Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Btline]

If/when they re-double past Finstock, it will probably close because the platform is on the trackbed!

The only halt definitely worth keeping open is Shipton - hence it is the only one served by more than one train. Ascott is too close to Shipton to warrant any more stops. I think that Shipton should be developed more now, with more parking to encourage more custom - ready for the Morteon - Didcot stoppers.

Perhaps Coombe would be worth keeping open (esp if Finstock were axed) but only with more parking, to get more custom when the new stoppers come.

I'll repeat what I said a few months ago: Surely it would be better for, say, 2 of the halts to be closed, and extra trains calling at those which remain. I would expect the locals would prefer having their station with 2 trains a day (but perhaps another mile's drive away) than just a single train at their local station (probably a mile's drive away).

I, too, am primarily against rail closures - but these are the exceptions to the rule. If they had not been in a marginal constituency in the 60s, they would be long gone; one case where Beeching was right (clearly, as passenger numbers are still low, despite the growth in rail travel).

It seems mad that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't get the TransWilts up and running (ok - perhaps that's stock issues more than cash), but is spending money on 3 stations which serve a handful of people a year.

[John R]

For interest, entries and exits for each station:-

Combe 2042  (-22%)
Finstock 1095 (-5%)
Appleford 8,183 (-22%)
Culham 46832 (+4%)

Remember that every 1040 entries and exits equates to 10 return journeys per week, or 2 per day.

So if the inclusion of the Finstock and Combe stocks has a detrimental impact on the overall performance of the Cotswold Line, one could argue a good case for closing them. Railways need to be dynamic, and sometimes this does mean making changes that at face value seem a backward step.

Combe in particular has nothing within walking distance, and Hanborough close by. Finstock is far enough from the village it serves that most people would jump in the car, and even though the alternative is not quite as convenient as in Combe's case. it's still only 2 miles away.

[mjones]

For interest, entries and exits for each station:-

Combe 2042  (-22%)
Finstock 1095 (-5%)
Appleford 8,183 (-22%)
Culham 46832 (+4%)

Remember that every 1040 entries and exits equates to 10 return journeys per week, or 2 per day.

So if the inclusion of the Finstock and Combe stocks has a detrimental impact on the overall performance of the Cotswold Line, one could argue a good case for closing them. Railways need to be dynamic, and sometimes this does mean making changes that at face value seem a backward step.

...

Interesting- thank you. Sorry if silly question, but what do the percentages refer to?

I'd strongly agree with that last point. If providing services at little used stations makes it too expensive to enhance services at much busier stations, or where there is far more potential for growth, then it is not sustainable to keep them without very good reason.

[John R]

Not a silly question, answer is change over previous year.

[Btline]

There's evidence. No reduction in service at Coombe and Finstock, but a drop in passenger numbers!

[willc]

It's Combe! Coombe is on the Looe branch line in Cornwall.

We've had this discussion about the halts before and I've said before that when passengers numbers are low to start with, then a change in the travelling habits of one or two people can send the figures up and down wildly from year to year, which is what will have happened at Combe.

If there were any common sense about it, then the two would close - and there's no parking at either because they were thrown up as bargain-basement roadside halts by the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - but as Industry Insider says, there's politics to consider. The past closure proposals were rejected because the bus services were no great shakes, even if the stations were a hike from the villages. Stagecoach now serves Combe village roughly hourly much of the day on Oxford-Charlbury services and Finstock village is linked by the railbus to Charlbury station, so closure may be less of an issue now but it won't be happening any time soon.

Amid all the chaos of recent times, the halts trains have been among the most punctual of the lot, especially since the afternoon working went back to starting at Oxford. Impact on other services is usually minimal, even allowing for the extra time taken to clear the single line. When it runs late, that's usually because of disruption to London-bound morning HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) knocking on or late arrival of the connection from London in the afternoon.

South of Oxford, Appleford acts as a handy relief valve for Didcot, where there is enormous pressure on parking, and Culham isn't just used by people going into Oxford, Reading and London. There is quite a respectable flow to Culham of people working at the Culham Science Centre and business parks there.

Probably worth Ascott getting an extra train or two post-redoubling, even if as an experiment. It's well-sited, right next to the village, and there are precious few buses, other than the odd Charlbury or Kingham railbus. 

[John R]

If the line is every redoubled through the halts that will be the time to do it. Given it costs millions these days to build a platform (a different debate, to do with privatisation, elf 'n' safety and builing frogs, but that's the reality), could you justify building the extra platform at each station for 2 passengers a day.

 

[Oxman]

I understand that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is evaluating the option of complete replacement of the signalling along the route as part of the redoubling. This would see closure of the 'boxes at Evesham, Moreton and Ascott, with modern signalling controlled from the new Didcot centre. Intermediate signals on the single line stretches would allow flighting of services at much reduced headways.

[Btline]

It's Combe! Coombe is on the Looe branch line in Cornwall.

Probably worth Ascott getting an extra train or two post-redoubling, even if as an experiment. It's well-sited, right next to the village, and there are precious few buses, other than the odd Charlbury or Kingham railbus. 

Sorry - typo! (although arguably, both Co(o)mbes should close!)

I can't see the benefit of Ascott getting extra trains. Yes it is right near the village, but it is also so close to Shipton station.

The only lines which can support stations as close, are ones in fully built up areas.

[willc]

I wasn't suggesting vast numbers of extra trains at Ascott but given that the village is thought worth serving with the railbuses for much of the day, then why not give them a better train service? Particularly for travel into and back from Oxford.

While someone off to London would probably drive to Charlbury, if you're going to Oxford and don't like buses (and a lot of people in this country don't) you may well just drive all the way once you're in the car. Time-wise, the train wins hands down against a car on the journey between Ascott and Oxford, thanks to a far more direct route.

The present level of service is pretty much dictated by the fact that there's no possibility of running an extra train in the peaks and stops at Ascott occupy the single line as well. The one train a day service is a legacy of the 1969 BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) cuts and Pershore and Hanborough were treated in just the same way at that time. As both those stations show, put on more trains and the chances are more people will use them.

And the likelihood of people using them at Ascott is far higher than at Combe or Finstock, since the station is actually in the village.

While it may be close to Shipton, the road journey between Ascott and Shipton stations is rather less direct than that by rail, so even if there was a better service available from Shipton, if you get in the car to start with, the temptation/incentive to complete your journey by car is there straight away. The point is trying to change people's habits.

[James_H]

There are plenty more than 5 people that would use a service arriving at Hanborough from Oxford... before the 08:58 arrival was scrapped in favour of the 09:31, around 20 people used to arrive daily.  I've not used the 09:31 much but on the couple of occasions I have, no more than 4 or 5 people got off at Hanborough.  Whose boss is prepared to accept them arriving at nearly quarter to ten... and from I've heard, the 09:31 has a reputation for being late more often than not(!)

The fact that a lot of the stations are served by the Railbus (which doesn't serve Hanborough) makes the huge gap in service all the more frustrating...

[Btline]

I wasn't suggesting vast numbers of extra trains at Ascott but given that the village is thought worth serving with the railbuses for much of the day, then why not give them a better train service? Particularly for travel into and back from Oxford.

While someone off to London would probably drive to Charlbury, if you're going to Oxford and don't like buses (and a lot of people in this country don't) you may well just drive all the way once you're in the car. Time-wise, the train wins hands down against a car on the journey between Ascott and Oxford, thanks to a far more direct route.

The present level of service is pretty much dictated by the fact that there's no possibility of running an extra train in the peaks and stops at Ascott occupy the single line as well. The one train a day service is a legacy of the 1969 BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) cuts and Pershore and Hanborough were treated in just the same way at that time. As both those stations show, put on more trains and the chances are more people will use them.

And the likelihood of people using them at Ascott is far higher than at Combe or Finstock, since the station is actually in the village.

While it may be close to Shipton, the road journey between Ascott and Shipton stations is rather less direct than that by rail, so even if there was a better service available from Shipton, if you get in the car to start with, the temptation/incentive to complete your journey by car is there straight away. The point is trying to change people's habits.

I can see your point. Although the reason why Pershore and Honeybourne passenger nos have gone up is due to their size (compared to Ascott).

[willc]

I was thinking proportionately, both in terms of numbers of trains and likely custom. It couldn't possibly support the number of stops that Hanborough and Pershore can but I'm sure there are people living in Ascott whose journeys don't fit around that one train each way at present, but who would like the opportunity to just walk down the road and get the train.

Just as there were those like James who had a service and lost it, for reasons of operational convenience for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Network Rail, not because it wasn't being used.

Hopefully, these kinds of things can be addressed from the end of next year - and FGW remembers to tell people about the service it is offering, so they can make back some of the money that Network Rail will have to spend on a second platform at Ascott.

Fingers crossed, it will be built long enough to take a three-car Turbo - and while they're at it, maybe they could take the opportunity to add the few extra metres on to the existing one that are needed to allow three-car sets to stop there - and do the same on the Oxford-bound platform at Shipton.

[Andy W]

Andy,

It's not about length, it's about simplicity. How on earth adding another single-line section is supposed to help matters is quite beyond me. This isn't the West Highland Line, with three or four passenger trains a day and the odd freight or two in the very large gaps between passenger trains - it's a busy line now, which is likely to get busier.

Just to repeat for the umpteenth time - Network Rail computer-modelled every conceivable combination they could, multiple loops and all, including what happens if things go wrong - and ended up binning the rest. Why? Because the chosen scheme is simple and operationally straightforward and most likely to produce the reliabilty and punctuality they want.

Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate

I had thought that the rail industry had progressed beyond the 14th century but maybe not.
Let's hope they didn't use the same computer that they used to plan the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) upgrade.

At the Peak time on II's proposed timetable there are 10 trains in 3 hours (16:00 - 19:00) ie one every 18 mins. It will not exceed this until full re-doubling - that is not heavy usage even though it is hundreds of miles south of the Highlands.

Single-line; loop; single-line; loop; single-line, loop; single-line - of random lengths (the combination you seem to favour if I'm reading it correctly) isn't a recipe for reliability or fast recovery from problems - lots of switches between double and single track equals lots of potential for conflicts the minute trains aren't in their booked path.

Would you want to be the person in the signal box trying to sort out the morning or evening peak service when something goes wrong, with the sort of track layout you suggest? I wish you luck.

The key if flexibility - and most important the maximum impact that late running can cause. The Willc / Network rail solution maximises the impact - and worse still on/off the junctions at Wolvercote & Norton.

As I said earlier one train in 18 mins should not cause too much difficulty, I have far more respect for the signaling staff than you / Network rail clearly have.

[willc]

Endless potential for conflict where loops start and end is not flexible - it just piles delay on delay as soon as one train is out of sequence. If it's so easy as you seem to believe to run a railway with lots of loops every few miles, why don't they all look like that?

Think how much they could save without all that pesky double track to look after - the kind of thinking which got the Cotswold Line where it is now in the first place.

As for respect for signallers, the Network Rail - nothing to do with me - solution means that if there is a problem train, then the signallers and other staff can focus on sorting that out, while the service on the other line can take care of itself using the long double track section. Throw in lots of loops and keeping everything else moving is going to be what occupies the signaller, never mind that if a failure happens on single line, or something is limping up Campden bank, then everything grinds to a halt anyway - again double track keeps the service moving and offers the option of wrong-line working in emergency - that's flexibility.