Proposals revealed for ^275m development on "world class" Cotswold Line

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

If I was a railway betting man, I would put money, by the end of CP7,that the line will be redoubled to Hanborough, which will have a turnback facility, but there will be resistance to do the section on to Charlbury because of the cost of modifying/closing Combe and Finstock.

I would also consider an each way bet on Oxford to Hanborough being electrified (with most OXF^» (Oxford - next trains)-PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) Class 387s starting from there) to really make my money!

I would take a punt on redoubling and extra platforms by close of CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024), with electrification by CP7 at longer odds.

[ChrisB]

That would be my bet too. Also, the 387s will inly be two/hour if there's no Cotswold Libe train in tgat hour, where it would form one if those two tph (trains per hour)

The proposal is for hourly Cotswolds, this likely only the one 387 would be turning back at Hanborough. There may well be also a 387 shuttle should/when Hanborough becomes West Oxon Parkway.

[John R]

What about the 2ph stopping services from Oxford to Paddington?  Would these not be possible candidates to extend to Hanborough?

[IndustryInsider]

What about the 2ph stopping services from Oxford to Paddington?  Would these not be possible candidates to extend to Hanborough?

Not quite sure they'll be running in their current form by the time Hanborough might have been double-tracked.  After all the East-West Rail Link has eyes on taking over the stopping trains between Oxford and Reading.  Lots of twists and turns could happen before (if) these suggestions happen.

[grahame]

Don't know what will be running by the time (and if) it comes, but wouldn't it be more logical to extend something fast that comes up from Didcot to Oxford and terminates there, rather than a stopper?  Logic being that a fast train makes Hanborough a good park and ride without change makes it attractive for parking for Reading and London ... if you extend a stopper you're looking more at the Hanborough to Culham and to Pangbourne markets, which probably are much more limited.

[TonyK]

In the lap of the Gods, this one. (I'm a Christian, so the theology of that statement is a not entirely kosher).

[Richard Fairhurst]

I reckon Witney is about as impossible as you can get for reinstatement, even with Dave singing the praises. The route wasn't protected when the rails were lifted, and there are roads, industrial estates, an expanded bit of RAF^▸ (Royal Air Force) Brize Norton, and houses in the way now. An alternative route would cost far too much according to the bean counters. To put the final kiss of doom on it, there are plans for a bust rabid transit scheme to link the town to the railway.

I looked into this a couple of years ago, and know the area pretty well - not least because Mrs F works in Brize Norton (the village, not the airbase). I concluded Oxford to Witney is eminently reinstateable (is that a word...?), assuming that you stay south of the A40 in Witney.

The biggest obstacle on the old trackbed is the Eynsham southern bypass road, but there is just enough space to thread a railway north of that without encroaching on the site of Eynsham Abbey. A few reinstated bridges and you're at the Four Pillars/Ducklington area of Witney - walkable/bikeable from the town centre, and with plenty of space for a parkway station.

From there, continuing to Carterton on the old trackbed is much more difficult because RAF Brize Norton is in the way. If you were determined to get to Carterton, a whole new northern alignment would probably be required, and even then you'd only reach the edge of town. But I suspect the BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) for Witney would stack up on its own without having to go any further.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) scheme... Oxfordshire County Council have been blowing hot and cold on that for 25 years now and there's still no sign of it actually happening.

[Puffing Billy]

I agree with Richard that if the Eynsham problem can be cracked, then the continuation to a station somewhere in Witney will be unstoppable. To get back to how this affects the Cotswold Line, it seems to me that the proposals aired so far are quite incoherent in the absence of any obvious plan about how travellers (for most intents and purposes, drivers) get to Hanborough. The assertion that there is little likelihood of doubling through to Charlbury I also find confusing. In that case, why not stop the double-track just short of Hanborough, and you can make do with the one existing platform instead of the proposed three? Or looking at it another way, if West Oxfordshire "park and ride" traffic is viewed as separate from Cotswold traffic, why not keep the single line as it is, and make the second track an independent single line. If this fed into the new north Oxford down loop, which could be made reversible, then you could avoid conflicts with both Cotswold and Cherwell line traffic. Going back a few posts, this single line could stop at Yarnton instead of Hanborough, which already has convenient access to the A40 - I cannot see how a one-platform station and car park would cost any more than the proposed Hanborough modifications, and a Witney extension, whether you think it likely or not, is still a future option.

[ChrisB]

The assertion that there is little likelihood of doubling through to Charlbury I also find confusing.

Not confusing at all. It would mean an extra platform & associated connection at each halt (Coombe & Finstock) - for the numbers using them, it frankly would make more sense closing at least Combe.... too expensive, and unnecessary to wextend to Charlbury to achieve the two trains/hour.

In that case, why not stop the double-track just short of Hanborough, and you can make do with the one existing platform instead of the proposed three?

Well, it's actually just one double-facing island platform that is already there & redundant. It would need taking down to the foundations & rebuilding though. Needed for turnback of the third terminator.

....and make the second track an independent single line. If this fed into the new north Oxford down loop, which could be made reversible, then you could avoid conflicts with both Cotswold and Cherwell line traffic.

What happens when that reaches the outskirts of Oxford on the down?....anyway, if you're putting the second line in, why bother keeping it separate? Save very little money.

Going back a few posts, this single line could stop at Yarnton instead of Hanborough, which already has convenient access to the A40

The twin line is needed for two trains/hour service.....

[Witham Bobby]

Surely the question of servicing the single platforms at Coombe and Finstock could be part answered with a signalling solution?  Make the line that serves the platforms bi-directional, and you'd only need a re-instated platform at one of the halts.  It is possibly not the most operationally convenient solution.  It would be easier if both existing platforms were on the same side of the line, in which case no new platform would be needed.

[ChrisB]

I think they're looking to *simplify* operations....

[IndustryInsider]

Also you'd still need to rebuild the current platform at Finstock as it lies on the formation where the second track would go.  Either that or the road bridge by the station would need replacing and the embankment widening.

[Witham Bobby]

Also you'd still need to rebuild the current platform at Finstock as it lies on the formation where the second track would go.  Either that or the road bridge by the station would need replacing and the embankment widening.

It used to be double track along here, until BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) vandalized in in 1973.  Why would bridge, embankment or platform need altering now?

I should add that although I occasionally travel along here, I can't say that I've taken much notice of the present situation with regard to these halts.  So I may be completely mis-remembering that the single platforms at Coombe and Finstock are presently the former Up (Coombe) and Down (Finstock) platforms from pre 1973

[IndustryInsider]

It used to be double track along here, until BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) vandalized in in 1973.  Why would bridge, embankment or platform need altering now?

I should add that although I occasionally travel along here, I can't say that I've taken much notice of the present situation with regard to these halts.  So I may be completely mis-remembering that the single platforms at Coombe and Finstock are presently the former Up (Coombe) and Down (Finstock) platforms from pre 1973

The platform at Finstock was rebuilt, presumably to allow for the 100mph higher linespeed when the line was singled, so the current platform juts out quite a bit and would need cutting back/rebuilding if the line were to be redoubled.  You can see what I mean from this screen shot taken from the cab of my Cotswold Line redoubling video:

[Noggin]

Having the local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) behind you is always a good thing, but in this case it may even make a difference! Although I wasn't aware that CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) had been decided upon as yet, and I thought this upgrade had been ruled out last year.

Indeed, would make a very nice political legacy for Cameron, even if he couldn't wangle reopening to Witney. I should imagine there could be a knighthood in it for Mr Hopwood too!