Petition for double track on Cotswold line...

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

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.

I agree that one of the problems is that the Cotswold line as with most of the GW^▸ (Great Western) mainline out of Paddington is now outer suburban so most trains will need to stop at most stations with double track you could have say an hourly semi fast (fast to Oxford) to and from Paddington and an hourly all stations that follows the fast from Oxford (connection from Padd) and arrives Oxford to connect with an Oxford to Paddington fast service (on the other half hour to the through fast).

However this will require  very expensive diesel units to give the necessary acceleration to provide attractive journey times. So given the increasing outer suburban nature of the Cotswold line electrification should be the long term goal. 

[Btline]

TO be honest: electrification is the long term aim for many GW^▸ (Great Western) routes. However, the line to Bristol and Plymouth will be ahead in the pecking order! The electrification of the Cotswold line should happen, but it won't for decades!!!!

I like your idea:

*hourly semi-fast:    London, Reading, Oxford, Charlbury, Kingham, Morton, Evesham, Worcester (and beyond during peaks only).
*hourly stopping:     Oxford, Hanborough, Coombe (x) or Finstock (x), Charlbury, Shipton (x), Kingham, Morton, Honeybourne, Evesham, Pershore, Worcester.

Axe Ascott (and maybe one out of Finstock and Coombe).
Peak extensions of local service to London calling: Oxford, Didcot, Reading, Slough, London; to give all stations a direct service to London.

HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on semi fast services. Thames Turbos on local services (except when on the peak services).

What do others think?

[Lee]

Axe Ascott (and maybe one out of Finstock and Coombe).

What do others think?

I think that I only signed your petition on the basis of a guarantee from you that you were not in favour of closing any of the above stations :

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]

Axe Ascott (and maybe one out of Finstock and Coombe).

What do others think?

I think that I only signed your petition on the basis of a guarantee from you that you were not in favour of closing any of the above stations :

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.

I understand your concerns. However, I have now thought longer about the issue and my opinions have changed slightly.

To be fair, Ascott is very close to Shipton. Axing Ascott and increasing facilities (such as car parking) and services to Shipton would be more beneficial!

Finstock and Coombe have very low passenger numbers, so axing one/replacing both with a new halt and increasing facilities and services at the station kept open/new station would be better for the communities.

I think that economies can be made that improve journey times, and improve the service and facilities at another station. As well as this, a halt with 3 trains a day (for example) is better than 2 halts with a service or two a day each. People are more likely to use it, as they know that more than one train calls. Usage would go up, facilities could be provided, car parking could be improved. Result- Honeybourne Mk 2 etc!

Finstock station would have to be demolished to make way for double track. Is reopening really viable with Coombe down the road? Again car parking could be improved at Coombe.

Besides, the petition does not involve the halts staying open or shutting, only the double track reinstatement. I do not make any comment to do with them on the petition. The only way I mention them is by saying double track would facilitate an enhanced local service for them (and an enhanced express service skipping them!).

Furthermore, at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with me! My slight change of opinion will not effect anyone.

I would like to say that I would certainly not be disappointed if they all remained open. I just think that there is only the need for half of them.

[Lee]

Ok, you are entitled to your opinion.

You will understand if I feel that Campaign Against New Beeching Report supporters have been duped somewhat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A29902836

Quote from the above link (written by you, in an attempt to get them to sign) :

A petition has been created to campaign for the re-doubling of the Cotswold Line.

It can be viewed here: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cotswold/

Signing this petition could a large benefit in not only reliability, but increased capacity:
*Fast, express services could be inroduced for long distance Hereford & Worcester passengers.
*More local services could be introduced, securing the Oxfordshire "halts" and giving the Cotswold village commuter stations an enhanced service.

Please can you sign it, and encourage more people to do so!

Many thanks.

Personally, I feel a bit let down, and I am sure that others do too.

[Lee]

In case you are wondering, my view can be found below :

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!)?

Does anybody travel on the "halts" train frequently? If so, how often does the train stop at them?

My view is that the "halts" should be kept open in order to provide access to the rail network for the areas that they serve. Sure , these are sparsely populated in places , but does that mean that the locals are any less deserving of a train service?

As for the appropriate level of service , it depends on who you ask. Jacobs Consultancy (see pages 120 - 122 of the following link - http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103) felt that no trains should call at these stations , but locals at Finstock felt otherwise when closure was proposed in 1994 :



Combe , Finstock and Ascott had their train service reduced to 1 train each way on Monday - Fridays only as part of the December 2006 timetable process.

Here is a photo of Finstock station in 1983 before the platform was moved to the opposite side of the track :

I am entitled to my opinion as well.

As you can see from one of the photos above, proposing the closure of even (say) Finstock is likely to land you with far more opposition than you seem to think. If this then snowballs publicity-wise (as I think it would) into a "Beeching rides again" scenario, this could end up jeopardising any double-tracking plan proposed on this basis.

To give you a comparison, a year ago Network Rail proposed the closure of Denton and Reddish South stations, which have a service of 1 train per week in one direction only. Despite this, hundreds of people objected (link below.)
http://www.andrewgwynne.labour.co.uk/news?PageId=b46abd47-6168-4094-21b4-913b02fc50c6

Whilst I accept that those two stations are situated in an urban area, while the Oxfordshire "halts" are rural, it is interesting to note that the surprisingly successful campaign was led by local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Andrew Gwynne, who quite a few forum members may not have heard of.

Question - how many forum members have heard of Finstock's local MP?

I think that you would be far better off proposing a double-tracking scheme that takes all the "halts" into account, and at least keeps them open.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Question - how many forum members have heard of Finstock's local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament)?

Erm ... I think we all have, Lee!

Here's a clue - almost exactly in the middle of the map, eh? http://www.davidcameronmp.com/map.html

 

[Lee]

almost exactly in the middle of the map, eh? http://www.davidcameronmp.com/map.html

 

Indeed it is, Chris 

I also think that David Cameron is the type of character who would prefer to keep open all three stations mentioned by Btline (Ascott, Combe and Finstock, which are all in Cameron's constituency) as closure candidates. Example/comparison link below regarding local post office closures.
http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.2027904.0.tory_leader_backs_post_office_battle.php

West End in Witney, Stanmore Crescent in Carterton, and the villages of Combe and Wootton, near Woodstock, will lose their services outright, while Chadlington, Enstone, Great Tew, Great Rollright and Tackley will be replaced with "outreach" services - much reduced hours or a van.

Yesterday, Mr Cameron, the Witney MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) whose own village post office at Chadlington is under threat, said: "My main concern is that the proposals will hit the most vulnerable in the community, and overlook the vital social role post offices have in rural communities.

"The Government's plan is the wrong course of action. Rather than working to find more constructive solutions, which would bring new businesses to the network, the Government seems happy to simply manage the decline of the Post Office.

"As MP for Witney, I will be studying the individual proposals carefully and will be fighting for all post offices affected in order to minimise the impact on my constituents."

You would have to say that if Cameron (probably along with the relevant Shadow Cabinet ministers) held a press photo-call at any of the potentially-doomed Oxfordshire "halts", then that would probably be the end of any closure proposal.

It is further worth noting that, as leader of the opposition, Cameron is entitled to insist on a response from Ruth Kelly at Secretary of State level, rather than just Tom Harris at ministerial level, when asking parliamentary questions.

[eightf48544]

I think this thread is getting too bogged down in the detail of how the Cotswold line might be redoubled.

Everyone seems to agree that the less single track on this important line the better.

Therefore, rather than trying to second guess any scheme that Network might come up with I suggest that the petiton organisers put forward proposed headways for services on the line.

May I suggest 10 minutes for alternate direction trains and 5 minutes for same direction trains.

I.e An Up train leaves a station on the hour (XX:00) the next Down train arrives at xx:10,
or the Up train leaves at XX:00 the next Up train at XX:05 which makes the next Down Train XX:15.

As a first step this gives you 6 tph  3 Up 3 Down in alternate directions (20 minute interval in same directioon) or  8tph 5 Up 3 Down or vice versa maximum 25 minute interval in 3 tph direction.

Perhaps the Old Worse and Worse was over generous with the provisons of stations on the line considering 8 have already shut, including Adelstrop made famous by the poem.

So maybe you are lucky having so many small station left. Considering other mainlines in the country where it's at least 20 miles between stations.

One other thought, IF the trial of ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) on the Cambrian Line is successful then I would suggest that the Cotswold line redoubling would be an ideal next project to test the sysetm on a busier line. Another plus point for the scheme.

[Lee]

Perhaps the Old Worse and Worse was over generous with the provisons of stations on the line considering 8 have already shut, including Adelstrop made famous by the poem.

So maybe you are lucky having so many small station left. Considering other mainlines in the country where it's at least 20 miles between stations.

I make no apologies for putting forward the case for retaining these stations, and I dont think that anyone who knows me would expect any different. I actually think there is some merit in your/btlines overall suggestion, but the stopper could be modified so that 2 out of Combe, Finstock, Ascott and Shipton are called at in one hour, and the other 2 stations called at in the next, a "skip-stop" pattern, if you like.

I also predict that any move to close any of the "halts" will fail while David Cameron is leader of the Conservative party, which could be for the next decade, maybe longer. Although some might disagree, I think that considering the political implications of rail proposals is actually a very relevant thing to do.

I think this thread is getting too bogged down in the detail of how the Cotswold line might be redoubled.

Everyone seems to agree that the less single track on this important line the better.

Therefore, rather than trying to second guess any scheme that Network might come up with I suggest that the petiton organisers put forward proposed headways for services on the line.

Fine by me. Over to you Btline.

[Btline]

Right.

I can see and understand that people want the halts to stay open. If I lived in Coombe or Finstock or nearer to Ascott than to Shipton, then of course I would want them to stay open. However, looking from afar...

As I said before, axing one of them would secure the remaining ones with more incentive to develop the remaining ones.

Quote from the above link (written by you, in an attempt to get them to sign) :

*More local services could be introduced, securing the Oxfordshire "halts" and giving the Cotswold village commuter stations an enhanced service.

Personally, I feel a bit let down, and I am sure that others do too.

Hmmmmmmm. What has changed? As I said in my service pattern above, the local service would stop at some of the halts! Therefore encouraging more people to use them etc. etc. = they are secured!

Why should people be let down. I think that if all the halts stay as they are, this will happen:
*Coombe AND Finstock will be closed;
*Ascott will be closed in preference to Shipton;
*Shipton may stay open, but:
*Shipton's service may be AXED to 1 train a day!

Now, if Finstock was axed (e.g. during redoubling) and an additional service immediately started calling at Coombe to compensate, passenger usage would increase NOT just because of the extra Finstock passenger(s), but because people from both villages would view it as having a choice of trains etc. and the service would become slightly more convenient for them. It would no longer be: "No, I can't take the train, as the only stopper will have gone by now" but "Oh, I have missed the morning service, but I can catch the later one instead. Right I won't drive. I'll have lunch and a pint now, and then go to Coombe station to get the afternoon stopper."

Parking could be improved at Coombe as more passengers used it and, primarily MORE TRAINS COULD START CALLING AS USAGE WENT UP.

Now, Shipton could do with an additional train at the moment as it is! If Ascott were to be axed (and redoubling took place etc.) 2 more trains (at least) could start calling immediately. Then you would have the same effect as above, but even more so. The station could be improved, more parking blah.... etc.

The result would be going from:
*a situation where 4 stations get 1 train per day (2 for Shipton), with poor patronage;
to:
*a situation where 2 stations would get 3-4 trains per day, with improved usage (and not too much inconvenience- the stations are close to each other).

Please do not get me wrong. I am against Beeching style closures in principle. But, I am not against the closure of some of the lines that Beeching closed. I think that some were sensible, others were mad and have caused problems today. I also hate his "track improvements" - ie singling!

I don't think you should feel let down. I honestly feel that at least one halt could save the others if it were axed. Remember, stations can reopen.

In the long term, I feel the remaining halts (especially Shipton) would see an increase in service and no longer be "halts!" If my stopping pattern above were to applied, then Shipton and Coombe could start seeing hourly or two hourly services.

I am v sorry if you feel let down- believe me, the closure of stations is not generally good.

But I feel that in exceptional cases, there is good reason to axe stations. In all the examples of closure above, reasonable alternatives would be used. I do not think you can use the "what happens if I don't drive" argument, because I believe the halts are a way from the villages anyway.

Of course David Cameron will oppose any closure plans- he wants to get votes! If he leads a campaign to save a station, it is a win win situation. Nobody will dislike him for keeping them open (I understand that he may genuinely want them kept open - I just think that it is unlikely). For that reason, I feel that it would be better to keep politics out of this "halts" issue.

Ok, I would like to tell people:

*Don't feel let down, I want all communities to have a decent service. Hopefully, I have explained myself a little better up there!
*The petition is about the double track only. Any results of the redoubling should be handled in a separate petition!

Regards,

Btline

PS: ignoring the halts, what do people think of the various stopping patterns above?

PPS: Please do not fell let down!!!!!

 

[Btline]

Sorry, it's me again!



Look:

"How can people use it when hardly any trains stop here???"

This applies to all the halts. Yes- frequencies need to be improved.

Do you really think that it would be worthwhile to increase frequencies at all 4 halts? I can't see it being viable. The growth will be spread out to all 4 stations. It will not be as noticeable. The services will be axed again. Axing 1/2 halts might be better.

Anyway, enough of me.

Please reply!!!!

 

[smokey]

TO be honest: electrification is the long term aim for many GW^▸ (Great Western) routes. However, the line to Bristol and Plymouth will be ahead in the pecking order! The electrification of the Cotswold line should happen, but it won't for decades!!!!

I like your idea:

Electrification is the future for Rail travel, with new 3rd Rail electrification now banned Under H & S except where it's an add on to existing schemes, Great Western will be Overhead electric, will be great London-Bristol, South Wales and Exeter, mighty interesting about wires to Plymouth.

Contrary to popular belief, Water is an INSULATOR, if it conducted electricity then every Power line would blow up every time it rained.

However Sea Water CONDUCTS electricity and that will cause real sparks every time the Sea was stormy at Dawlish.
Renewing the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") every other day in the winter is not an option.

[TerminalJunkie]

Contrary to popular belief, Water is an INSULATOR, if it conducted electricity then every Power line would blow up every time it rained.

However Sea Water CONDUCTS electricity and that will cause real sparks every time the Sea was stormy at Dawlish.

What a complete load of old cobblers.

Sea water may be slightly more conductive than pure water, but then the atmosphere isn't a perfect insulator either. Electricity will flow down whatever route it finds easiest, and in the case of OHLE that's always going to be along the wires.

[Lee]

Here's how I see it, Btline.

To take the rather obvious political implications of proposing the closure of stations within David Cameron's constituency out of the equation is, in my view, the wrong approach. You disagree, and that is your right.

You feel that it is the correct approach to propose closing some of the "Oxfordshire Halts." I disagree, and that is my right.

I think that anyone reading this thread can see that both sides of the argument have been thoroughly aired. I could continue to counter your points (and indeed would) but we would end up going round in circles. Wearing my Global Moderator hat, I am going to accept eightf48544 recommendation and move the debate on.

I believe he has a request for you :

Therefore, rather than trying to second guess any scheme that Network might come up with I suggest that the petiton organisers put forward proposed headways for services on the line.

Its your petition, not mine.