger community than Honeybourne and is 10 minutes' drive from Burford.

James,
Somewhere back up the thread, I posted that details of arrangements for the summer are meant to be be finalised by the end of this month, so it shouldn't be too long now before they are released by FGW. I would be surprised if there is anything running past Oxford during the weeks already announced as full route closures. Hanborough's car park is hardly suitable as a bus station of the kind required over this period - it's a rather different scale of things from an occasional weekend closure.

Devon_Metro, I mean from Oxford to Hanborough in the morning and then back from Hanborough to Oxford in the evening.

Will, thanks for that - must have missed your original post.  I've seen mention once or twice of the replacement buses starting/ terminating at Hanborough, which as you say could be tricky if that turns out to be the plan...

The latest information available from the FGW website is at http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=3501 if that helps?

For the three weeks that the entire line is closed, buses will run between Oxford and Worcester. There will be several buses for each departure from Oxford, with different calling patterns, so that some will be fast, for example, to Moreton. A similar pattern will operate in the opposite direction.

There will also be morning and evening peak buses between Evesham and Cheltenham, to connect with the diverted Hereford - Padd services.

For the three weeks that the line is closed between Moreton and Evesham, the intention is to run a near normal service between Moreton and Oxford/Padd, and a shuttle service between Evesham and Worcester, with connecting buses between Moreton and Evesham. Some buses will be extended through to Worcester, because the shuttle timings don't fit.

I also understand that the planned replacement of the last two evening weekday services by buses from September has been postponed until January.

Good - still time for some common sense and for two buses to be procured, one fast to Moreton and the other covering intermediate stops. This was discussed in the 'New Timetables' thread at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=4534.30 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=4534.30)

Hi all,

I thought I'd register here to ask for some advice.

I live in Evesham and I'm travelling to London on the morning of Saturday July 18th as I have a Eurostar to catch at 1330 from St Pancras.
Unfortunately, July 18th is the first day of the closure.

I know the details of the alternative transport haven't been finalised but I don't fancy sitting on a bus from Evesham to Oxford, with no sure time as to when I'll get to London, can't run the risk of being delayed too much.

Am I correct in thinking that my best bet is to head over to Cheltenham Spa and get a train to Paddington via Swindon?

I'll likely be getting a taxi from Evesham to my station of departure so want it to be as close to Evesham as possible.

Thanks for your time.

Welcome to the forum bleeder4.. Hopefully someone here will be able to answer your question  :)

I would say drive to Warwick Parkway, and take the regular, RELIABLE, Chiltern Railways service.

This could be rather far for a taxi, but so is Cheltenham.

Stratford is closer (16 miles); Cheltenham, 19.7 miles and Warwick Parkway 24 miles. Frequency of service from Warwick Parkway, and Marylebone being closer to St Pancras, makes Warwick Parkway the best bet.

I forgot about Stratford, but the service is once per two hours.

I would definitely pay the extra taxi fare to use Chiltern instead of FGW though, even if it is 4 miles further to W P'way.

I'm not entirely sure, but have a feeling that there could well be some FGW replacement buses running direct between Evesham and Cheltenham Spa station during the closure, so I would keep an eye out for the details of what will be happening over the summer, which are due to be issued shortly. If that's the case, then you would only need to pay for a rail ticket from Evesham, rather than forking out for a cab, plus a train fare.

For anyone who's not aware, it's now possible to check the times of the replacement buses (at least for the early phase of this summer's closures) by checking on nationalrail.co.uk...

Preparations continuing, with lots of new rails dropped over the weekend west of Moreton-in-Marsh station - can be seen under the bridge carrying the Fosse Way over the line.

Also had been wondering who the old goods shed had been refurbished for and have realised Network Rail have done it themselves as a new home for the Moreton permanent way gang, though I assume it will also be serving as site offices for the next couple of years. The modern 'Moreton-in-Marsh depot' sign which used to be fixed to the rather tatty old wooden hut across the tracks is propped up next to the steps into the goods shed.

From the Evesham Journal (http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/4385901.Information_on_rail_project/):

From Evesham there will a rail replacement bus to Worcester and/or Cheltenham to connect with Paddington trains running from Worcester via Cheltenham.

The other option might be to stop overnight in a hotel, some Travel Lodge type hotels can be cheap (^20-40) if you book this far ahead.

The buses only run during the week though and I was going on the Saturday morning. I opted for Cheltenham in the end though as I'd rather go on an HST than a Turbo and Chiltern use Turbos. Interestingly, I've just noticed on the nationalrail website that the 0927 from Evesham to Paddington on 18th July is running as normal on the Saturday morning and every train after that and before that is a replacement bus, but I'm not sure how reliable that is.

Conductor on my train back from Oxford this afternoon made an announcement about the redoubling work coming up as we set off from Oxford and advised people to get the timetables from stations or go online, so top marks for that - though since it was a (booked) Turbo service, I expect it won't matter as none of the passengers will be coming back after being traumatised a la btline by the experience.

Not sure whether it is an initiative by the Worcester staff, as I haven't heard a dicky-bird on services in the past couple of days operated by Bristol or London crews.

Priceless  :D

Some more meet the manager events now scheduled along the line ahead of the redoubling closure, as follows:

24th June, 2009   16.00 to 19.00   Oxford
6th July 2009   18.30 to 20.00   Evesham
7th July 2009   07.00 to 08.30   Kingham
7th July 2009   19.00 to 20.30   Moreton-in-Marsh
8th July 2009   07.00 to 08.30   Charlbury
8th July 2009   18.30 to 20.00   Worcester Shrub Hill

Did anyone else sign up for the email information on the FGW website. After registering I go the confirmation email immediately, but since then not a thing, not a single email. Has anyone else received any updates at all from this system?

cheers

IanL

I signed up a few months back and got an update about 3 weeks ago saying they were still working on the replacement timetable and hoped to publish it start of July - despite the fact it had been available on their own website and the nationalrail.co.uk website for at least 2 weeks.

Me neither!

I've been away for several weeks so missed a lot of what's going on here.

As readers of other posts I've made will know, I now try not to use the Cotswold service if I can but I noticed an HST at Hereford today so I assumed that the Cotswold closure still hasn't hapened.

Still, hopefully, I'm moving to Cheltenham area soon so I think I may have done with the Cotswold line for a few years.

All systems go for the start of work at the weekend, with lots of men in orange out and about between Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham

There are mobile buildings at Charlbury, Blockley/Paxford and Honeybourne for site offices etc, machinery and cables stockpiled at Ascott-under-Wychwood and major preparations at either end of Chipping Campden tunnel with farm fields taken over for the duration, with lots of excavators and plant ready and waiting at the south end, along with a ballast stockpile and pre-cast concrete sections for new drainage at the north end and heavy-duty ventilation equipment. The second track will be laid throughout in the tunnel during this blockade, with 12,000 tonnes of ballast removed while the trackbed is lowered, and new drains installed inside and around the tunnel.

There will be another closure between Moreton and Evesham in the half-term next February, to allow replacement of a single-track bridge deck at Honeybourne a time of year that will not disturb the local newt population - apparently the old railway land there is a newt hotspot.

Yes, the large amounts of plastic sheet fencing in the area is there to try and direct Great Crested Newts away from danger. Fortunately the viability of the whole redoubling project has been aided by the fact that there are few such structures that need replacing.

Just received my first email update after signing up for advance information when it was first announced.

Lots of pictures of the bridge that needs replacing at Honeybourne, plus some of the area in days gone by, here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43795&start=0 (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43795&start=0)

I'ld love to know how many pax will be on the 0408, 0411, 0431 and 0436 replacement bus services next Monday from Shrub Hill.... Also am I correct in saying that there are STILL no weekend printed timetables for services during this period?

You are correct and don't expect to see any either. FGW don't do weekend printed timetables anymore as well as in most cases nothing on the website either unless its a basic revised timetable where they put a pdf of the poster that would appear at the stations affected.

The standard FGW line when it comes to engineering work now is to use the online journey planner or call National Rail enquiries. The best hope of getting anywhere near a full printed timetable is to use the XC print your own timetable:
http://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/Find_a_train/Create_your_own_timetable.aspx

When it comes to engineering work revised timetables some TOCs are better than others when it comes to publishing revised timetables online. The best TOCs that I've found are SWT and NXEC. XC hardly bother at all.

So are you saying they shouldn't bother running them? What do you expect them to do? Tell their passengers to get lost, like a certain discount airline definitely would in similar circumstances? I'd like to think FGW, and the railways in general, are better than that.

The roads around here aren't exactly super-highways, even the A44, so they have to allow lots more time for the bus journeys, never mind trying to cover all the potential journeys that people could be making, say Worcester to Charlbury.

Bet they are empty

prob only need 2 of the 4 of those buses

Even the trains at that time (sorry we dont have a 4am departure) are half empty if that from WOS!

And then they fill up further down the line, which pays their way, and allows Worcester to enjoy the level of service that it does...

Well Steve, partial good news is that FGW have produced timetable posters for weekend services which can be found on the North Cotswolds line improvements page which though not as good as a printed timetable is better than nothing at all:
http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=3501

I am just saying (and this is a forum where I can politely and frivolously express an opinion), that 4 buses departing within 30 minutes at such an early hour is overkill. Without bringing the esteemed founder of this forum into the argument, I feel he was making a similer point about the 0520 rail replacement bus from Swindon to Melksham in August....

I'm not going to get drawn into a Cotswold Argument ... I don't have the local knowledge. However, I would not like to suggest that (on the TransWilts) a service that consists of a daily bus at twenty past five in the morning from Swindon, plus a short working at 18:30 from Chippenham, is overkill as the complete service for a town the size of Evesham.  Will Evesham be getting 2 buses a day, or more?  ;) ;)

What concerns me is the number of Worcester based businesses that have employees using the train on a regular basis that don't seem to know about this, my own employer included. There was uproar in the office today when I happened to mention the line closure and the secretary informed me she had about 30 separate journeys booked over August for several people down to London. Companies that book tickets on a frequent basis and months in advance don't tend to get into the habit of checking for engineering works. There are I think a couple of trains in the morning from WOS down to PAD on the Golden Valley Line and a couple in the evening but the rest are buses.

But as I said, they have to cover every journey option and that needs this multiplicity of buses, because if you sent one or two off then, they would each take up to three hours to get to Oxford, winding up and down the back roads to serve the likes of Honeybourne and the stations in the Evenlode Valley, which are nowhere near the main road. It may look like overkill, but I'd rather they do this than not try at all.

Bleeder, I'm amazed that you say no-one in your office is aware of the closure. Is it a bunker? With a crude search I can find about a dozen reports about it on the Worcester News website, dating back to last December, with duplicates and other stories from the websites of its sister weekly papers in Malvern and the Vale. There have been posters up at stations on the part of the line I use for months now warning of the closure, so I find it hard to believe they have not been up at Shrub Hill and Foregate Street too.

Transport Briefing article - http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/news/story?id=6073

BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8155965.stm

I might be wrong but i'm pretty sure the one at shrub is not in that obvious a position - especially if you already have a ticket and are just walking to the train.  I know I only noticed it when I looked for it - there isnt one on the over bridge or on either of the platforms

And most people seeing Engineering Works posters assume it is weekend and bank holidays only.

What they need to do is to put leaflets onto the seats!

The posters were a model of clarity, with a very big heading right across the top saying Advance Notice of Major Engineering Work between Oxford and Worcester, or something like that - I think that should be enough to get most people's attention - and have been up since January or February. Oxford station was plastered with them - backed up by a countdown clock on the info screen next to the ticket barriers recently.

And I'd really rather not travel around in a mobile litter bin, thanks all the same. We managed without leaflets on seats when there was a two-week blockade a few Augusts back.

FGW and Network Rail have both made strenuous efforts to get the word out there since the start of the year, both at stations and in the local media (but maybe no-one believed our reports) - as I said, you really would have to have been in a bunker not to notice something or other about it along the way.

Oxford station was all geared up ready this evening, with signs along platform 2 indicating the route to the buses, which will use the short-stay car park area, which is closed to cars for the duration - and as noted by someone in a previous post, the former British Legion Club car park alongside Moreton station has been taken over as a temporary extra spaces, though I suspect it won't be needed until the trains resume on August 3, to handle people driving over from the Vale

Enjoyed a lively final morning run to Oxford today, with an announcement just before we left Moreton-in-Marsh that due to a security alert, anyone for Kingham should get off the train and ask for help getting to their destination. We then sailed through Kingham at 90mph (don't get too excited btline, it was only a Turbo). My colleague's report on what it was all about is here http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4499026.Kingham_station_reopens/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4499026.Kingham_station_reopens/)

Then we were treated to a classic ticketless traveller episode after Charlbury, when the conductor carried out a full ticket check and got involved in a heated discussion with a man who, by his style of dress and accent probably wasn't down to his last two pennies, but who had no ticket, no bank card and no money about his person (no, it wasn't Prince Charles).

He loudly protested that he simply had to get to London for 11.30 and was meeting his wife who would pay for his ticket there. When threatened with the possibility of being stopped in the penalty fares zone and taken to court he said 'that's a risk I'm prepared to take'.

The conductor firmly but politely insisted that he would have to get off at Oxford and make arrangements there for his wife to pay before he got on another train. After much huffing and puffing either side of Hanborough, he said he would get off. Since we were a bit late and I had to get to work, so was first out of the door, I didn't see whether he did get off, but I suspect the train wouldn't have left until he had done so, voluntarily or otherwise.

There are announcements every five minutes at Reading about engineering on the cotswolds line - have yet to hear one whilst waiting for the train at WOS

It's not the same South African lady whose recorded voice bawls "may aah hiv your attention PLEASE, thus us un iccident blickspot" every fine nanoseconds by the escalators on platform 8 is it? If so, my sympathy.

If anyone is interested, I have posted a few photos on flickr taken along the line between Charlbury and Evesham this year, showing soon-to-disappear single line and semaphores, among other things.

There is also a fresh one taken today at Ascott-under-Wychwood of work going on to put in what looked like some kind of cable inspection ducts in the middle of the trackbed - but I expect those of you who work in the industry can probably explain exactly what that moulding sitting on the platform is for.

The gallery is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/)

Absolutely brilliant, willc - thanks very much for posting!  ;) :D ;D

Having never actually travelled on that line, your photos do offer some insight into the issues involved.

(And I liked the scenes in the snow - classic Christmas cards!)

Thanks again.  C.  :)

It's the bottom of a drainage sump IIRC. You would normally see a rectangular grating about 4 ft x 2 ft at surface or ballast level, usually formed of 'stacked' concrete rectangular sections. They interlock with each other and stand on the top of the piece in the photo.

Paul

That would be it paul - there were indeed concrete sections - if you look behind the two guys standing in the trench at the front, there's a 'stack' behind them

No sign of any new work starting at Charlbury this morning, just the new rails laid out along the centre of the existing track which was done some months ago. Will try and get some pictures when work starts.

Definitely much work going on at Chipping Campden tunnel - but no pics as the vegetation around the mouths is jungle-like and the lie of the land and lack of footpaths around most of the area didn't help, so impossible to get a shot of anything much except greenery. You need to be on Network Rail property to get this view http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/detail.asp?MediaDetailsID=2457 (http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/detail.asp?MediaDetailsID=2457)

At the south (town) end the track is all out and old ballast and spoil was being removed in dumper trucks. At the north (Vale) end, new drains were going in, most of the the way down the bank to the bridge over the Campden-Mickleton road - in the area where the train is in the picture above, but I was peering over the fence further down, so couldn't see if the rails still went all the way to the tunnel at this end.

While modesty may have precluded him from posting it here ( ;) ) - from the Oxford Mail (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/4502950.Work_starts_on_Cotswold_Line_upgrade/):


Article also in the Witney Gazette (http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/wgheadlines/4502950.Work_starts_on_Cotswold_Line_upgrade/) and the Oxford Times (http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/4502950.Work_starts_on_Cotswold_Line_upgrade/).

Couple of track machines in the sidings at Moreton-in-Marsh for the past couple of days - one's a tamper but I've not been down into the station, so not sure what the other is. Nor do I know what work they are doing.

The A44 is thick with rail replacement coaches, with operators from Oxford, Worcester, Kidderminster and Swindon as well as those previously mentioned. Loadings look light on the whole but I'm usually on the road 9am to 10-ish and 6.30-7.15, so not necessarily a representative time to get an overall feel.

I gather that Camden tunnel has no track in it and that at the one end, the slabs in the tunnel floor have been removed and they are starting to lay new slabs lower down.

A new siding or a siding has been relayed at Moreton.

A ballast cleaner has been at work at Charlbury.

A tamper has been in use at Charlbury moving the track sideways onto the new ballast down there.

Some of the signals are being moved sideways because they are in the way of the new track.

I also had a chat to a couple of workers who were pulling cables for signalling and telephones under the road at Ascott.

Really not sure about work on a siding at Moreton - they all looked much the same to me when I went past today and I can't think why you would need to renew or add one anyway - they're all lightly used and in decent shape. There have been track machines parked in the two close to the station most of the past week.

Took the scenic - though rather soggy - route back from Oxford tonight - and there is now double width ballast much of the way from Ascott to Charlbury, though from the three road overbridges I stopped at, there was no sign of track being moved so far, but temporary lighting and excavators along the way suggested there will be a pretty intensive work programme this coming week.

Hopefully loadings will improve once redoubling is complete. I travelled on the 1721 Paddington Wof on the final weekend from Reading and was suprised how few passengers there were! Had a table by Oxford!

Just a guess, but I think the long siding furthest from the Signalbox has been out of use for several years, so perhaps that has been brought back into use, and that is what Don is referring to? I've certainly not seen anything stabled in there for over five years - in truth there's not been any need for it with the other two sidings by the station in a serviceable condition - but with the amount of track machinery in the area, perhaps it is now needed.

Had a look this morning, all three sidings as they were before, timber sleepers and bullhead rail and the layer of rust on the long siding south of London Road showed no signs of being disturbed any time recently.

North of charlbury 27th July.  One week before passenger trains run again! 
Could be an interesting ride.

When I said intensive, I didn't know that was what they had in mind, as it certainly didn't look like that last night. There's a picture of a ballast train on Thursday on this stretch here http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamishfenton/3751991797/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamishfenton/3751991797/)

I was told that there would be some speed restrictions when the line to Moreton reopens next week - I can see why now!

Some up services have to depart a few minutes earlier than normal to make sure they hit Wolvercote right time.

Went on a Network Rail press trip into Chipping Campden tunnel today but since I have to write it up for three different papers, don't have too much time to describe it here, but a great experience, especially to be walking somewhere I had passed through at speed on a train a couple of weeks back

Current state of play is the work is on schedule, so far they have removed all the old track and ballast and excavated down about another metre to the floor. The slabs Don described above are a short section where some ground movement in the 1960s distorted the brick lining. The concrete sections, with lots of reinforcing bars, are to keep this section stable.

At the moment they are putting in fresh ballast from the Mickleton end up the hill towards Chipping Campden and laying a new central drain through the tunnel - about half complete at lunchtime today - which will connect to new drains at the Campden end, where work was also going on to stabilise one of the cutting sides. One the drain is complete, then the next layer of ballast goes in, before the tracklaying starts.

The clearances will allow a 26m IEP coach to fit through without problems. You could probably just about squeeze a couple of broad gauge tracks through, though it looks like extra brick lining was added in places at some point since initial construction.

Did anyone ask whether the clearances would permit overhead line equipment?

I did, but they weren't asked to design for that in the tunnel, so it might need slab track were that ever to happen. And hard to hazard a guess, as what we were walking on was probably a few feet below where the final level of the trackbed will be.

All other overhead structures going in, notably the station footbridges, will have electrification clearances designed in.

Thanks for that update, Will.

Moreton tracklaying mystery solved, once I belatedly picked up last week's Cotswold Journal. The work was on the track just north of the station - picture taken from the station is on the Journal website here http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/news/4504621.Workers_begin___72_million_Cotswold_Line_modernisation/ (http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/news/4504621.Workers_begin___72_million_Cotswold_Line_modernisation/)

I had a quick look over the bridge today - opposite side from the pavement, so not the safest spot - and oddly it looks like they have renewed it on the existing alignment, rather than over to the left in the new position for the down (towards Worcester) track. I have put a picture on the Flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/)

I'll post some from Campden tunnel once my stories have appeared in print in te next few days.

Lots of activity today at Littleton & Badsey LC.  It was raining too hard to spend any time there watching, but quite a bit of demolition of fences etc seems to have happened, and I'm wondering if the prefab garage that acts as a relay room is going to be demolished?

Nick

I think there will be enough room to the right to lay the other track - once cable troughs and the signal have been removed. The left-hand side of the track has more ditches between the two overbridges where that track has been laid.

Yes: thanks very much for posting here, willc - as well as writing for your day job!  ;)

Reason I was puzzled by the position of the relaid track is that on the right you have that row of wooden pegs, which elsewhere seem to be being used as markers for the edge of the formation when ballast is being dropped and spread, which would make it a tight fit for the second track, but I guess they know what they are doing.

I would expect that relay room and similar structures elsewhere in the formation will disappear imminently, as the idea is to move everything out of the way this summer, ahead of the track relaying. There may be fewer obvious signs of their efforts on the ground but there are lot of signalling technicians at work all along the route as well this week, as Don found at Ascott, as part of this process of sweeping the trackbed clean.

Couple of variations of my story have now seen the light of day:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/4521097.Cotswold_Line_revamp_takes_shape/ (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/4521097.Cotswold_Line_revamp_takes_shape/)

http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/search/4520413.Work_is_underway_on_Brunel___s_tunnel/ (http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/search/4520413.Work_is_underway_on_Brunel___s_tunnel/)

And some more pictures - including the repositioning of that track between Charlbury and Ascott-under-Wychwood and Chipping Campden tunnel - now at http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/)

Some good pictures, Will. And a well written article - like the way you've dumbed down 'ballast' to 'stone chippings'!

I've not had chance to get to see the work in progress at all, but I was at Oxford yesterday for a couple of hours and was fairly impressed with the level or organisation there with regard to the buses. The short-stay car park has been blocked off for the duration, with a small section of the long-stay car park converted into short-stay and disabled parking. Whilst the car park was nearly full, there were a dozen or so spaces available at around 4pm (I had heard that there were problems with spaces).

There is professional looking temporary signage on the platforms directing people to the buses, as well as by the bus loading area as well, with posters giving specific calling points and timings of each bus. Buses are appearing on the CIS and also being announced automatically - taking a lot of pressure off of the staff. In terms of loadings on the buses, I didn't see any arrivals, but the three separate buses that are replacing the evening halts service all left about 50-75% full, indicating that FGW have provided plenty of capacity. Much better to have spare spaces rather than having to sort out taxis, etc. Plenty of staff were on hand to help.

Good to see the interesting historical perspective - I'd read about this battle but never realised it was the Cotswold line!

Great article - do you know where I can read more about the battle?

Sounds like they are really cracking on with the work. Roll on 2011!

There's a lot of interesting information about the 'Battle of Mickleton' at http://www.ampneycrucis.f9.co.uk/PARK/MickletonTunnel.htm  ;)

I think FGW are to be congratulated on the way the bus operation has been handled. I've not heard a whisper of adverse comment, other than some minor concerns about coaches using a narrow street in Charlbury that the local bus services avoid, which I think reflects the meticulous way it has been handled.

Casual observation of replacement coaches I have encountered doing the drive to and from Oxford suggests they are running to the timetable - eg three of the four 18.25 departures running nose to tail up the Botley Road out of Oxford the other evening - and staff provision has been exemplary, with someone on duty at Moreton-in-Marsh on Sunday (normally an unstaffed day). The other morning I even drove past a yellow tabarded member of FGW staff at a layby on the A44 just east of Moreton waiting with a passenger - not sure why, maybe they had boarded the wrong bus - but hard to beat for customer care.

Some of the buses are definitely lightly loaded - Phil Haigh of Rail magazine travelled up to the tunnel visit on a mid-morning bus from Oxford and told me there were five people on a 50-seater - but at busier times many more are travelling and people are being delivered throughout the day where they want to go as efficiently as possible, given the limitations of many of the roads once you're off the A44.

Chris has highlighted the best web source of material about the 'Battle of Mickleton'. As for books, John Boynton's Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway has a thorough account, as part of a comprehensive book on the entire route, though the Cotswolds, Vale and on into the Black Country, well worth tracking down if you want to know more about the line.

The Worcester News variation on a theme is at http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/features/4523401.Tunnel_prepares_for_next_phase_of_its_life/ (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/features/4523401.Tunnel_prepares_for_next_phase_of_its_life/)

Although it is true that progress between Ascott and Charlbury is at a fairly stately pace at present on the relaid track - 40-50mph - I really can't see the point of tinkering with the usual departure times from Moreton because there is plenty of time in hand with the regular timing allowances past Hanborough.

The 10.45 today was held at Kingham for ages while someone ran up and down the car park to put a ticket in a car and then came over the bridge, we then left Charlbury four down but would still have been in Oxford at 10.25, two minutes early, except we were held at the last signal - presumably a late XC was still in the platform.

Out on the ground, there is a double-width ballast bed (and second set of rails dropped) most of the way between Charlbury and the Chadlington-Leafield road bridge where I took the pictures but beyond there to Ascott I presume it will be coming later. At Charlbury station there are some excavators working and lots of drain components and pipes waiting to go in.

Whilst it is true that quite a few of the Moreton departures have time in hand before reaching Wolvercote, there are some that don't, and must hit Oxford right time to fit into the Oxford - Padd timetable. I understand there is a plan of which services can be held (and for how long), awaiting coach connections, and which must go on time.

As you would expect, really!

It seemed to run fairly well today. Arrivals from Oxford at Moreton have to shunt from the down to the up platform at the London end of the station (its usually done at the country end). Takes about 20 mins for an HST to complete this, with the driver changing ends twice. A walking route has been laid to allow this to be done safely.

It did. It's a bit tight in the morning with all of the peak trains (4 HST's and a Turbo) having to travel down empty from Old Oak Common or Reading before the first of them makes the return trip. Squeezing the Turbo through caused a ten minute delay to the first up train at Ascott, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that train knocked by a few minutes most mornings - but overall that's not too bad!

A shame that the 'special dispensation' accorded to Evesham whereby a train is able to depart with passengers on under the Semaphore shunting signals from the same platform it arrived on, can't apply at Moreton too. A late HST arrival might unnecessarily delay its return working by the time 20 minutes has been wasted on shunting it across.

Yes, well, there's time in hand and then there's FGW padding. That 10.45 train I was on still stood for three or four minutes at Oxford waiting departure and when the 10.48 is operated normally by a Turbo (it's an HST for the next three weeks) and gets a clear run into Oxford it can end up standing for eight or nine.

The 7.07 is allowed 43 minutes to make Oxford with three stops on the way on the temporary timings. Why? Even under normal circumstances it gets a leisurely 40 minutes for a trip that is timed at 36-37 for pretty much every other train all day. Take out the four minutes or so that we lost at Kingham today and we would have hit the 36 or 37-minute mark into Oxford - allegedly slow-accelerating HST and the TSR notwithstanding. With fully-fettled track and a determined driver, a two-stop Moreton-Oxford HST run in 25-26 minutes is possible - I've been on trains that did it.

The only day there is likely to be a problem with coach connections is Tuesday, when it is Moreton-in-Marsh market day and the traffic queues through town can be lengthy at this time of the year, but with a 35-minute allowance for a non-stop bus from Evesham, there is a good margin in hand.

There is a dispensation at Moreton for late running trains to depart from the down platform. but this requires the signaller to clip the points.

Yes, the time allowed from Evesham to Moreton is usually generous, but proved challenging this afternoon when the bus had to follow a combined harvestet for some distance.

Ah, the pleasures of the countryside.

But by the laws of the road - if that combine had five or more vehicles behind it it should have pulled over to let them past - highway code (well was when I learned - I dont think they specify five anymore!)

I live in a rural area and I flame the farmers that dont do this

And i bet that procedure, once you've called control, etc, takes almost as long as turning back an HST.

Hopefully, the resignalling budget will stretch to a proper turnback facility for platform 1 at Moreton, saving at least some of the time all this takes.

No noticable signs at Evesham or west of Evesham of ANY work over the last three weeks, be it ballast, track, signals, lineside equipment, or cables.

It's only a mile or so to tackle there, so maybe that's coming at the end of the month. Nothing has happened in Moreton station either, so I assume the station resignalling will be among the last jobs to be tackled next year

The big effort now is focused on the section that's still closed, so I assume east of Evesham things are happening, certainly there were a lot of people at work on lineside kit on that section the last week the trains were running.

There was a ballast train top-and-tailed by EWS 66s at Moreton this morning, which set off north at about 9.45 and the currently resident tamper was not in the goods shed siding, so I assume it was at work up the line somewhere.

And in case anyone wonders why the 9.47 from Moreton was 10 late leaving Oxford today - it was nothing to do with the redoubling work, but a combination of a 15-late southbound XC, a detour by an on time Turbo into the goods loop from Wolvercote and some fairly leisurely shunt moves at Oxford before the Turbos coupled. Would the FGW train have been held back had it been an HST and not needed coupling up? I wonder. Instead of one delayed XC train incurring a couple more minutes delay, you got two late-running services with double-digit delays.

You're probably right. Seems a bit strange to make the commuters from Evesham and Pershore to Worcester incur buses for three weeks for no apparent reason though?

Worcester to Evesham was closed to allow signalling equipment etc to be moved clear of the formation and new cabling to be laid. The signalling between Evesham and Norton Junction had to be disconnected to do this. So, probably explains why there is little evidence of work west of Evesham.

Thanks, Oxman - that does indeed make sense.

Some pictures here of ballast trains at work on track renewals between Evesham and Aldington, which is just east of the Evesham bypass.

http://petertandy.co.uk/Recentpics.html (http://petertandy.co.uk/Recentpics.html)

And ballast workings near Charlbury here, though ignore the comment in one caption about the track being centred in 1971. That didn't happen until later.

http://www.hondawanderer.com/Recent_Additions.htm (http://www.hondawanderer.com/Recent_Additions.htm)

Thanks, Willl. This picture: http://petertandy.co.uk/66051_6W37_Aldington_050080.jpg (http://petertandy.co.uk/66051_6W37_Aldington_050080.jpg) shows an original footbridge, complete with date plate (1853 I think), and shows how structures were originally built for broad gauge width as was being discussed in this thread a few months back.

And speaking of broad gauge, I have been doing a little detective work since my visit to Chipping Campden tunnel and discovered that you can actually see the extra brickwork on the outside too - those bricks inside the decorative stonework (where it survives) of the arches at the portals are not original.

They don't appear on an original design drawing from Network Rail's archive and I have now seen a photo of workmen standing outside the Campden portal in the early 1900s and the brickwork is not there, just the stone arch. I suspect the men were actually the ones who added the bricks as it appears there was single line working in the tunnel for a period around 1903. I'm guessing the brick course is about 10-12in, so clearances are now a bit tighter than Brunel intended.

It's a pity the vegetation has been allowed to get out of control around the portals in recent decades. They looked quite striking in the 1960s, particularly at the Campden end, with the pale stone arch (more intact back then, without brick infilling) standing out against the dark brickwork of the wings holding up the cutting, with just grass and a few small shrubs around, presumably the effect Brunel intended.

Was over in Evesham this morning, so came back following the line through the Vale as best I could on the side roads. There are a few new pictures here http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/).

As well as what you can see, there were what looked like foundations for a new level crossing equipment cabin going in at the side of the trackbed at Littleton and Badsey level crossing but, in common with the other level crossings, no sign of the barriers being moved off the trackbed yet. Also evidence of cable renewal in various places.

There was a tamper working between Honeybourne and Mickleton, though it was just poking its cab out of a shallow cutting away across a field, so not worth a photo.

Looks like they are only running four carriages?

In self interest - are any first?

Not sure I'm with you there. Do you mean the HSTs at Moreton this evening? One was a 2+7 and the other a 2+8.

I was looking at your pics.....I counted 4 or five carriages!

Perhaps the others were behind the bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ::)

An interesting snippet in this fortnights RAIL magazine, saying that they might not shift all the signalling control to the new Signalling Centre at Didcot, and if so will retain Absolute Block signalling (and therefore the boxes) as it might be cheaper to do so.

The cost of axle counter installation and so on might come at a hefty initial price, but aside from their maintenance costs, they are then in place for a good deal of time. Keeping the boxes open means retaining all the staff with their wages, as well as the other costs of operating several signalboxes rather than one controlling centre.

Perhaps the first sign that the total scheme costing has fallen significantly short, and corners are having to be cut as a result?

Seemed to be problems squeezing the trains through the single line this morning so the 8.13 from Moreton to London departed from platform 1, using the shunting crossover - presumably clipped - but we were then held as Ascott for getting on for 10 minutes waiting for the Turbo going up to Moreton to appear

Are we on schedule to re-open in 2.5 weeks?  Thats what I want to know!

I'm crossing the days off mentally until normal service resumes.  I will never be so happy to be stuck at Morton or Evesham waiting for the single line

I have been told the work is running to schedule. Track is being laid in Campden tunnel.

In what I think was only the second or third email I have received from FGW from their redoubling update service, which arrived a couple of days ago, they also said that the work is on schedule.

Further early morning problems between Oxford and Moreton in the past couple of days, according to Charlbury commuter blog posts, with a cancellation and some very late running. Not entirely sure why they don't leave the halts DMU in a siding at Moreton overnight, as it would ease a bit of the pressure.

FGW are so proud of actually managing to send an email update that I got it again today.

And more problems today, with the 8.13 from Moreton actually starting at Oxford.

There is now a redoubling picture gallery online at the Oxford Mail website. Some of them will look familiar, because I took them, but there are some more from inside Chipping Campden tunnel taken by a colleague last month and a few golden oldies from west Oxfordshire out of the Oxford Mail library. It's at http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/pictures/oxfordshire_galleries/cotswoldline2009/

I think in hindsight it's one of the few areas that could have been improved upon, and if a similar block occurs later into the project - then that may well be changed. For this block it probably wouldn't be worth the effort of amending the unit, driver and crew diagrams for the limited time that remained once the problem came to light.

By way of an update http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/4559972.Cotswold_Line_doubling_up_enters_final_phase/

Some pictures here http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/ of an HST being shunted from one platform to the other at Moreton-in-Marsh station on Saturday evening - pretty slick operation, eight minutes start to finish, despite the driver having to walk the length of the train.

A member of the 'general public' quickly reading that headline would presumably think the re-doubling was nearly finished - a bit of an unfortunate wording?

Paul

I could give you my full one-hour lecture on headlines - gripping, I can assure you - followed by an hour trying to write some to fit tight spaces - always a winner with students - but in short, the idea of a headline is to get people's attention and convey a flavour of the tale, so they read the full story.

They need to be short and snappy - whether in print or on the internet - because if they ramble on for a dozen words, people just give up on reading the headline, never mind looking at the story.

I assume you did read on, so now have the full, rounded picture (hence the 200-plus words that went below the headline). The same goes for members of the 'general public' who read it.

The headline could have said something like 'Cotswold Line preparatory engineering work for doubling up enters final phase for this summer' but most people would just give up after 'preparatory engineering work'.

If you'd like to practise writing some yourselves - half a dozen words or fewer - you could always try conveying the gist of this tale from the Charlbury commuter blog of events at Oxford last Wednesday evening....

Another outing to Evesham today, so took the scenic route back, retracing my route through the Vale on August 8 and found a few more changes to photograph, along with the rare sight of a 'train' - okay, a road-rail excavator - running into the sidings at Honeybourne to collect ballast, which I assumed was destined for just east of the station, where work was taking place and a bulldozer with a ballast plough was parked in a field beside the line, close to the single-track bridge deck over the old Cheltenham line that will be replaced next year.

Signal technicians out and about at various places along the way, including Blockley and Dorn, near Moreton-in-Marsh, where there was also freshly-laid ballast awaiting tamping, presumably by the machine which is back in residence at Moreton sidings this week.

As usual, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009

PS: Have just noticed buried in a Network Rail press release about engineering work over the bank holiday weekend that the redoubling budget now appears to be ^70m.

Nice photos Willc.  I like the wavy track after it can been opushed aside!

An engineering train to remove spoil ran on the Worcestershire end of the line today, after taking the long way round from Oxford's Hinksey Yard to approach from the Worcester direction. Pictures here http://www.petertandy.co.uk/Recentpics.html

And an explanation of the confusion at Oxford last week has now been posted on charlbury.info by the local customer panel rep, who was told there were communication problems between the control room - who first cancelled, then reinstated the train - and the staff at Oxford station, resulting in conflicting information.

Network Rail has released a couple of new pictures from Chipping Campden tunnel today, including one of some double track sticking out of the Mickleton end.

Online now at http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/pictures/oxfordshire_galleries/cotswoldline2009/page/1/

I understand the work is likely to finish early, with the possession to be lifted on Monday morning. FGW is to run a test train at some point during the day to check the signalling system.

Great! Maybe my fears of mass cancellation or emergency bustitution tuesday morning will not come true!

Itn not fgw I have no faith in but notwork rail

Because of the other typo I'm wondering whether 'notwork rail' was deliberate. If so, I like it!!!

When I visited Chipping Campden tunnel back at the end of July, we were told they were already running a day ahead of schedule, so sounds like they have kept that up.

Trains have been able to run throughout for a good few days now, with all the necessary track in place and connected - and I believe that one of the midweek engineering trains did run from Worcester to Oxford.

And all the signals I saw in the Vale of Evesham when I went that way during the week were already powered and showing caution aspects, so the signs for a smooth resumption of services are good.

The line has been handed back and a test train ran from Oxford to Worcester and back this morning without a problem. Looks good for tomorrow.

Extracted from the new Network Rail RUS:

"Oxford to Worcester
Following a review of this service and its current calling pattern, it was agreed that due to the minimal benefits that could
be achieved from removing stops, the service should remain as it currently is. The RUS recommends a frequent review of the requirements and usage, particularly following the completion of the redoubling of the Cotswold line and any impact from this in line with IEP service developments."

For some strange reason, I could find no mention of super-fast Worcester trains in the strategy's list of 21 most pressing issues facing the GWML area over the next decade.

The IEP developments include a third Oxford-London route fast train every hour. A revised layout at Oxford to - among other things - assist in splitting and joining IEP trains to and from the Cotswolds is suggested (ie ONE set from a pair goes beyond Oxford every hour most of the day, with an enhanced peak service). See page 186 of the strategy for a track diagram including a scissors crossing - which appears to have been inspired by the arrangements used for Hereford and Kidderminster portion working at Worcester Shrub Hill in days gone by.

The other key development is that, as previously suggested, Wolvercot-Charlbury redoubling is very much on the cards as part of Oxford area enhancements and was modelled as part of one of the key options they have looked at, combined with quad-tracking throughout between Oxford and Wolvercot junction and south from Oxford to Radley.

Looks good on paper, doesn't it? How that diagram could be delivered in real infrastructure on the ground though I fail to see. Much of the RUS document seems to have been well researched, but the Oxford enhancements section strikes me as a bit of a hastily cobbled together effort.

For a start the 'current' diagram is incorrect as the Up platform is bi-directional. Secondly the proposed layout shows no sign of any additional northbound platforms that are likely to be built as part of the EWS and Chiltern Evergreen 3 project. Thirdly it's quite easy to say that you could turn two single platform faces into two island platforms, but where would the station buildings go? You could perhaps just about squeeze an island platform on the Downside if you demolish the current buildings and remove a few parking spaces (after all, the panel box won't be in use any more), but to gain a through Upside platform would mean the whole concourse being knocked down and rebuilt elsewhere. How much would that all cost?

I suspect that large parts of that suggestion will remain in the 'theoretical' box!

Thing is we are rapidly approaching the point where they might actually have to do something, whatever the bill is, especially if you're going to have to accommodate a third London fast train every hour, even if you do have a south bay, and you're going to do large-scale joining and splitting of Cotswold services again. It's not as if no-one accepts there's a problem at Oxford.

I don't recall seeing the report Arup did for the county council in 2004 suggesting moving the station down the line towards Oxpens, but that proposed a double island layout, so I expect someone just picked this up and moved it back north.

Yes, the site is constrained - thanks in no small part to the property company with the national rail network attached, aka Railtrack, which stupidly flogged off the plot at the west side of the station for the youth hostel and on the other side sold Rewley Road station for the Said business school (a site slated for a bus interchange as far back as the late 1950s) and not forgetting the Sheepwash canal channel at the north end of the platforms.

A better idea might be to move the station platforms north of the Sheepwash Channel on to the sidings area, where you actually have the space to build two or three islands (to accommodate Chiltern) and provide through lines for freight - and would save Chiltern having to build a bridge into the station. Put a new station building where the north bays are now, with a footbridge feeding the platforms at the southern end after passing over the waterway. You could also provide a pedestrian only access from Jericho at the north end using the Walton Well Road bridge. And move the stabling facilities down to Hinksey sidings.

Maybe this needs turning into a what do you do about Oxford thread??

I pretty much agree with all that as being the only way you could rebuild the station without taking it even further out of the City centre. Whether there is enough impetus and joined-up thinking for it to happen I think is very much up for debate.

Hinksey sidings could be totally rebuilt as a depot suitable for stabling of the Class 319's, which if all goes to plan, will be arriving at the sort of time a serious rebuild of Oxford might be essential. The amount of space (especially width) available for use in the new proposed replacement depot at Reading is causing concerns, so additional facilities will probably be needed elsewhere. It might well make sense to add Hinksey to a list that I have already heard includes Moreton near Didcot (on the sight of the old marshalling yard), and the Didcot GWR site, as well as more obvious places such as Old Oak Common.

This is a complex jigsaw to fit together, but if all goes to plan and strong long-term decisions are taken, then in 15 years the network could be totally transformed.

I've always thought that Oxford needs more platforms. I don't suppose removing the through tracks (or one) and using that to free up some space would be viable?

The Quad tracking mentioned would also be useful to prevent clashes between XC/FGW slows and FGW fasts.

The diagram I referred to makes it clear they recommend four platforms and two through roads at the station - so you segregate the through freight from the stopping passenger trains, as happens now and makes the current situation just about manageable. It's certainly not a facility you would wish to lose with the projected increase in traffic, especially with work to increase clearances just starting to allow 9ft 6in shipping containers on standard wagons to run between Southampton and the West Midlands in a couple of years' time, something likely to improve rail's market share on that corridor, which will mean even more freights needing paths through Oxford.

And if that's the case then 4 tracking around Oxford would also be useful! ;D

Some interesting comments below I found on the why and wherefore of the scope of the current redoubling scheme, buried amid a thread about Long Marston on a modelling site, which also features old pictures of that location and the former spoil tip area at Honeybourne triangle. This can be found at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43816&sid=ca4512580f742f81c36c7089e1133187&start=25
 (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43816&sid=ca4512580f742f81c36c7089e1133187&start=25)


"I think all the studies of line capacity - which obviously must always tailor in some respect towards some sort of defined timetable pattern - have show the key stretch for re-doubling is Evesham - Moreton. However there is definite advantage in going a bit west of Evesham and the last time I 'did a job' on the route the 'ideal' (that is combining not only capacity and reliability but paying a bit of heed to sense in terms of costs) came out c.3-4 miles west of Evesham. But that length of double only advantaged about 30% of the service pattern although it had a potentially greater beneficial impact on reliability.

Getting involved with, or near to, Norton Jcn starts to get very expensive and to be honest several studies have shown that it doesn't really offer much timetabling advantage - indeed back in the 1980s I proposed a scheme for two parallel single lines from Norton Jcn to Shrub Hill on which work actually started although it was subsequently dropped for a variety of reasons. And in fact far greater timetable advantage derives from modernising the single line signalling between Norton Jcn and Evesham (plus some doubling at the Evesham end) than would be delivered by doubling out of Norton Jcn; but if Worcester Parkway ever comes off it might happen. And far more important I found to get the signal sections right on the central double line part of the route than go fiddling with extra bits of double line at teh junctions at each end.

The situation at the Wolvercote end is also one where re-doubling would involve major, possibly disproportionate, costs when considered against the overall capacity of the route and possible timetable structures. The last time I looked at it it offered virtually no timetabling benefits at all (I recall only one train a day would have benefitted, and then sat outside Oxford waiting a platform  ) although there were, as usual, some potential reliability benefits.

Overall I think that what is being done now is probably the best (or nearly the best in view of my comment about Evesham  ) that can be done with in a sensible cost situation while offering real capacity benefits. One day things might change and the railways might be deluged with cash thus allowing more to be done but we shouldn't overlook the fact that the original singling almost certainly saved the line from closure as a through route and has at least ensured its survival up to now."

I would have thought that when the Worcester resignalling is done, a minimum would be for double track to be added a few chains east of Norton, covering the site of any Worcester (Norton) Parkway that could be built. This would allow an HST to get off the main line if the single track were occupied. Although, perhaps by then, you might as well do a decent few miles to Pershore of Evesham...

But given that Network Rail are already on record as saying that dealing with the remaining single track sections is on the cards when Oxford and Worcester are resignalled, and that Great Western draft Route Utilisation Strategy's endorsement of doing Wolvercot-Charlbury, I should think there's every chance that when the West Midland and Chiltern RUS comes out next year, it will say the same about redoubling Norton junction to Evesham, along with steps to sort out the myriad capacity problems in Worcester itself.

Is there really much of a capacity problem in Worcester?  I have over the years spent many an hour - usually in the morning peak so I cant speak for the evening - waiting on trains and it doesnt exactly feel like a hot bed of activity.   The platforms are not exactly a revolving door!

Um. Cough. I assume/hope you're being sarcastic? ;D :o :P

Thanks to the layout at Worcester, there are huge capacity constraints! That's why many trains have to terminate at Shrub Hill, and why trains entering the Worcester area on time can easily leave late - the layout is unreliable.

Most of the problem could be solved by the addition of a single scissor crossover (and associated signalling); but we really want full redoubling and no single lead junctions, with full sets of crossovers on all three sides of the triangle. (if we want to do it properly)

Of course a third platform at Foregate would be great, (but impossible I know!) and allow us to shut Shrub Hill, and let it rot - and fall down - in peace.

It is mainly a track layout issue at Worcester.  Foregate ST platforms are both bidirectional which means that in effect it serves two single tracks (one to-from droitwich and the other to-from Shrub hill).  Single track are always a capacity contraint

1. No I wasnt but I 99% of the time use Shrub Hill - it just never seems THAT busy in terms of train numbers

2. You cant shut Shrub Hill for one VERY good reason - no parking at Foregate. Not even close by.

If they build a Parkway, Shrub Hill will close.

Of course, they could rename Shrub Hill "Parkway" and add some large car parks on the abandoned railway land around...

That might demonstrate how restricted the capacity is. Hardly any trains, and still delays building up in the area! I expect you've witnessed trains sitting in the platform for no obvious reason on occasions?

In the hypothetical world that absolute block is retained, and that may not be a bad thing at this stage, how would  Honeybourne, be signalled?.

A new work base is being set up at Ascott-under-Wychwood in a field to the north of the line (ie far side from the village), just west of the level crossing. And some fresh vegetation clearance at Kingham. Not clear if this is just a bit of localised work or the start of another big effort this autumn and winter to rein in the trees more generally.

There is some maintainance of the river bridge at Ascott, perhaps this work is for that, or to replace the relay cabinet opposite the signal box - it's in the way of the second track, and sometime during the next 12 months all the level crossings are due to be replaced, perhaps Ascott''s level crossing is happening soon?

Certainly in the right place if they are working on the river bridge.

Does that include the unmanned ones in the Vale of Evesham, where strikes have happened as people ignore the signs telling them to phone the signalman?

Edit: Changed post to remove reference to "common" as its use is inaccurate for this post. Sorry.

No, it means all the automatic barrier crossings on proper roads where the existing set-ups all have barriers mounted in the trackbed which stand in the way of the second track.

And as for 'common' please explain. While most people are aware of the incident when people were killed in 2003 between Pershore and Evesham, 'common' would suggest it is happening all the time, which, mercifully, is not the case.

Ok - I'll remove the word common! Sorry... ::)

Actual accidents, no, but abuse of them (i.e. vehicles crossing without phoning for permission) certainly is common though. Numerous 'near misses' are reported by driver each year over the entire route, with the ones west of Evesham being the main culprits. The crossing where the 2003 accident occurred has an underpass, but this floods regularly and also anything too wide or high has to cross the tracks.

NB, I should state that a 'near miss' doesn't necessarily mean there was only inches to spare before a collision, but that had the situation been slightly different then a collision could have occured, e.g. a vehicle crossed the track in sight of a driver and if it had stalled momentarily there would have been a collision.

They are also life expired and break down frequently, and considered non-standard BR Western equipment.

Incidentally, some of the other crossings perhaps including the one that had that minibus accident are to be fitted with small red/green safe for cars to cross lights so that users will be able to see when it is safe rather than have to phone for permission.

An interesting little note has appeared on the redoubling news page on the FGW website, which I'm sure will perk up all you speed freaks from Worcestershire...

"this work will greatly ease congestion in the area, help improve train punctuality and it could also mean an increase in the number of train services and a reduction in journey times"

Good to hear.

Just like how the WCML upgrade is all to do with speed. And that's why rail's market share has increased dramatically - speed. Speed has caused VT to go for VHF to fit these passengers on!

It's not all to do with speed.

In the case of the WCML one very basic reason for traffic growth is quite simply that there are trains running regularly and reliably (at least until something breaks again) - something of a novelty, especially from Manchester, after a decade of disruption.

VHF stands for Virgin High Frequency timetable - and increased frequency is what growth on the Cotswold Line has been built on ever since the dark days of the mid-1970s.

At the risk of interrupting you two bickering all the while, it is of course not all about speed. Just like it's not all about frequency.

Getting more people from Hereford, Malvern, Worcester and the other stations on the route on the train is about getting the best speed, the best frequency, a sensible price and a reliable service. Compromises will still have to be made, and there are also numerous other minor factors, but those are the big four - with price arguably the most important of the lot.

This redoubling project has the potential to directly affect three of those factors. Journey times would be able to reduce as a more flexible signalling system will allow for tighter running and less conflicts. Frequency could increase as there will be more track capacity. Reliability should increase as the extra double track section will reduce the 'waiting for a train to come off the single line' announcements we all hear too often. Don't expect revolutionary changes though - as I've said before Worcester area signalling will still cause headaches. Most of the journey time improvements will be because of trains not needing to wait at Evesham for 10 minutes or at Ascott for 5 minutes rather than removal of station stops or higher line speeds, but I am sure timings will come down. Not to the levels the Cathedrals Express used to achieve in the early 90's, but they will come down nevertheless.

So, that just leaves the cost of the journey. Can't see much happening there though I'm afraid!

I can  :(

At the moment the journey is one of the cheapest in FGW land in terms of ppm I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).

I suspect we might end up seeing Worcester to London become comparable to Swansea to London in terms of price

At the expense of places like Nuneaton and Tamworth that lost off peak intercity services as a result.  Both of these places are are larger than Taunton and I doubt it would be very popular if FGW decided not to stop any off peak Plymouth to London services at Taunton so that they can claim more 2 hour Exeter to London journey times.

They can't even manage to claim a two hour journey time without a Taunton stop even though it can be done in under 1h55 fairly easily.

Although VT want to stop more at Nuneaton. (a fourth Birmingham train, for example, which would be routed this way)

I would also imagine that any second hourly Liverpool or Scotland train would be first stop Nuneaton.

But they stopped serving Nuneaton to save 3 minutes on the journey time to Liverpool.  Nuneaton to Birmingham is not electrified so doubt Virgin will be running anything that way in the immediate future.  A Tamworth stop would also be very useful as passengers from the south west to north west could change there rather than Birmingham New Street.

Yes, but if VT introduce a second hourly service to Liverpool, it may call at Nuneaton and Liverpool South Parkway. (for example)

Nuneaton is such a major junction.

Perhaps the 4th hourly service to New Street could be Voyager operated. Remember, VT thought they had sufficient spare to run a few Shrewsbury trains!

I think the electrfication of the route via Nuneaton should be done - it would have shortened my 3 hourish delay last month significantly!

And some of the Preston/Glasgow trains could stop at Tamworth so people on CrossCountry don't have change at Birmingham New Street as I said above.  I don't expect Virgin will do so though as they are more interested in claiming the lowest journey time possible.

Other stops could be cut. In my example of the Liverpool train, the Stafford and Runcorn stops are replaced by Nuneaton and Liverpool South Parkway.

In your example, which is a good idea to take the pressure off New Street, perhaps a Wigan, Warrington, Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith stop could be cut to compensate?

Insider, I think we agree rather more than we disagree on this kind of thing and I welcome the prospect of speeding up Cotswold services by getting rid of the padding post-redoubling, which your draft timetable ably demonstrated was feasible - looks like someone in FGW studied it and has come to the same conclusion.

My intention was simply to point out that there is rather more to Virgin's revamped service than speed - and its name was a pretty big clue.

The income on the Cotswold Line tends to be Moreton to Oxford, with a large proportion of First Class and full fare traffic, and any timetable must balance this, I am not sure of Worcester income, but as has been noted fares are not so high here, and trend towards Off - peak and Standard. On this basis the current timetable is probaby optimum balance.

There's still a pretty respectable volume of first class traffic from west of Moreton in the peak. Casual observation of the Cathedrals Express arriving at Moreton on three days last week would suggest three to four dozen first class passengers already on board is typical, which tots up to a good few quid, especially at ^129 for an anytime first return from Worcester.

What's this about the fares being cheap at Worcester? If anyone from FGW reads this, then they'll raise them! >:(

Cheap compared to other parts of the network.

Getting back on to work being done to improve the route - though not strictly redoubling - work is well under way on the repairs to the River Evenlode bridge and banks at Ascott-under-Wychwood, with a new wider river channel also being dug out south of the line. It would appear the idea is improve the flow and provide a degree of extra flood protection for the village, which suffered pretty badly in July 2007.

The scheme is costing ^320,000 and there's a bit about it on the contractor's website and a picture taken under the bridge showing it is in need of some tlc, see http://www.dyerandbutler.co.uk/website/ascott_under_wychwood.aspx (http://www.dyerandbutler.co.uk/website/ascott_under_wychwood.aspx)

A bit of extra expenditure will be needed to replace a lot of fibre-optic cable that was stolen from Blockley - I assume the thieves thought it was copper.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/cotswolds/cotswoldsnews/Fibre-optic-cables-vanish-railway-site/article-1424214-detail/article.html (http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/cotswolds/cotswoldsnews/Fibre-optic-cables-vanish-railway-site/article-1424214-detail/article.html)

Could I just say that I started this thread way back when I lived in Hereford and I'm amazed and gratified that it's still going.

Even though I no longer live in the Hereford area (about which I do feel sad, but one has to move with job) thank you for the debate and I look forward to seeing the debate continue.

I may take the Cotswold Line from Evesham/Honeybourne in the future but I suspect that Cheltenham will be my main station.

You could start a "Swindon to Kemble redoubling" thread...

Ahem! It's been done before, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3266.0

C. ;D

Yes, and I've joined in the Kemble to Swindon debate.
 
Of course, I'd like to see the Cotswold redoubling completed to Worcester and Oxford but I think I was one of the early ones to suggest that redoubling between Evesham and Charlbury was a good first stage (though now I think about it, Pershore to Long Hanborough would have been better... A good spot of public works in the current recession).

I took the opportunity of a trip in lovely winter sunshine to Worcester today. All has gone fairly quiet in the last four months since the summer blockade. The only signs of real work being done are a few length of welded rail ready near Charlbury to form part of the redoubled track. There's still a fair few electrical cabinets that'll need moving and a few miles of cable trunking to re-site before much track can be laid though - expect all to spring into life next spring.

Also, look out for the world's largest greenhouse* being built by the tracks between Evesham and Pershore, near the charmingly named village of Wyre Piddle!

* I have no idea whether it is actually the world's largest greenhouse, but it must be close!  :)

Sorry, but I think that record is likely to be held by this place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eden_Project)

The serious work should restart in January. The need for the Railhead Treatment Train to access the line every night precluded any work in the Autumn.

I think the odd bit of work is still going on here and there. Certainly there were three Amey Colas vans and staff in the car park at Charlbury station on Saturday night looking like they were getting ready for a night's work as I was passing on the 21.50 from London on my way home. But final design work, budgeting etc is still going on before the big push next year.

As for greenhouses - that actually produce something, like that one in the Vale will - try this monster in Kent for size http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1025689/Welcome-Thanet-Earth-The-biggest-greenhouse-Britain-unveiled.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1025689/Welcome-Thanet-Earth-The-biggest-greenhouse-Britain-unveiled.html)

Thanks bignosemac and Willc - I knew somebody would look up something bigger, and there are two fine examples!

ok, I overheard on my journey tonight the TM responding to a question from a passenger and then expanding to the CH and anyone in earshot......that the project has ran out of money and nothing is going to be done until May (which I assume would mean that the Feb blockade would not happen).

However I personally take this with a pinch of salt since I've heard some of the s**t that some can spout and if the above was the case, I would have thought I would have read about it here first.  Ironically this is not the first time I've heard this - a few CH's and at least three TM's have suggested the same.

Would be intrigued to know if its true.

As long as it doesn't delay the timetable change by another year! :o

Well, they haven't quite managed to burn their way through ^60m just yet. There's not a lot happening now because... not a lot is meant to be happening now.

Dropping of new rails, sleepers and ballast ahead of tracklaying was never meant to happen until early 2010 anyway and they are still finalising the signalling plans.

A new timetable is slated for May 2011. According to the new Cotswold & Malvern Line News, the CLPG has held some initial discussions with FGW about what shape that timetable might take. Apparently FGW's ideas go "a considerable way towards an hourly service, as least as far as Moreton-in-Marsh".

But the CLPG says there is not much by way of journey time improvements indicated at this stage. They have made suggestions as to ways to plug timetable gaps and also reducing timings. They are also pressing for more stops at Shipton and Ascott-under-Wychwood.

Anyone with suggestions for service improvements is invited to contact CLPG vice-chairman John Ellis. His email is ellis.consultant@virgin.net

Indeed, you can be sure that once completed, FGW will want to see the Cotswold Line on a similar pence per mile that the Bristol commuters are paying.

But are we talking Bristol suburban commuters or Bristol to London............because I dont think that even with the increased reliability, you could compare Bristol Templemeads to London (102 miles as crow flies) in terms of journey - about 1 hr 45 minutes to Worcester to London (98-100 miles as crow flies) at about 2 hr 30 minutes.

But we've already been told there will be no return to express worcester to London services therefore they cannot charge the same as on the western mainline.  The journey will be more reliable yes but it will still be akin to a commute to oxford or suburban commute.

People think i'm mad to commute Worcester to Reading/London but no one thinks the same of a Bristol commuter - yet the distances are the same(ish). used to have much closer journey times as well.

So I guess the point of this is...........they can increase the fares and we should expect them to however if they try to mimic the mainline fares, not sure how many people will suck that one up until joruney times fall

Skip stopping in the peaks might be a way to speed things up, especially idf they run more than one an hour after redoubling.

As as been noted, timetables are only in the very initial stages, and there's a lot more work to be done. But yes, fares will rise.....be grateful for the RPI+1% being applied now to every peak fare, and not a basket average.

They cant increase the fares.  It is one of the quirks of privatisation.  As the Anytime fare from Worcester is a DAY return fare it was considered a commuter fares at privatisation so was protected.  It can only increase by RPI +1% a year even after redoubling.  It just so happened the Bristol to London fare was an OPEN fare and was not protected.  That is why it has increased so much.

The fares on the Cotswold should definitely NOT increase!

Shame the new timetable can't come in next December - it's a long time to wait to May, and they won't be able to change it much anyway!

Is that right?

I can get an anytim open where the out is valid for five days and the return for one month?e

In Standard Class?

It's only Standard ticvkets that are protected. They can charge what they like for 1st Class....

It will be interesting to see what does happen timetable-wise, as the RUS says the following:

There's also the Chiltern swervice from Water Eaton to Marylebone from 2012, that is likely to attract some commuters away.....especially from the Eastern end..

Chris, I assume you mean 2013, as the original 2012 aspiration for Oxford-Marylebone was ditched some time ago.

Further evidence that Cotswold Line preparatory work is still continuing, seven Network Rail vans and pick-ups parked outside one of the hotels in Moreton-in-Marsh this evening - unless they have given each of the local track maintenance gang their own vehicles.

RE the timetable, there was never likely to be that much by way of drastic changes initially, largely because the thrust of the project is to improve reliability and punctuality - and because of the rolling stock situation.

If there had been 40-odd extra DMU vehicles for the Thames Valley fleet, which were likely to include a good number with interiors designed with medium-distance services in mind, things might have been a bit different but with the likelihood of nothing but the existing fleet of Turbos and HSTs available until wires start going up, FGW have little scope to do anything radical to the timetable for a number of years, just a bit of tidying up of the intervals between peak services and plugging off-peak gaps as best they can.

The mention of more workings at least as far as Moreton suggests this is likely to be achieved by getting more work out of stock that would otherwise be sitting in the sidings at Oxford between duties, rather like the 09.29 from Moreton which starts running next week, which I'm guessing will be the stock off the 6.57 from London, due at Oxford at 8.42, just in time for the ecs to head on to the single line once the Cathedrals Express has cleared it. Shame the timings are so tight to get the stock to Moreton and turned round that it can't run with passengers on board out of Oxford and call at say Hanborough and Charlbury en route.

From the Worcester News (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/local/4788614.Extra_train_for_capital_commuters/):

Yes, and I've joined in the Kemble to Swindon debate.
 
Of course, I'd like to see the Cotswold redoubling completed to Worcester and Oxford but I think I was one of the early ones to suggest that redoubling between Evesham and Charlbury was a good first stage (though now I think about it, Pershore to Long Hanborough would have been better... A good spot of public works in the current recession).

And I am honest enough to say I'm back on the Cotswold line. Cheltenham Station carpark closes when there's a race meeting on - bloody disgraceful - so I had to go to Evesham and I found a reliable service at half the price and it's slightly quicker to Evesham from my home at 6 o'clock in the morning. So I'll eat humble pie.

Other people at my workplace seem to be favouring the Cotswold line too.

Had a bit of a chat with one of the more senior permanent way chaps based down in Worcester today, and he was also saying that the project was already in a bit of trouble both financially and timescale wise. That doesn't surprise me to be honest.

 ::) :'(

Possession and further work planned for February 2010 has been deferred indefinately.  Most likely it will happen sometime next year but no idea when as revised possession(s) not yet agreed.  Final completion has already slipped back to late-2011 so we may not see any timetable benefit until the May 2012 timetable!

Urgrh >:(

So is sorta consistent with the unofficialline I got a few weeks ago Ithought was just gossip

Maybe after Xmas any of our members who happen to have contacts with the press should be shouting about this. At least shame Network Rail into making a statement, and hopefully put some pressure on them to accelerate the process.

Not that it affected me, but it must be doubly galling to have endured the disruption this year and then not have any clear date as to when there is going to be any benefit.

It's also counterproductive, stopping work now will only cost more in the long run.

Some of you will remember the Leeds rebuilding fiasco in the late 50s 60s where it was stop start. Cost far more in the end then was saved short term.

Willc.....?

That may have been who I had in mind. But far be it for me to tell anyone how to do his or her job.....

I also heard from a fgw staff member that the project had run out of money, I presumed he was joking as I thought the money had already been allocated to the project.    It may be that the project has seriously been financially underestimated or they have delayed it due to the Thames Valley Signalling Centre not being ready in time.
If none of these are the case then it is very disappointing having lived next to the line most of my life, and knowing the historical uninterest and lack of investment (infrastructure wise) shown by the then British Rail.   It would not surprise me if the next block of work doesn't happen until Summer 2010 and in my own view this doesn't make the project high priority with Network Rail.   
In no relation the Bathgate to Airdre project is going lightspeed compared to the Cotswold Line.
Very frustrating!

This will also have a knock on effect on the Kemble to Swindon redoubling. Presumably, they were planning to start that straight after the Cotswold, while all the equipment and workers were geared up for it. And that redoubling needs to occur BEFORE the GWML electrification. Of course, ANY of these 3 projects could be cancelled! Either now, or (more likely) after the election.

But any delay is a disgrace. If the funding has been found and it has been approved, why not save money in the long run by doing it now. If not, at least shove in a passing loop at Pershore so I can be stuck at Evesham for 20 mins less!

All Ive heard so far is that the signalling wasnt to be tied back to Didcot.....making more enquiries.

I have heard that the project is overbudget and costs are to be cut by retaining the local signalboxes - i.e. not putting control into Didcot. Trouble is that this requires a new plan - hence the delay. It should not take too long, but will probably result in a phased implementation in 2011.

That was being mooted several months ago as an option of reducing costs. Of course it's pretty short-sighted as the cost of running the whole show from Didcot would be cheaper over time that continuing to operate the manual boxes. But I guess if that's what it takes to get the project completed, then it will have to do.

Which is a bit worrying since they've only just started!

I gather that the Didcot signalling centre project plan has the Cotswold line coming under it's control in 2014 just after Oxford.

The options for signaling included:

• putting the line into Didcot early
• building a new temporary signal box at Honeyborne (!!!) until Didcot is ready.
• keeping the existing boxes open with the additional line in use, again only until Didcot is ready, or
• Waiting until 2014

The first option is the most expensive and the last, by far, the cheapest.

The third option is not seen as too difficult or costly as the original boxes were built for a double track line, but this does require some modification to the signaling plan, like a few less signals and will cost more both to install (effectively doing the wiring twice) and in retained signalman staffing costs. Didcot would need less than 1/3 of the current number of signalmen.

There is also a big expectation that new track laying machines and techniques which are soon to be available will be the key to reducing the costs and time taken to replace worn out track and that the Cotswold track relaying is waiting until this technology is ready, and is going to be a test bed for it's use. If true there would be little obvious work in the spring followed by a very busy summer, so that might be what we are seeing now.

The worry is that the 4th option has been quietly chosen, or half chosen,  - the greater the delay, the more new technology will be available that can reduce the cost, and, if one redoubles the line slowly enough then Didcot might be ready by the time the line has been finished and the whole thing might even come in on budget.