Confirmation of Oxford to Bristol services?

[4-SUB 4732]

ORR Track Access - Go to Page 348.

East-West Rail services to Bristol are proposed to travel via Bath Spa. This means they will need to arrive and depart Bristol East Junction via the Down and Up Main Lines from North Somerset Junction. According to the Timetable Planning Rules, services from Oxford and the Cotswolds require a 15- minute turnround time at Bristol Temple Meads. This is possible by flexing the time of one service: amending the arrival of 1C02DA at Bristol East Junction until 08:13:00 (therefore arriving into Bristol Temple Meads at 08:14:30) Table 16 shows the times of the trains created in TPS. These are based on Class 185 Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) operating on two engines.

So, are we expecting to see an hourly service on the EWRL right through from "Out East" to/from Bristol via Bath using 185s?

Departure times are already modelled for Bristol Temple Meads including 08:09, 09:14, 10:11 and 11:02.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

ORR Track Access - Go to Page 348.



So, are we expecting to see an hourly service on the EWRL right through from "Out East" to/from Bristol via Bath using 185s?

Departure times are already modelled for Bristol Temple Meads including 08:09, 09:14, 10:11 and 11:02.

seems like it, I though the DfT did not want to do that for the initial stages of the project but as a potential later phase

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect this is more about planning for east-west rail to go on the graph first than actual confirmation any EWR trains will ever run beyond Oxford. As for 185s, you have to plan around some form of rolling stock. As we know from other threads, EWR are currently in an exercise to procure rolling stock and won't have made any decisions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The spare 185s are spoken for now; they are going to EMR for the Liverpool to Nottingham service.

 

[swt_passenger]

The subject in the title is a bit of a side issue to the main purpose of the document though?

I‘d have thought people might also be interested in how much NR work has gone into analysing Grand Union‘s proposed Paddington to South Wales services, in order to get ORR to bin it...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Well yes, the Grand Union bit, of which I read the entirety, is a mess. But I was amazed to see such detailed planning (and such a messy, non-clockface timetable) for the accommodation of EWRL to Bristol, in a wider context of a Bristol-area plan, which therefore shows the flexing needed for Grand Union.

But, moreover, this thread is about the obvious accommodation of East West into Bristol, which would not have been done without reason. There must be a Government-mandated nudge to EWRL and NWR to make a pathway for an hourly service, surely? It's not just being done for the sake of someone's good health.

 

[JonathanH]

But, moreover, this thread is about the obvious accommodation of East West into Bristol, which would not have been done without reason. There must be a Government-mandated nudge to EWRL and NWR to make a pathway for an hourly service, surely? It's not just being done for the sake of someone's good health.

Not done without reason but I would imagine still somewhat speculative on the part of Network Rail, EWR and the DfT.

This is made clear here

C.01.02 Flexing services
Before creating the additional trains between Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea, all of the extra services stipulated in the remit, were added at both Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads:
• Making the hourly Cardiff Central to Ebbw Vale service half hourly
• An hourly service between Cardiff Central and Chester
• Bi-hourly open access trains between Cardiff Central and London Paddington
• MetroWest services between Bristol Temple Meads and Portishead, Yate and Henbury and an hourly Avonmouth-Westbury train
• Additional freight from Portbury to the East
• East-West Rail services from Oxford to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath Spa

This was done first, to give a true picture of what capacity was available for the additional services both on the lines and at stations.

ie the last thing DfT and Network Rail want to do is provide capacity for Grand Union's proposals over potential service improvements that are already on their (long) list. It doesn't mean those service improvements are committed.

The key point is that this document does not in any way make EWR services to Bristol any more or less likely than if it hadn't been written. There is currently no commitment to them as far as I can see. It is just an assumption for a highly-detailed timetabling exercise so as not to close off the possibility of them running.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The spare 185s are spoken for now; they are going to EMR for the Liverpool to Nottingham service.

Was that actually confirmed though

 

[Ianno87]

I suspect this is more about planning for east-west rail to go on the graph first than actual confirmation any EWR trains will ever run beyond Oxford. As for 185s, you have to plan around some form of rolling stock. As we know from other threads, EWR are currently in an exercise to procure rolling stock and won't have made any decisions.

Seems to be a "what if EWR went first on the graph?" rather than any commitment to do so.

In order for ORR to grant the level of access rights to do this, they'd need very, very good justification to do so. And the commercial value of a Bristol-Paddington service is almost certainly going to be the winner in any trade-off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was that actually confirmed though

I thought it was. To be fair, though, a 170 or 175 would have similar performance to a 185 minus an engine. So a bit like RTT "pathed as", it being worked out for a 185 doesn't mean it will be a 185.

 

[Ianno87]

I thought it was. To be fair, though, a 170 or 175 would have similar performance to a 185 minus an engine. So a bit like RTT "pathed as", it being worked out for a 185 doesn't mean it will be a 185.

The journey times will have been calculated using RailSys software using a Class 185 traction unit as, in effect "generic high performance DMU", as it's the best example currently available.

As you say, that does not indicate using Class 185s is the actual intention - more that "here's what timings would be like if we used something a bit like a 185".

 

[RHolmes]

The spare 185s are spoken for now; they are going to EMR for the Liverpool to Nottingham service.

That isn’t confirmed

 

[londonteacher]

The spare 185s are spoken for now; they are going to EMR for the Liverpool to Nottingham service.

Do you have proof of that? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere except on here with people suggesting it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you have proof of that? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere except on here with people suggesting it!

It's suggested as rumoured here but not confirmed (sorry). It seems to make sense, though.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/now-emr-are-confirmed-as-operators-of-liverpool-notts-what-stock-could-be-used.208118/page-5

 

[Bald Rick]

It looks like a phenomenal amount of recent work has gone in to demonstrating the effect of these services.

And yet, there can’t be any real prospect of them running. If Grand Central couldn’t justify operating their Blackpool services - after they had contracted the rolling stock and employed staff - then how could this be possibly viable?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It looks like a phenomenal amount of recent work has gone in to demonstrating the effect of these services.

And yet, there can’t be any real prospect of them running. If Grand Central couldn’t justify operating their Blackpool services - after they had contracted the rolling stock and employed staff - then how could this be possibly viable?

One must assume the Grand Union idea won’t get off the ground - it’s not going to achieve its clockface timetable, maintenance seems to be near-impossible, and it’s primarily abstractive.

But that is not what this thread is about.

 

[cactustwirly]

Oxford to Bristol operated in the past, but wasn't successful.
It's only 1 change at Didcot, so not a difficult journey atm.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Oxford to Bristol operated in the past, but wasn't successful.
It's only 1 change at Didcot, so not a difficult journey atm.

But now you’re talking about Milton Keynes and the wider ‘East’ including Bedford etc to Bristol. And, one assumes, on a much better standard hourly timetable to make it worth doing.

 

[37057]

That isn’t confirmed

Indeed. When that first came up on this forum there were some obvious discrepancies with the information and when the source of that information was questioned, it was never answered, so speaks volumes...

I assume it stems from a 'Railway Gazette' article from August which stated that "industry insiders" favoured it. As of yet though, there's still nothing official.

It could happen, but it also could not. Wait and see.

My advice, ignore it unless there's something that can be deemed official.

 

[cle]

It is interesting that on the Caridff assumptions (as much as possible to pack out paths an platforms, lol) - they assumed 2tph Ebbw - Cardiff, whereas I understood one to Newport to be the plan. And the hourly Chester.

The Bristol network was even more fanciful.

But a good sign that EWR Oxford to Bristol is in the works. It didn't specify onward location - i.e. Bedford/Cambridge or MKC. Isn't the plan for EWR services south of Oxford to stop at the likes of Culham and so on? Seems incongruous with this service.

 

[londonteacher]

It's suggested as rumoured here but not confirmed (sorry). It seems to make sense, though.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/now-emr-are-confirmed-as-operators-of-liverpool-notts-what-stock-could-be-used.208118/page-5

I agree, it would make sense with a shared maintenance depot with TPE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But a good sign that EWR Oxford to Bristol is in the works. It didn't specify onward location - i.e. Bedford/Cambridge or MKC. Isn't the plan for EWR services south of Oxford to stop at the likes of Culham and so on? Seems incongruous with this service.

I didn't think there was a concrete plan for EWR services to go south of Oxford yet.

 

[Ianno87]

I didn't think there was a concrete plan for EWR services to go south of Oxford yet.

Even Bristol-Oxford changing onto a seperate Oxford-EWR service would be a marked improvement upon connectivity today.

EWR should not be about through trains from everywhere to everywhere, but enabling single changes for jouneys currently made via London.

 

[JonathanH]

EWR should not be about through trains from everywhere to everywhere, but enabling single changes for jouneys currently made via London.

That is true but, like it or not, that is better done by Bristol to London and Didcot to EWR than Bristol to Oxford and Oxford to EWR.

But now you’re talking about Milton Keynes and the wider ‘East’ including Bedford etc to Bristol. And, one assumes, on a much better standard hourly timetable to make it worth doing.

My main problem with extending EWR itself to Bristol is twofold:
* interspersing shorter trains over a length of a service run with 9 or 10 car 80x trains with shorter trains
* introducing 100mph stock on a 125mph railway over nearly 50 route miles.

It isn't even as if the EWR train could allow the long-distance London to Bristol train to take out stops.

Even on a standard hour timetable, there would be a train hitting the Bath to Bristol peak. How do you best manage what might be a three car train in between trains with nine coaches? One of the reasons for running five-car Turbo formations from Portsmouth to Cardiff Central is to accommodate the peak loadings out of Bristol.

As noted, there isn't any confirmation of EWR beyond Oxford, just a timetabling exercise that is raising hopes of it happening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even Bristol-Oxford changing onto a seperate Oxford-EWR service would be a marked improvement upon connectivity today.

EWR should not be about through trains from everywhere to everywhere, but enabling single changes for jouneys currently made via London.

That's certainly a good role for it. Extending it from Oxford to Didcot, replacing the local stopping "shuttle" DMUs, would be the best way to achieve that, rather than having an Oxford-Bristol service separately.

 

[The exile]

That is true but, like it or not, that is better done by Bristol to London and Didcot to EWR than Bristol to Oxford and Oxford to EWR.


My main problem with extending EWR itself to Bristol is twofold:
* interspersing shorter trains over a length of a service run with 9 or 10 car 80x trains with shorter trains
* introducing 100mph stock on a 125mph railway over nearly 50 route miles.

It isn't even as if the EWR train could allow the long-distance London to Bristol train to take out stops.

Even on a standard hour timetable, there would be a train hitting the Bath to Bristol peak. How do you best manage what might be a three car train in between trains with nine coaches? One of the reasons for running five-car Turbo formations from Portsmouth to Cardiff Central is to accommodate the peak loadings out of Bristol.

As noted, there isn't any confirmation of EWR beyond Oxford, just a timetabling exercise that is raising hopes of it happening.

While it's true that running short EWR trains wouldn't really enable intermediate stops to be cut out from the main line services, there are several candidates for reopening as "intermediate stops" which at the moment stand next to no chance of making any progress as there are no services which could feasibly stop at them. While introducing extra stops takes up even more line capacity, there are (quite literally) ways round that problem - if the money and the will are there, of course. As for the Bath - Bristol peak, these trains would presumably be in addition to what runs now. The high loadings between Bristol and Bath on Portsmouth services are presumably not helped by the (relatively) long gap before them; if they left Bristol 8 minutes after a London train instead of 8 minutes before, I would imagine the loadings would be rather different.

 

[coppercapped]

Oxford to Bristol operated in the past, but wasn't successful.
It's only 1 change at Didcot, so not a difficult journey atm.

As I understand it the service was withdrawn for a combination of reasons. Firstly because of increasing traffic on the Paddington suburban/outer suburban services more stock was required to reduce overcrowding. It became economically more interesting to use the sets where the demand was higher.

Secondly there were issues in pathing a 90mph train on a two track main line with an increasing number of 125mph trains. (I may be mistaken but I seem to remember that at least some trains were operated by the loaned Chiltern sets which only had a top speed of 75mph which of course made the problems worse).

I see no reason why a service from Bristol to Oxford and most importantly now much further east should not be economically successful if operated with stock that doesn't get in the way of the IETs. Certainly judging by the road traffic on the A420 which joins Swindon to Oxford there would seem to be sufficient demand these days between these two centres alone.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

As I understand it the service was withdrawn for a combination of reasons. Firstly because of increasing traffic on the Paddington suburban/outer suburban services more stock was required to reduce overcrowding. It became economically more interesting to use the sets where the demand was higher.

Secondly there were issues in pathing a 90mph train on a two track main line with an increasing number of 125mph trains. (I may be mistaken but I seem to remember that at least some trains were operated by the loaned Chiltern sets which only had a top speed of 75mph which of course made the problems worse).

I see no reason why a service from Bristol to Oxford and most importantly now much further east should not be economically successful if operated with stock that doesn't get in the way of the IETs. Certainly judging by the road traffic on the A420 which joins Swindon to Oxford there would seem to be sufficient demand these days between these two centres alone.

Of course there’s the one thing people haven’t considered - with CrossCountry about to have a swathe of valuable trains capable of 125mph, get them to do an hourly Bristol - Bath - Swindon - Oxford - Bicester - Bletchley - Bedford - Leicester - Nottingham type train...

And as discussed, extending the EWRL half-hourly stoppers to Didcot for connections but Reading must be preferable. And another Oxford to Swindon as no South Wales stuff stops at Didcot.

 

[cle]

Of course there’s the one thing people haven’t considered - with CrossCountry about to have a swathe of valuable trains capable of 125mph, get them to do an hourly Bristol - Bath - Swindon - Oxford - Bicester - Bletchley - Bedford - Leicester - Nottingham type train...

And as discussed, extending the EWRL half-hourly stoppers to Didcot for connections but Reading must be preferable. And another Oxford to Swindon as no South Wales stuff stops at Didcot.

This was discussed earlier on in the EWR, for a moment it was 'up-scoped' for long distance paths, and then de-scoped so this might have fallen by the wayside. I agree it makes a lot of sense - opens up a lot of new journey pairs, and overall, it's a heroic 'not-London' output of EWR. Would be possible a lot sooner than Cambridge!

The MML quadding up to Kettering would help this too, but the 'Bedford station future/state mystery' hangs over it. Lord knows where they thought a HS2 to Leeds would turn either.

 

[James90012]

There are many other service aspirations that have been included in the scope e.g. extended Bristol-Cardiff to Swansea. It's refreshing to see long term strategic fit be considered, but safe to say this is not a commitment but an 'in principle' review.