East-West Rail (EWR): Alternative options and speculation

[Nicholas43]

the signaller doesn't have much choice about it

On the contrary, the planned platform is 4, but the signallers sometimes choose 3, for example because of a Cross country snafu.

 

[zwk500]

On the contrary, the planned platform is 4, but the signallers sometimes choose 3, for example because of a Cross country snafu.

So the train is planned to use the furthest platform and cross on the flat? Which rather neatly fits my assessment that it's easier to use the platforms with the flow of traffic and regulate at Oxford north if necessary. The fact that the signallers are reacting to trains being where they shouldn't or other trains not running is not an answer to the capacity question. Either way, scale that up to 1 or 2 tph each hour every hour, you can see why it will start to stretch performance margins.

Whats a snafu?

 

[Nicholas43]

Whats a snafu?

The on-line Oxford English Dictionary is your friend !
Getting back on topic, has the East West Railway Company said what length trains they plan to run Bletchley - Oxford?

 

[zwk500]

Getting back on topic, has the East West Railway Company said what length trains they plan to run Bletchley - Oxford?

Presumably it's announced the length of the new platforms at Bletchley and Winslow if nothing else?

 

[swt_passenger]

Presumably it's announced the length of the new platforms at Bletchley and Winslow if nothing else?

They have tendered for stock, there’s a thread about it:

East West Rail rolling stock procurement updates (non-speculative)

Moderator note this thread is for procurement updates and was split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-progress-and-updates.99892/ For speculation please use: What stock could be used on East-West Rail, for example the Cambrian 158s? What has actually happened with the...

www.railforums.co.uk

3 car DMU basically...

that thread also cross refers to an existing but closed EWR rolling stock speculation thread...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wires Didcot to Bletchley (and Coventry for that matter!) are essential.

That said, I think Reading is a better goal than Paddington.

It has tons of regional and long distance connections, is a major destination in itself (vs Didcot), and a big high value/tech jobs market, much in the way of Cambridge and Oxford.

If this is really an arc, then Reading is the other logical 'regional hub/smallish city that punches above its weight' like the others are.

This is a very good point (and it could call at Didcot on the way, of course). If it is about providing new housing development and linking it to jobs, there are lots of jobs in Reading, probably more than Oxford (unless you're an academic).

Reading would however be difficult to path, I guess?

It must surely be time for @coppercapped to interject, now Reading has come up?

 

[David Goddard]

Pathing to/ from Reading should be OK, along with platform space at Reading. These would take the relief lines, so shared with stoppers, XC and freight. Unsure whether many of the Oxford IETs use the Mains or the reliefs at present, but if the latter they may need to stay on the Mains to Didcot East.

 

[Nicholas43]

Before the plague, there were 4 trains per hour non-stop Oxford-Reading then Paddington or Southampton, and 2 stopping or semi-fast trains Oxford - Paddington, with the annoying split at Didcot. If we get wires Didcot to Oxford, there will be 6 pleasant trains per hour Oxford Reading Paddington or Southampton. I doubt the need for 2 more, but do speculate that 2 of them could be extended to Bletchley or maybe Milton Keynes Central.
There are currently several freight paths per hour each way between Didcot North and Oxford.

 

[daodao]

Before the plague, there were 4 trains per hour non-stop Oxford-Reading then Paddington or Southampton, and 2 stopping or semi-fast trains Oxford - Paddington, with the annoying split at Didcot. If we get wires Didcot to Oxford, there will be 6 pleasant trains per hour Oxford Reading Paddington or Southampton. I doubt the need for 2 more, but do speculate that 2 of them could be extended to Bletchley or maybe Milton Keynes Central.

There is little point in wiring Didcot-Oxford on its own, without wiring Oxford-Coventry, which is presumably why it was sensibly descoped from the GW electrification project when costs escalated. I see little point in bothering to electrify it at present; there are many far more deserving lines for electrification. I don't fully understand the vehement objections to extending the 3 car dmus proposed for the EWR line as far as Didcot to replace the shuttle trains and enhance connectivity. There would only be 6 tph passenger trains between Oxford and Didcot, which is surely not overloading the infrastructure.

Local traffic between Didcot and Oxford is not likely to be high, and the stations served are minor halts that might have been closed under Beeching if they were on a more important main line. At least 1 tph of the through fast trains from Paddington to Oxford would still have to be a bi-mode in order for it to run onto the OWW line (once colloquially known as the Old Worse and Worse because of the notoriously poor quality of its train services).

 

[JamesT]

Before the plague, there were 4 trains per hour non-stop Oxford-Reading then Paddington or Southampton, and 2 stopping or semi-fast trains Oxford - Paddington, with the annoying split at Didcot. If we get wires Didcot to Oxford, there will be 6 pleasant trains per hour Oxford Reading Paddington or Southampton. I doubt the need for 2 more, but do speculate that 2 of them could be extended to Bletchley or maybe Milton Keynes Central.

The other logical place to extend the wires (and services) to would be Banbury, as that also has a diesel stopper like Oxford-Didcot. Although not part of EWR, it would save GWR having a little island of Networkers.

 

[daodao]

The other logical place to extend the wires (and services) to would be Banbury, as that also has a diesel stopper like Oxford-Didcot. Although not part of EWR, it would save GWR having a little island of Networkers.

The stopping trains from Oxford to Didcot and Banbury could be operated by Chiltern/EWR dmus.

 

[camflyer]

My understanding was that it's primary purpose for passengers was to enhance connectivity into Oxford (and eventually Cambridge) from areas planned for substantial housing development. And to relieve a chronically overloaded section of the road network. It's a regional line, somewhat similar to Reading-Redhill (although a bit higher standard). I may be very wrong on this, but it wasn't meant to become another higher-speed main line carrying traffic from one side of the country to the other.

From the Network Rail site:

East West Rail - Network Rail

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford, making travel across Britain easier.

www.networkrail.co.uk

"How the East West Rail project will make travel across Britain easier​

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford to improve connections between East Anglia and central, southern and western England"

 

[daodao]

From the Network Rail site:

East West Rail - Network Rail

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford, making travel across Britain easier.

www.networkrail.co.uk

"How the East West Rail project will make travel across Britain easier​

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford to improve connections between East Anglia and central, southern and western England"

Thanks for this post. Such connectivity can only be established by running EWR train services through Oxford at least as far as the GW main line, not just terminating in a minor city not currently deemed worthy of electrified train services.

 

[zwk500]

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford to improve connections between East Anglia and central, southern and western England"

Well it will, but none of that is contrary to it's primary purpose being to facilitate housing growth along it's route, and to provide a way for those new residents to commute to jobs in Cambridge (east Anglia), Bedford (Central England), MK (Southern England) and Oxford (Also Southern England, although to a PR person probably counts as Western England). I agree the connectivity to Western England and the Actual South East of Kent/Sussex/Surrey/Hampshire is weaker than it could be, but we can't always build to the end goal from day 1.

Once passenger demands post-covid has settled and HS2 possibly allows a restructure of services through Birmingham, then extending EWR to Reading would, I think, be valuable. But in the meantime changing for a XC at Oxford to Reading, given the number of journeys being made, is a balance of affordability, operational convenience and passenger convenience. To go further than Didcot may well need Didcot East Junction to be sorted out, so if it's a choice between extending EWR to Didcot or extending the Pad-Didcot stopper to Oxford, I think the latter is the more valuable use of the path - especially to those using the intermediate services between Didcot and Oxford.

 

[Purple Orange]

Are there any plans for any long distance services to operate over this line, or is it just going to be regional?

 

[David Goddard]

Probably not, but it could be a useful diversionary route. for example if Banbury is closed an XC train could divert Coventry-Bletchley-Oxford.
Will also be able to take some of the freight away from the "roots" of the ECML, MML, WCML, GWML and North London line

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there any plans for any long distance services to operate over this line, or is it just going to be regional?

No, long distance XC was removed from project scope by DfT, it’s all covered in the TWA inspectors report and was mentioned in the main thread at the time.

 

[The Planner]

Probably not, but it could be a useful diversionary route. for example if Banbury is closed an XC train could divert Coventry-Bletchley-Oxford.
Will also be able to take some of the freight away from the "roots" of the ECML, MML, WCML, GWML and North London line

Only if XC are prepared to route learn it, though to be fair they are one of the TOCs that are more up for that.

 

[zwk500]

Only if XC are prepared to route learn it, though to be fair they are one of the TOCs that are more up for that.

Are there many paths available beyond Coventry for them to bid for? I can imagine the QMK planners having fun trying to cross the XC trains at Denbigh Hall and Hanslope junctions. Doable, but the time penalty vs Fenny Compton must be noticeable. Maybe a post-HS2 idea.
Freight diverting would probably be attractive for Hams Hall, Crewe and Trafford trains, but presumably there'll be issues on the Northampton Loop line?

 

[The Planner]

Are there many paths available beyond Coventry for them to bid for? I can imagine the QMK planners having fun trying to cross the XC trains at Denbigh Hall and Hanslope junctions. Doable, but the time penalty vs Fenny Compton must be noticeable. Maybe a post-HS2 idea.
Freight diverting would probably be attractive for Hams Hall, Crewe and Trafford trains, but presumably there'll be issues on the Northampton Loop line?

If it is for planned engineering works then you would arguably send them via Northampton, or even whack them in a freight Q path. Hanslope isn't as bad as you may think as its still reasonably fast. Cov to Rugby is nowhere near as much as a problem as New St to Cov. At the end of the day it is what the decision criteria are for.

 

[coppercapped]

There is little point in wiring Didcot-Oxford on its own, without wiring Oxford-Coventry, which is presumably why it was sensibly descoped from the GW electrification project when costs escalated. I see little point in bothering to electrify it at present; there are many far more deserving lines for electrification. I don't fully understand the vehement objections to extending the 3 car dmus proposed for the EWR line as far as Didcot to replace the shuttle trains and enhance connectivity. There would only be 6 tph passenger trains between Oxford and Didcot, which is surely not overloading the infrastructure.

Local traffic between Didcot and Oxford is not likely to be high, and the stations served are minor halts that might have been closed under Beeching if they were on a more important main line. At least 1 tph of the through fast trains from Paddington to Oxford would still have to be a bi-mode in order for it to run onto the OWW line (once colloquially known as the Old Worse and Worse because of the notoriously poor quality of its train services).

Hmm!

Although local traffic to and from the stations between Didcot and Oxford may not be high this traffic was always served by through Reading to Oxford trains. In steam and the early diesel days the off-peak service ran between Reading and Oxford and in the peaks trains ran to and from Paddington. Over the last couple of decades a regular half-hourly service serving most stations (Appleford and Culham being the exceptions and being served in the peaks) gave the stations between Reading and Oxford easy access to both towns — and all these trains ran to and from Paddington. Breaking this link at Didcot has made these journeys more of a hassle and towns such as Pangbourne and Goring have over the years grown much more important as traffic generators for flows in both directions.

None of the stations between Didcot and Oxford were proposed for closure in the Beeching report although the report showed each of the intermediate stations only generated between between £0 and £5000 per year. Abingdon station was shown as generating between £5000 and £25000 but passenger traffic was withdrawn from the Abingdon branch in September 1963, its closure proposal pre-dating Beeching's report. This shows the advantage of being able to share overheads between different traffic flows, the income from the small stations on the main line, albeit small, was sufficient to cover direct and allocated expenses so they survived. There was no 'might have been closed'.

These days things look different. Culham for example serves the nearby international research centres and is useful for staff working there and living between Reading and past Oxford. A forced break of comparatively short journeys is not good business practice.

There may or may not be an argument for extending the EWR trains through to Didcot, but there are several issues that need to be solved first before 6 passenger trains per hour are run on this section. The main ones are, in no particular order:

• platform capacity at Didcot to terminate, hold and reverse trains from the north without obstructing other traffic
• pathing the roughly hourly container trains in each direction to and from Southampton
• pathing freight traffic serving, e.g., Didcot, BMW at Cowley and the Hinksey yards
• all the junctions at Didcot are flat - the two sets of 'Didcot East' junctions (Mains - Reliefs and Reliefs - Avoiding Line), Chester Line, Foxhall, Didcot West Curve and Didcot North. A sort of mini-Manchester Castlefield corridor effect...
• entry speeds to the goods siding are very slow - 15mph - which has a big effect of capacity when goods trains are recessing
• signal positioning and berth lengths.

I would also hold back from completing the electrification to Oxford until the on-going studies in predicted capacity in this corridor are completed as this may affect junction and track layouts which will have to be amended later. But the electrification to Oxford is still justifiable in its own merits - it would already have been completed if Network Rail and the DfT had properly known their business ten years ago.

 

[daodao]

before 6 passenger trains per hour are run on this section

There already are (or at least were pre-Covid) 6 passenger trains per hour on the line between Oxford and Didcot:

• 2 tph XC
• 2 tph GW shuttles Oxford-Didcot
• 2 tph GW London-Oxford fast, 1 of which extended to Worcester and beyond

I was not proposing additional trains, merely extending the proposed 2 tph EWR services to Didcot in lieu of the Oxford-Didcot shuttles. The platform capacity at Didcot to terminate, hold and reverse trains from the north, already exists for 2 tph.

I once visited Pendon Museum using a train to Culham and then returning from Appleford, when I lived in Reading. They appeared to be wayside halts. Appleford had GW pagoda style shelters.

 

[Nicholas43]

I once visited Pendon Museum using a train to Culham and then returning from Appleford, when I lived in Reading. They appeared to be wayside halts. Appleford had GW pagoda style shelters.

Before the plague, Radley had strong commuter traffic to Oxford etc, and Culham had strong commuter traffic to its science and business park; and there are plans for much new housing immediately west of Culham station, and more houses in Radley.
Appleford Halt is indeed lightly used, but serves trendy and expanding Sutton Courtenay.
Congratulations on finding your way from Culham station to Pendon museum!
There are currently several freight paths per hour each way between Didcot North and Oxford.

 

[coppercapped]

There already are (or at least were pre-Covid) 6 passenger trains per hour on the line between Oxford and Didcot:

• 2 tph XC
• 2 tph GW shuttles Oxford-Didcot
• 2 tph GW London-Oxford fast, 1 of which extended to Worcester and beyond

I was not proposing additional trains, merely extending the proposed 2 tph EWR services to Didcot in lieu of the Oxford-Didcot shuttles. The platform capacity at Didcot to terminate, hold and reverse trains from the north, already exists for 2 tph.

I once visited Pendon Museum using a train to Culham and then returning from Appleford, when I lived in Reading. They appeared to be wayside halts. Appleford had GW pagoda style shelters.

Oops, my error. (Memo to self: 2+2+2=??)

From my observations reversing the Oxford shuttles at Didcot always seems to be quite a close run thing, a few minutes perturbation and problems arise quite apart from people having to change trains and platforms. It would be more convenient and better business if the outer suburban service to and from Paddington continued through to its natural terminus at Oxford — as it has done in various guises since the Oxford branch was opened — as it benefits more people now than an extension of EWR trains may do in some years time.

If some EWR trains are extended then the points I made in my earlier post are valid. For '6' read '8'.

What is wrong with pagoda shelters[1] and wayside halts? If people are serious in getting people to use trains rather than cars, especially for local journeys, then more wayside halts are needed.

Otherwise it's all greenwash.

[1] Hanwell (and Elthorne) has just been refurbished (for the second time in my memory) to 'real GWR' station colours and nobody suggests that it is a wayside halt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

[1] Hanwell (and Elthorne) has just been refurbished (for the second time in my memory) to 'real GWR' station colours and nobody suggests that it is a wayside halt.

A very large chunk of the Birmingham Snow Hill lines are also in GWR colours, including Moor St itself. Quite popular it seems!

 

[Nicholas43]

From my observations reversing the Oxford shuttles at Didcot always seems to be quite a close run thing, a few minutes perturbation and problems arise quite apart from people having to change trains and platforms. It would be more convenient and better business if the outer suburban service to and from Paddington continued through to its natural terminus at Oxford — as it has done in various guises since the Oxford branch was opened — as it benefits more people now than an extension of EWR trains may do in some years time.

I agree it would be better to remove the change at Didcot. But that requires either wires Didcot to Oxford, or magicking up a fleet of working 769s to run Paddington to Oxford. I don't believe in more magic 769s. My preferred speculation remains wires Didcot to Bletchley, and electrostars Paddington Didcot Oxford Bletchley.

 

[David Goddard]

Cant see through services Paddington to Bletchley, this would pigeonhole the East-West to be part of GWR, which is probably not the most appropriate. Not that I have much of a thought on whether it should be part of an existing TOC (still most likely), or a separate one in entirety.

Feel that the most appropriate solution would be as I described earlier and illustrate below, for which the only requirement would be one extra path on the relief lines between Didcot and Reading.
In short, following wiring of Didcot-Oxford:
*One Didcot EMU is extended to Oxford, replacing the diesel stopper.
*The other Didcot EMU remains to Didcot, but could later be extended to Swindon, should proposals for new stations on this stretch come to fruition.
*One East-West service operates to Didcot, replacing the diesel non stop shuttle, and then on to Reading. This creates a fifth fast train Oxford-Reading.
*The other East-West service terminates at Oxford
*London-Oxford fast terminator continues to Banbury roughly every two hours. Those that still turn back could go over to Electrostars, as happens with Newbury trains.

We all know that wiring to Banbury and beyond is still a way off, and doubtful until we see XC replace the Voyagers with bi-modes that can use them
For clarity, GWML services to Swindon and beyond are not shown.

 

[Verulamius]

The plan is to have 4 EWR from Oxford, 2 to Milton Keynes and 2 to Bedford and the Cambridge.
Also what about the 2 Chiltern Trains?
What about Cowley?

How do they fit into your plan?

 

[coppercapped]

Cant see through services Paddington to Bletchley, this would pigeonhole the East-West to be part of GWR, which is probably not the most appropriate. Not that I have much of a thought on whether it should be part of an existing TOC (still most likely), or a separate one in entirety.

Feel that the most appropriate solution would be as I described earlier and illustrate below, for which the only requirement would be one extra path on the relief lines between Didcot and Reading.
In short, following wiring of Didcot-Oxford:
*One Didcot EMU is extended to Oxford, replacing the diesel stopper.
*The other Didcot EMU remains to Didcot, but could later be extended to Swindon, should proposals for new stations on this stretch come to fruition.
*One East-West service operates to Didcot, replacing the diesel non stop shuttle, and then on to Reading. This creates a fifth fast train Oxford-Reading.
*The other East-West service terminates at Oxford
*London-Oxford fast terminator continues to Banbury roughly every two hours. Those that still turn back could go over to Electrostars, as happens with Newbury trains.

We all know that wiring to Banbury and beyond is still a way off, and doubtful until we see XC replace the Voyagers with bi-modes that can use them
For clarity, GWML services to Swindon and beyond are not shown.

View attachment 95053

In principal that looks to be quite a sensible solution with a couple of provisos.

Running trains from the Didcot direction across to the Bicester/Bletchley line involves crossing all the southbound traffic on the flat at Oxford North. This is one of the reasons that the projected re-build of Oxford station would extend the existing bay platforms south through the site of the existing station building to keep any future connecting lines to the Cowley branch to the east of the existing tracks. Of course a grade separated junction at Oxford North would solve that issue...

The reason the Oxford fast terminators use 125 mph stock — as do the fast Paddington - Newbury - Bedwyn trains — is that they run on the Mains from Paddington to Reading, and to Didcot East in the case of the Oxford trains. Anything slower would affect timekeeping of the rest of the services so the use of 110mph Electrostars will not happen; these trains will have to remain IET operated. Of course with the current fall off in passenger numbers there may be sufficient spare IET stock that an occasional extension to Banbury can be covered.

PS: The station named 'Tackley' in the diagram is really Appleford.

 

[David Goddard]

Hi Coppercapped

Thanks for your constructive reply - much appreciated, please below

Running trains from the Didcot direction across to the Bicester/Bletchley line involves crossing all the southbound traffic on the flat at Oxford North. This is one of the reasons that the projected re-build of Oxford station would extend the existing bay platforms south through the site of the existing station building to keep any future connecting lines to the Cowley branch to the east of the existing tracks. Of course a grade separated junction at Oxford North would solve that issue...

Yeah good point there, a difficult one to solve. Extending the bays will still not prevent the conflicting moves so a grade separation would be the only way to absolutely eliminate this flow. There is at least a good length of straight route North of the station in which to build it. Most practical probably to lift the down over the Up Main so heavy freights from the North don't have an incline to contend with.

The reason the Oxford fast terminators use 125 mph stock — as do the fast Paddington - Newbury - Bedwyn trains — is that they run on the Mains from Paddington to Reading, and to Didcot East in the case of the Oxford trains. Anything slower would affect timekeeping of the rest of the services so the use of 110mph Electrostars will not happen; these trains will have to remain IET operated. Of course with the current fall off in passenger numbers there may be sufficient spare IET stock that an occasional extension to Banbury can be covered.

Mentioning Electrostars was a bit of an afterthought, IMO, but I only mentioned based on the precedent below.
The bi-hourly London to Newbury terminators (listed in the Winter 2019 and Summer 2020 timetables, and back in RTT from 28 June) at 0838, 1137, 1335, 1537 and 1935 are booked for Class 387s at 110mph and use the Main Lines between Paddington and Reading (they take three minutes more than IETs on that stretch), so its not unheard of, but I accept adding in more of these on another hourly cycle could cause issues.
With Oxford to Banbury and back being doable in about an hour I agree there is plenty of IETs to be able to do this as an add on in any case.

PS: The station named 'Tackley' in the diagram is really Appleford.

Whoops! I always have to check the stations on that stretch, and misread a line in the timetable. Corrected now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2021 ==

The plan is to have 4 EWR from Oxford, 2 to Milton Keynes and 2 to Bedford and the Cambridge.
Also what about the 2 Chiltern Trains?
What about Cowley?

How do they fit into your plan?

Well if we can fit an extra train per hour between Oxford and Didcot, and two between Didcot and Reading then take two on to Reading.
The other two that terminate, along with Chiltern, would then use the Oxford bays. Layovers may have to adjust to suit.
Unsure about Cowley, if this was to happen then we would be looking at a more wholesale rebuilding of Oxford.