Chiltern 172s and related Evergreen 3 enhancements

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

There's a healthy discussion going on on newsgroup uk.railway at the moment - started in a thread about the proest petition, but has veered off now into Evergreen 3b.

I quote, from someone who has had discussions with someone in the Chiltern project team.....

The work on the Bicester-Oxford line hasn't yet started.  That was
originally going to be double tracked throughout with new station
infrastructure at Bicester Town, Islip, Water Eaton and Oxford.  Now,
the proposal is to keep it mostly single track with only minimal
station improvements and a single new platform at Water Eaton.   

The whole Oxford project is apparently on hold because of problems
obtaining planning permission for the chord at Bicester.  The planning
hold up is apparently about detail, not about the fundamental
principle of the chord being built, so it seems unnecessarily cautious
to do absolutely nothing whatsoever on any part of the project while a
single detail is resolved.   

Of course, if work is delayed much longer, Chiltern Railways will have
far less interest in pursuing the project because of the reduced
remaining period until the end of the franchise in which they can claw
back the capital cost of the project through increased farebox
revenue.  Perhaps the lack of urgency suggests that Chiltern is not
too worried about the delay because the company is less than 100%
committed to the Oxford part of the project?

Interesting 'info' (in quotes because nothing proved) about Water Eaton.....that was going to be double platform, ticket office, overbridge coffee cart/shp & newsagents...

When a point about the TWA Order being requisite planning authority, he came back with....

I understand the hold-up is a
relatively small detail of the chord or other works at Bicester, and
that is what is holding up the whole process.  It may not be strictly
an issue of planning permission, but the local authority planning
department is involved.

If Cherwell District Council put in an objection to the TWA enquiry, their submission ought to be in the public domain. I will try & chase it down.

[IndustryInsider]

If Cherwell District Council put in an objection to the TWA enquiry, their submission ought to be in the public domain. I will try & chase it down.

Thanks for that detail, Chris, and yes, please find out all that you can.  I'm always very cautious about such 'info' - especially as the intention to 'double track throughout' as the poster states in their first paragraph was dropped years ago in favour of a single section from Islip to just west of Bicester Town (as well as an effective single section from Oxford to Wolvercote Tunnel).  If that might be pruned back further then it will make East-West Rail more costly to implement at a later date, and, if the intention is to run a 30-minute interval service, there will be precious little scope for service recovery.

[ChrisB]

Its that 30 minute service that makes me very nervous of believing much of the single-line stuff, ditto Water Eaton where I guess a single platform could cope with 2tph each way, but they woud have to be very much on time all the time!

I've no reason not to believe that the delay is being held up over details aroubd Bicester - its very obvious something is holding the TWA up, and its an odd reason to be made up.

[Btline]

Yes, they will set the fares but they won't have full flexibility to set them at what they want. They'll have to be lower than OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) to London fare, both Chiltern only and Any permitted.

[paul7575]

One of the best resources on the EG3 enquiry website is this document:
http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/04Oct2010/CRCL-P-6-A%20-%20Proof%20of%20Evidence%20-%20Stephen%20Barker.pdf
which is Chilterns engineering summary, which goes through the route from end to end in a lot of detail, including inter alia the rationale for which bits are single and which double - and Water Eaton is described as double track.  The author includes various engineering objections at the end of the document, I don't see anything at that stage from Cherwell DC^▸ (Direct Current).

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

RAIL magazine this issue has an article on Mainline (and a seperate one on East-West Rail).  They have a quote from the Business Development Director of Chiltern saying he hopes the Oxford line will be finished by 2014, so the original May 2013 date seems less and less likely to be made.  I'll put my money on a May 2014 start date if we open up a book!

There's also mention of the loco hauled/MK3/DVT^‡(resolve) rakes - which will eventually number five in total.  There's currently two (though I'm sure I counted three when I had my day out last week!), two more should be delivered by next spring, with a final spare set shortly after that.  The five DVT's will shortly be fitted with a generator and fuel tanks to cut down on the idling noise of the Class 67's - they do make a racket!  No mention of plug doors though - the current sets certainly haven't got them, so whether they will go back for fitment at a later date I'm unsure?

[ChrisB]

There are at least 4 rakes already about at the moment - two are away at Wabtec having plug doors fitted & two are in service. I think the Rail article is referring to delivery as with plug doors.

One DVT^‡(resolve) has the generator fitted already I think. Not being done @ Wabtec as I understand, so separate fitments.

So again, don't believe the detail in these rail magazines - they're often wrong or incomplete. Why they don't check stories with the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) press offices, I don't know.

[ChrisB]

Yes, they will set the fares but they won't have full flexibility to set them at what they want. They'll have to be lower than OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) to London fare

Sorry, I disagree - they won't *have* to be lower, but yes, they *probably* will.
Free parking & a faster service, together with easier access will attract all those living on that side of Oxford anyway, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

both Chiltern only and Any permitted.

No, Chiltern will only be able to set an Any Permitted fare. Franchise rules prevent TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) who fare-set from also having a TOC-only fare.

[paul7575]

Might have found Cherwell DC^▸ (Direct Current)'s 'objections' to EG3 now.

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/13Oct2010/Cherwell_1.pdf

The Tubbs Lane footbridge sounds like the possible problem area, rather than the number of car park spaces at Bicester Town - but surely it is difficult to see this as a show stopper...

Paul

[ChrisB]

Looks promising.....it is a resifdential area, I think

[IndustryInsider]

There are at least 4 rakes already about at the moment - two are away at Wabtec having plug doors fitted & two are in service.

How many rakes are in daily service at moment?  If two are away at Wabtec then they can't be described as 'already about' surely?  Or have I misunderstood your post?

One DVT^‡(resolve) has the generator fitted already I think. Not being done @ Wabtec as I understand, so separate fitments.

Regarding the RAIL article - which I never claimed was any more accurate than the forum posting by the way, just contradicting it - the DVT situation is that, according to their quoted source, Engineering Director, Kate Majoribanks, 83201/4 are currently at Wabtec being fitted with Harrington Generators International for a delivery by the end of the year, with the other three following by next spring.

[Btline]

I take it Chiltern be able to sell "Route: HW" tickets then. I assumed wrongly they might try selling them as CH only.

Will a Any permitted Water E P ticket be valid via Oxf?

[ChrisB]

No to your Water Eaton ticket routing qurery, so
In effect it will be Route HWY, because its the only valid route from there. But it will therefore still be Any Permitted, but only permitted via HWY!

That will be the only ticket availsble too.

[JayMac]

Will Islip and Bicester Town lose their Any Permitted routeing as well then? Bit odd if Water Eaton will only have a flow to Marylebone whilst Islip and Bicester Town continue to have a flow which allows travel to Paddington.

[ChrisB]

Islip won't....Bicester Town *might*.

I can foresee that pax may well wish to travel from Town & return to BCS....and when I mentioned this to Chiltern management they agreed - saying one way to fix that would be to 'group' Town & North together as 'Bicester Stations', once their service starts.

If that happens, then I doubt Town would keep it's Oxford routing. If it does, then you could go North->MYB^▸ (London (Marylebone)) and PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Town, I guess. But my thoughts are that they would cut it.

Re Water Eaton, it will be another new build by Chiltern, so it'll be up to them. Yes, I agree that if the Bicester Group is able to use Oxford, then it'd be siully not to allow Water Eaton. But extinguish Oxford from Bicester & that would allow Water Eaton to not have Oxford either.

It would also mean that Chiltern wouldn't have to share the fareboxes from those stations which to me, is a BIG incentive!