Chiltern Evergreen 3 - Further new Track Access Agreement Application

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Chiltern...have put a considerable amount of money into the route and they are proposing even more with these proposals.

I wish people would stop patting Chiltern on their back / insinuating that Chiltern have chosen to put all this money into their route - they were compelled to by the terms of their franchise! In effect, it is taxpayers money being spent. Rather than paying the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), they are required to improve their route through these upgrades.

I do wonder what the point of running 100 minute trains from London to Brum which cannot compete with the West Coast except for the leisure market at very cheap fares.

Errr - experience the route and try again. They do compete with Virgin very well, especially attracting those who might live half-weay between say, Solihull & B'ham INternational, or Rugby & Banbury. I reckon they've got at least 30% of that market.

i would have thought Chiltern would benefit from two way traffic from intermediate staions to both London and Birmingham. After all they are the two largest conurbations in the British isles. I know people that have commuted from Leamington to London I wouldn't be surprised if they're aren't Wycombe to Brum commuters. Certainly Banbury inwards to Brum.

Banbury is the dividing point - always has been. THose south of there go to LOndon, and those to the north go to Brum - almost entirely. Chiltern have done rhe research.

[Btline]

Part of the reason of getting the journey time down is to encourage Snow Hill line and Midland Metro passengers to use Chiltern to London, instead of walking to New Street and taking Virgin.

Remember, the reason why Chiltern were awarded the long franchise was because of how they demonstrated themselves at the start. And you have to admit that they run a excellent service and have a vivid vision of the future.

They have turned a route, abandoned, singled and downgraded by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), into a route that carries more passengers than the Midland Main line! (Marylebone now has more pax than the domestic MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) platforms at St Pancras)

Remember that there will be many HW = Oxford passengers. So the loss of the HW stop may be less important.

[ChrisB]

Remember, the reason why Chiltern were awarded the long franchise was because of how they demonstrated themselves at the start. And you have to admit that they run a excellent service and have a vivid vision of the future.

Can't disagree with that at all! They did win the bidding (against who? - I've forgotten...)

They have turned a route, abandoned, singled and downgraded by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), into a route that carries more passengers than the Midland Main line! (Marylebone now has more pax than the domestic MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) platforms at St Pancras)

Indeed - praise where praise is definitely due!

Remember that there will be many HW = Oxford passengers. So the loss of the HW stop may be less important.

But I can't agree with you there. Where is your research / proof? Chiltern won't even disclose that....Personally, I don't think that there'll be more than a couple of hundred at most. There isn't even a bus service Oxford - Wycombe.....Oxford - Aylesbury, but not to Wycombe. So the bus companies dopn't see any demand.

I think that's bluff by Chiltern to persuade the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to allow them the route.

A correction to something I posted a few days ago - it appears that Chiltern has requested an amendment to franchise by requesting the Oxford - Bicester Town services currently in the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) franchise be transferred to the Chiltern franchise with associated rights to run services - ratherthan applying via an open access application. They state in their Track Access Application that FGW actually be prevented from competing.
[/quote]

[Btline]

I expect the reason why there is no bus is the M40! However, the train will be quicker.

Besides, even if there are few HW passengers, Chiltern will get people at Water Eaton, off the A34 (and the northern parts of the city/surrounding villages). They'll also get people from Oxford who are fed up of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s sky high fares.

I assumed that FGW would stop running to Bicester. Hopefully the Turbo will be put to good use somewhere. (as long as it stays clear of the Cotswold!)

This new service is good news. It should persuade FGW to improve the levelof service, getting the journey time and fares down, reliability up and fewer Turbos!

[ChrisB]

I expect the reason why there is no bus is the M40! However, the train will be quicker.

Hmmm - you can't pick up passengers along motorways! The bus wouldn't go via the M40.

Besides, even if there are few HW passengers, Chiltern will get people at Water Eaton, off the A34 (and the northern parts of the city/surrounding villages). They'll also get people from Oxford who are fed up of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s sky high fares.

Oh yes, abstracting fares from FGW. I'm glad to see that someone else agrees with me! I thought Chiltern objected to TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) that launched services where their business case was based on abstraction from other franchised operations? I'm referring to ATWs^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC)) application to run Aber to Marylebone services. Isn't this Chiltern doing to FGW what Chiltern and WSMR^▸ (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) are accusing ATW of doing??!! Pot calling kettle here, I think!

The number of NEW customers Chiltern are going to attract to their services is very few, and certainly insufficient to make a profit....

The fare from Oxford won't / can't change. And if Chiltern become the franchise operator, they won't be able to launch a Chiltern-only fare either as that is proscribed in the franchise regulations. FGW won't drop their fares either as it will affect those from other stations like Didcot Parkway.

Obviously, Water Eaton will be a new station, so Chiltern can (& will, I'm sure) set a fare that is both lower than Oxford and possibly the same as Bicester....which will be a lot lower than any Cotswold fare....thus actually creating completely unnecssary road milage journeys by persuading Cotswold residents to stop using their local station and instead drive a lot of miles to Water Eaton.

With a free car park at Water Eaton, they may also persuade extra traffic to make journeys out of Oxford too....

Very Green, I must say!

I assumed that FGW would stop running to Bicester. Hopefully the Turbo will be put to good use somewhere. (as long as it stays clear of the Cotswold!)

All off-peak daytime services on the Cotswolds are now turbos I believe. It might persuade FGW to reinstate HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) though. I'd rather travel on an HST than a 168.

This new service is good news. It should persuade FGW to improve the levelof service, getting the journey time and fares down, reliability up and fewer Turbos!
[/quote]

[IndustryInsider]

I assumed that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would stop running to Bicester. Hopefully the Turbo will be put to good use somewhere. (as long as it stays clear of the Cotswold!)

All off-peak daytime services on the Cotswolds are now turbos I believe. It might persuade FGW to reinstate HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) though. I'd rather travel on an HST than a 168.

[/quote]

The Turbo could be put to very good use on the Cotswold Line, as it could be used to operate the proposed/aspirational Moreton-Didcot shuttle service. It could also be put to very good use strengthening a peak diagram in and out of Paddington.

With regards to off-peak daytime services on the Cotswold Line, it's roughly a 50/50 split between HST's and Turbos - the two off-peak Hereford's and a Malvern are still HST's.

As far as the potential for Water Eaton parkway, yes of course there will be a significant number of people who will switch from using FGW at Oxford and to a lesser extent Hanborough. There will also be new custom generated from Kidlington and North Oxford by people who work in London who currently drive who are put off by the daily slog to get into Oxford city centre to get the train and will be drawn by the journey time from Water Eaton.

Oxford/Water Eaton to/from High Wycombe won't be a major commuter flow, but there will be enough people to make it more than a trickle, and if people know there's a quick, frequent, reliable service then new business will be created over time. Also, commuting between Bicester and Oxford is a pain in the butt on the A34 for road users who have been crying out for a regular and quicker train service. Expect a decent shift of business from car and bus there too.

Put all those things together and I think you will have a service that is well worth it.

[ChrisB]

There will also be new custom generated from Kidlington and North Oxford by people who work in London who currently drive who are put off by the daily slog to get into Oxford city centre to get the train and will be drawn by the journey time from Water Eaton.

Hmmm - not many do that drive, I'll wager. 2 hours-plus to get into Central London, plus daily congestion charge plus parking costs. It's a no-brainer. I certainly think there'll be an abstraction of those driving off the Cotswolds to Bicester North curtrently, plus those from Charlbury and even Moreton if the price is right, along with Hanborough.

I don't think there'll be many from the Oxford-London coach market either - they'll still get a cheaper ride....

Oxford/Water Eaton to/from High Wycombe won't be a major commuter flow, but there will be enough people to make it more than a trickle

Sorry, but we'll have to differ on that one. Proof will be in the eating. I notice Chiltern have requested a very swift review of their services, should forecast numbers not hold up.

Also, commuting between Bicester and Oxford is a pain in the butt on the A34 for road users who have been crying out for a regular and quicker train service. Expect a decent shift of business from car and bus there too.

Totally agree there, mind you. The bus service will be decimated, I reckon. And the southbound A34 and M40 junction 9 in the morning and northbound in the evening will get a big easing. Until those commuters return to Water Eaton of course....

Put all those things together and I think you will have a service that is well worth it.
[/quote]

[IndustryInsider]

There will also be new custom generated from Kidlington and North Oxford by people who work in London who currently drive who are put off by the daily slog to get into Oxford city centre to get the train and will be drawn by the journey time from Water Eaton.

Hmmm - not many do that drive, I'll wager. 2 hours-plus to get into Central London, plus daily congestion charge plus parking costs. It's a no-brainer. I certainly think there'll be an abstraction of those driving off the Cotswolds to Bicester North curtrently, plus those from Charlbury and even Moreton if the price is right, along with Hanborough.

No, perhaps on reflection there won't be that many - though a good friend who lives in north Marston does and would. Again though, if the service is there then people searching for a new house or a new job may well have their decision swayed by having that kind of service, so what was an unattractive prospect of commuting by train from Kidlington (for example), suddenly becomes very attractive. Result = new custom.

[paul7575]

A lot of the people who drive into Oxford and park at the station for an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) train might find that the time taken to drive to Water Eaton for a Chiltern train is comparable. Unless we look at the origins of the occupiers of the station car park we'll never really know what their options might be.

Looking back at a few posts in this thread though, it seems some people believe Chiltern's proposals are somehow a raid on FGW. I don't see how it can be. The statement in the 73rd track access agreement proposal is fairly categoric, they say:
"In the case of the Phase 2 rights to run services to Oxford there is an additional Condition Precedent which is that FGW^s rights to operate between Bicester Town and Oxford should be extinguished. This ensures that two operators do not have rights which clash. FGW and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have both been informally consulted over this condition, and have indicated that they are content for it to be included."

I'd be surprised if FGW were worried about the Bicester shuttle, there must be no way it covers its true costs. Therefore it is a no lose situation for FGW.

Edit: I've since found that Chiltern's franchise agreement was amended in Dec 2007 to include a number of 'agreed secondary aspirations' amongst which is one to run trains to Oxford, either via Bicester and a new Water Eaton Parkway (as it has turned out) or via Wheatley with a new South Oxford Parkway (too difficult, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly)).  Unfortunately it is one of those pdfs that you can't cut and paste from, so I've summarised.  This agreement (ie with the DfT) seems to set the Evergreen works on a somewhat different footing to the recent ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) application, AFAICT^▸ (as far as I can tell).

Paul

[willc]

The references to Chiltern being a raid on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) revenue are to do with Oxford (more specifically Water Eaton, as that would be far easier to reach in rush-hour from the north and east of Oxford and Kidlington (a 'village' with a population of 17,000!) than getting through the city centre to Oxford station), not Bicester-Oxford revenue, which is no great shakes outside the peaks, so no, FGW won't shed any tears about not having to run the branch any longer - though if it was Network Rail footing the bill for the work to cut the journey time to 15 minutes or so, not Chiltern, that might be a different matter.

If Chiltern didn't think they were going to pick up a handy chunk of the highly lucrative traffic between Oxford and London, then they wouldn't have come up with this project and would have done something else - East-West link, say - to meet the franchise requirements for investment. Evergreen3 is also a lot easier than taking on something more speculative like East-West. You have an established service, of sorts, between Oxford and Bicester, with great potential as yet more homes go up in Bicester and the A34 gets ever more congested, plus the capital city and a city whose name is known the world over at the other end of the full route - this is a lot less of a shot in the dark than some of the other things Chiltern has looked at down the years, for example, renting the Chinnor & Princes Risborough Railway on weekdays to run to a parkway station near the M40 at Lewknor.

I'd be rather more dubious about the prospects of picking up any traffic from the Cotswolds, indeed, post-2011, if redoubling delivers what we are hoping for, then there will be no logical reason for anyone to get into their cars and trek all the way to Water Eaton, never mind Bicester.

The A44 is a rotten road, with 50mph limits most of the way from Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford these days - in the peak I'd estimate you're looking at a 45-minute road journey to Water Eaton - assuming no foul-ups around the Pear Tree/Loop Farm interchange area, with an hour's train journey to Marylebone, plus time to park, buy a ticket, etc - that's about two hours. Why would anyone in their right mind do that rather than what should be a pretty rock-solid 90-minute direct rail journey? Same would apply to driving from Kingham or Charlbury.

And I doubt many people currently using Hanborough would switch - a Carterton/Witney-Water Eaton road journey (unless you go all the way round right past the entrance to Hanborough station or use the windy back road from Cassington to Yarnton) involves negotiating the Wolvercote roundabout, a place synonymous with rush-hour tailbacks - never mind the Cotswold Line upgrade's impact on reliability - where on earth are they going to find more parking spaces at Hanborough if traffic gets another boost post-2011? Buy out North Oxford Garage?

There is undoubtedly a modest flow of people commuting from Bucks to Oxford but I doubt the prospect of going all the way round via Bicester is likely to get that many out of their cars. Chiltern's projected rail timing is 38mins, the AA reckons 47 by car. Not sure that's enough to make a difference once you factor in getting to Wycombe station, if you don't live on the doorstep, nor if you don't work in central Oxford.

And when there's a Turbo going spare then there are some stations at the eastern end of the Cotswold Line where we would be very happy to see it (refreshed, of course) and the higher frequency service it would permit.

But can we please not get too carried away with knocking BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) about its handling of the Chiltern Line. Remember that under NSE^▸ (Network South East) they resignalled what track was there at the time with modern kit and fitted ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection), bought the Turbo fleet, which, as elsewhere in the region, was doing a good job of attracting more passengers before privatisation, built Aylesbury depot to service the Turbos and smartened up Marylebone after dropping the silly closure plan. So Chiltern had a pretty good legacy to build on, which is more than can be said for many other parts of the network.

[Btline]

I would disagree. Ok, they put ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) in etc. BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) basically turned the line into a minor route with minimal infrastructure. A heck of a lot of time and money has had to be spend on modernising the route back to where it was. Now, they are finally going beyond that, with remodelled track layouts and new stretches of line.

If Paddington had not been o crowded, they would not have hesitated in closing Marylebone.

Evidence? Just look at the passenger numbers. They have grown by more than half since BR. Even when you cancel out the overall growth in rail use, this is impressive - demonstrating how demand was constrained after the rationalisation.

Let's hope Evergreen 4 includes some 4 tracking in the Ruslip and Solihul areas.

[willc]

It may have been a secondary route - but in the world of a single, unified rail network, there was a reason for that - because BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) wanted to concentrate West Midlands-London traffic on the Euston route (though it did of course introduce the Marylebone-Snow Hill service in 1993) - which seems reasonable and logical to me, but I'm sure you'll still manage to find some reason to disagree.

And it was, as I said, a very heavily modified secondary line, effectively self-contained for much of its length, without anyone else's trains to get in the way, which provided the ideal basis to build on. Adrian Shooter and his management team, backed by Laing and 3i, knew exactly what they were about when they went after the Chiltern franchise. They could see the potential. They didn't have to worry about nursing 1960s and 1970s rolling stock on routes with Victorian signalling and all the kind of things many other operators faced, so were able to lodge a unique, winning bid built on offering development and growth, knowing that the existing operation, with all its modern kit, would be trouble-free in the meantime.

The passenger growth figures are undoubtedly impressive, but then you could say the same about XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) under Virgin, a 75 per cent rise between 1997 and 2007, or Northern - which was franchised on the basis that there would be no growth in passenger numbers between 2004 and 2013! In the past five years, their traffic is up 20% - and Northern don't serve the most expensive place outside London to buy a house (Gerrards Cross), nor other similarly well-heeled bits of the Home Counties' commuter belt.

RE^▸ (Religious Education) Paul's edit, can't understand why they even bothered mentioning the route via Wheatley - was never a realistic prospect, due to the sheer scale of the expenditure that would have been needed, never mind the dubious state of Horspath tunnel - which is also a protected bat roost these days.

And don't imagine FGW^▸ (First Great Western) or anyone else who may succeed them is going to take the prospect of a fight for London revenue lying down. While the Reading modernisation will limit the scope for journey time reductions until 2015, with the Reading choke point dealt with, I don't see why they can't aim for a standard 50-minute timing or even less, post-electrification. And First are perfectly capable of aggressive pricing themselves, eg South Wales main line FGW-only fares, and are currently spending on a promotional campaign around Oxford offering London fares as low as ^1 one-way.

[ChrisB]

I'd be rather more dubious about the prospects of picking up any traffic from the Cotswolds, indeed, post-2011, if redoubling delivers what we are hoping for, then there will be no logical reason for anyone to get into their cars and trek all the way to Water Eaton, never mind Bicester.

Two trains an hour, every hour?

And I doubt many people currently using Hanborough would switch - a Carterton/Witney-Water Eaton road journey (unless you go all the way round right past the entrance to Hanborough station or use the windy back road from Cassington to Yarnton) involves negotiating the Wolvercote roundabout

Go talk to the County Council - they're so worried that they've insisted Chiltern carry out loads of traffic simulation exercises to show exactly what is likely......

[ChrisB]

Let's hope Evergreen 4 includes some 4 tracking in the Ruslip and Solihul areas.

There is no Evergreen 4 in this franchise - as I understand it, not in the current (extended) franchise. So nothing more until a new franchise post-2021.

[ChrisB]

And First are perfectly capable of aggressive pricing themselves, eg South Wales main line FGW^▸ (First Great Western)-only fares

Not possible - The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) that sets the fares on any flow can't also set TOC-only lower fares.