Should Didcot to Oxford be electrified to release Turbos for work elsewhere?

[nw1]

Agreed - or at least to Westbury or Taunton in one hour and Exeter the other. Notably, these would also be good services for Wellington and Cullumpton. And Tiverton Parkway, lessening the need for Cornwall calls, being the same catchment.

And if hourly, the likes of Pewsey and Castle Cary could also drop off longer distance services.

But I think the ideal is three levels:
1tph Paddington - Westbury/Taunton (semi-fast)
1tph Plymouth alt/Paignton (a bit faster, cover Taunton, Devon calls inc Tiverton Parkway and Newton Abbott, Totnes when Plymouth)
1tph Penzance (fast Reading to Exeter, then to Plymouth (+Totnes if needed)

plus 1tph Bedwyn.

which might help the case for the electric B&H.

Could you dispense of the separate Bedwyn shuttle service (which must be awkward to operate) entirely if you got the Westbury/Taunton semi-fast to cover the calls? Can the semi-fast get to Westbury in time for the following fast to overtake in that case?

Contentiously, to minimise slowing down the service, could Kintbury drop to 1tp2h (with the other calling at Pewsey)?

I would however retain the 1tph Paddington-Newbury on top of that, to avoid having to stop the Westbury/Taunton at Theale and Thatcham, and to give Newbury 2tph to London, which I'd imagine there would be demand for.

 

[The Planner]

The issue with the Western route is the half done electrification, there is no singular route that could be electrified and remove a diesel fleet. A lot of people talking about Oxford, but you still need at least one DMU for Banbury, unless you go all the way for just one train, and even then you aren’t actually cutting that many diagrams. Same with Bedwyn or to Westbury, you can eliminate a DMU with that but it’s only one diagram.

The strongest case might be to infil to Bristol Temple Meads from Chippenham and Stoke Gifford, maybe you’d be able to use 387s to Bristol, or remove some engines from the 802s and convert them to 801s, but that in itself is expensive. The whole thing is a lot of infill that comes out very expensive for the benefit.

Split the Banbury and give the Oxford Banbury portion to Chiltern. You can service group your way out of these issues.

 

[JonathanH]

The strongest case might be to infil to Bristol Temple Meads from Chippenham and Stoke Gifford, maybe you’d be able to use 387s to Bristol, or remove some engines from the 802s and convert them to 801s, but that in itself is expensive. The whole thing is a lot of infill that comes out very expensive for the benefit.

Isn't there just an advantage of being able to operate a further distance using electric power? Why have any fleets got to be displaced? Why is there clamour to use 387s on longer distance services?

 

[YourMum666]

The issue with the Western route is the half done electrification, there is no singular route that could be electrified and remove a diesel fleet. A lot of people talking about Oxford, but you still need at least one DMU for Banbury, unless you go all the way for just one train, and even then you aren’t actually cutting that many diagrams. Same with Bedwyn or to Westbury, you can eliminate a DMU with that but it’s only one diagram.

The strongest case might be to infil to Bristol Temple Meads from Chippenham and Stoke Gifford, maybe you’d be able to use 387s to Bristol, or remove some engines from the 802s and convert them to 801s, but that in itself is expensive. The whole thing is a lot of infill that comes out very expensive for the benefit.

Which is why I believe the whole B&H should be wired to exeter

 

[Benjwri]

Split the Banbury and give the Oxford Banbury portion to Chiltern. You can service group your way out of these issues.

Possible but doubt Oxford could handle another reversal, especially from the North, where it can’t continue straight into a siding.

Isn't there just an advantage of being able to operate a further distance using electric power? Why have any fleets got to be displaced? Why is there clamour to use 387s on longer distance services?

Because there are a lot of them flying around, GWR doesn’t have them but could get hold of 379s as well. The emissions from Chippenham to Bristol don’t really justify wiring it on their own, since you’d also still be running a bunch of far more polluting Turbos under the wires anyways.

Freeing up IETs to increase frequency elsewhere, or capacity, or relieve other routes is a far better business case. If you go to the DfT in the current climate and tell them you want to spend billions to run some already pretty environmentally friendly trains on electricity for a while longer on a line they already run, they aren’t going to say yes.

If you go to them and tell them they can boast about using electric only trains to Bristol that are ‘new’, that it’ll cost less because the IETs are extortionately expensive to run and pay by the mile, and it’ll help solve their aging fleet crisis, you’ll have a far better time.

 

[cle]

Could you dispense of the separate Bedwyn shuttle service (which must be awkward to operate) entirely if you got the Westbury/Taunton semi-fast to cover the calls? Can the semi-fast get to Westbury in time for the following fast to overtake in that case?

Contentiously, to minimise slowing down the service, could Kintbury drop to 1tp2h (with the other calling at Pewsey)?

I would however retain the 1tph Paddington-Newbury on top of that, to avoid having to stop the Westbury/Taunton at Theale and Thatcham, and to give Newbury 2tph to London, which I'd imagine there would be demand for.

Yes I'd agree with this. Newbury should have 2-3tph (the odd fast) and getting to Westbury 1tph brings a lot more network connectivity options (Newbury to Bristol or Southampton etc) - I think the 1tp2h suggestion is ok. Peaks might see the odd extra.

Bedwyn shuttle would ideally go.,

Split the Banbury and give the Oxford Banbury portion to Chiltern. You can service group your way out of these issues.

This could be run by my Oxford-Stratford uA/Moor St services, run by Chiltern. Banbury's main route to London should be to Marylebone.

 

[YourMum666]

If didcot - Oxford gets electrified, why not continue it through Worcester up into bromsgrove, so more of the XC core is electric

 

[zwk500]

If didcot - Oxford gets electrified, why not continue it through Worcester up into bromsgrove, so more of the XC core is electric

Because XC don't run Oxford-Worcester? Electrifying a route that gets a handful of trains an hour isn't a particularly helpful way to go. If you're pushing on from Oxford, EWR and Cherwell Valley come much, much higher up the list than the Cotswolds.

Electrifying Worcester will require that area to be resignalled first, and that's going to take a very long time. As I've mentioned, my next GWR target after Didcot would be Swindon to Gloucester & Cheltenham and completion of both ways into Bristol.

 

[TheWalrus]

I'd like to see the London to Exeter services which call at Newbury, Pewsey, Westbury and Castle Cary made hourly, I reckon there would be enough end to end traffic plus connections at Westbury to make this feasible (and perhaps call at Hungerford as I expect that this is the most used on the Bedwyn bit)

I agree and yes Hungerford is the only busy one of the 3.

Agreed - or at least to Westbury or Taunton in one hour and Exeter the other. Notably, these would also be good services for Wellington and Cullumpton. And Tiverton Parkway, lessening the need for Cornwall calls, being the same catchment.

And if hourly, the likes of Pewsey and Castle Cary could also drop off longer distance services.

But I think the ideal is three levels:
1tph Paddington - Westbury/Taunton (semi-fast)
1tph Plymouth alt/Paignton (a bit faster, cover Taunton, Devon calls inc Tiverton Parkway and Newton Abbott, Totnes when Plymouth)
1tph Penzance (fast Reading to Exeter, then to Plymouth (+Totnes if needed)

plus 1tph Bedwyn.

which might help the case for the electric B&H.

Could drop the Bedwyn with an hourly semi fast London-Exeter calling at Reading Newbury Hungerford Pewsey Westbury Castle Cary Taunton with 2 hourly calls at Kintbury Hungerford Wellington and Cullompton

Could you dispense of the separate Bedwyn shuttle service (which must be awkward to operate) entirely if you got the Westbury/Taunton semi-fast to cover the calls? Can the semi-fast get to Westbury in time for the following fast to overtake in that case?

Contentiously, to minimise slowing down the service, could Kintbury drop to 1tp2h (with the other calling at Pewsey)?

I would however retain the 1tph Paddington-Newbury on top of that, to avoid having to stop the Westbury/Taunton at Theale and Thatcham, and to give Newbury 2tph to London, which I'd imagine there would be demand for.

I agree been saying this should happen for years.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Possible but doubt Oxford could handle another reversal, especially from the North, where it can’t continue straight into a siding.

That’s proposed to be addressed for EWR, either with new siding(s) south of the station or by using the Cowley branch line.

 

[Falcon1200]

A lot of people talking about Oxford, but you still need at least one DMU for Banbury, unless you go all the way for just one train

Electrifying just 10 miles from Didcot to Oxford enables four trains each hour to go from diesel to electric operation. True, one DMU would still be required for Oxford/Banbury stoppers, but as @The Planner says, this could become a Chiltern service.

Possible but doubt Oxford could handle another reversal, especially from the North, where it can’t continue straight into a siding.

Turnround times at Oxford should be short with, if required by the timetable, extended turnround times at Banbury, where capacity would not be an issue.

 

[nw1]

Personally, in the longer term, I think they should electrify Didcot to Oxford and use 387s on London to Oxford shuttles to release a couple of sets.

I'd say ASAP for a various reasons, many already mentioned:

- Allows the Didcot stoppers to work through to Oxford, restoring direct links there from the smaller stations Reading-Didcot.

- Allows the Oxford-terminating fasts to go over to EMU, allowing them to operate as 8- or 12-car;

- Allows peak additional Paddington-Reading-Didcot-Oxford 'crowd-buster' fasts using EMUs (paths permitting). (In fact I remember the draft post-electrification timetable did show such things, with 2tph fast to Oxford off-peak and 3tph in the peak, two being terminators).

Oxford is a regional centre so it would to my mind make sense to electrify there far before anything further north is considered.

 

[Benjwri]

Electrifying just 10 miles from Didcot to Oxford enables four trains each hour to go from diesel to electric operation. True, one DMU would still be required for Oxford/Banbury stoppers, but as @The Planner says, this could become a Chiltern service.

It only being 10 miles is part of the issue though. It had the strongest case as part of the wider GW program, but electrifying 10 miles alone is going to be far more expensive because of the mobilisation costs, costs of disruption etc, that don’t scale with the distance electrification. Enablement works for the electrification were also never completed, the surveying stakes done for masts have been long lost, Nuneham needs to be reconsidered post reconstruction, and the Oxford layout needs to be redesigned. There is also at least one problem bridge and the old Culham ticket office that will be quite costly to change.

It would definitely bring benefits, probably more than most other schemes, but it will be able very costly for the distance, far more than something like Chippenham through to Bristol that is fully enabled, and could be part of a larger scheme.

 

[12LDA28C]

That’s proposed to be addressed for EWR, either with new siding(s) south of the station or by using the Cowley branch line.

There's a shunt available south of Oxford station from Platform 3 behind OD6971 signal on the UOR to get a train out of the way of through services. Of course the West Midlands sidings on the Down side south of the station would have been ideal but they are long gone.

True, one DMU would still be required for Oxford/Banbury stoppers, but as @The Planner says, this could become a Chiltern service.

Indeed, with Banbury drivers' depot already signing the route via Heyford, although stock might be an issue unless a couple of 165s transferred from GWR to Chiltern.

 

[Benjwri]

although stock might be an issue unless a couple of 165s transferred from GWR to Chiltern.

Who knows what the rolling stock situation would be by the time this was completed, especially with rumblings of new GWR local trains at some point.

 

[cle]

So nobody seems quite clear on how many north-facing bays at Oxford there will be, if the current up platform is converted into an island - as part of the proposed main station works? If another was built, so there were two bays and then two through roads on that side, might that be enough? Especially with Cowley, and the p2 is through/bi-di for that purpose.

I'd think:
P0 and P1 - 2-3tph Marylebone, 1tph Banbury (and Moor St/Stratford), 2tph Bedford
P2 - 4tph MKC-Cowley (2tph each way)
P3 - XC and Paddington fasts towards Reading
Freight road
P4 - Padd semis
P5 - XC and Cotswolds fasts north/westbound (assume Hanborough solve)

but the EWR + Chiltern services make it pretty cramped. Could a third bay fit? And I'm probably missing something.

 

[12LDA28C]

So nobody seems quite clear on how many north-facing bays at Oxford there will be, if the current up platform is converted into an island - as part of the proposed main station works? If another was built, so there were two bays and then two through roads on that side, might that be enough? Especially with Cowley, and the p2 is through/bi-di for that purpose.

I'd think:
P0 and P1 - 2-3tph Marylebone, 1tph Banbury (and Moor St/Stratford), 2tph Bedford
P2 - 4tph MKC-Cowley (2tph each way)
P3 - XC and Paddington fasts towards Reading
Freight road
P4 - Padd semis
P5 - XC and Cotswolds fasts north/westbound (assume Hanborough solve)

but the EWR + Chiltern services make it pretty cramped. Could a third bay fit? And I'm probably missing something.

Where are you getting the information from that the Up platform will be converted to an island? I've not heard that anywhere.

 

[zwk500]

Where are you getting the information from that the Up platform will be converted to an island? I've not heard that anywhere.

It's an option that any work is required to leave provision for, IIRC, but nobody is proposing it be done any time soon. EWR proposal is here: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/routeupdate/route-update-report#RoutePreferences, and the plan is for an additional siding south of P3 for turnback.

Diagram from East-West Rail project website showing additional turnback siding, platform 5 and potential future worksite at Oxford North Junction and the Cowley Branch.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's an option that any work is required to leave provision for, IIRC, but nobody is proposing it be done any time soon. EWR proposal is here: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/routeupdate/route-update-report#RoutePreferences, and the plan is for an additional siding south of P3 for turnback.

Not sure I see the need for that additional siding given my post #104. That shunt can be done now on the UOR, allowing southbound trains to pass.

 

[zwk500]

Not sure I see the need for that additional siding given my post #104. That shunt can be done now on the UOR, allowing southbound trains to pass.

I haven't seen the timetabling, and the commentary on the website isn't wonderfully clear. I'm also not sure what the layout would be post-Platform 5 commissioning, but at present if you shunted south onto the UOR you'd need to hold freight north of the Station to avoid fouling the crossovers to/from the Up Sidings (P5 may resolve that as turnback in P4 would remove the need for so many shunts) if you want to put a passenger unit out ahead. Possible but awkward to time.
The suggestion on the website is that the siding would only be needed when trains went to 4tph on EWR, and that if Cowley was reopened trains could be sent up the branch and the siding wouldn't be needed.

 

[Benjwri]

The uncertainly over whats happening with a total rebuild is also another reason electrification can’t happen, until it’s decided they could do electrification then have to tear it all down again and mobilise the contractors to put it back up.

 

[zwk500]

The uncertainly over whats happening with a total rebuild is also another reason electrification can’t happen, until it’s decided they could do electrification then have to tear it all down again and mobilise the contractors to put it back up.

While it's certainly advisable to rebuild first then put the wires up, it would be a relatively small percentage of electrification that needed to move, and all the big bits like Feeder Stations wouldn't be affected. Waiting for Platform 5 is reasonable, as there's certainty over what happens with that. But refusing to electrify one of the most obvious cases for it in the country because of something that might, could happen one day would be to let perfection play Brutus to Good's Ceaser.

 

[swt_passenger]

While it's certainly advisable to rebuild first then put the wires up, it would be a relatively small percentage of electrification that needed to move, and all the big bits like Feeder Stations wouldn't be affected. Waiting for Platform 5 is reasonable, as there's certainty over what happens with that. But refusing to electrify one of the most obvious cases for it in the country because of something that might, could happen one day would be to let perfection play Brutus to Good's Ceaser.

I‘m sure I remember a post somewhere a couple of years ago pointing out that the future layout including P5 was already fixed and electrification was effectively already possible. Sometimes seems to be a convenient reason for deferral - and as you say it would be farcical to defer it until such time as a through platform 1 was needed, as that’s really only on a local authority future wish list.

 

[cle]

It is definitely in the Oxford CC plans - but maybe they don't mean all too much. Does seem like with all these newer services, something has to give... might push Cowley to being real.

P5 and the western entrance may well become the prime entrance for periods of works, so it definitely needs to be sequential and in place.

But agreed, not a reason to not wire it all once P5 goes active.

 

[zwk500]

It is definitely in the Oxford CC plans - but maybe they don't mean all too much. Does seem like with all these newer services, something has to give... might push Cowley to being real.

It's in the plans to stop somebody building anything right in the path of it. Doesn't mean it's definitely going to happen at any point (see also all the old protected trackbeds that have no hope of ever moving on from being cycleways).

Cowley will sink or float on any commuting flows it can support, be that people going to Cowley for work or massive housing development attracting Oxford city centre commuters. You don't reopen an entire line to save on a siding and some shunting.

P5 and the western entrance may well become the prime entrance for periods of works, so it definitely needs to be sequential and in place.

If it had been done at the time of the GWML stuff when it first got pulled, you could quite easily have installed the masts where they needed to be for P5 - they're not moving any existing track over than possibly some pointwork, the changes would have been rather minor in the scheme of things. However as you get closer to the rebuild it's better to just let the P5 guys come in and do their thing before coming back later.

 

[eldomtom2]

assuming a shunting option is present to solve the loading under wires issue.

Batteries seem like the obvious solution - don't need that much power or range for shunting...

 

[zwk500]

Batteries seem like the obvious solution - don't need that much power or range for shunting...

Tbh with the length of the train loaded at Mendip quarries it might well be feasible just to terminate the wire on the loading road short of the pad and propel the wagons from one end.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Cowley will sink or float on any commuting flows it can support, be that people going to Cowley for work or massive housing development attracting Oxford city centre commuters.

The latter is very likely. There are already 3000 houses planned for the land immediately south of Grenoble Road; I would expect the Kassam Stadium to be demolished in due course, and that land (plus adjacent parking) also used for housing.

 

[zwk500]

The latter is very likely. There are already 3000 houses planned for the land immediately south of Grenoble Road; I would expect the Kassam Stadium to be demolished in due course, and that land (plus adjacent parking) also used for housing.

This is interesting - it's fairly new as Football Stadia goes and has space for expansion, are the football team in desparate need of cash or something?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Oxford United fell out with their owner, the eponymous Firoz Kassam. He sold up in (I think) 2018 and they're now due to move out - in fact they're currently consulting on a new stadium by Oxford Parkway.

Kassam himself is a... let's say "ruthless" property developer:

Kassam made his fortune as a slum hotelier and in the 1980s was labelled a "merchant of misery".[5] He bought run-down London hostels and hotels and was paid by local councils to fill them with homeless people and asylum seekers, until the tenants rebelled over the conditions in which they were being housed.

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firoz_Kassam)

A mostly vacant stadium is not going to earn him much. Selling the site for housing is almost certainly the best return he's going to get.