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

[zwk500]

I read this as “the trains are too full, so nobody uses them?” Schrödinger’s train?

To be fair it's not a completely mad thing - the perception that the train is too full can put people off even trying, so they don't discover it's not as full as they thought.

Apparently Leicester Tigers had a small problem after their big main stand opened, as people had got used to the Tigers selling every match out so didn't bother looking and hadn't realised that due to the massively increased capacity there were many more tickets available.

 

[JonathanH]

What is sensible is to widen the market to bring money to rail rather than car (and to a lesser extent coach). Thus GWR provides the more expensive fast option, and Chiltern a cheaper slow option as well as connectivity to "Metro-Land" and surrounds. That's what happened.

The rail industry absolutely doesn't need to chase the coach market though, or perhaps people are wanting the railway to destroy the coach market, and then put up fares, since there is no longer competition?

As is often pointed out, the numbers of people travelling by bus and coach on railway corridors is small, so there isn't always that much market to chase.

 

[mangyiscute]

The rail industry absolutely doesn't need to chase the coach market though, or perhaps people are wanting the railway to destroy the coach market, and then put up fares, since there is no longer competition?

I see it from the view of if people are choosing to take the coach because the train is too expensive/too full or whatever reason it may be, then the railways are clearly failing the people. Railways are a public service who should serve anyone who wants to travel, they are not a money making machine.

 

[zwk500]

I see it from the view of if people are choosing to take the coach because the train is too expensive/too full or whatever reason it may be, then the railways are clearly failing the people. Railways are a public service who should serve anyone who wants to travel, they are not a money making machine.

But if it's the case people are choosing to take the coach because it serves their journey better due to the stop location and overall journey time then the railway shouldn't chase business that doesn't want it when there's plenty of people who do want the train.

 

[JonathanH]

Railways are a public service who should serve anyone who wants to travel, they are not a money making machine.

The railways absolutely aren't a money making machine. They are losing a lot of money at present.

I see it from the view of if people are choosing to take the coach because the train is too expensive/too full or whatever reason it may be, then the railways are clearly failing the people.

I see it from the view that coaches offer an alternative option for people who want to use them, recognising that they are slower. If coaches are cheaper than the railway, that is because the overheads are less.

Coaches are neither a threat to the railway, nor a form of transport that should be dismissed as not being worthy. They operate on a very limited number of routes.

 

[mangyiscute]

The railways absolutely aren't a money making machine. They are losing a lot of money at present.


I see it from the view that coaches offer an alternative option for people who want to use them, recognising that they are slower. If coaches are cheaper than the railway, that is because the overheads are less.

Coaches are neither a threat to the railway, nor a form of transport that should be dismissed as not being worthy. They operate on a very limited number of routes.

I mean it from the point of view that if people are choosing a coach over a train, then the current train service is not good enough, whether thats price, frequency or capacity that needs improving.

 

[The Planner]

It's a pity the (more) direct route between Oxford and PRincess Risborough got lifted and redeveloped, that would probably make Marylebone more competitive.

It would needed a wholesale rebuilding anyway as it was mostly single and never double track so all the bridges and tunnels would have needed doing. Bicester Oxford still had the double track formation.

 

[12LDA28C]

I mean it from the point of view that if people are choosing a coach over a train, then the current train service is not good enough, whether thats price, frequency or capacity that needs improving.

They cater for different markets. You seem to be claiming that the train fare should be similar to the coach fare to entice passengers to use rail. Either that, or train should provide a better / faster service / experience and charge more for it. Well, that's what happens.

 

[Falcon1200]

I see it from the view of if people are choosing to take the coach because the train is too expensive/too full or whatever reason it may be, then the railways are clearly failing the people. Railways are a public service who should serve anyone who wants to travel, they are not a money making machine.

Could it not equally be said that if people are choosing to take the train rather than the coach, despite the latter apparently being cheaper, not full, and with more convenient stops in London, then coach operators are clearly failing the people? Should the railways reduce fares and provide more capacity so as to drive out the remaining coach operator on the route?

At the moment passengers have the choice of two rail routes and one (previously two of course) coach operator, and as all three are still operating presumably they all serve useful, if perhaps different, purposes.

 

[12LDA28C]

The railways absolutely aren't a money making machine. They are losing a lot of money at present.

Many people who bemoan the railways losing money and getting subsidy from the Government are the very same ones who are advocating the return of British Rail. 'Go figure', as no doubt an American might say.

 

[Bald Rick]

I see it from the view of if people are choosing to take the coach because the train is too expensive/too full

But they are not too expensive / too full, that’s the point.

The point is that the coach serves some people’s journey better. And the railway can’t hope to serve every journey Requirement.

 

[Trainbike46]

But they are not too expensive / too full, that’s the point.

The point is that the coach serves some people’s journey better. And the railway can’t hope to serve every journey Requirement.

I regularly encounter people who believe the railway is way more expensive than it actually is, and therefore won't even bother looking at buying a train ticket. That (incorrect) perception does hurt passenger numbers, but is obviously a hard one to solve!

 

[eldomtom2]

I regularly encounter people who believe the railway is way more expensive than it actually is, and therefore won't even bother looking at buying a train ticket. That (incorrect) perception does hurt passenger numbers, but is obviously a hard one to solve!

The only real way to solve that problem I feel is to clamp down on demand-based pricing...

 

[mangyiscute]

But they are not too expensive / too full, that’s the point.

If you frequently take an Oxford to London train, I think you will change your mind on that "not too full" point. Even the starters at Oxford to Paddington leave with people standing, especially at weekends.
I do think more could be done to advertise taking a Cross Country service and change at Reading, since these services (especially Reading terminators) can be quieter than the London trains, but people don't realise they can take them for London. Although I'm yet to see how they cope going down to single units.

 

[cle]

The Oxford Tube picked up far closer to many students than the train is. The train is more widely used by day trippers, business travellers, other tourists... it's a mix. And a fine one. Many Asian tourists combine it with Bicester, they'll likely be on Chiltern.

And yet the train service is far better, and quicker than it was. Might need a few years to percolate.

In an ideal world Chiltern could run 3tph:
Marylebone - High Wycombe - Bicester - Oxford P - Oxford
Marylebone - Haddenham - Bicester - Oxford P - Oxford
Marylebone - Gerrards Cross - Beaconsfield - HW - Princes R - Bicester...

And Paddington-Oxford would have the 4tph.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The point is that the coach serves some people’s journey better. And the railway can’t hope to serve every journey Requirement.

This.

What people are missing is that the coach starts in the city centre (at Gloucester Green), runs directly down the High and past the Plain, then through Headington to the Thornhill P&R, before joining the M40 to London. For very significant numbers of Oxford residents, including pretty much anyone at Oxford Brookes, this is much more convenient than travelling to the railway station - especially for off-peak leisure travel where the train's journey time advantage is less compelling.

 

[12LDA28C]

In an ideal world Chiltern could run 3tph:
Marylebone - High Wycombe - Bicester - Oxford P - Oxford
Marylebone - Haddenham - Bicester - Oxford P - Oxford
Marylebone - Gerrards Cross - Beaconsfield - HW - Princes R - Bicester...

And Paddington-Oxford would have the 4tph.

You're assuming that the Chiltern main line south of Bicester South Junction, and Marylebone in particular have the capacity for an extra Oxford train per hour. I realise we are hypothesising but even if the current fleet issues are overcome at some point in the future, you'll be lucky to get an extra train in and out of London every hour, not to mention Oxford itself.

 

[mangyiscute]

This.

What people are missing is that the coach starts in the city centre (at Gloucester Green), runs directly down the High and past the Plain, then through Headington to the Thornhill P&R, before joining the M40 to London. For very significant numbers of Oxford residents, including pretty much anyone at Oxford Brookes, this is much more convenient than travelling to the railway station - especially for off-peak leisure travel where the train's journey time advantage is less compelling.

I've made it clear that I know that, but plenty of people board in the centre where its just a 10 minute walk to the station.

 

[cle]

You're assuming that the Chiltern main line south of Bicester South Junction, and Marylebone in particular have the capacity for an extra Oxford train per hour. I realise we are hypothesising but even if the current fleet issues are overcome at some point in the future, you'll be lucky to get an extra train in and out of London every hour, not to mention Oxford itself.

I am, and I believe they do. But if necessary, this might just be in some hours - and there are many peak extras. Or HW terminators to extend.

Combining HW and Haddenham calls into a single fast, and then having a single semi, might be more realistic if it had to be 2tph. 2tph fast is never going to compete with Paddington ~50mins these days.

 

[HSTEd]

I‘d expect nothing less than a Chiltern Shinkansen.

In this case I would suggest Oxford as being on a South Wales Shinkansen. Birmingham traffic would probably be via a line in the MML/WCML corridor (Luton, Northampton et al)

But in reality, the railway needs to get electrification costs under control if it wants to get more money for more electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

The only real way to solve that problem I feel is to clamp down on demand-based pricing...

What do you mean by ‘clamp down’?

The railway has demand based pricing for as long as I can remember.

 

[Trainbike46]

The only real way to solve that problem I feel is to clamp down on demand-based pricing...

I'm not sure that's true, because the problem with perceived pricing is that it has very little link to actual pricing.

 

[eldomtom2]

What do you mean by ‘clamp down’?

The railway has demand based pricing for as long as I can remember.

I'm not sure that's true, because the problem with perceived pricing is that it has very little link to actual pricing.

A big factor causing perceived pricing to be high is high walk-up fares.

 

[deltic08]

I have just been counting the overbridges between Westbury and Newbury on a drivers eye view video. There are only 13 that are arched and less between Bedwyn and Newbury. Out of 13, 3 appear to be high enough not to need rebuilding. All the rest have either been raised already or are flat spans.
How many Turbos would be released by electrifying to Westbury or Bedwyn from Newbury? Apart from IETs being able to operate further on electric, wouldn't it be more cost effective and quicker in the long run to build new bimode units?

 

[islandmonkey]

I have just been counting the overbridges between Westbury and Newbury on a drivers eye view video. There are only 13 that are arched and less between Bedwyn and Newbury. Out of 13, 3 appear to be high enough not to need rebuilding. All the rest have either been raised already or are flat spans.
How many Turbos would be released by electrifying to Westbury or Bedwyn from Newbury? Apart from IETs being able to operate further on electric, wouldn't it be more cost effective and quicker in the long run to build new bimode units?

I believe the BCR of Newbury to Westbury electrification was around 0.3-0.4? So even with a mass initiative of rolling electrification, this scheme would land at bottom of the priority list.

The Reading to Taunton line kinda sucks for expansion and modification, there's no room for a new Devizes station pathing wise, Pewsey's timetable is barely clockface, Bedwyn can't get a through service to Paddington, the trains whizz straight through station-less Langport and Somerton.

 

[JonathanH]

How many Turbos would be released by electrifying to Westbury or Bedwyn from Newbury?

One.

 

[deltic08]

Thanks. I thought it would be low for the expense of all that electrification. Would it be better operationally to run electrics instead of a diesel island of one service?
To electrify all mainlines there are going to be lines with low BCR until more lines become done. The B&H will always be low priority until Bristol-Taunton-Exeter-Plymouth is wired and XC are operating bimodes

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at the thread title, it seems the cost of electrifying a line just to allow a fleet to work elsewhere is something that would be met with derision by those railway bodies who financially have to fully vet such proposals.

Can you imagine Transport for Wales sanctioning the electrification of the Bidston to Wrexham line in order to see the end of the five Class 230 units that they spent good money on?

 

[mangyiscute]

Looking at the thread title, it seems the cost of electrifying a line just to allow a fleet to work elsewhere is something that would be met with derision by those railway bodies who financially have to fully vet such proposals.

Can you imagine Transport for Wales sanctioning the electrification of the Bidston to Wrexham line in order to see the end of the five Class 230 units that they spent good money on?

I don't think the thread title is great, the benefits of electrifying the Didcot to Oxford line are far greater than just releasing a few turbos. I think most people are in the general agreement that it should happen asap (or perhaps once the works at Oxford are done, although imo since theyre gonna have to shut the line for those works anyway that's the ideal time to do the work) but sadly we don't get to make the decisions

 

[The Planner]

Looking at the thread title, it seems the cost of electrifying a line just to allow a fleet to work elsewhere is something that would be met with derision by those railway bodies who financially have to fully vet such proposals.

Can you imagine Transport for Wales sanctioning the electrification of the Bidston to Wrexham line in order to see the end of the five Class 230 units that they spent good money on?

If it was 25 units they certainly would.