Covered already.  The Evergreen 3 booklet already shows the Bicester Village 'shared' parking.

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/images/Chiltern%20A4%208pp%20Booklet%20V9%20Website%20v2.pdf

Page 6:  "Car parking would be provided on the north side of the railway, with additional parking for
rail users on weekdays in the proposed Bicester Village shopping outlet car park which already has planning permission."

Paul

There are only two travelling.  Possibly not your best idea...

Paul

Problem is this particular article in Rail (Issue 643 page 50) wasn't just slightly wrong.
Regarding 'remodelling Aynho Junction' it actually reads:

'Here the 50mph flyover will be replaced with a flat junction in the down direction...'

How they get to that, given the stuff in the track access application, and on the Evergreen 3 site, I'm not sure...

Paul

Is that map wrong already then? It clearly shows the 1 tph WoE via Didcot and Banbury, and a Taunton - Theale.

Paul

No FGW^▸ (First Great Western) into Waterloo then.   

That was never any more than rumour anyway.  It hasn't ever been mentioned in the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 'rules of the route' for the period of the blockade. 

I suppose there's still a possibility that Exeter - Waterloo services get strengthened to maximum length?

Paul

I can see what you mean but at the same time I don't think the flyover itself seems to be the main limiting factor in the area, having looked up the speed details. In NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s public online sectional appendix, (which is an April 09 snapshot unfortunately) there are some indications that the main reason for slowing down is the junction point work and their approach.  In fact, trains travelling in the down direction on the reversible up line have exactly the same speed restrictions. It gets even worse for trains that can't run at sprinter speeds, because the down direction limit is then 25 mph on both lines.  In the up direction the non-sprinter speed is 35 mph up the gradient from the junction, the down line isn't bidirectionally signalled as far as I can tell.

What all that suggests is that the problems might be to do with with the embankment earthworks. It would be interesting to hear from someone on the Evergreen project!

Paul

Not according to the track access application:  (73rd SA)


Paul

They get the effect of a four track railway for overtaking purposes, because the existing down main track will become a down loop including the platform at South Ruislip, and the existing Up Loop through West Ruislip already provides a platform that allows up trains to be overtaken there. 


Is that based on a misleading Rail magazine report that a 'crossover would be provided' at Aynho?

AFAICT^▸ (as far as I can tell) from discussions elsewhere the flyover remains the normal route, however there is also a new crossover being put in the DCL for extra flexibility (for 7 day railway single track working I believe). There was no sign of anything in that Chiltern track access application (that listed all the work sites) to suggest that the flyover route wouldn't be used.

Paul

Crossrail's primary purpose is to relieve the Central Line. It can't do that unless it runs the way it is designed. This is all explained in the depths of the Crossrail enabling Act somewhere.
Paul

Read a report that the Northolt Jn alterations have just this week been approved by the local planners in Hillingdon, and work is expected to start now and take 'about 8 months'; so March 11 at the earliest?  I think that must be the key that unlocks the main line speed increases towards London?

It's predominantly mileage based isn't it? SORs are available for journeys over about 40 miles, which I guess was some arbritary commuting boundary at some time in the past.  Certainly on the SWML^▸ (South Western Mail Line), the boundary (as far as London fares are concerned) was Fleet when I checked a few months ago.

Paul

That isn't PAYG^▸ (Pay as you go) though, it's just buying a ticket from a machine or onboard, and storing it on a plastic card.  True PAYG is what was suggested earlier, where the fare isn't worked out until the end of the journey. There's a subtle difference, AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See)...

Paul

Except for the new opportunites for fraud, which is why they won't do it here, whatever happens in Switzerland.

Paul

SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s card  does not provide prepay (stored payment) system, it is seasons only; and I cant see it ever working like Oyster PAYG^▸ (Pay as you go) on the main national network.

It's important to realise that Oyster PAYG works in a well defined area which is predominantly barriered, with only minimal ticket types available, all singles, one class, and there are no period returns for instance. The key to PAYG's relative simplicity is that it can deduct a maximum cash fare on entry (equivalent to a sort of deposit), and refund as appropriate on exit. For a similar system on NR^» (Network Rail - home page), where distances and therefore costs can be pretty significant, the preloaded balance would have to be significantly higher, or failing that you'd need to have a system that could talk to your bank account. 

Just try and work out how a putative national system would charge someone who touched in but didn't touched out at their destination? What charge should now be made?

Paul

It's a bit more important, it's a TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) loop. But definitely part of the normal infrastructure as you say.

PS, looking at the picture full size, it looks as if it's been damaged, as the cross member of the frame is missing. Perhaps something was lost in translation, and it should be 'damaged BY a shopping trolley' perhaps?

Paul