Great Western Coffee Shop

Posted today here (http://tinyurl.com/yfhej4u)

Plenty of reading.....

It seems as though the new 172s (when they finally arrive) will be doing the local 'metro' services from MYB to Gerrards Cross...

1 hr 38 London to Birmingham every hour is fairly impressive!

Now that really IS providing an alternative to Virgin between London-Birmingham especially if the Walk-on fares are much cheaper.

As I said, this new journey time is NOT a headline, like others here have claimed. It is regular and includes stops.

Sorry - only 1tph at that spped is headline - a regular 2tph at that speed, and I'll agree with you.

No, there were people who claimed that the sub 100 timing would only be on a peak to London and a peak from London. That's what a headline timing is.

Chiltern's B'ham timings currently have 1 tph about 10 mins faster than the other, due to the differences in stopping patterns. In the new timetable, one train is 100 mins, the other stops a bit more.

Sorry, but to call a timing that occurs every hour a "headline" is absurd!

Well done to ChrisB for cross posting my link before I got round to it... ;)

I'm with Btline about headline times though. An hourly fast is different to for instance VWC's 'headline' Glasgow - Euston - which only runs once or twice each way per day.

Paul

As one of the doubters as to the validity of the Evergreen 3 scheme, let me address it.

Firstly, thanks for posting the links to an absolutely fascinating document! All of the rumours and contradicting statements have been answered, and the document(s) provide a very clear indication of Chiltern's ambitions.

Some of their intentions are, quite frankly, staggering! Some of the headlines include the 100 minute journey times that we'd been told about. Other improvements are impressive to say the least; London to Warwick Parkway in 75 minutes (down from 88 minutes); London to Banbury at 52 minutes (down from 63 minutes); London to Wycombe at 22 minutes (down from 29 minutes); 750 car park spaces at the new Water Eaton station; 350 at the revamped Bicester Town station; remodelled junction speeds with massive increases including Aynho Junction in the down direction raising from the current 40mph limit up to 85mph (that will be some track cant!); a rebuilt up platform at Bicester North with linespeed increased from 25mph to 100; and a stated hoped introduction date of December 2010 (for phase 1)- only just over a year away!

Now that little lot is ambitious to say the least. Perhaps too ambitious?

Whilst the scope of the track work goes quite some way beyond what I was expecting, I am still concerned that Chiltern are biting off more than they can chew with some of these proposed schedules. Even non-stop, 52 minutes from London to Banbury (a distance by rail of some 70 miles) is very challenging for a 100mph train with non-exceptional acceleration. I note that Chiltern are expecting a 1.2% worsenment of their PPM figures as a result of the Stage 2 timetable - I wonder if that's what the press will pick up on!

Also, there are still a significant number of occasions when I have witnessed a Class 165 working vice a 168 on London to Birmingham services this year (I estimate about 5% of workings). That doesn't sound like much, but a Class 165 on those point-to-point timings will woefully struggle to keep up, whereas now it only loses a couple of minutes.

Added to that, fourteen months to install all of the realigned track, extra junctions and revised signalling is an incredibly tight time-scale in railway terms - even if major work started tomorrow.

I also have concerns about what the new timetable will mean for some existing passenger flows. It's win, win, win for many flows and the vast majority of commuters into and out of London. However, some routes suffer badly. As of now, anybody wanting to travel off-peak from High Wycombe to Banbury has 6 direct trains to choose from (and a couple of indirect ones) between 11am and 3pm. With the proposed timetable, there'll be only two trains - a service every two hours on the Stratford route.

High Wycombe to Birmingham fares even worse with no direct trains at all during those times - indeed with a change at Banbury there will still only be a service every two hours! So that's a huge decrease in the number of trains and options for a town of around 100,000. I suppose you could go from Wycombe to Oxford and change there, but if the AXC timings are the same from Oxford as they are now, you'll be looking at a 25 minute connection time!

Other routes suffer as well; if you want to go from Beaconsfield to Denham, Ruislip or Wembley off-peak you currently have a direct train every 30 minutes (one stopping at West Ruislip and one at South). With Evergreen 3 then all of the direct trains are gone with only an hourly service if you change at Gerrards Cross.

It's a similar type of story to the WCML Very High Frequency timetable, with lots of significant flows on the non-London routes suffering badly in comparison with before. Whether Chiltern will be forced to improve things remains to be seen.

So, overall, Chiltern should be congratulated for having the ambition and financial backing to propose such a scheme - and their 'track' record on being able to deliver them on time and on budget has so far been unquestioned -  but many of my reservations remain! Thoughts?

A very thought provoking review. Chiltern's attempt to provide an alternative competitive to Virgin on the Birmingham route is to be commended, but not if it results in the deterioration to local services that you seem to indicate.   

The loss of links to HW is a shame, but the majority of flows are to and from London, so this new timetable will benefit many.

I personally can't wait for it. 2 hours 25 minutes for Kidderminster to London! That's competition for both FGW and VT!

And as for 75 mins to Warwick P'way..... let's just say that a car park extension may be required!!

That 'many' obviously doesn't include hundreds of thousands of potential passengers in the 'Chiltern' area who may want to go somewhere other than London, and currently can.


And all those pax at HWY left out by the changes to Chiltern's calling patterns? Have they got two other TOCs to choose from?

I personally do not think the obsession with London is a good thing ........ not everyone wants to go there!

Getting From liverpool to AN other place anymore is significantly worse now the VT train stopping pattern has changed. 

There needs to be a balance.  Note this is from someone who likes FAST services to London - but if the intermediate services suffer as much as this and the VHF service causes - then it is NOT a GOOD THING. 

Several (several depending on the proportion of overall services e.g. cotswolds - 1 in each peak - virgin - 1 an hour or maybe even every two hours) being FAST services with the rest giving a balance. 

FFS - NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO GO TO LONDON

If I could never go there again - I'd weep with joy

Well, perhaps the NR timetable is wrong? I've just mapped the whole route very accurately on Google Earth and it comes out at 68.7 miles. It also comes out at 62 miles as the crow flies. Perhaps Google Earth is inaccurate? Hopefully Chiltern know the exact distance and have not underestimated the time needed!

In terms of providing a more acceptable service for the non-London flows, stopping one of the 2tph between London and Birmingham at High Wycombe (off peak at least) would improve things quite significantly. Yes, it would add a couple of minutes to the overall journey time, but with Wycombe having the slowest line speed of the whole route (only set to rise from 50mph to 60mph as a result of Evergreen 3), the overall time lost by a stop isn't as great.

In the phase 2 timetable from London if the xx:00 stopped then it would provide an hourly northbound service from Wycombe (at xx:24) to Banbury and stations to Birmingham with a third service every two hours to Banbury and Stratford at xx:08. The xx:24 departure at Wycombe would connect in well with an arrival at Wycombe from Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield (at xx:18).

Coming the other way, if the xx:32 from Birmingham Moor Street was retimed two minutes earlier then made a stop at Wycombe at xx:55, again that would connect in reasonably well with the xx:08 from Wycombe to Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross.

In my opinion those would be the minimum changes required to provide Wycombe, Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield with a reasonable spread of services to and from the north. Though I'm sure the various RUG's will have other issues with it too.

I'm not sure of the totality of Chiltern's franchise agreement. I know in exchange for their 20 years deal, they have committed to spending on the Oxford services and speed up the Marylebone to Birmingham time, but have they actually committed to a 100 minutes journey time? If not, then major works like rebuilding the layout and up platform at Bicester and rebuilding Aynho Junction and its approaches could be considered as extra expenditure purely on business case merits. Either way this is going to cost them a significant sum of money.

One additional point is the lack of mentions about W&SMR in these documents. Taking the timetable proposals for example, there's provision for freight paths in the timetables (though the document says they 'need improving'), but no mention at all of actual paths to/from Wrexham. With the incredible detail included in the performance modelling document using RailSys (see the RWA Report document for details), you'd assume that these trains had been fully modelled into the system, too? In which case why aren't they marked on the timetable?

Can't disagree with any of that, and those thoughts on Wycombe stops mirror our User Groups - and we're already working on them!

There is an aspiration for 100 minute Birminghams (possibly only a secondary one, but it's definitely there) - what isn't there is any aspiration or requirement to go to Oxford. All the expeditures identified in the franchise are specified to be spent on improving the services / stations / track on those services specified in their franchise

Chiltern are looking for DfT approval as they wish to spend money outside that specification. I understand the DfT are actually still to take a final decision (partly dependent on the ORR agreeing with Network Rail on these three Track Access Applications (TAA) currently with the ORR)

The remainder of the proposed Evergreen 3 works definitely come under their franchise specification. But in a recession, they obviously don't want to spend above the required spend required by the franchise, hence the reduction of works on the Oxford - Bicester Town line where they're no longer dualling the entire line.

One aspect of their Oxford application  - the ORR don't like open-access applications (which this is as it isn't in Chiltern's franchise) where the major income is abstracted from other franchisees. A point made well in Chiltern's objection to ATW's Marylebone service application (see other thread) - but where are Chiltern likely to get major income from serving Oxford / Water Eaton? The latter will draw commuters off the Cotswold Line, and it's obvious who'll use their service from Oxford! So little or no 'new' rail customers. The only 'new' customers are likely to be those wanting to go to Wycombe (less than 100 / day, I reckon)

So, if ORR dismiss ATW's application, logically they are likely to similarly dismiss Chiltern's application to Oxford. A possible alternative is if the DfT agree with FGW for FGW to give up Bicester Town in favour of Chiltern & add it to Chiltern's franchise - but FGW will definitely want compensation! (Thought - why not give FGW the Stratford services back? - Chiltern can't make them pay....)

They can't put WSMR paths in this application as it's a Chiltern application - and WSMR are still their own entity as at time of submission. One of the other TAAs requests permission to roll WSMR into Chiltern. Chiltern / WSMR have currently got 3 TAAs with the ORR (maybe 4 actually - 3 Chiltern & 1 WSMR)

Just for reference:

Shortest route from (London) Marylebone to Banbury
Distance: 68 miles 64 chains

Ahhh, ok, my error - All I remembered was the '64' figure.....

I think the reason HW calls have been removed is to have a pattern of: fast - semi fast - slow - gap - fast - semi fast, etc...on the route to make full use of the track. Remember, Chiltern don't have the luxury of 4 tracks.

However, I think that 1 tph should call at HW, as it is the "Reading" of the Chiltern line. (i.e. the place were people commute to other than London; I'm not talking interchanges)

Another problem with the t/t is that there are no Off Peak Kidderminster trains. The last departure from Kiddy gets in at about 9.55am, meaning that off peak tickets are invalid. At the moment, Chiltern have got the peak/off peak balance just right, with 3 peak and 2 off peak trains from Kidderminster, ensuring they serve the whole market.

However at the end of the day, getting as many people to London in the shortest time possible will always be the priority.

Chiltern have wanted to lose off-peak Kiddy trains for a little while - indeed, they tried to in this December's TT - but were persuaded to retain them as London Midland couldn't cover them.....this may still be the case in Dec2010.

Why do they want to loose Kiddy off peak trains? Do they want fewer passengers?

Chiltern only tried to remove 1 out of 2 off peak trains this December. This is because they wanted the unit to strengthen a HW to B'ham service. However, other than the fact that LM can't cover the service, the reason why they didn't is because they realised that the 2nd off peak train (already very busy) would get swamped.

This behaviour is very strange considering that CHiltern hare pledged a commitment to the area, and have even mooted running their trains on the SVR to Bewdley and perhaps beyond.

I think you've answered your own question - in that stock is required to strengthen the services on their main London - Birmingham route. And there isn't any spare.


Not sure whether you mean Chiltern or LM by 'they'. LM don't have any extra stock at that time of day either, until the 172s on order start arriving.
With the new Oxford aspirations, I think all previous mentions of running trains beyond Snow Hill have been superceded. I suspect Chiltern wopuld be happy to relinquish both those and maybe the local Birmingham area stoppers....

LM 172 order provides no more carriages (it actually provides one fewer coach). So there will be noone to cover for the loss.

The Kidderminster to B'ham line is the most overcrowded route in the West Midlands, there will be a uproar if any rush hour services are axed.

By they I meant Chiltern. The main reason CH kept the 7.30 was the effect it would have on the 8.10 CH departure. (not to mention the 7.18 and 7.37 LM departures, both already busy, but both would have swamps of extra people boarding, displaced off the 7.30)

And I don't think Chiltern want to pull out of Kidderminster. The trains are well used and as I said, CH have indicated further plans in the area.

Two questions - where's the stock going to coming from if further plans still exist - and if you're right (which I'm beginning to doubt, again) why did they try & pull one service out of Kiddy (and another out of Stourbridge in the evening)

1.No further stock would be needed, they would just run the stock down from Stour Jn slightly earlier in the morning an return it later. This has happened already, with a special SVR to London service. CH want to repeat this.

2.To enable a HW to B'ham train to be switched from 3 to 4 car operation. But at a huge cost - 4 cars lost between Kiddy and B'ham. Common sense prevailed. The axe of the late service to Stour was a consequence of this, as the unit would not be stored at Stour Jn.

The new phase 2 timetables show a half hourly service to Ox and the Kiddy services. What makes you think CH will pull out?

Willc is right - you don't read other members posts. See above. You haven't answered my question....


I think you'll find Chiltern still want to do this swap - and it is a swap - so why weren't they simply moving the 3car replaced by the 4 at HWY to Kiddy? I suspect that is what is happening now. The reason they put it back was that both Passenger Focus and Centro put pressure on them to reinstate. I saw the correspondence (Or some of it)


Until the 172s arrive I meant. Phase 2 has shortened journey times which does release a modicum of stock. But until both Evergreen 3 and the 172s arrive, Chiltern is VERY short of stock.

Thanks for those insights, ChrisB - and welcome to the forum by the way. We always need those who are closely associated with projects to help guide us (especially Btline  ;) ) as to why and how certain decisions manifest themselves.

I still find the WSMR omissions a little strange though - I take your point about them no being joined at the hip with Chiltern yet, but as I said freight paths are identified and included in the draft timetable. Assuming WSMR have rights to their paths as part of their seven year agreement with NR, then I just find it strange that they are not there on the timetable.

1. I think I have. No extra stock would be required, just it would be in use for an extra hour or so a day.

2. It wasn't a swap. The 4 car would run the HW to Snow Hill service where it would become what was the 7.30 from Kiddy. The Kidderminster to Snow Hill section was to be axed. I'm not sure where the 3 car train displaced off the HW-B'ham service was to end up.

3. Chiltern wouldn't axe Kiddy services just for a few years. It would kill off demand and would set passenger growth back by many years. My guess is that Chiltern will make use of loco hauled stock.

Any attempts to cut down on Kiddy services will be met with huge amounts of opposition. When the 7.30 cut was announced, the Stourbridge line user group, Centro, Worcestershire County Council, Bromsgrove Rail User Group, West Midlands Campaign for Better Transport and RailFuture ALL sent individual letters of complaint!

By the way Chris B, thanks for all this information you have been posting regarding these issues. It is very interesting! :)

On that 'scrapped' Kiddy service perhaps?.....
My point exactly - if Chiltern had wanted to keep Kiddy services, why wouldn't they have just suggesting swapping the two trains around, instead of scrapping it?
I suggest to you that it was the pressure you noted from various groups that persuaded them to keep it, and don't be so sure that they won't think of doing it again.

Love or loath Chiltern they have put a considerable amount of money into the route and they are proposing even more with these proposals.

I do think the ommission of many HW stops to Brum is detrimental to the overall service on the line.

I do wonder what the point of running 100 minute trains from London to Brum which cannot compete with the West Coast except for the leisure market at very cheap fares. i would have thought Chiltern would benefit from two way traffic from intermediate staions to both London and Birmingham. After all they are the two largest conurbations in the British isles. I know people that have commuted from Leamington to London I wouldn't be surprised if they're aren't Wycombe to Brum commuters. Certainly Banbury inwards to Brum.

I wish people would stop patting Chiltern on their back / insinuating that Chiltern have chosen to put all this money into their route - they were compelled to by the terms of their franchise! In effect, it is taxpayers money being spent. Rather than paying the DfT, they are required to improve their route through these upgrades.


Errr - experience the route and try again. They do compete with Virgin very well, especially attracting those who might live half-weay between say, Solihull & B'ham INternational, or Rugby & Banbury. I reckon they've got at least 30% of that market.


Banbury is the dividing point - always has been. THose south of there go to LOndon, and those to the north go to Brum - almost entirely. Chiltern have done rhe research.

Part of the reason of getting the journey time down is to encourage Snow Hill line and Midland Metro passengers to use Chiltern to London, instead of walking to New Street and taking Virgin.

Remember, the reason why Chiltern were awarded the long franchise was because of how they demonstrated themselves at the start. And you have to admit that they run a excellent service and have a vivid vision of the future.

They have turned a route, abandoned, singled and downgraded by BR, into a route that carries more passengers than the Midland Main line! (Marylebone now has more pax than the domestic MML platforms at St Pancras)

Remember that there will be many HW = Oxford passengers. So the loss of the HW stop may be less important.

Can't disagree with that at all! They did win the bidding (against who? - I've forgotten...)


Indeed - praise where praise is definitely due!


But I can't agree with you there. Where is your research / proof? Chiltern won't even disclose that....Personally, I don't think that there'll be more than a couple of hundred at most. There isn't even a bus service Oxford - Wycombe.....Oxford - Aylesbury, but not to Wycombe. So the bus companies dopn't see any demand.

I think that's bluff by Chiltern to persuade the DfT to allow them the route.

A correction to something I posted a few days ago - it appears that Chiltern has requested an amendment to franchise by requesting the Oxford - Bicester Town services currently in the FGW franchise be transferred to the Chiltern franchise with associated rights to run services - ratherthan applying via an open access application. They state in their Track Access Application that FGW actually be prevented from competing.
[/quote]

I expect the reason why there is no bus is the M40! However, the train will be quicker.

Besides, even if there are few HW passengers, Chiltern will get people at Water Eaton, off the A34 (and the northern parts of the city/surrounding villages). They'll also get people from Oxford who are fed up of FGW's sky high fares.

I assumed that FGW would stop running to Bicester. Hopefully the Turbo will be put to good use somewhere. (as long as it stays clear of the Cotswold!)

This new service is good news. It should persuade FGW to improve the levelof service, getting the journey time and fares down, reliability up and fewer Turbos!

Hmmm - you can't pick up passengers along motorways! The bus wouldn't go via the M40.


Oh yes, abstracting fares from FGW. I'm glad to see that someone else agrees with me! I thought Chiltern objected to TOCs that launched services where their business case was based on abstraction from other franchised operations? I'm referring to ATWs application to run Aber to Marylebone services. Isn't this Chiltern doing to FGW what Chiltern and WSMR are accusing ATW of doing??!! Pot calling kettle here, I think!

The number of NEW customers Chiltern are going to attract to their services is very few, and certainly insufficient to make a profit....

The fare from Oxford won't / can't change. And if Chiltern become the franchise operator, they won't be able to launch a Chiltern-only fare either as that is proscribed in the franchise regulations. FGW won't drop their fares either as it will affect those from other stations like Didcot Parkway.

Obviously, Water Eaton will be a new station, so Chiltern can (& will, I'm sure) set a fare that is both lower than Oxford and possibly the same as Bicester....which will be a lot lower than any Cotswold fare....thus actually creating completely unnecssary road milage journeys by persuading Cotswold residents to stop using their local station and instead drive a lot of miles to Water Eaton.

With a free car park at Water Eaton, they may also persuade extra traffic to make journeys out of Oxford too....

Very Green, I must say!


All off-peak daytime services on the Cotswolds are now turbos I believe. It might persuade FGW to reinstate HSTs though. I'd rather travel on an HST than a 168.

This new service is good news. It should persuade FGW to improve the levelof service, getting the journey time and fares down, reliability up and fewer Turbos!
[/quote]

[/quote]

The Turbo could be put to very good use on the Cotswold Line, as it could be used to operate the proposed/aspirational Moreton-Didcot shuttle service. It could also be put to very good use strengthening a peak diagram in and out of Paddington.

With regards to off-peak daytime services on the Cotswold Line, it's roughly a 50/50 split between HST's and Turbos - the two off-peak Hereford's and a Malvern are still HST's.

As far as the potential for Water Eaton parkway, yes of course there will be a significant number of people who will switch from using FGW at Oxford and to a lesser extent Hanborough. There will also be new custom generated from Kidlington and North Oxford by people who work in London who currently drive who are put off by the daily slog to get into Oxford city centre to get the train and will be drawn by the journey time from Water Eaton.

Oxford/Water Eaton to/from High Wycombe won't be a major commuter flow, but there will be enough people to make it more than a trickle, and if people know there's a quick, frequent, reliable service then new business will be created over time. Also, commuting between Bicester and Oxford is a pain in the butt on the A34 for road users who have been crying out for a regular and quicker train service. Expect a decent shift of business from car and bus there too.

Put all those things together and I think you will have a service that is well worth it.

Hmmm - not many do that drive, I'll wager. 2 hours-plus to get into Central London, plus daily congestion charge plus parking costs. It's a no-brainer. I certainly think there'll be an abstraction of those driving off the Cotswolds to Bicester North curtrently, plus those from Charlbury and even Moreton if the price is right, along with Hanborough.

I don't think there'll be many from the Oxford-London coach market either - they'll still get a cheaper ride....


Sorry, but we'll have to differ on that one. Proof will be in the eating. I notice Chiltern have requested a very swift review of their services, should forecast numbers not hold up.


Totally agree there, mind you. The bus service will be decimated, I reckon. And the southbound A34 and M40 junction 9 in the morning and northbound in the evening will get a big easing. Until those commuters return to Water Eaton of course....

Put all those things together and I think you will have a service that is well worth it.
[/quote]

No, perhaps on reflection there won't be that many - though a good friend who lives in north Marston does and would. Again though, if the service is there then people searching for a new house or a new job may well have their decision swayed by having that kind of service, so what was an unattractive prospect of commuting by train from Kidlington (for example), suddenly becomes very attractive. Result = new custom.

A lot of the people who drive into Oxford and park at the station for an FGW train might find that the time taken to drive to Water Eaton for a Chiltern train is comparable. Unless we look at the origins of the occupiers of the station car park we'll never really know what their options might be.

Looking back at a few posts in this thread though, it seems some people believe Chiltern's proposals are somehow a raid on FGW. I don't see how it can be. The statement in the 73rd track access agreement proposal is fairly categoric, they say:
"In the case of the Phase 2 rights to run services to Oxford there is an additional Condition Precedent which is that FGW^s rights to operate between Bicester Town and Oxford should be extinguished. This ensures that two operators do not have rights which clash. FGW and DfT have both been informally consulted over this condition, and have indicated that they are content for it to be included."

I'd be surprised if FGW were worried about the Bicester shuttle, there must be no way it covers its true costs. Therefore it is a no lose situation for FGW.

Edit: I've since found that Chiltern's franchise agreement was amended in Dec 2007 to include a number of 'agreed secondary aspirations' amongst which is one to run trains to Oxford, either via Bicester and a new Water Eaton Parkway (as it has turned out) or via Wheatley with a new South Oxford Parkway (too difficult, IIRC).  Unfortunately it is one of those pdfs that you can't cut and paste from, so I've summarised.  This agreement (ie with the DfT) seems to set the Evergreen works on a somewhat different footing to the recent ATW application, AFAICT.

Paul

The references to Chiltern being a raid on FGW revenue are to do with Oxford (more specifically Water Eaton, as that would be far easier to reach in rush-hour from the north and east of Oxford and Kidlington (a 'village' with a population of 17,000!) than getting through the city centre to Oxford station), not Bicester-Oxford revenue, which is no great shakes outside the peaks, so no, FGW won't shed any tears about not having to run the branch any longer - though if it was Network Rail footing the bill for the work to cut the journey time to 15 minutes or so, not Chiltern, that might be a different matter.

If Chiltern didn't think they were going to pick up a handy chunk of the highly lucrative traffic between Oxford and London, then they wouldn't have come up with this project and would have done something else - East-West link, say - to meet the franchise requirements for investment. Evergreen3 is also a lot easier than taking on something more speculative like East-West. You have an established service, of sorts, between Oxford and Bicester, with great potential as yet more homes go up in Bicester and the A34 gets ever more congested, plus the capital city and a city whose name is known the world over at the other end of the full route - this is a lot less of a shot in the dark than some of the other things Chiltern has looked at down the years, for example, renting the Chinnor & Princes Risborough Railway on weekdays to run to a parkway station near the M40 at Lewknor.

I'd be rather more dubious about the prospects of picking up any traffic from the Cotswolds, indeed, post-2011, if redoubling delivers what we are hoping for, then there will be no logical reason for anyone to get into their cars and trek all the way to Water Eaton, never mind Bicester.

The A44 is a rotten road, with 50mph limits most of the way from Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford these days - in the peak I'd estimate you're looking at a 45-minute road journey to Water Eaton - assuming no foul-ups around the Pear Tree/Loop Farm interchange area, with an hour's train journey to Marylebone, plus time to park, buy a ticket, etc - that's about two hours. Why would anyone in their right mind do that rather than what should be a pretty rock-solid 90-minute direct rail journey? Same would apply to driving from Kingham or Charlbury.

And I doubt many people currently using Hanborough would switch - a Carterton/Witney-Water Eaton road journey (unless you go all the way round right past the entrance to Hanborough station or use the windy back road from Cassington to Yarnton) involves negotiating the Wolvercote roundabout, a place synonymous with rush-hour tailbacks - never mind the Cotswold Line upgrade's impact on reliability - where on earth are they going to find more parking spaces at Hanborough if traffic gets another boost post-2011? Buy out North Oxford Garage?

There is undoubtedly a modest flow of people commuting from Bucks to Oxford but I doubt the prospect of going all the way round via Bicester is likely to get that many out of their cars. Chiltern's projected rail timing is 38mins, the AA reckons 47 by car. Not sure that's enough to make a difference once you factor in getting to Wycombe station, if you don't live on the doorstep, nor if you don't work in central Oxford.

And when there's a Turbo going spare then there are some stations at the eastern end of the Cotswold Line where we would be very happy to see it (refreshed, of course) and the higher frequency service it would permit.

But can we please not get too carried away with knocking BR about its handling of the Chiltern Line. Remember that under NSE they resignalled what track was there at the time with modern kit and fitted ATP, bought the Turbo fleet, which, as elsewhere in the region, was doing a good job of attracting more passengers before privatisation, built Aylesbury depot to service the Turbos and smartened up Marylebone after dropping the silly closure plan. So Chiltern had a pretty good legacy to build on, which is more than can be said for many other parts of the network.

I would disagree. Ok, they put ATP in etc. BR basically turned the line into a minor route with minimal infrastructure. A heck of a lot of time and money has had to be spend on modernising the route back to where it was. Now, they are finally going beyond that, with remodelled track layouts and new stretches of line.

If Paddington had not been o crowded, they would not have hesitated in closing Marylebone.

Evidence? Just look at the passenger numbers. They have grown by more than half since BR. Even when you cancel out the overall growth in rail use, this is impressive - demonstrating how demand was constrained after the rationalisation.

Let's hope Evergreen 4 includes some 4 tracking in the Ruslip and Solihul areas.

It may have been a secondary route - but in the world of a single, unified rail network, there was a reason for that - because BR wanted to concentrate West Midlands-London traffic on the Euston route (though it did of course introduce the Marylebone-Snow Hill service in 1993) - which seems reasonable and logical to me, but I'm sure you'll still manage to find some reason to disagree.

And it was, as I said, a very heavily modified secondary line, effectively self-contained for much of its length, without anyone else's trains to get in the way, which provided the ideal basis to build on. Adrian Shooter and his management team, backed by Laing and 3i, knew exactly what they were about when they went after the Chiltern franchise. They could see the potential. They didn't have to worry about nursing 1960s and 1970s rolling stock on routes with Victorian signalling and all the kind of things many other operators faced, so were able to lodge a unique, winning bid built on offering development and growth, knowing that the existing operation, with all its modern kit, would be trouble-free in the meantime.

The passenger growth figures are undoubtedly impressive, but then you could say the same about XC under Virgin, a 75 per cent rise between 1997 and 2007, or Northern - which was franchised on the basis that there would be no growth in passenger numbers between 2004 and 2013! In the past five years, their traffic is up 20% - and Northern don't serve the most expensive place outside London to buy a house (Gerrards Cross), nor other similarly well-heeled bits of the Home Counties' commuter belt.

RE Paul's edit, can't understand why they even bothered mentioning the route via Wheatley - was never a realistic prospect, due to the sheer scale of the expenditure that would have been needed, never mind the dubious state of Horspath tunnel - which is also a protected bat roost these days.

And don't imagine FGW or anyone else who may succeed them is going to take the prospect of a fight for London revenue lying down. While the Reading modernisation will limit the scope for journey time reductions until 2015, with the Reading choke point dealt with, I don't see why they can't aim for a standard 50-minute timing or even less, post-electrification. And First are perfectly capable of aggressive pricing themselves, eg South Wales main line FGW-only fares, and are currently spending on a promotional campaign around Oxford offering London fares as low as ^1 one-way.

Two trains an hour, every hour?


Go talk to the County Council - they're so worried that they've insisted Chiltern carry out loads of traffic simulation exercises to show exactly what is likely......

There is no Evergreen 4 in this franchise - as I understand it, not in the current (extended) franchise. So nothing more until a new franchise post-2021.

Not possible - The TOC that sets the fares on any flow can't also set TOC-only lower fares.

I think the growth potential of the route is not to be underestimated. It's one of the newer Victorian lines originally built to a very high standard - I think it's got more grade-separated junctions than the whole of the FGW empire. It has (almost) dedicated terminals in the country's two largest city's. Consider that in it's heyday Moor Street had the same number of tracks entering from the south as New Street (albeit with less platforms) but Chiltern only have to share with one other route as opposed to Virgin having to share even just the LNWR half of New Street with numerous other routes. Chiltern managed to massively upgrade the capacity of their main line for a fraction of the cost of the West Coast Line project. I very shrewd investment if you ask me.

Some of the franchise 'agreed aspirations' are given slightly different Evergreen designations (they have letters in the on line version of the spec).

Evergreen C was capacity improvements High Wycombe to South Ruislip with some four tracking at Northolt Jn and Beaconsfield station etc. Evergreen D is a linespeed improvement in the High Wycombe area that includes redoubling Princes Risborugh to Aylesbury!  But there are other enhancement possibilities listed, not least of which are the current Oxford route and East West Rail, inserted in 2007. However the West Hampstead interchange, Ardley Parkway (near M40), Crossrail extensions, M6/M1 Parkway etc etc are all still in the 'shopping list' of enhancements.

Having now read the franchise spec in context - it seems the DfT basically allowed Chiltern to propose a number of enhancements, some of which would be drawn off as and when financially possible in order to maintain the franchise length. In the past there was criticism of Chiltern in the rail press for not progressing certain of them - I remember at one stage, possibly after Warwick Parkway opened, people asking why wasn't M6/M1 parkway (to be on the GC route towards Leicester) also being progressed. It would seem it was never required as such, just a possibility. All Chiltern have had to do is come up with enough periodic improvements that keep the DfT happy. "The parties may make such variations as they consider appropriate from time to time" as they say in legalese...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/cr/chiltern.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/cr/chiltern.pdf)

As I said earlier, unfortunately the pdf franchise isn't searchable. The 'aspirations' are on pages 395-7 of what is a pretty large pdf file, that'll take a while to download...

Paul

Yes, there are Primary aspirations, which I understand have to be implemented by the required spends itemised in the franchise and secondary aspirations (Oxford was one of therse) which required DfT approval before being allowed within these spends.

I was linking 'Evergreen x' and being related to the required spends in the franchise, rather than each aspiration. The spend on Evergreen 3 is the last major spend required in the current franchise.

I guess Chiltern may in future want to progress other secondary aspirations, but having to spend their own money over & above franchise requirements means 'real' investment, rather than investing what was specified, and thus could be called taxpayers money. Whether the recession will allow them any fuirther investment opportunities won't be known for at least 5 years, I reckon - when passenger numbers might have recovered to pre-recession plus figures.

Nothing to stop them lowering the Oxford-London fares and promoting that in their own advertising - your average passenger won't have a clue such fares will also be valid on Chiltern. In any case, Water Eaton is clearly the key point in Chiltern's calculations, not Oxford itself.

If the county council are so worried about the traffic implications, then they could always switch the money they are now paying for the Bicester service to the Cotswold Line to ensure that there is a shuttle out to Moreton-in-Marsh, with good London connections at Oxford or Didcot, giving you two trains an hour from the west Oxfordshire stations as well - and a powerful incentive to leave the car at home, or at least a station closer to home.

Chiltern I'm sure will be advertising like mad, I'm sure....

"Come and try us for no extra cost!"

And Chiltern can set their own Oxford fare, lower than FGW, for their own service! Whereas if FGW drop the 'Any Permitted' fare, they'll gain no advantage & just sugffer a drop in their takings. Unwise, I feel.

In any case, you can be sure that Chiltern will be getting the Rail Settlement Plan changed in their favour - so they'll get a share of Oxford ticket revenue whether or not they carry many from there.

The Section 106 money is from Bicester Village I think - it has to be spent locally....

I thought this view that 'Chiltern cannot have their own Oxford fare' was a bit dubious when it was originally posted. It is really no different to Southern's fares to London from stations between Southampton and Havant, which all now provide a major reduction on SWT's any premitted fares, and are  described as 'route SN only' - previously they were 'route Hassocks/Horsham'. 

So I'd expect a route High Wycombe fare that undercuts FGW's any permitted, at least from Oxford. The situation at Water Eaton onwards is presumably slightly different as Chiltern will be the lead operator for the new flows?

Paul

Yup - sorry, I'd have kiboshed that statement if I'd been reading the board at the time.

The rule is that whoever the fare-setting TOC is for any flow, they can't then also set their own TOC-only fare. Any other operator on that flow is permitted to have their own TOC-only fare. It's to prevent a TOC from undercutting itself, which is seen as anti-competitive.

Chiltern will be the fare setter at Water Eaton, so will only set the Any Permitted fare (which will be via HWY, *not* Oxford, to London). As there will be no competition from there, it will be the only fare available.

I'm sure it will undercut the Any Permitted fare from Oxford, but presumably would be set at the same or only slightly less than the Chiltern fare from Oxford....but would need to be less again than the Bicester fare to London.

Now the Bicester Any Permitted fare will be an interesting topic - currently there are different fares from Bicester North & Bicester Town to London Terminals. Once Chiltern take over routes from both stations, the stations in Bicester will need to be 'grouped' ['Bicester Stations'] (to enable punters to go out from one & return to the other, for example), and thus the fare would have to be the same from each station. That might restrict the fare chargeable from Water Eaton.

Not sure that is always the case though.  NXEC have First Class fares that are lower than the Any Permitted, and are only valid on NXEC, with no restrictions, they are in effect a Anytime Single/Return ONLY valid on NXEC. So what is there to stop FGW having Oxford - Padd fares that are FGW only thus cutting out use of Chiltern and XC (change Reading)? They probably wouldn't do that with First mind, as Chiltern are standard only and anyone wanting to go First has to travel FGW (for all or part of journey).

I think you'll find that either -

a) those NXEC-only First Class fares are on flows that NXEC don't price; or -

b) That rule only applies in Standard class.

I can ask the head fare-setter at FGW in a couple of weeks though - that rule definitely exists.

Can you provide some examples please?

Yes that is right.  The TOC which sets the fare for a journey CANNOT set their own lowerv TOC only fare.

If you remember a couple of years ago FGW set a TOC only fare between Swansea and Newport.  Arriva were unable to set a similar TOC only fare as the set the fare for that route.  What they did do is set the interavailable fare ten pence lower than the FGW only fare so there was no point in buying the FGW ticket.  After a couple of years FGW withdrew their fares and now we are back to only one fare between Swansea and Cardiff.

Indeed - FGw achieved what they set out to do, which was to bring down those inter-available fares.

East Coast Fares ........
example:
Doncaster to Kings Cross - First Class Anytime Return (Singles exist at half the stated amount)
FOR: ^271 Any permitted, no (time) restrictions (i.e. All operators including other routes - eg St Pancras (and I think, Liverpool Street) Priced XEC (NXEC)
GFR: ^255 NXEC trains only, no (time) restrictions. Priced XEC (i.e. NXEC)
FOR: ^200 Hull Trains only, no (time) restrictions. Priced HT (First Hull Trains)
Similarly there are other fares along the East Coast where cheaper operator specific first class fares (Open Returns and Singles) with NXEC only being cheaper than "Any permitted", and XC only fares too (though why you would want to travel FC in XC I don't know)
There are no equivalent Standard Class fares however, though Hull Trains only Standard Fares are cheaper too.

Is this because only Standard Class fares are regulated, and the operator can increase First class fares at a greater rate than standard?

It looks as thouigh this rule only does apply to Standard class fares.

Hull Trains could of course have their own fare - as it's a NXEC-owned flow.

I understand Evergreen 3 was approved yeasterday.

Work alleged to start today.

There will be a number of weekend blockades of the Chiltern line next year. Possibly starting January.

W&S drivers will be commencing route learning Coventry Willesden (mainline and via Northampton) to Willesden, Acton Canal Wharf Junction (still semaphores?) Acton Wells Junction Acton East West Ealing Jn Greenford West Junction South Ruslip (reverse) then into Marylebone. One for the track bashers.

Presummably a quid pro quo for all the Virgin Voyagers on Chiltern last year during WCML work.

Bicester spur to Oxford to open 2012! 

It had to be signed off by Monday, so that's good news.

Now, I wonder how quickly we can get the details, both of the actual work & the timetable for it to be done?

The details of work to be done are in the Chiltern 73rd track access application (TAA).  It was linked to in the first post, but now that the consultation is complete, it has changed locations on the NR site.

Now at:  http://tinyurl.com/ydf6rty (http://tinyurl.com/ydf6rty)  - the NR site includes the TAA and all the draft timetables, or

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-chiltern-73sa-application-form.pdf (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-chiltern-73sa-application-form.pdf) - ORR site for TAA only.

Section 6 of the TAA lists all the infrastructure work.  No detailed timetable, but going by the rest of the form they are aiming at completion for Dec 2010...

Interestingly (and a separate issue to the infrastructure work really) there are a number of objections to the new timetable that have appeared in a file on the ORR website.  Including the obligatory 'revenue abstraction' issue from Virgin, cos Chiltern's service will be improved. More surprisingly, ATW also have objections, on the assumption that their services will already be running during next year...   :o

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-chiltern-73sa-responses.pdf (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-chiltern-73sa-responses.pdf)

Edit: It can only be the mainline part of Evergreen 3 that could be signed off so far, as Bicester - Oxford still has to go through the TWA Order approval procedures?

Paul

Excellent news! I simply can't wait for the new timetable to start next December! ;D

Or the fare rises that will certainly come with it!

With one out of the two Birmingham trains an hour terminating at Moor Street, does anyone know what will happen to them? It looks like Phase 1 will have a 12 minute turnaround each hour (quite tight!). Will they sit and block one of the through platforms at Moor Street, or is the long conceived plan to reconnect the bay platform(s) going to happen by next December and mean they can stay out of the way in one of them?

The work to reconnect the bay platforms at Moor Street is imminent - prep work out on the main lines has already started.

12 minute turn-round wil be easy as a drivers depot will also be there.

Thanks for confirming that, Chris. Good to see it finally happening. Though I maintain that 12 minutes is not a lot for a turnaround of a medium distance train on an already very tight schedule. It's 6.5 miles from the previous stop at Solihull and allowing only 8 minutes for a train to make that journey and terminate in a bay platform gives little or no recovery time at all - unusual these days when several minutes are usually added to the final station stop of a train to help massage the PPM figures.

Your forgetting the 'engineering minutes' added to the end time on all their journeys - arrival time is usually at least 5 minutes ahead of timetable time.

THat, and you are looking at a sample timetable, I assume, not a fully working one.

Looking through those objections, there are some very valid points, not least those of ATW re the 'penalty' or extra services and unused slots currently;

however, I'm on Chiltern's side definitely over most of Centro's points - London Midland is the local stations operator for Birmingham, not Chiltern - and to request that Chiltern cover London Midland's inadequacies just because they pass through the relevant stations, isn't fair on Chiltern.

Whilst taking your point about the difference between working and public timings, I assume the southbound departure times from Moor Street are accurate at around xx:30, and I assume the times for Solihull coming the other way at around xx:10 are also accurate. With over six miles to cover from Solihull and a slow arrival into a bay platform,that will only give a maximum of 12 minutes to turnround, and it doesn't appear to me that there's much scope for increasing those without compromising the timetable further up the line. We'll see what the final versions look like in good time though of course.

Nothings 'accurate', it's just a sample timetable....

I do accept that and hope that my concerns about that turnaround time and others I made earlier in this thread (some of which are mirrored by the official responses from the other interested parties) are addressed.

I suspect that with lots of contentious issues to hammer out still, and the large amount of infrastructure work to carry out, a start date of one years time will be put back and Btline will have to wait a little longer than he hopes for his faster trains - which at the final outcome won't be anywhere near as fast as in that timetable proposal!

As I said, we will see in good time.

Despite the Chiltern Railway's Franchise Agreement requiring the process to be completed by 1st December 2009, as of today, there has been no financial sign-off or agreement between DfT, Network Rail and Chiltern Railways in relation to any part of Evergreen 3.

None of the parties involved is willing to say when, or if, this will happen.

The Transport & Works Act Order for the Bicester-Oxford (Phase 2) upgrade is also running late and is not due to be submitted now until early January 2010.

I must admit I had my doubts as well which is why I added the above Edit - I'm wondering if the 'signed off' story was simply based on the Network Rail track access application consultation deadline being passed.  All that meant, as I see it, was that the paperwork was passed to ORR ...

Paul

Yes, I noticed that the ORR failed to sign off by the franchise required date of 30th November.

There is obviously a problem - I wonder with which part? Time will tell.

I wonder if its being put quietly on hold while the "Improving value for money" study is being carried out? - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5875.msg56519#msg56519

Mr Shooter won't be happy if that's the case.....

I suspect the ORR weren't happy with at least one aspect of the application....

I wonder if the delay has something to do with ATW's application to run services from Aberystwyth to Marylebone. The application has still not been closed on the ORR's website and ATW were vehement in their opposition to some aspects of Evergreen 3.

There were serious concerns from most of the other affected TOC's. Not so much in the objectives of the application, but the lack of detail/clarity in certain aspects.

Welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, Chafford1!  :)

I doubt if ATW's objections have any more significance than any of the others. They are basically there on the basis that if their current application is approved, they will already have rights to the route, so why should they pay more if Chiltern improve the route afterwards.

I think many people think that ATW have little or no chance of approval anyway, but I'm sure they have to cover all the options...  IIRC Hull Trains quickly got the bums rush when they proposed to go off their patch, although that's possibly slightly different as they are open access...

Paul

Thanks.


Perhaps Lord Adonis will announce this along with the Liverpool/Manchester/ Preston electrification details next week. The contractors are certainly expecting something to happen:

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?type=&code=cotn:JRVS.L&it=le&display=discussion&action=detail&id=5680937

I will be annoyed if this gets delayed by a year because of these hiccups! It is an excellent project, the type which should be encouraged!

Why by a year though?

Next timetable change.

They've got a lot to do to get it ready for December 10. Any delay will just see the new timetable put back a year, as I doubt NR will be able to morph in the new timetable in May without changes to LM/XC etc.

As long as the timings from Aynho Junction northwards are retained, they could retime south of there, meaning a later departure...from May 11.

And about time too.  If ever there was an award for a monolithic, overmanned, uneconomic and unresponsive organisation then its got to be given to NR.  We need to, and have the skills and expertise to, do these projects faster and more cheaply and get them right first time. 8)

My vote is for vertical integration (Sectorisation ;)).  Let the primary TOC on a route run the infrastructure (like they do with stations in most cases).

Everthing's gone very quiet on Evergreen 3. Does anyone know why there is a delay?

ORR and DfT Christmas shut down between 24th and 4th, I'd expect.

Paul

Hmmmm - it was due before December 1.....

We knew that. I was pointing out why nothing would be expected in the last couple of weeks really...

Chafford1's questions here and elsewhere are pretty much unanswerable, on the reasonable assumption that no one from the upper echelons of any of those organisations posts here...

Paul

From another website:

'Chiltern and DfT failed to achieve financial sign-off before the 1st December deadline contained in their franchise agreement due to the number of other track access and development funding agreements with ORR and Network Rail that had to be in place first. They have continued negotiating and should get sign-off shortly with an announcement expected within the next two weeks. The Transport & Works Act Order applicatioin is being made to DfT today'

If these hiccups delay the project sufficiently, I will be disappointed. Another year to wait...

It looks as if the project is back on course:

 http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/Evergreen%203%20Newsletter%20Jan10%20v8%20Low-res.pdf   (http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/Evergreen%203%20Newsletter%20Jan10%20v8%20Low-res.pdf)

Perhaps, but no mention of any dates in that little bit of propaganda.

The TWA advert appeared in the CHristmas Eve edition of my local paper.

From Oxford-Bicester Rail Action Group's website

http://www.obrag.org.uk/archives/91

Good to see their site is a little more accessible to occasional users than it was.

From the Financial Times:


'This Friday, Chiltern is expected to announce a new project, called ^Evergreen 3^, designed to cut journeys from London to Birmingham by up to 20 minutes'

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aed33bd8-ff8e-11de-921f-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1  (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aed33bd8-ff8e-11de-921f-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1)

That's the date of the official launch.....

Is the Chiltern mainline ever going to be a contender in terms of speed? When compared to the West Coast line.

Doubnt it realistically - it's further, more stops & the current stock is slower at top speed.

No, but 100 mins will enable CH to compete better with Virgin's 80.

And they other attributes - better onboard environment, friendly staff, lower fares, better reliability/punctuality, overall better service, etc.

I read that the GW route to B'ham is actually 2 miles shorter than the Midland route. But perhaps the GC route to Marylebone removes this.

Let's hope these hiccups don't last as long as those suffered by the poor bloke featured across the media this week!  ;D

As far as Virgin are concerned, Evergreen 3 definitely has the potential to affect their revenue, so in time honoured fashion, they have written to ORR and reminded them about it.

It's on p12-p13 of the grouped responses here:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-chiltern-73sa-responses.pdf (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-chiltern-73sa-responses.pdf)


Paul

According to Railway Eye, ATOC jumped the gun and issued the following press release a day early!


CHILTERN RAILWAY^S NEW LINE IS GREAT NEWS FOR PASSENGERS ^ ASSOCIATION OF TRAIN OPERATING COMPANIES

News provides perfect example of what train companies can achieve with smarter franchising

Responding to Chiltern Railways^ announcement of a ^250m new line, Michael Roberts, Chief Executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, said:

^Chiltern Railway^s project to significantly improve services between London and the Midlands is great news for passengers, and a good example of what a private train operating company can achieve under the right conditions.

^Franchises which run for 15 years or more, as with the case of Chiltern Railways, provide incentives for train companies to invest in upgrading their services and to focus ever harder on meeting passengers^ needs.

^We want to move to more widespread use of longer franchises, together with other smart franchise reforms, to free train companies to provide passengers and taxpayers with a better deal.^

Sorry, why is all this being treated by the media as if it is new? The proposals have been in place for years!

Because they were just that - i.e. proposals. The scheme is now guaranteed to go ahead.

Moor Street station expansion and faster trains to London announced
Jan 14 2010 by Christina Savvas, Birmingham Post


A dramatic expansion of Moor Street station will give Birmingham a second major rail terminal with high-quality and faster trains to London, Transport Secretary Lord Adonis has announced.

The ^250 million investment will create the first new rail link from the capital to any major British city for over 100 years.

Journey times to London on the Chiltern line will be cut by a fifth to one hour 40 minutes, giving passengers a real choice between services from Moor Street and Virgin Trains services from New Street, which have been criticised for being too expensive.

The ambitious project to entice motorists onto trains was unveiled by Transport Secretary Lord Adonis and Chiltern Railways chairman Adrian Shooter.

Lord Adonis said the ^250 million upgrade would ^transform^ links between Birmingham and London.

He announced the improvements during a visit to Birmingham to meet business leaders and city council leader Mike Whitby.

Lord Adonis said: ^I am announcing the extension of the Chiltern franchise in return for ^250 million of investment, which Chiltern will put in to transform the line.

^It will ensure journey times to London are cut to one hour 40 minutes.

^This is very good news for Birmingham passengers and businesses, giving them a greatly enhanced service through the Chilterns and on to London and Marylebone. And it comes on top of the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line.

^These two projects taken together have transformed the quality of transport links between London and Birmingham.

^Part of the package is a big expansion of Birmingham Moor Street, which will now be the most significant second hub for trains from Birmingham to London.^

The upgrade, which is scheduled for completion in December, will be supported by a ^13.5 million project to open extra platforms, doubling capacity at Moor Street, where new ticketing technology will also be introduced.

There will be new trains with better acceleration, and new carriages.

Chiltern Railways, which holds the franchise to run services from Moor Street to Marylebone station in London, agreed to pay for the improvements after striking a deal with the Department for Transport.

Its franchise has been extended for seven and a half years, which means it will now run trains until at least 2021 if it provides a good service.

Although Chiltern already runs trains to London, the long journey time has meant they can be seen as a second-class option compared to Virgin^s services from New Street to London Euston, which use modern Pendolino trains on the West Coast Main Line.

Chiltern Railways chairman Adrian Shooter, said: ^Evergreen 3 is the biggest passenger rail project for several generations not to call on the taxpayer for support. Working closely with Network Rail, we are going to create a new main line railway for the people of Oxfordshire and the Midlands.

^This deal demonstrates that real improvements to rail services can be paid for without public subsidy by attracting people out of their cars and onto trains.^

Robin Gisby from Network Rail, said: ^This is a great scheme that will deliver huge benefits to hundreds of thousands of passengers.^

The new investment will give Birmingham two high quality services at major stations, added Lord Adonis.

The Moor Street expansion also raises questions about plans to bring high speed rail services into the city - providing a third option for passengers commuting to London.

New Street does not have the capacity to cope with new high speed services, even once a ^600 million refurbishment is completed. It means another city centre station is likely to be used, and Moor Street could be the obvious choice.

Lord Adonis would not comment on whether Moor Street would also be used for high speed rail services. The detailed proposals would be published in March, he said.

^The Government is looking at a number of options for how High Speed Rail can access Birmingham.^

And how many of these trains will take 1h40? The fact that Chiltern doesn't have First Class probably means the West Coast has a larger slice of the key business market and it will stay that way, people want a place to work - a standard class airline seat isn't really the place to spend time working. I'm sure FallenAngel will agree!

Reference is made to new rolling stock, so First could easily be re-introduced in that.

About half will take a few minutes less if I remember correctly.


Are they having a laugh? There is NO way Moor Street could take the HS2 service along with the CH terminating in platforms 3&4, and with the intensive LM commuter trains taking up 1&2!

That's a lie in the article. The new stock (172s) will be used for Marylebone to Gerrards Cross services. Chiltern is a standard only railway. (well, First Class only railway really!)


The 168s have plenty of tables. All seats line up with windows whether they are tables or not. The windows are big. The airline seats have lots of legroom.

Even so, the First Class interior of a Pendolino is better suited for working. The one thing I like about First Class is the fact that I get a table to myself to can spread stuff out without being worried about getting in the way, or the plebs in standard ( :P) reading what i'm doing, not to mention the peace and quiet and distinct lack of screaming children.

I'm sure the services will be good, however does Birmingham need so much investement on rail lines to Birmingham? Could this money not be spent elsewhere - electrifying the GWML for example, thus cascading stock to various parts of the country - perhaps even Chiltern.

At the same time - if HS2 becomes a reality, the WCML and CHML won't be carrying many people between Birmingham and London so a limited stop service is thus obsolete.

Moor St?  Why not - a new terminus for HS2 could very easily be built alongside (on the north of) the approaches to New St, with the buffer stops at the western extremity of the site - that could be called Moor St.

[That's in a world where station locations can be decided on with about 30 seconds on Google Earth, of course... ;D]

Regarding HS2 meaning the work isn't needed anyway, instead of looking at the end to end flows (as is usual), what about journeys such as Banbury to Birmingham, or Banbury to London, or even Bicester to Leamington etc?

Paul

One each hour, 1 hr 38 min. It is all dissected in the first few posts on page 1 of this thread, with a link to the proposed timetable in the first post.

Edit:  That link in the first post went stale, NR moved the stuff to a different location once consultation was completed - http://tinyurl.com/ydf6rty (http://tinyurl.com/ydf6rty)

Paul

Exactly, that is another major reason why the Chiltern upgrade is needed. Warwick Parkway to London will be about 1 hour 15 minutes from London - terrific - they'd better expand the car park!

The one weakness of the proposals is the loss of HW calls. But as Chiltern don't have 4 tracks to play with, the cutting of certain stops is inevitable. EG3's benefits will more than overcome any losses by cutting HW stops.

An update, from the FT, is at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8d1196e-0161-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.html

(I'm reluctant to actually quote it here, in view of their copyright terms. :-\ )

From the Oxford Mail (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/banbury/4852612.Chiltern_Trains__Oxford_investment_seals_franchise_extension/):

Great news for the railway industry and its passengers - even if some of the articles in the press are riddled with inaccuracies.

As I posted on the first page of this thread though, Chiltern have an almighty amount of work to do to get this all ready in time for the December timetable - and they should be forced to add a High Wycombe call (in their phase 2 timetable) to one of their 2tph between London and Birmingham in order to provide an adequate service north from Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe area stations. ChrisB - do you know whether there's been any developments on that one?

I agree, even 1tp2h would be ok.

Re Moor Street. I did see a proposal possibly in Modern Railways and possibly by West Midlands PTE (or current body) to link Moor Street to the Midland Camp Hill Line with a triangular junction. There would be extra terminal platforms.

It was definitely for suburban traffic and not HS2 I thought that the High speed station in Birmingham was likely to be near where the proposed new Heartlands station was going to be.

Yes, they proposing for the Camp Hill services to use Moor Street, as well as Tamworth locals and perhaps Cardiff - Nottingham services. Combined with Chiltern, this will fill the terminal platforms. There is NO way HS2 will use Moor Street.

ITV Central Story on the News (http://www.itv.com/central-west/london-in-less-time22682)

Thanks for the link, Ian.

What do we see in the opening shot at Birmingham Moor Street? Two Class 165's passing each other, when ALL services from Moor Street should be Clubman 168's. Now that's an all too common situation and something they'll have to get a grip of if schedules are going to be maintained when it's a largely 100mph route!

The video hints in won't all be ready by December. So it looks like we'll have to wait 2 years for the improvements.  :'(

The work involved in speeding up services is detailed in section 6 of Chiltern's ORR application form for Evergreen3 at

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2009.10.27%20chiltern%20railways%2073rd%20supplemental%20agreement%20-%20consultation%20closed%2023%20november%202009/form%2022%2073rd%20for%20eg3.pdf

Quite apart from the scale of work on the track - and at Bicester North station - there will be some significant signalling changes, not least at Marylebone IECC.

It certainly won't be ready this year - a Network Rail press release issued yesterday says: "The project will be delivered in stages, with the main line journey time improvements being delivered from 2011".

The reporter (with accompanying graphics) states that Virgin serve Northampton. Well technically yeah, but one train a day from Rugby to Euston and another from Brum, set down only last thing at night. Hardly a service.....

London Midland didn't get a mention. Brum folk are lucky indeed to have three operators offering direct regular services to The Smoke. In the west we have to make do with 1^ operators direct to London at best.

The LM service is hardly for InterCity travellers - it's just two commuter lines joined up. Esp when Virgin offer CHEAPER (^5) advances than LM (^6) - although LM offer a good ^15 Super Off Peak return.

The London - Birmingham line will be upgraded between February this year and February 2011 which suggests a  May 2011 start.

 http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/chilternmainline/chilternmailinefaqs/     (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/chilternmainline/chilternmailinefaqs/)

They'll be using the refurbished Mk3 coaches referred to on the Modern Railways website (hauled by 67s and DVTs?) so there shouldn't be a problen under the new schedules.

Are these coaches in addition to the W&S stock?  All the Press Releases are very vague about the stock they'll be using, but then I guess they might not wish to publicise using 30 year old stock, as the general public may not consider that to be very positive (although those in the know realise how good Mk 3 stock is).

This was the 12:55 service to London Marylebone which ambled into Moor Street 18 minutes late at 13:13 despite the platform display showing it as on time and no reason given. My limited experience of Chiltern was that even though people don't admit it, they too have problems operating a perfect railway!  Perhaps they also need to do something about their staitons - Banbury is such a cold, unwelcoming place to change trains!

Was quite clear looking at the train running page on Chiltern's site over recent days that, in common with other operators, they were having rolling stock problems at times, with a number of short-formed services noted, plus Bicester services turning back at Princes Risborough to recover delays. So, no, they haven't quite cracked walking on water just yet.

And to be fair, there are still a few Birmingham-London services booked for 165s, even if not those caught on camera by the BBC.

LM is the InterCity sevice if you live in Northampton. Virgin certainly isn't!

Yes, these will be additional coaches.

This month's Modern Railways notes that Delta Rail has produced a plan for Chiltern to extensively refurbish Mk3s, possibly including power operated doors, retention toilets (I should hope so!) accessible for wheelchairs, new seating and interiors, CCTV, power operated doors between vehicles and computer sockets.

From the Buckinghamshire Advertiser (http://beaconsfield.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/2010/01/commuters-rebel-against-timeta.html):

It's a pity Chiltern aren't reinstating the through roads at Beaconsfield which would allow more trains to stop there. I gather cost reasons prevented this.

I just wanted to bump this prediction,  ;D as I've now found the drawing on the HS2 plans page. Although all the text refers to a station at 'Curzon St', it is actually so long it does indeed end up alongside Moor St, on the other side of the tracks into New St...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/bhammap07.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/bhammap07.pdf)


Paul

Good shout, Paul - let's hope the officials didn't just spend 30 seconds on Google Earth as well...  ;)

Thanks!  HS2 staff would be professional people - they'd probably spend a few minutes on Google Earth...

Paul

The latest edition of RAIL magazine has an 8-page article on the Evergreen projects.  One statement that stood out to me concerning Aynho Junction reads as follows:

"Here the 50mph flyover will be replaced with a flat junction in the 'down' direction, and the speed limit on both the 'up' and 'down' Chiltern Lines raised to 90mph."

I referred to the cant of the track needed to reach those speeds in the quote above, but unless this is an editorial error, it indicates that the flyover will close and a much more restrictive flat junction will replace it.  If that's the case then it means that pathing of trains will be much more complicated to ensure there are no conflicts, and will no doubt cause delays to XC, FGW and freight trains heading south on occasions.  Does anyone have any more specific information?

That struck me as highly surprising as well. To remove the grade separation would seem to be a very retrograde step.

They're doing the same to another junction nearer london (Northholt, I think it's called) - it's the easiest way to get the line speeds up.

It does however seem regrettable to remove capacity. I assume they'll keep the loop in place for freight (the loop at Northholt will remain to take the Gerrards Cross stoppers) or so the signalman can divert a down train onto the loop if it prevents delaying a XC.

Northolt is a little different though as virtually everything heads from/to the Marylebone direction, so I see it causing far fewer problems.

I'm surprised none of the TOC's/FOC's made no mention of it in their replies to Chiltern's TWA submissions - as over time it would have an effect on their own performance figures.  Or like I said, perhaps it's an editorial error?

The planning application and documents for the new 'down' through line at Northolt/Ruislip are on the London Borough of Hillingdon website at:

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=10058

Enter 66712 as the application number and then 'View Associated Documents' - to be considered by the Council on 20th May.

A link to the design and access statement is below - see page 20 for existing and new layouts.

http://w09.hillingdon.gov.uk/images/dv_pl_files/66712_APP_2010_103/014.pdf


As to enquiries about the revised layout at Aynho, try Steve Broadbent at:

http://www.stevebroadbent.net/

He's a pretty accommodating and friendly sort of chap!


Evergreen 3 will also add a third 'up' through track at Princes Risborough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PrincesRisboroughplatforms.JPG

 

I reckon this is definitely a cockup in Rail. The wording in the relevant track access application reads as follows, my boldening:


Paul

Thanks to Chafford and Paul for helping to partly solve the mystery, though we're not quite there yet!

I have seen a copy of the draft Signalling Scheme Plan and the Aynho Junction flyover is retained and new facilities added as described in the second post above.  Both lines between Princes Risborough and Aynho Junction will become fully reversible signalled (for 7-day Railway purposes).

Thanks, SandTEngineer

The Council approved the Northolt remodelling today.

Can anyone shed any light on this article?  Sadly I don't have a subscription!  There's nothing on the evergreen website yet.

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/news/story?id=7261 (http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/news/story?id=7261)

Work at Northolt Junction is taking place, with the embankment required for the new down fast line taking shape.  Still a HUGE amount of work at various locations to be done by next May though.

There's a line closure for a weekday in March (11th?) and a two week closure between April 22 and May 8 to come.

New 'up' through line being reinstated at Princes Risborough:

http://geoff-plumb.fotopic.net/p68394704.html


http://geoff-plumb.fotopic.net/p68394706.html