Petition for double track on Cotswold line...

[whole diary]

[Btline]

A petition has been created to campaign for double track on the Cotswold Line.

Click here to view it (you do not have to sign it): http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cotswold/

Please do sign it, and get as many people to sign as possible. You could even post the url on your webpages etc.

This may be a way to finally see some action!

Many thanks.

[grahame]

William, thanks for this.  The petition page has further details of what is being asked for ... do have a look there. You are NOT signing up for the petition just by following the link.

Many lines, including the Cotswold line all the way from Oxford to Worceter (and beyond?), Swindon to Kemble, Chippenham to Trowbridge and Salisbury to Exeter were singled about 40 years ago when traffic was much lower - about half the passengers as I recall.  It's said that singling saved the lines involved from total closure, but in all the four cases I mentioned it's now an operational headache and redoubling would be a relatively cheap way of increasing passenger journey capacity along the route.

Can others sign in / give more specifics?  I am reluctant to make specific comments on a line / petition outside my area.  Costings, projections, does the petition have support of the Cotswold line development group, etc .... I know it's early days yet on this one though!

[Lee]

A petition has been created to campaign for double track on the Cotswold Line:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cotswold/

Please sign it, and get as many people to sign as possible. You could even post the url on your webpages etc.

Many thanks.

Before I sign , can you confirm that you are in favour of providing the required extra platforms at Ascott - under - Wychwood , Combe and Finstock , and that these stations will not be shut on cost grounds if the line is redoubled?

[Mookiemoo]

William, thanks for this.  The petition page has further details of what is being asked for ... do have a look there. You are NOT signing up for the petition just by following the link.

Many lines, including the Cotswold line all the way from Oxford to Worceter (and beyond?), Swindon to Kemble, Chippenham to Trowbridge and Salisbury to Exeter were singled about 40 years ago when traffic was much lower - about half the passengers as I recall.  It's said that singling saved the lines involved from total closure, but in all the four cases I mentioned it's now an operational headache and redoubling would be a relatively cheap way of increasing passenger journey capacity along the route.

Can others sign in / give more specifics?  I am reluctant to make specific comments on a line / petition outside my area.  Costings, projections, does the petition have support of the Cotswold line development group, etc .... I know it's early days yet on this one though!

I do not know the ins and outs of this but a few comments.........

Doubling will only help if the journey times can be shortened - at the moment every time table change the journey gets longer.  It is now nearly 2.5 hours from WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) (if on time) - four years ago it was just under two hours.  They add the extra time in so the trains arrive on time - but they never do.  For those who live the birmingham side of WOS it is far quicker to drive to birmingham international or take the train to birmingham and get Virgin into Euston.  Although ad hoc walk on fares are more expensive - virgin do good advance booking deals (even in first) and the season tickets are comparitive.  If you live west of wos towards evesham - many people pick up the Chiltern service to Marylebone - it is much cheaper and although they dont have a first class service the clubman carriages are pretty good.  Finally, if you live south of WOS it is easier and quicker to either drive to Cheltenham or get a train from Aschurch (assuming there is one) than it is to get into WOS.

Also, until FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can guarantee the accomodation on a train - it is not going to seriously increase the passenger numbers.  Even though I have a season - if I travel at weekends I go via newport to Ludow (I live between ludlow and worcester) and pay the extra 36.00 i need to - it is random whether you get the scheduled service or a replacement - except in the case of this line, the replacement is not fit for purpose - Pad to hereford on a 165?  At the moment the last train you can get that is acceptable is the 1822 - i know the time table change is supposed to alter that but if a unit is needed for else where - it seems to be pulled from our line first.

On the other hand - I think FGW would have a case for not running full HST^▸ (High Speed Train) services north of Oxford (or maybe worcester) except at peak.  The trains are always busy as far as Oxford.  The peak ones are reasonably busy as far as WOS.  But except at peak times, beyond WOS, you an see the tumbleweeds.  Central trains do a reasonably reliable and regular service from Brum to Hereford via WOS - might make sense to terminate the non-peak paddington trains and make sure they connect well with Central through to Malvern and beyond.

it is a chicken and egg - they may get more passengers going up through the cotswolds if it is dualled - but probably not until the other issues are sorted out.  The question is - would having a dualled line help sort the other stuff out?

[Lee]

Quote from the Save The Train Forum :

I personally think that complete re-doubling of the whole line will not get approved any time soon due to the costs involved, whilst Graham is right in that earthworks are largely in place, the track in many sections has been realigned to allow higher speeds and slews from one side of the former double track to the other, so unfortunately it's not just a case of plonking another track down next to the existing one.

Also, Lee has a valid point regarding Ascott-U-W, Combe and Finstock. As well as those smaller stations, the larger stations at Hanborough, Charlbury, Honeybourne and Pershore would have to have additional platforms added (though the old platforms are substantially complete still at Honeybourne and Pershore).

Personally, I think that a more modest scheme should be called for as (given the current cost or re-instating railway infrastructure) that is much more likely to be funded, and would provide real, tangible improvements that are deperately required so that a punctual, slightly faster, hourly (half-hourly in peak) service can operate.

I would suggest some, if not all, of the following improvements covering the Oxford-Norton Junction section should be included (although many of the problems with capacity are connected with the outdated signalling and track layouts at Worcester and Malvern too of course!)

1) Resignalling with colour-light Track Circuit Block signals throughout, replacing Norton Junction, Evesham, Moreton and Ascott signalboxes and associated token equipment.
2) Redoubling of short sections immediately beyond Wolvercote and Norton Juntions to enable trains waiting to go onto the single line to not have to block the main line whilst they wait.
3) Passing loops to be installed within the single track sections to virtually double capacity for service recovery, one in the Pershore area, one in the Chipping Camden area, and one between Finstock and Hanborough (there are two long straight sections of track which are ideal for this as the track has not been moved from the original days).
4) Line-speed increases from 75 to 90+ on most of the Moreton to Evesham section (with the exception of Aston Magna curve and possibly between Camden Tunnel and Honeybourne where track curvature would prevent this).
5) Upgrade of Switches & Crossings (S&C^▸ (Settle and Carlisle )) at Norton Junction in the down directon to increase linespeed from 25mph to 70mph.
6) Upgrade of S&C at Evesham to allow 50mph working throughout station area.
7) Upgrade of S&C at Moreton to increase up direction working off the single line from 15mph to 40mph.
Upgrade of S&C at Ascott so that up trains can enter the single line section at 75mph instead of 40mph.
9) Upgrade of S&C at Wolvercote Junction from 40mph to 60mph both directions.

Apologies if this is a little in-depth, but I believe that a good financial case could be made for the above schemes, and that they would help to vastly reduce delays on the Cotswold Line, give adequate capacity for an hourly off-peak service (with room for extra trains in the peak) and also speed up services so that Worcester is within the important aspirational journey time of 1hour to Oxford and 2hrs to London whilst largely maintaining the current calling patterns.

What do people think?

[Btline]

Before I sign , can you confirm that you are in favour of providing the required extra platforms at Ascott - under - Wychwood , Combe and Finstock , and that these stations will not be shut on cost grounds if the line is redoubled?

Yes, I, personally, am in full favour of this- whether the gov are......?

If anything, I would like the short term solution to be adding passing loops at all stations- especially at Ascott- where the double track ends just before the station- MAD!

However, the long term plan MUST be for full dual track if service frequencies/reliability are to be improved- cash must be spent- they are spending plenty on the Olympics, and to be honest, redualling the Cotswold Line will benefit far more people!

Remember, my idea for separate express/local services would benefit the "halts" - the local services would probably make more stops as the halts than the one currently. As the local services would be Thames Turbos, not HST^▸ (High Speed Train), there would not be train length problems (hopefully)- i.e. heath and safety would not complain.

Please do sign! And write to various MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)/FGW^▸ (First Great Western) management. Sorry, I did not mention this issue on the petition- I had limited room.

[Btline]

Quote from the Save The Train Forum :

I personally think that complete re-doubling of the whole line will not get approved any time soon due to the costs involved, whilst Graham is right in that earthworks are largely in place, the track in many sections has been realigned to allow higher speeds and slews from one side of the former double track to the other, so unfortunately it's not just a case of plonking another track down next to the existing one.

Also, Lee has a valid point regarding Ascott-U-W, Combe and Finstock. As well as those smaller stations, the larger stations at Hanborough, Charlbury, Honeybourne and Pershore would have to have additional platforms added (though the old platforms are substantially complete still at Honeybourne and Pershore).

Personally, I think that a more modest scheme should be called for as (given the current cost or re-instating railway infrastructure) that is much more likely to be funded, and would provide real, tangible improvements that are deperately required so that a punctual, slightly faster, hourly (half-hourly in peak) service can operate.

I would suggest some, if not all, of the following improvements covering the Oxford-Norton Junction section should be included (although many of the problems with capacity are connected with the outdated signalling and track layouts at Worcester and Malvern too of course!)

1) Resignalling with colour-light Track Circuit Block signals throughout, replacing Norton Junction, Evesham, Moreton and Ascott signalboxes and associated token equipment.
2) Redoubling of short sections immediately beyond Wolvercote and Norton Juntions to enable trains waiting to go onto the single line to not have to block the main line whilst they wait.
3) Passing loops to be installed within the single track sections to virtually double capacity for service recovery, one in the Pershore area, one in the Chipping Camden area, and one between Finstock and Hanborough (there are two long straight sections of track which are ideal for this as the track has not been moved from the original days).
4) Line-speed increases from 75 to 90+ on most of the Moreton to Evesham section (with the exception of Aston Magna curve and possibly between Camden Tunnel and Honeybourne where track curvature would prevent this).
5) Upgrade of Switches & Crossings (S&C^▸ (Settle and Carlisle )) at Norton Junction in the down directon to increase linespeed from 25mph to 70mph.
6) Upgrade of S&C at Evesham to allow 50mph working throughout station area.
7) Upgrade of S&C at Moreton to increase up direction working off the single line from 15mph to 40mph.
Upgrade of S&C at Ascott so that up trains can enter the single line section at 75mph instead of 40mph.
9) Upgrade of S&C at Wolvercote Junction from 40mph to 60mph both directions.

Apologies if this is a little in-depth, but I believe that a good financial case could be made for the above schemes, and that they would help to vastly reduce delays on the Cotswold Line, give adequate capacity for an hourly off-peak service (with room for extra trains in the peak) and also speed up services so that Worcester is within the important aspirational journey time of 1hour to Oxford and 2hrs to London whilst largely maintaining the current calling patterns.

What do people think?

YES, BUT AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION ONLY! See what I explained above. The things you have mentioned would improve reliability, but would not enhance capacity, and as (at the moment) Adalantes are constantly being replaced by Thames Turbos, causing critical overcrowding and an uncomfortable 2/3 hours for commuters- not acceptable for an InterCity service.

[willc]

William,

While I have signed your petition, I do have reservations about your reference to "village stations", which might cover just about everywhere on the line apart from Evesham and Pershore. The reason the trains make as many calls as they do is because people want to use them.

In the 1970s, Pershore and Hanborough (PS Lee, the second platform survives here too) were down to a single daily train each way, now passenger journeys are in the 60,000-70,000 per year range at both. Honeybourne is somewhere near 30,000, despite having been closed from 1969-1981. If it had a decent train service, Shipton (and the Wychwoods generally) could well match that figure. Charlbury (232,000) generates almost as much traffic as Evesham (239,000), despite a far smaller population. Figures given are all for 2006.

If and when more double track is laid, the need to meet this demand will not change. Indeed a much enhanced service at Shipton would be justified and possible if the current timetabling constraints are removed.

By all means deal with slack scheduling on the Cotswold Line itself and the padding built into timings between Reading and London, but the days of the Cathedrals Express sweeping imperiously past everywhere except Moreton and Evesham are long gone. We may be a long way from London, but this route and much of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) network as far out as Bath and Bristol is now outer-suburban, not InterCity, which means current stopping patterns are here to stay.

[Lee]

YES, BUT AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION ONLY! See what I explained above. The things you have mentioned would improve reliability, but would not enhance capacity, and as (at the moment) Adalantes are constantly being replaced by Thames Turbos, causing critical overcrowding and an uncomfortable 2/3 hours for commuters- not acceptable for an InterCity service.

(PS Lee, the second platform survives here too)

I would just point out that I was quoting from one of our Save The Train contributors.

Before I sign , can you confirm that you are in favour of providing the required extra platforms at Ascott - under - Wychwood , Combe and Finstock , and that these stations will not be shut on cost grounds if the line is redoubled?

Yes, I, personally, am in full favour of this- whether the gov are......?

Good to hear. I do keep an eye out for any potential threats , given that closure has been proposed for these stations in the recent past (pages 120 - 122 of the link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103

[Btline]

William,

While I have signed your petition, I do have reservations about your reference to "village stations", which might cover just about everywhere on the line apart from Evesham and Pershore. The reason the trains make as many calls as they do is because people want to use them.

In the 1970s, Pershore and Hanborough (PS Lee, the second platform survives here too) were down to a single daily train each way, now passenger journeys are in the 60,000-70,000 per year range at both. Honeybourne is somewhere near 30,000, despite having been closed from 1969-1981. If it had a decent train service, Shipton (and the Wychwoods generally) could well match that figure. Charlbury (232,000) generates almost as much traffic as Evesham (239,000), despite a far smaller population. Figures given are all for 2006.

If and when more double track is laid, the need to meet this demand will not change. Indeed a much enhanced service at Shipton would be justified and possible if the current timetabling constraints are removed.

By all means deal with slack scheduling on the Cotswold Line itself and the padding built into timings between Reading and London, but the days of the Cathedrals Express sweeping imperiously past everywhere except Moreton and Evesham are long gone. We may be a long way from London, but this route and much of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) network as far out as Bath and Bristol is now outer-suburban, not InterCity, which means current stopping patterns are here to stay.

What I meant was, that the current level of service could be maintained for places like Pershore, Chalbury etc., with places like Worcester seeing additional express services, to improve journey times and places like Shipton seeing additional local services.

Basically, increasing line capacity would enable all stations to have what they need.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the "halts" and village stations are important- however, the journey times for Worcestershire and herefordshire are far too long- especially if on  Thames Turbo! Expresses are needed (these would actually increase available seats on local services for the people of Pershore/Chalbury etc.).

Thanks for signing the petition- but remember, the key point in hand is the dual track and the increased reliability to go with it!

[Mookiemoo]

[/quote]

YES, BUT AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION ONLY! See what I explained above. The things you have mentioned would improve reliability, but would not enhance capacity, and as (at the moment) Adalantes are constantly being replaced by Thames Turbos, causing critical overcrowding and an uncomfortable 2/3 hours for commuters- not acceptable for an InterCity service.
[/quote]

But that has to be the starting point.

Except at peak - capacity is not the issue.

Fix the reliability and the accomodation

Run HST^▸ (High Speed Train) when you say you will

Then the peak will take off which will feed into off peak

When the cathedrals express was first stop oxford then charlbury, kingham, morton, evesham, worcester - it worked well.

Run reliable services to the cotswolds major stations and get the reliability up - its not a big ask in the medium term for hanboro passengers to pick it up elsewhere - same honeybourne. Pershore is not even in pershore so you need a car to get there - again - reliability to evesham is better than random arrival at pershore.

No point in increasing capacity until reliability and accomodation is sorted

[Btline]

YES, BUT AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION ONLY! See what I explained above. The things you have mentioned would improve reliability, but would not enhance capacity, and as (at the moment) Adalantes are constantly being replaced by Thames Turbos, causing critical overcrowding and an uncomfortable 2/3 hours for commuters- not acceptable for an InterCity service.

But that has to be the starting point.
Except at peak times- capacity is not the issue.
First should fix the reliability and the accommodation first.
They should run HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) when you say they should.
Then the peak services would take off which would feed into the off-peak ones!

When the Cathedrals Express was first stop Oxford then Charlbury, Kingham, Morton, Evesham, Worcester - it worked well.
Run reliable services to the Cotswolds major stations and get the reliability up - its not a big ask in the medium term for Hanborough passengers to pick the train up elsewhere - the same at Honeybourne. Pershore is not even in Pershore so you need a car to get there - again - train services/reliability to Evesham is more important than random arrivals at Pershore!
There is no point in increasing capacity until reliability and accommodation is sorted.

I agree, the priority is the reliability. This is stressed above.

Then, with additional line capacity, the Cathedrals Express can actually become an express HST- Hereford, Malvern stas, Worcester stas, Evesham, Morton, Oxford, Reading and London only. It would then be feasible to travel to London from Herefordshire and Worcestershire for buisiness or even a daily commute. The village stations would keep their current level of service, but with faster journey times and more a more reliable service- again suiting businessmen and daytrippers.

Redoubling the Cotswold line could have so many benefits- for ALL PEOPLE on the route!

Another priority is to get rid of those Thames Turbos on the InterCity Cotswold trains- Thames Turbos are short distance (<1h) trains!

[willc]

Not quite sure how we got from double track to Adelante unreliability, but do you really imagine FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has been doing anything but the bare minimum maintenance on them since the summer, or even longer? Certainly nothing resembling reliability modifications has been attempted.

Fingers crossed the expanded HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet, despite the awful new interiors, will at least be reliable, even if the track and signals are less so - Network Rail is on notice from the Rail Regulator over possible enforcement action for its dismal performance on routes from Paddington, so it's not all FGW's fault.

And while the idea of limited-stop expresses may seem seductive to those travelling from Worcester, Malvern  and Hereford, however much you increase capacity on the Cotswold Line, all trains will still have to fit into the regular interval timetable beyond Oxford and, most importantly, Didcot, even the far more lucrative peak trains to and from Bristol and Cardiff. Rebuilding of Reading station will constrain capacity there for some years to come.

As generators of traffic and revenue for FGW, tiny little Moreton-in-Marsh, Kingham and Charlbury are FAR more important than Worcester.

As for passengers from Hanborough going elsewhere to catch trains, Charlbury's car park is near-full most weekdays already and have you ever tried to reach Oxford station by car during the morning rush-hour? I suspect not. If there were more capacity on the Cotswold Line, FGW would want all trains to call at Hanborough. Only timing constraints on the single track prevent this at the moment.

One of the key reasons for stopping the Hereford peak services at Honeybourne was to ease pressure at Evesham, where the station car park is minute.

Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore act as railheads for much wider areas (eg Hanborough should perhaps be renamed Witney Parkway), that is why FGW and Thames Trains before them have steadily increased the number of trains calling. And these stations are popular with passengers because they avoid the need to battle ever-increasing congestion to get into Worcester, Evesham or Oxford to join trains there.

Of the Oxfordshire halts, only Shipton and perhaps Ascott would justify much of an increase in services, so the idea of extra Turbo services shuttling up and down just isn't going to happen, not that most of us would want to see them back in any numbers anyway, having got used to having decent trains on the days that the Adelantes do get out of the depot.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. The days of prestige, limited-stop expresses are over, even the Flying Scotsman now makes four stops between London and Edinburgh. What people want are reliable, regular-interval trains, along the lines of Switzerland, where you can turn up at the station at the same time every hour and the train rolls in. And you won't get the reliability you all say you want until the extra capacity offered by double track is in place, along with a solution to the problems at Reading and the signals and track in the Thames Valley are renewed.

[Btline]

Not quite sure how we got from double track to Adelante unreliability, but do you really imagine FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has been doing anything but the bare minimum maintenance on them since the summer, or even longer? Certainly nothing resembling reliability modifications has been attempted.

Fingers crossed the expanded HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet, despite the awful new interiors, will at least be reliable, even if the track and signals are less so - Network Rail is on notice from the Rail Regulator over possible enforcement action for its dismal performance on routes from Paddington, so it's not all FGW's fault.

And while the idea of limited-stop expresses may seem seductive to those travelling from Worcester, Malvern  and Hereford, however much you increase capacity on the Cotswold Line, all trains will still have to fit into the regular interval timetable beyond Oxford and, most importantly, Didcot, even the far more lucrative peak trains to and from Bristol and Cardiff. Rebuilding of Reading station will constrain capacity there for some years to come.

As generators of traffic and revenue for FGW, tiny little Moreton-in-Marsh, Kingham and Charlbury are FAR more important than Worcester.

As for passengers from Hanborough going elsewhere to catch trains, Charlbury's car park is near-full most weekdays already and have you ever tried to reach Oxford station by car during the morning rush-hour? I suspect not. If there were more capacity on the Cotswold Line, FGW would want all trains to call at Hanborough. Only timing constraints on the single track prevent this at the moment.

One of the key reasons for stopping the Hereford peak services at Honeybourne was to ease pressure at Evesham, where the station car park is minute.

Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore act as railheads for much wider areas (eg Hanborough should perhaps be renamed Witney Parkway), that is why FGW and Thames Trains before them have steadily increased the number of trains calling. And these stations are popular with passengers because they avoid the need to battle ever-increasing congestion to get into Worcester, Evesham or Oxford to join trains there.

Of the Oxfordshire halts, only Shipton and perhaps Ascott would justify much of an increase in services, so the idea of extra Turbo services shuttling up and down just isn't going to happen, not that most of us would want to see them back in any numbers anyway, having got used to having decent trains on the days that the Adelantes do get out of the depot.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. The days of prestige, limited-stop expresses are over, even the Flying Scotsman now makes four stops between London and Edinburgh. What people want are reliable, regular-interval trains, along the lines of Switzerland, where you can turn up at the station at the same time every hour and the train rolls in. And you won't get the reliability you all say you want until the extra capacity offered by double track is in place, along with a solution to the problems at Reading and the signals and track in the Thames Valley are renewed.

You do have a point.

However, some faster journey times in the morning peak would be well received for the long distance passengers- even if it is just 1 HST express, then all the rest stopping.

What do people think of Coombe, Finstock, Ascott and Shipton. Are they viable in the long term. Is the only reason why their patronage is low because of the few services (and lack of London services recently!)?

Isn't the platform at one of the halts actually where the other track was (I think the side was switched in the 80s)?
Does anybody travel on the "halts" train frequently? If so, how often does the train stop at them?

[willc]

William,

You're right. Finstock's platform was moved when the track was slewed for 100mph running and sits on the trackbed.

As for the all-stations train, the idea the halts are request stops is a bit of a fiction, certainly on weekdays. I cannot recall a single journey where one has been skipped. There's always someone waiting to go into Oxford in the mornings, nor have I ever known halts passengers on the return service being asked to make themselves known to the train's crew. They just stop anyway. Again, someone always seems to get off. The only trains I have ever used that did skip halts were Saturday services (now only offered from Shipton anyway), which would slow on the approach to the halts to see if there was any custom, then accelerate away if no-one showed themselves. All the Shipton trains seem to stop whatever the time of day.

As for custom at these stations, Combe and Finstock are both about a mile from the villages and Finstock is at the bottom of a steepish hill as well, so not great scope for extra numbers, I'd say, even with more trains.

Shipton, as I said in a previous post, is a potential Honeybourne Mk2^▸ (Mark 2 coach), if it gets the right balance of services. The population of Shipton and adjacent Milton-under-Wychwood is greater than Honeybourne. Also Burford is much closer to Shipton than Charlbury, so would attract custom from that area too if more trains called. The problem here is access and parking. The westbound platform is currently reached through Matthews' flour mill yard and the best site for a car park, where the goods shed and yard used to be just north of the Oxford-bound platform, is occupied by a garage business.

Ascott's problem is that while it is convenient for the village itself, it is so close to Shipton it would be hard to justify lots of trains calling at both points, so maybe an extra peak stop or two here. I don't think people here would be too aggrieved if they only had a short drive to Shipton for more frequent services the rest of the day.