Great Western Coffee Shop

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-12430711):

Still plenty of work to be done, I predict the pace will be frenetic from now until May...

Nice to have a confident sounding spokesperson, Mr Ableman, there are too many people called something along the lines of Mr Weregonnaarseitup working in PR!

The final draft Chiltern timetables are here:

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/timetable-consultation-proposed-may-2011-timetable (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/timetable-consultation-proposed-may-2011-timetable)

Includes at the bottom of the page the Oxford to Bicester Town service, at 11 trains per day (12 on Friday).

Does that imply they take over from May 22nd as discussed previously - because the XC planner was still showing them as FGW services on 23rd May when I just checked.  And if they do, does anyone know if will they provide the rolling stock and/or train crew?

Paul

I did read somewhere thet chiltern have got another class 121  DMU to  provide cover for the current 1 thus freeing up a class 165.

Maybe if chiltern  are doing so well with their class 121 maybe they can show ATW how to  fix their's

A few hints that they might be using their own unit rather than hiring a FGW Turbo until they close the line for the full rebuild next year, as had been rumoured.

The hints being the mention of timings for a 165/0 (FGW's 165's are 165/1's), and the 17:45 departure for the evening peak time train home - previously it could leave no earlier than 17:54 as it was formed off of the 17:51 FGW arrival ex Banbury.  Can anyone confirm that?

Would be the perfect line for a 121 to make an occasional appearances on - they'll have 2 soon! I can hope.

I think they already have the 2nd class 121. Maybe they should tell ATW their secrets as to how they manage to keep their class 121's in working order.

I don't think the passengers on the 07.57 from Bicester to Oxford would find riding in a single-car 50-year-old museum piece a very appealing prospect when they fill a two-car Turbo at the moment. I hope Chiltern keep their 121s firmly where they belong, pottering up and down a rural branch to free a Turbo for the peaks - and well away from a line with 75 per cent growth in passengers in 2009-10.
 
The secret of Chiltern's success may have something to do with the fact their 121 only works for a few hours a week, plus a presumably healthy supply of spares culled from the Sandite and route learner dmus that have been parked at Aylesbury for years.

Mr Ableman isn't really a spokesman, he's Chiltern's marketing director.

Hence I said occasional! The vast majority of weekend/off-peak services are pretty lightly loaded from experience and a 121 would cope well on a branch that at the moment has a low linespeed.

Probably not going to happen - but would be nice as a one off before the upgrade works kick in.

Unless you move it in secret, under cover of darkness and tell no-one about it (as if you could achieve that), it would inevitably be swamped by enthusiasts, so simply wouldn't be able to cope with the numbers, whatever time of the week you did it. The paths on the line are limited due to the low speeds and trying to run extra trains is difficult, given that the Ministry of Defence trains and waste trains to Calvert occupy several of the gaps in the passenger service. Were Chiltern able to get their hands on a few of FGW's 165s, then the 121 would be sent straight to the museum where it really ought to be now anyway.

Plus I don't think that the headline 'Chiltern takes over Oxford to Bicester line and uses 50-year old relic to provide the service' would give the kind of positive spin on things that they would want before the new service proper launches in 2013. 

If I was going to put a bet on it, the service will be operated by Chiltern using hired in FGW drivers and a FGW Turbo for the intervening period - a matter of months probably - before the line closes to be rebuilt.

Since chiltern want to start the London Marylebone - Oxford service in 2013  i dont think it will be long before the bicester town line is closed for re-building etc

That's right.  As far as I understand it the public enquiry has now just finished, the SoS for Transport will announce a decision towards the latter part of the year, with work starting almost immediately around the turn of the year with a complete closure for all of next year, followed by staff training and familiarisation with the view to a full public opening in Spring 2013.

If you have the time, some of the objectors documents from the public enquiry are well worth a read (available at: http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/index.php/objector-documents (http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/index.php/objector-documents) and http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/index.php/proofs-of-evidence (http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/index.php/proofs-of-evidence)) especially the correspondence from a Professor Korsunsky, who just happens to live in one of the properties next to the line in North Oxford and clearly was quite a thorn in Chiltern's side throughout - although no amount of well written letters, long words, and counter arguments make him come across as anything other than an intellectual NIMBY in my opinion!

I see in amongst the critics they had to deal with the infamous Paul Withrington, of 'Transport Watch' - who appears to have been pushing his well known alternate view of turning all railways into high speed coach routes.  He also seems to have accused Chiltern of building the route primarily as a freight line.

Paul

Compared to their original announcements, I reckon that suggests they are running about 6 months behind the original schedule then.  Work was supposed to start this summer per the Evergreen 3 website - (although as Roger Ford reckons, always be suspicious of a target date expressed as a season).

Paul

I think the public enquiry was delayed a little?  This May's timetable recast on the Marylebone to Birmingham route was originally hoped to have been introduced last December, so that's also six months 'late' - though I can't remember a scheme which has been delivered early based on initial time-scales.

It was - the start date announcement was delayed.... the inspector has to report within a timescale set down in law (I think he gets 3 days per day of evidence?) and the SoS probably has to respond within x days of the inspector's report.

FGW are not allowing Chiltern to use their stock - so it'll be a Chiltern train. I guess there's still time to train their drivers?.....Whatever Chiltern use, I guess would be stabled at Banbury & would form the late night (xx38ish) train from Oxford - Banbury.

There's nowt in their proposals for it to run south from Banbury in the morning though...so presumably ecs?

That's good news then - as long as the extra Turbo is put to good use!  Yes, it's not the most difficult route to learn, so there is still time to get their drivers trained up on it.

Errrrr....it's off to increase the refreshed stock turnover. MIght appear back in use for December TT

Seems like Chiltern are starting another loco hauled iagram on 28th May 2011 according to  this report which i have copied from the UK railway group on google.

67+Mk3+DVT

0546 Moor St - Marylebone,
0620 Moor St - Marylebone,
0850 Marylebone - Snow Hill,
1112 Snow Hill - Marylebone,
1630 Marylebone - Moor St,
1704 Marylebone - Stratford Upon Avon,
1932 Stratford Upon Avon - Marylebone,
2220 Marylebone - Moor St.


Nice to have a late night loco hauled train.

Why? Are they behind schedule?

Not as far as I know......

So if the Bicester unit isn't in use in the peak hours working Bicester trains, it'll be an extra unit that could be used elsewhere then (a 5-car on the 18:45ex Paddington would be an obvious candidate)?

Or are you saying that Chiltern taking over the Bicester services was planned into the refresh programme, and that when that unit becomes available in May they are planning on one an extra unit being refreshed all the time, so there's no net gain?

Can you provide a link to the Google thread please? I've obviously missed this one.


Not sure it was planned in when the refresh programme was initiated, but it certainly is now & yes, there's no gain.

Here is the link:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/1662a1f3732d897e/06eb2ed369a467cf#06eb2ed369a467cf

you may need  need to sign up to google groups before you can view it.

Got Chiltern confirmation last night on this - the two car 165 will be coming ecs from BAN at around 0510 to Oxford. It will return to BAN ecs at the end of the day.
They are currently planning to reduce the number of turbos at the south end to release this unit.

If a chiltern class 165 is used i say the people on the Oxford to Bicester Town branch would be getting a good deal especially since the chiltern class 165's are much nicer than the FGW ones.

Well now i think i can see why the Oxfordshire day ranger is valid on Chiltern railways even though Chiltern hardly run any trains between Banbury & Oxford

The day ranger is valid on Chiltern because they provide trains between Banbury and Kings Sutton (even though it's in Nothants)

A shame that the extra FGW unit released can't be put to good use to relieve the horrendous suburban peak overcrowding from May then, but fingers crossed that this potential extra capacity can be utilised from December.

Perhaps one or two of their Class 172's will be ready and able to take up a diagram that the Bicester unit will leave short?  Also, I expect there will be a slight drop in reliability on the route as any problem with the set shuttling up and down between Oxford and Bicester will take much longer to resolve as a potential replacement won't be sitting in the sidings at Oxford as there often is now - off-peak at any rate.

Incidentally, there's a possession tomorrow which I believe involves putting in the new high speed point ends for the revised layout at Aynho Junction.

 Chiltern have at least 3 class 172's which have been completed although only 1 has been out and about.

London Midland now have 2 class 172's available for driver training with a 3rd due in the next week or so.

Hmm....not sure about that. One set visited Wembley depot for tests, but returned to Bombardier immediately. Was there only around 24 hours. Wouldn't describe that as 'out & about". And AFAIK, that's it.

The Aynho blockade goes on throughout March. I think the extra down line is going in alongside the up too.

I remain totally unconvinced about an extra down line.

Paul

Increased running speed - up to over 80 from around 35 round the curve over the bridge. Also allows overtaking, by parking one over the bridge while another comres down the new line.

We discussed this at length last May in another thread.

'SandTEngineer' reckoned that the signalling drawings don't show a new down line, it is the existing down line that has its speed increased, by virtue of new 90 85 mph points on the down junction.  A new down line is also not supported by the descriptions of the work in the track access application.

Paul

In which case, maybe the up line becomes bi-directional? I do know that Chiltern are talking about running down the up side of that junction & they've also spoken about using the current down line over the bridge as somewhere to 'park' trains being overtaken.

They've also spoken about a crossover going in north of the junction - whether thats to a new up or onto the new bi-di line, I don't know.

This is what the track access application said:


There was no mention of the high speed (85mph) diamond crossing on the up line that would be needed if down trains were to cross it on the flat at speed - indeed current policy is to avoid diamonds if at all possible, and use what is known as a 'simplified double junction' - like at Southcote Jn where the Basingstoke line joins the B&H, for example - these are generally slower than a diamond, and need more track length to install

To answer your other point, 'SandTEngineer' reckoned that both lines between Princes Risborough and Aynho Jn would be reversible for '7 day railway' purposes.

Paul

I'll take a look at what work has been completed today as soon as I can, as that should give an indication as to what speed any crossings that have been installed might be.

I used to keep my narrowboat at Aynho Wharf - if I still did I'd probably have some pictures of what's happening by now...   :'(

Paul

i-di.

Yup, I'd agree with that....at least from North of Bicester to Risborough. Won't take much work that - Bicester - Risborough already is bi-di

Yes - and I've looked up the online sectional appendix again this morning - and it shows Aynho Jn to Bicester already reversible, so it might just be the length within Bicester station that has to be added.

There's no crossover shown between Aynho Jn and Bicester though, so it's quite a few miles once they are on the 'wrong' line...

Paul

All the way to Risborough - including wrong-side calling at Haddenham.

Chiltern were due to commence their route learning programme for the Oxford to Bicester line today in preparation for them taking over the service in May.  The rather convoluted way they're doing it is to send their route learning 'Bubble Car' (Class 121) from Aylesbury via Claydon to Bicester and then do a couple of shuttles in between the normal FGW service.  Things didn't quite go to plan today though as no sooner had the unit arrived from Aylesbury the block went down and the Class 121 was eventually sent to Banbury!  Better luck next time!

Also, with regard to Aynho Junction, I had a good look there today and whilst the weekend engineering possession involved only replacing some plain track north of the junction, new crossings are currently being pre-assembled in the Up Goods Loop south of the junction.  Very difficult to see exactly what was being constructed there and what speeds they might allow, but I'll keep an eye out and report on developments!

Why did the block go down unexpectedly? And how did trhe unit get to Banbury if not by going via Oxford?

Not sure why, but it went down after the 10:00 Oxford to Bicester had done its trip.  It does go down regularly, and the recently installed level crossing at London Road, Bicester might well have had something to do with it.  A lack of available Pilotmen meant the 11:00 Oxford to Bicester was also cancelled.  Sorry for not making it clear, but The 'Bubble Car' ran, Aylesbury to Oxford via Calvert and Bicester arriving in the Dock platform at 09:50 and then because the block was down it was sent to Banbury (last seen in the northwards stabling platform between platforms 1 and 2). 

I presume it then went back to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough later in the day, or is stabling at Banbury overnight for another attempt on the Bicester line tomorrow?

Couldn't see it at Banbury at 1700, so guess they took it back to AYS

Interesting piece in today's Guardian, suggesting that all is not rosy with Evergreen 3...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/02/chiltern-line-upgrade-delay-cost-claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/02/chiltern-line-upgrade-delay-cost-claims)

Oh dear - stretching Management too thinly, methinks!

This Guardian story isn't half of it. The FT had the attached in the paper yesterday, which prompted me to dig around the ORR website....

The ORR has actually taken the planning away from Chiltern & given it to Network Rail

In The ORR Quarterly Monitor

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/network_rail_monitor_1011q3.pdf

It states
"Evergreen 3
We asked the independent reporter, Halcrow, to review progress on phase 1 of the Evergreen 3 project, which is designed to improve journey times between London and Birmingham via Banbury. The report12 identified problems with the project^s progress. Network Rail has agreed to take over management of the project from Chiltern Railways. Following a review of delivery options it has been agreed to postpone the planned introduction of new services until September."

On the ORR website
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2231

about half way down, it says "We asked Halcrow to review whether the Evergreen 3 Phase 1 project was likely to deliver on time. The executive summary of their report has been published. We will be publishing a letter shortly explaining the position in more detail."

So, we need to keep an eye open for this....

Also on that page is the Executive Summary of Halcrow's Report....

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ind-rep-evergreen-report-jan11.pdf

I've only just printed this off, and haven't yet read it.

Hmm.  Although giving the planning of the work to NR makes them sound very good at it, have a read of NRs performance in the 'Monitor' document.  Not quite as good as they (and ORR) make out.  It would appear that overall Chiltern would have delivered 4 or 5 days late without any overtime working.  Also note in the independent report that NR are not keeping to thier committment to review Chilterns (BAMS) design submissions within the specified timescales.  This should happen regardless of the quality of the submission and happens on most projects but NR never get blamed for the delay>:(.

Having read the various reports linked from ORR's site none of them suggest to me that there are massive problems - I think it would be rather unwise to jump to the conclusion that it has been some sort of total disaster...

Paul

I don't think I even intimated that - just posted the facts.

'Isn't the half of it' refers to the fact that The Guardian hadn't printed all the facts.

Er... my comment wasn't meant as a reply - if it were I'd have quoted someone.  But if I was to be critical, it would be of the Guardian article's general downbeat tone.

Paul

Well maybe it was downbeat because this example of dynamic thrusting private enterprise is running rather late and now being programmed by Network Rail.

The route-learning dmu was stabled in the parcels bay platform at Oxford just after 10am today.

A Supplementary Signalling Notice, or 'Yellow Peril' has been released by NR showing the changes at Aynho coming into force next Monday.  The layout looks to be exactly that as described in the TWA application (Paul, you were right to stick to your guns!), although the '7-day railway' crossovers are 40mph rather than 50mph.  I remain amazed that an 85mph speed limit is possible on the Down Chiltern line from the bridge to the Down Main at the junction, but the maps (reproduced below) clearly show that to be the case.  We will have a rival for Aston Magna curve!  ;)

The route is fully bi-directional up to and including the junction itself which does mean trains could in theory be looped in either direction to allow another to overtake - but only if there's nothing due the other way.  Another benefit is an extra signal section on the Up line between Banbury and Aynho which is currently a real headache and impacts on the signalling headways, especially if an Up train is stopping at Kings Sutton.  An extra signal on the Down route was put in several years ago because of a similar problem the other way.

Here's some diagrams, and I have the full publication if anyone wants to ask any other detailed questions:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5514783134_739e27dbbe_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5514782832_7bf9cfffef_b.jpg)

Thanks.

What it doesn't show is where the crossovers are in the Bicester direction beyond the bridge....at what stage does a trauin have to cross to the down to use the Bicerster UP line towards Banury...?

The next set of crossovers are at Bicester, some 9 miles away, hence my use of the phrase 'in theory' - the design is much more likely to be used for 7-day railway purposes, or to get round a failed train etc.

North or south of Bicester North platforms?

Thanks - I was just about to cobble a post together explaining that on my recent trip to Banbury (where I noted the bridge works discussed elsewhere) I could see absolutely NO evidence of any civils work on either the up or down lines leading to/from the Bicester direction.  The suggested new down line would at least have needed the embankment widening significantly.

I also wonder if the 'yellow peril' exaggerates the curve off the flyover - as I've suggested before I think people have generally assumed the flover was the thing that limited the speed, but Google suggests the curve doesn't start until past it - I suggest the main reason for the speed limit is the downhill approach to what is a very slow set of points forming the junction with the down main line.  I pointed out in an earlier post that down direction moves from the up Bicester have basically the same speed limits in the current (publicly online) sectional appendix.

Paul

The Down Main to Up Main facing crossover is London side of Bicester North, there's also an Up Main to Down Main trailing crossover Banbury side, which presumably is the point trains in the Up direction will resume there normal route if routed on the reversible line from Aynho.

As for the speed, it's the track curvature after the bridge that I personally thought would be the issue, not over the bridge itself.  It will certainly be very close to the limits of what is possible.

Here's a detail question about the signalling layout at Aynho Jn then, albeit late!  Today I saw one of these preliminary route indicators (PRIs) active - the one just south of Kings Sutton, displaying a straight up indication which I expect is what you'd get on a service headed from Banbury towards Oxford.  [If the drawing is an accurate depiction I assume 90 degrees left is towards Bicester and 45 degrees right is the crossover to the down flyover line?]

Could industry insider possibly explain the rationale behind having PRIs and flashing yellows in the same area?  I suspect this is a relatively new idea?  Doesn't the flashing yellow sequence already do the job of route indication for Bicester?

Paul

I think it's because signal BS104 controls access to the Up Bicester, the flyover and the goods loop, each with a different approach speed. By relying on just the flashing sequence and the route indicator on the signal BS104 would have to be approached assuming the slowest route was set until you get sight of the actual signal indication.

Interesting comment re different approach speeds.

DB have solved the problem with their new Ks siganls, by telling the driver the speed to run in the points zone after the siganl and if necessary also giving an advanced warning of the speed to run after the next signal.

However, it doesn't tell him where he's going.

So in the sequence of decision making - a driver seeing the flashing yellow sequence knows he's OK for the Bicester route, and the following PRI are really just belt and braces - ie they aren't giving him any new info.

If however there is no flashing sequence the PRI becomes more important, because it is now giving advance info for a different choice of two routes.

Am I right in assuming there is no PRI indication for the up goods loop - so would that route only be indicated by the feather on BS104 - or will the PRI have a 'blank' indication?

Paul

The speed into the loop is only 15mph so I would assume that BS104 would be kept at danger until the train was moving fairly slowly. I expect that as the signal was at danger no route is officially set so the PRI would be blank.

Yes, that's pretty much it.  I might be repeating a little of what has already been quoted, but as I understand it:

The PRI signals do indeed just exist to stop drivers taking the wrong route as green aspects will now be displayed when the route is set for the Up Main or the Up Bicester.  The flashing yellows will be displayed if the train is going to cross over onto the Down Bicester, and if the train is to be routed into the Up Goods Loop it will get a green at BS106, a single yellow at BS104R and then an approach controlled Position Light signal complete with No.1 Junction indicator (with the main aspect staying red) at BS104.  As for the PRI's they will remain blank if a train is going to be routed through the Up Goods Loop as a proceed aspect at BS104 has yet to be displayed - this would also be the case should the train be stopped at BS104 for any reason.

Chiltern are releasing their May11 TT very soon - sort ofclose to the current one, but the stopping patterns more match that now due on September 12.....the same date that the cOtswold get their new one.

Thanks, all makes sense now - although I'd actually misread things  ::)  and thought the flashing aspects indicated the Up Bicester route, but they actually deal with the relatively unusual situation of using the Down Bicester route.  Hence the two 'normal choices' are covered by the two PRIs - because (and this is quite significant) they are both 90 mph routes, and they can both be taken at normal line speed.

 

I would doubt that.  Current rules do not permit a position light signal associated with a main aspect to be displayed with a junction indicator.  A miniature route indicator must be provided unless this signal is over 10 years old in which case you are correct ;)

Yep, thanks for spotting that error, SandTEngineer - I didn't know the rules had changed!

I've re-checked the signalling notice and should a train be routed into the Up Goods Loop at BS104 it will receive one of two indications; either an approach controlled main aspect (single yellow I suspect) with a No 1. Junction Indicator, or the main aspect will stay red and all that will be displayed is the two white lights of the position light signal - for when permissive freight procedures are being followed.  Everything else in my original post is correct.

I should point out that although the alterations in the signalling notice have taken effect, there's still a lot of work to do, with one of the 40mph crossover connections to install and the connection off of the Down Bicester will need a little work doing to it.  The whole area is TSR'd with a 30/50 at present - I'll let you know when the job has been finished.