Charlbury on top

[whole diary]

[willc]

With apologies to those from Worcestershire...

The ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) has just release the 2006-7 passenger footfall figures, which showed that Charlbury has now overhauled Evesham as the busiest intermediate station on the Cotswold Line, with 249,781 passenger journeys, an increase of 17,741 (7.6%), compared with 236,611, down from 239,257 (-1.1%) - I'd suspect the fall was probably down to people fed up with the endless problems suffered by the 8am-ish train from Evesham to Worcester from the December 2006 timetable change and a hefty  rise at Honeybourne, after extra peak services began to call there, saving locals the drive into Evesham.

Numbers were also up at Moreton-in-Marsh, Kingham and Hanborough, but down slightly at Pershore. The increases are good to see though, especially after a general fall the year before - though last December's disasters may have put things in reverse again.

Oxfordshire halts a mixed bag, up a bit at Combe, down a bit at Shipton and Finstock, well down at Ascott-under-Wychwood - though one or two people stopping or starting using the train can make a big difference to what are small overall numbers.

Worcester figures appear to show a big fall at Foregate Street and a rise at Shrub Hill, but it may be they've made another change to their counting methods to try to get a more accurate picture of what's going on - there was a sudden lurch the other way the previous year. It's probably not easy, whatever they do, as tickets are just issued to 'Worcester Stations'.

The full ORR figures for every station on the network are in a rather unwieldy Excel document that can be downloaded from http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529 along with the figures from 2002 onwards.

[Btline]

No surprise that long distance travellers are leaving the Cotswold line!

Watch them flock back after redoubling (if they know about it/ know how it will improve the line).

It will take a long time to get people back onto the line. Many will leave as they will get fed up with the line blockades. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should make it clear what they are for!

[willc]

I don't know how you can assert this shows long-distance passengers are leaving.

The rise at Honeybourne made up for the falls at Evesham and Pershore, so figures overall for the Vale held steady, the Worcester stations combined were up, as was every station between Worcester and Hereford - some of which must involve Cotswold Line traffic, unless you believe they were all going to Birmingham.

What this does show, as I have said elsewhere previously, is that whether the long-distance passengers like it or not, missing out stops at the main stations nearer to Oxford is not an option, because that is where the bulk of the passengers, the growth and the revenue are - and that skipping Reading is not an option either, because of the growth in traffic heading there and because of the connections it offers.

[Btline]

Sorry, I misunderstood your figures.

Skipping Reading is not a good idea.

I am only saying perhaps 1 key commuter train to skip some stops to make commuting more viable. This would also reduce overcrowding on the trains that stop.

Shame the 180s have gone - a few London - Oxford trains could be extended up to Morton during the peaks to make up for it (with double track, 3 trains in an hour etc.).

[willc]

Even if the extra double track goes in, there will still be the best part of 10 miles of single track from Wolvercot junction past Finstock, so they are not going to start running extra contra-flow trains out of Oxford in the peak, which would reintroduce the delay risks the change is meant to remove.

If that risk is removed, I think there's every chance much of the padding in Cotswold Line timings will disappear, which will help matters, even if there will still be a deal of slack beyond Oxford - but with Reading station rebuilding looming, that will probably have to stay.

[Andy W]

Some of these figures are extremely confusing.

WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) increased by 192% from 202,000 to 592,000 however the previous year there was a cataclysmic drop from 1,355,000 to 202,000 which I don't understand.

WOF dropped by around 20% from 1,582,000 to 1,273,000 however the previous year it increased by 394% from 319,000 to 1,582,000 something again I find very hard to believe.

I terms of upstream from Worcester there is little to deduce given that there is no breakdown across TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), however given that a high number of users are commuters and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) does not cater for the Worcester traffic from the Malvern direction it may be safe to assume that growth there is more likely to be going London Midlands way. Nor does the usage reflect the long distance vs short distance passenger, a statistic that would be useful in understanding the profile of the Cotswold Line user.

Regarding the dip at Evesham and Pershore it is true that people could have gone from Evesham to Honeybourne (less likely from Pershore) however the other station to take note of is Warwick Parkway. If you add the entries/exits from all 3 stations there is an increase from 322,631 to 329,531 which is just under 1%, significantly lower than the 19% increase at Warwick. I think it is not unreasonable to deduce that the growth that the Evesham area could expect (around 7% as a rough average against comparable stations) has gone to Warwick, giving some weight to the fact that long distance travelers are seeking alternatives.

Also worth noting is that although Warwick Parkway grew last year by 19% it declined the previous year by about 8%. If you look at what was happening on the line during that period there was considerable padding due to engineering work. Last year the padding was removed as were some of the intermediary stops so some trains run non-stop to Banbury. It was at that time the numbers increased again.

[willc]

Andy,

As I noted in my initial post, the wild fluctuations at the Worcester stations are almost certainly down to further efforts to improve the counting methods to try to produce a more realistic picture of what's going on at each station. The great switch the year before was certainly that, as the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) had queried the previous stats suggesting Shrub Hill was far busier, despite its poor location for the city centre.

And I would put a lot of the growth at Warwick Parkway down to people from Kenilworth and even Coventry - rather nearer than the Vale of Evesham - seeking respite from the interminable disruption caused by the West Coast route modernisation - eg frequent weekends without any trains at all to London via Rugby.

Chiltern has posted some pretty impressive growth all round - eg up 19% at Bicester North and 15.5% at Haddenham & Thame - both of which one might expect to have benefited from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s travails, but even with this, Oxford was up 11%, on top of the Charlbury, Hanborough, Kingham and Moreton rises - all places which one might expect to have lost out to the 'Chiltern effect'.

[Andy W]

Hi Will,

And I would put a lot of the growth at Warwick Parkway down to people from Kenilworth and even Coventry - rather nearer than the Vale of Evesham - seeking respite from the interminable disruption caused by the West Coast route modernisation - eg frequent weekends without any trains at all to London via Rugby.

Chiltern has posted some pretty impressive growth all round - eg up 19% at Bicester North and 15.5% at Haddenham & Thame - both of which one might expect to have benefited from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s travails, but even with this, Oxford was up 11%, on top of the Charlbury, Hanborough, Kingham and Moreton rises - all places which one might expect to have lost out to the 'Chiltern effect'.

I agree that the lions share of the growth at Warwick Parkway would be from the Warwick / Coventry / Kenilworth areas but if toy look at the numbers the Honeybourne / Evesham / Pershore traffic only grew by 3,100. Had the area grown at the same rate as the rest of the line that number should have been an additional 16,800 at 7%. The rise at Warwick was 62,800  so if that rise includes the Vale element that would still equate to a healthy 15% rise taking away the Vale contingent. At the end it's only supposition but the maths aren't unreasonable.

The reason that I have chosen those 3 stations is for the easy of access using the A46, it is not until you get down to the Oxford area that similar road access to the Chiltern line is available. The drive from Moreton / Kingham / Charlbury is nothing like as good so I would imagine that the Chiltern line would not do quite so well from those stations.

In terms of Oxford, the FGW service seems fine, it is on the Cotswold line itself that I'm not so impressed. Again your Oxford number is OK but like some other stations it is served by multiple TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) so it is not quite so straight forward to interpret the performance of one or the other. FGW could be better or worse than the 11% you just can't tell.

It's a shame more comprehensive statistics aren't available although the individual TOCs must have some illuminating figures.

[Btline]

Chiltern are cashing in from their parkway stations.

I am sure that if the line from Marlow to High W still existed, many people would use Chiltern from Marlow.

Wait until the 90 minute journey time (London to Birmingham) starts in a few years time - Chiltern will need the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) being scrapped to cope with passenger demand!

Combine this with the fact that fares for the full Chiltern route now start BELOW ^4 for railcard holders!

[willc]

Agreed, the roads across to Banbury and Bicester aren't as straightforward as the A46, but people certainly do make the journey, as the more direct route to London and higher service frequency make it a close-run choice if you live somewhere like Shipston-on-Stour, Chipping Norton or Enstone, where you have got a drive to get to a station anyway, whichever route you use.

And in the depths of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s bouts of unreliability I know people who simply had to be somewhere in London by a certain time, living in Moreton and Charlbury, who would drive over to Bicester - though growth there may be choked off soon, as even the car park extension provided a couple of years ago is now near-full by about 9am much of the time.

Don't forget that the 2005-6 figures for Moreton and Charlbury showed falls in traffic compared with 2004-5. That they improved markedly for 2006-7 did surprise me, especially with the shambles that the December 2006 timetable change created, so FGW seem to be doing quite nicely thank you, in spite of themselves - and the single-line sections.

As for the FGW service from Oxford seeming fine, there are many there who would disagree, not least because of trains coming off the Cotswold Line. Three of the key morning peak trains out of Oxford start from Moreton, Malvern and Hereford, so if they hit trouble, holes appear in the service very fast and for most of the day, half the 30-minute interval express service from Oxford originates at Cotswold Line stations, with the inevitable potential for blowing a hole in people's travel plans when these trains are delayed.

And while it is tempting to see the Vale as upsetting the upward curve elsewhere, it is worth noting that Honeybourne is actually a rip-roaring success story. In the space of four years, it has gone from 18,691 journeys a year to 34,291 (83.5% up). When the figures for 2007-8 turn up in 12 months' time, it looks a good bet to achieve 100 per cent growth in five years. Although Pershore has slipped back marginally this time, it was up 23 per cent from 2003-6 (50,949 to 62,522). The extra stops at these stations may grate with those going to and from Worcester, but they have got results.

Evesham is the real fly in the ointment, down from 269,474 journeys in 2003 to 236,611 - surely worth some detailed analysis in Swindon.

[Lee]

Don't forget that the 2005-6 figures for Moreton and Charlbury showed falls in traffic compared with 2004-5. That they improved markedly for 2006-7 did surprise me, especially with the shambles that the December 2006 timetable change created, so FGW^▸ (First Great Western) seem to be doing quite nicely thank you, in spite of themselves - and the single-line sections.

I just wonder that, with the figures running from April 2006-April 2007, whether the next set of figures might show a less promising story regarding the "December 2006 effect."

[willc]

I just wonder that, with the figures running from April 2006-April 2007, whether the next set of figures might show a less promising story regarding the "December 2006 effect."

The reason I would have expected a pretty immediate impact was that things were an absolute shambles for an extended period - a scenario repeated last December as well - constant late or cancelled trains and serious overcrowding south of Oxford after the morning peak fast trains starting there got cut and someone decided the evening peak Hereford services could call at Didcot as well. All in all, a combination I had expected to drive people into the arms of Chiltern at a rate of knots - maybe it did from the Vale of Evesham, but you would have expected it to show up elsewhere as well.

In spite of these annual bouts of chaos (I'm already looking forward to this December!), I would actually be amazed if there's been any fall-off in traffic on the route. On the contrary, some trains, even with HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) with high-capacity seating - are really struggling to cope with demand, eg the 15.51 from London, as it ends a two-hour gap in westbound services, and the 17.21, which is often full and standing to Charlbury, and even beyond on Fridays. Again, it ends a 90-minute gap in through services from London, as the 16.21 only offers a connection with the afternoon halts train from Oxford - this is why the through trains matter, people clearly try to avoid the change at Oxford.

While 2010 may seem a way off, I think a pressing problem once more double track is in place will be finding suitable rolling stock to meet demand. While plugging the two-hour off-peak gaps with another Turbo duty is an obvious solution, it's not an attractive one, as the contrast in comfort between them and the HSTs is stark and even on the 9.37 from Worcester a 166 is struggling to cope with demand on busy days. Nor will Turbos help with a recast of the afternoon and early evening timetable to try to deal with the crowding described above, but where on earth any more 125mph-capable rolling stock is going to come from within a couple of years beats me, as the Adelantes look likely to all be gainfully employed elsewhere by the end of this year - even if, irony of ironies, it's with other bits of First Group.

Maybe the mythical 48 or was it 52 extra coaches supposedly coming to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) under the Government's rolling stock strategy will help, but does anyone know what's happening with those? Or do the Arriva 150s count towards that number?

[Lee]

Maybe the mythical 48 or was it 52 extra coaches supposedly coming to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) under the Government's rolling stock strategy will help, but does anyone know what's happening with those? Or do the Arriva 150s count towards that number?

Here's how the Rolling Stock Plan was reported at the time of publication as regards FGW :

Extract from the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport)'s long awaited rolling stock plan published today.

9. First Great Western would introduce additional class 150 DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) vehicles for regional services around Bristol cascaded from London Midland, as well as new DMU vehicles for London suburban services. Furthermore, the possibility of lengthening some existing HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets to increase capacity on the Thames Valley route into Paddington is being investigated.

Total quoted is 52 coaches, but no indication of the split. This seems to confirm the cascade of Class 150s from London Midland that has been often quoted.

[Lee]

Quotes from the Train Fellow (a Kingham commuter) :
http://trainfellows.blogspot.com/2008/06/random-meetings.html

Sadly in recent months our numbers have been depleted by people finding jobs closer to home - mainly to do with not wanting to get up so early in the morning for a train service that threatens to mess up your day, every day.

I am sometimes lonely on the platform. And for someone with as much verbal diohhrea as me, this is difficult.

[Lee]

Maybe the mythical 48 or was it 52 extra coaches supposedly coming to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) under the Government's rolling stock strategy will help, but does anyone know what's happening with those? Or do the Arriva 150s count towards that number?

Here's how the Rolling Stock Plan was reported at the time of publication as regards FGW :

Extract from the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport)'s long awaited rolling stock plan published today.

9. First Great Western would introduce additional class 150 DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) vehicles for regional services around Bristol cascaded from London Midland, as well as new DMU vehicles for London suburban services. Furthermore, the possibility of lengthening some existing HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets to increase capacity on the Thames Valley route into Paddington is being investigated.

Total quoted is 52 coaches, but no indication of the split. This seems to confirm the cascade of Class 150s from London Midland that has been often quoted.

Mind you, I also note the link below.....
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2008/06/clueless.html