A bleak outlook from the ORR on Cotswold redoubling

[whole diary]

[Btline]

I emailed the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about), informing them of my petition (and pointed out the high number of signatures).

This is their reply:

Thank you for your email of 8 April 2008, about the redoubling of the
Cotswold Line and drawing our attention to your E-Petition on the Prime
Minister's website.

Below is some background information which may be of interest to you:

Network Rail is, and has been for some time, considering the partial or
total redoubling of the Cotswold Line. This is based on (a) improving
service performance, since the presence of single line results in delays
in one direction being transmitted into delays in the service in the
opposite direction (this can react throughout the day), and (b) creating
greater flexibility for future timetables.  As you will be aware, this
is a busy line in terms of usage of available track capacity, and
recovery from delays is difficult.

However, Network Rail has to identify and make a business case for any
scheme that it wishes to deliver.  Only if the necessary results could
be achieved would the scheme be progressed.  At present, a team is
investigating the various options and checking the practicability and
likely cost of each of them.

Network Rail's business plan shows that a decision on the preferred
option and whether there is a business case should result from this
around June or July 2009 (which gives some indication of the amount of
work that is required to reach that stage). The Route Plan suggests
completion in December 2010.

Much of the business case would be based on the amount of delay (and
payments made by Network Rail to train operating companies (TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)) as a
result of it) that would be saved.  Other industry benefits can also be
taken into account and it is open to other beneficiaries - Councils,
etc. - to contribute if non-industry benefits enable them so to do.
Potential increases in housing (and, therefore, traffic), reductions in
CO2 emissions, reduced congestion, etc., can all be taken into account.

Clearly, there would be a huge amount of work to be done on the ground,
clearing and bringing back into usable condition the vacant formation,
track relaying, changes to pointwork, construction of new platforms
where the old ones have been demolished (together with associated
Disability Discrimination Act works that would legally have to be
undertaken if a station was being improved), and complete resignalling
of the route.  It remains to be seen how much, if anything, can be
afforded.  It should be noted that, because of changing standards, it
might not be possible to redouble the whole line if bridges or, in
particular, the two tunnels do not provide sufficient clearance for two
trains to pass safely.

You can find more information by visiting www.networkrail.co.uk and
searching for Cotswold Line.

I hope this is useful.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Dennis
Customer Correspondence Team

Not good. Was not impressed.

At one point it was as if they did not want disabled people to hav access to stations.

And what is that cr*p about 2 trains might not be able to pass under bridges/tunnels - don't they realise that the line was double originally?!

I am not happy!

[willc]

Don't get too downhearted.

A lot of this reads like it is based on information predating the revised business plan presented by Network Rail at the start of the month. As Dave Ward made clear in Charlbury, if he gets the green light in June, work should start next January. He wouldn't have said that if he wasn't confident it could be done, would he? December 2010 was floated as the completion date when Network Rail launched the study work a year ago.

The reference to tunnels is just nonsense from people who don't know what they are talking about. Both Colwall and Ledbury tunnels are single track, single bores, so trains simply can't pass in them - the section west of Malvern isn't relevant anyway, as no work is proposed here at the moment. And almost all the bridges between Worcester and Oxford were built by Brunel to broad gauge, so clearances are generous, to say the least.

Complete resignalling simply isn't on the cards, because of the interfaces with the Oxford and Worcester areas, where any changes will be post-2014, hence the single track staying where the Cotswold Line meets these two areas. If there is extra double track, an extension of the axle-counter entry-exit system, used at the moment on the Wolvercot-to Ascott-under-Wychwood section is likely, and this doesn't cost the earth. I'm not even sure that the signal box at Moreton-in-Marsh would go, as it controls some useful crossover pointwork and engineers' sidings.

The disabled access is already factored into NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s plans, with the relevant footbridge designs included. If the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) were really that bothered about this issue, then they should be finding out why the much-delayed ramp to the Oxford-bound platform at Evesham still hasn't been started.

[Andy W]

Complete resignalling simply isn't on the cards, because of the interfaces with the Oxford and Worcester areas, where any changes will be post-2014, hence the single track staying where the Cotswold Line meets these two areas. If there is extra double track, an extension of the axle-counter entry-exit system, used at the moment on the Wolvercot-to Ascott-under-Wychwood section is likely, and this doesn't cost the earth. I'm not even sure that the signal box at Moreton-in-Marsh would go, as it controls some useful crossover pointwork and engineers' sidings.

What is the axle-counter entry-exit sytem?

[eightf48544]

What is the axle-counter entry-exit sytem?

They are considered a cheaper alternative to track circuits which require the whole section of track to be bonded to form a continous electrical circuit in each running rail. A potential difference is put across the running rails. As a train enters the section the wheels pick up the potential difference and act as a switch which turms on the track occupied indication in the signalbox. This shoud remain illuminated the whole time the train is in that section. If it leaves part of the train  in section then the indicator will still show the section  as occupied even though the front of the train is well into the next section. The occupation of track circuit also locks the siganl in its rear at danger and won't allow the signalman to release it until the track circuit is clear. Track circuits have been around a long time but are considered expensive to install and not very reliable, this is despite the fact that there are four alongside my house (Taplow) installed in the 60s which switch on and off every time a train passes quite happily day in and day out.
 
Probably the most scary thing about track circuits is that when they first came out 158s kept disappearing from the siganlbox diagrams, being too light to short the rails. Now that is a "wrong side" failure as it unlocks the signal in the rear.

Basically an axle counter is exactly what it says. The train passes over a detector attached to the running rail which counts the number of axles (wheels) as they pass over it. This is stored and sent to the other end of the section. When the train reaches the axle counter at the end of the section a comparator compares the exit count with the count from the entry counter. All being well they should be equal indicating the whole train has passed through the section. Whilst there is differnce in the counts then the software locks the signal in the rear  at danger. When teh counts agree the signal is unlocked.



However the fun and games start if the counts don't agree. This could be caused by one of two things, the train has split and the exit count is legitmately less or one of the counters miss counted. So the signalman first has to ascertain that the train didn't split so that means radioing or stopping the train to contact the driver to check if the train is complete.
If the train is complete then the technian has to ascertain which axle counter is at fault, which is OK for units you can have a good guess at the number of axles for a particular train, but what about the Orient Express or a stone train? Once the fault is fixed you then have to securely reset the counters so they are instep once again.

Like most things they are fine when they work but I would suggest that they are more of nuisance when they fail than a failed track circuit which usually fails safe i.e. shows occupied when not..

[Andy W]

8F many thanks for your comprehensive and very interesting reply. I assume something similar also applies to double track working to ensure one train is clear before the next one gains access. I'm not sure axle count is really necessary, surely an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) drive would notice if they left a power car behind !!!

I presume such a system is not installed on the Moreton - Evesham and Evesham - Norton sections hence the need for tokens.

I'm staggered trains don't have transponders to readily identify them as they enter / leave sections.

In the response BTline received I see no mention of freight. Surely there are opportunities there as well as growing the passenger business. Does anyone know if any provision for freight has been factored in?

[John R]

I'm not sure axle count is really necessary, surely an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) driver would notice if they left a power car behind !!!

That's not quite failsafe enough for the railway.  Actually the driver would notice, because the brakes would come on, but that's still not the point because by the time the front section came to a halt the rear section would be up to 2 miles back in the previous section of line.

[willc]

In the response BTline received I see no mention of freight. Surely there are opportunities there as well as growing the passenger business. Does anyone know if any provision for freight has been factored in?

Not really, as the Network Rail plans are all about taking today's (passenger) railway and making it better. There is no freight on the route, unless you count empty wagons and other rolling stock moving in and out of Long Marston for repairs and storage. More double track would certainly make routing these trains in and out easier, as potentially some could run via Oxford (almost all come from Worceser at present), but this is a minor consideration.

The increased capacity might allow use as an occasional diversionary route between Oxford and the West Midlands but with the current scheme to raise bridge clearances on the main line to Birmingham from Southampton to allow 9ft 6in containers on normal wagons, rather than 8ft 6in boxes, the Cotswold Line would be barred to such tall trains, unless all Mr Brunel's lovely flat stone arch bridges were knocked down.

Realistically, there are no potential rail freight customers along the route - and I'm not even sure if Metal Box at Worcester is still using the railway for a small amount of traffic. Perhaps the only remote possibility would be if the railways decided to get back into the market for moving fruit and vegetables around, as Evesham is one of the key UK^▸ (United Kingdom) centres for distribution of these, though most produce is now trucked in from France, Spain and Italy, rather than being locally grown, before being moved on to supermarket depots around the country.

Given the lack of interest Britain's railways and their Continental counterparts have shown in this traffic for the past couple of decades and the need for expensive refrigerated containers or vans, specially built to fit within the British railway loading gauge, I won't be holding my breath. And the goods yard in Evesham is now the site of the town's Tesco store...

[Tinminer]

Rail Magazine, out today, makes for much more positive reading, and looks like NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are giving it the go ahead in their next financial year.
Worth checking out for anyone interested.

[willc]

looks like NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are giving it the go ahead in their next financial year.

If only it were that simple. It isn't, as Network Rail's spending is overseen by the Office for Rail Regulation and key to all this is its interpretation of what the Government says it is willing to spend on the railways and on what kind of projects - known officially as the High Level Output Statement. Rail's report doesn't mention the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s role at all.

Strictly, the Cotswold Line scheme does not fit in with the HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) requirements, hence Network Rail's western route director Dave Ward calling for people to lobby in support of the scheme before the ORR makes its decision in June on the ideas proposed in Network Rail's Strategic Business Plan.

NR is arguing that the Cotswold Line project does fit in with the Government's broad goal of levelling up punctuality across the system - as would sorting out the troublesome overhead electrification on the East Coast route, the reason why what was GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways) and is now National Express East Coast has for some time been FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s only rival for the wooden spoon for poor timekeeping. This is why the two schemes were highlighted in the NR business plan, to say 'these don't strictly fit with what the HLOS says is required, but we think the benefits do meet the Government's aspirations in other ways and make the case for funding them'.

[eightf48544]

looks like NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are giving it the go ahead in their next financial year.

If only it were that simple. It isn't, as Network Rail's spending is overseen by the Office for Rail Regulation and key to all this is its interpretation of what the Government says it is willing to spend on the railways and on what kind of projects - known officially as the High Level Output Statement. Rail's report doesn't mention the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s role at all.

willc is right about the ORR having the final say. The problem is that the ORR is terrified that any scheme they sanction  will end up like the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) as a bottomless pit. Thus they apply such rigourous criteria that no scheme that doesn't deliver a high return from Day 1 can possibly be considered. The fact that doubling the Cotswold line if done properly would probably cater for 20 years growth doesn't count. The ORR only takes into account the short term payback so if there is a recession and passenger numbers drop forget doubling for a few years until growth picks up again and the service gets even worse.

Nobody except the Olympics and the road and airport lobbies are allowed to predict and provide. With public transport you have to give a firm guarentee that any predictions of costs/returns are 100% accurrate.

[Lee]

Quote from the link below :
http://www.travelwatchsouthwest.org/newslog210408.html

Network Rail optional enhancements 2009-2014

The Office of Rail Regulation continues to negotiate with Network Rail about the company^s spending levels for the next five year control period commencing in April 2009. The outcome of these negotiations are expected to determine whether three major rail infrastructure upgrade schemes in the South West will proceed ^ the three ^affected schemes^ are:-

North Cotswold Line - doubling of certain sections of single track between Oxford and Worcester (estimated cost ^51 million)

Swindon ^ Kemble ^ doubling (estimated cost ^32 million)
 
Westerleigh Junction ^ Barnt Green ^ higher line speed (estimated cost ^32 million)

[Lee]

Commuters fed up with delays and cancellations are being urged to bombard Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly with letters in support of the upgrade scheme (link below.)
http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.2241581.0.signal_support_for_rail_update.php

The appeal comes from the county council, which says it is "taking nothing for granted" over plans to reinstate double track on 20 miles of the Cotswold Line, at an estimated cost of at least ^51m.

Network Rail is seeking consent to spend the money from the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) and is expecting a decision early next month.

The overall effect of this, and more double track in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, according to Oxfordshire County Council's rail development officer Adrian Saunders, would benefit commuters into and out of Oxford and beyond.

The council is writing to Ms Kelly and urging commuters to do the same.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which (a) hon. Members and (b) local authorities have made representations to (i) her and (ii) Network Rail on the re-doubling of (A) the Kemble to Swindon line and (B) the North Cotswold line. [201574]

Mr. Tom Harris: The following hon. Members have made written representations to the Department in the last three years:

Swindon^Kemble line

Geoffrey Clinton-Brown MP^▸ (Member of Parliament)

David Drew MP

Mark Harper MP

Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP

Laurence Robertson MP

North Cotswold line

David Cameron MP

Geoffrey Clinton-Brown MP

David Drew MP

Michael Foster MP

Peter Luff MP

John Maples MP

We have received no written representations from local authorities about either line during this period.

Better late than never, eh 

[Btline]

I assume Ruth will be notified of the petition, either now or when it closes....

[Lee]

I assume Ruth will be notified of the petition, either now or when it closes....

The PM's office will get the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to answer it, but whether it will go to Ruth, I've no idea....

[Btline]

I assume Ruth will be notified of the petition, either now or when it closes....

The PM's office will get the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to answer it, but whether it will go to Ruth, I've no idea....