Cotswold Line improvements debated in the House of Commons

jayah · 6 Feb 2020

jimm said:
In what way does it need a rethink of the Banbury IETs? There is one train into London in the morning and one back in the evening... and until someone comes up with the £200m for the infrastructure, not exactly something to concern anyone.

In addition to the garden village at Eynsham, there are more than 300 new homes approved in Hanborough itself, including some going up right now next to the station, 300 just to the east at Woodstock, with the Blenheim Estate wanting to get more land allocated for development to build several hundred more there, and the best part of 30,000 people down the road in Witney, with yet more houses being built there as well.

Which all adds up to a lot more cars heading to Oxford unless people can be offered alternatives - which is why there is a focus on Hanborough. It is not just a station for the village and that has been the case for a long time now, which is why passenger traffic has grown from just over 60,000 a year in 2000 to over 220,000 now - and it had hit 270,000 in the year before Oxford Parkway opened.

The full business case report does say that there needs to be more work done on the possibility of extending extra local trains from Hanborough to Charlbury and Moreton-in-Marsh - but without further redoubling that will depend on what line occupation time on the remaining single-track section is like with four trains using it each hour.

In the case of custom from new housing in Chipping Norton, there is spare parking capacity at Kingham as a result of the extension opened there in 2015 and land to expand is also available should it be required. Whereas doing anything to expand parking at Charlbury is profoundly difficult and likely to be very costly - and no one would want any more traffic in Thames Street and Dyers Hill if it can be avoided.

Kingham is slightly closer to Chipping Norton and a shorter drive, so I would have thought a spot of targeted marketing to direct people there would help - might also be an idea to get the developers to pay for a reinstated X8 railbus link.

As for the indicative train service pattern/timetable, there is no getting away from the fact that westbound traffic from the stations at the eastern end of the line is thin and only really picks up from Moreton-in-Marsh onwards - and Moreton is a far nicer spot to switch trains should it be needed than Haddenham & Thame Parkway, to take an example of where a similar transfer is needed to make some station-to-station journeys on Chiltern services.

And any actual timetable and service pattern is still a long way from becoming a reality.

You seem to be ducking a big issue what to do with two full length trains arriving at Oxford every hour in the peak, both destined for Worcester. Banbury is also an issue as both these new trains are using the second hourly path north of Oxford.

As per usual, Shire county planning is a complete mess. More and more houses going up in totally unsuitable places, with almost no public transport and ever larger car parks to cater for rail travel. Only at Hanborough do we see the faintest glimmer of hope with somebody realising you can actually build houses near to a mainline railway station - people might not even need to drive to use it. Kingham and Pershore are pretty much devoid of any local housing, even Moreton is green fields to the north and yet we are told there is no suitable land.

RailUK Forums

jimm · 7 Feb 2020

jayah said:
You seem to be ducking a big issue what to do with two full length trains arriving at Oxford every hour in the peak, both destined for Worcester. Banbury is also an issue as both these new trains are using the second hourly path north of Oxford.

As per usual, Shire county planning is a complete mess. More and more houses going up in totally unsuitable places, with almost no public transport and ever larger car parks to cater for rail travel. Only at Hanborough do we see the faintest glimmer of hope with somebody realising you can actually build houses near to a mainline railway station - people might not even need to drive to use it. Kingham and Pershore are pretty much devoid of any local housing, even Moreton is green fields to the north and yet we are told there is no suitable land.

And you seem, like the previous poster, to be getting ahead of yourself here.

Please could you tell me how you know anything about train formations and operational considerations, when the project is a long way from the start line?

The evening Banbury train is so unreliable when it comes to punctuality, as a result of what can potentially get in its way from Didcot onwards, I'd be amazed if anyone is using it north of Oxford anyway.

A lot of new houses are now going up very close to Pershore station actually. The area around Kingham station is not great in terms of flooding issues... a lot of houses have just been/still are being built at the north end of Moreton-in-Marsh and there is a large area of land on the southern edge that a developer has optioned, some of it is designated for homes in the local plan, and the developer is at the planning stage for a first batch of houses.

Maybe, like anyone going 'why Hanborough', a quick bit of research might be an idea.

jayah · 7 Feb 2020

jimm said:
And you seem, like the previous poster, to be getting ahead of yourself here.

Please could you tell me how you know anything about train formations and operational considerations, when the project is a long way from the start line?

The evening Banbury train is so unreliable when it comes to punctuality, as a result of what can potentially get in its way from Didcot onwards, I'd be amazed if anyone is using it north of Oxford anyway.

A lot of new houses are now going up very close to Pershore station actually. The area around Kingham station is not great in terms of flooding issues... a lot of houses have just been/still are being built at the north end of Moreton-in-Marsh and there is a large area of land on the southern edge that a developer has optioned, some of it is designated for homes in the local plan, and the developer is at the planning stage for a first batch of houses.

Maybe, like anyone going 'why Hanborough', a quick bit of research might be an idea.

It has already been mentioned that the plan is to use the second hourly fast path from London for the extra services. The problem with projecting even more peak formations far into the Cotswolds is pretty evident.

As you have noted it is not just the Banbury line that suffers from poor punctuality. There is already a case of over ambitious track occupancy northwest of Oxford and adding more double track and more services is not going to make that any better.

Charlbury is at least as deserving of extra trains to Oxford as Hanborough is and currently is better used by around a third.

Doctor Fegg · 7 Feb 2020

jimm said:
In the case of custom from new housing in Chipping Norton, there is spare parking capacity at Kingham as a result of the extension opened there in 2015 and land to expand is also available should it be required. Whereas doing anything to expand parking at Charlbury is profoundly difficult and likely to be very costly - and no one would want any more traffic in Thames Street and Dyers Hill if it can be avoided.

Kingham is slightly closer to Chipping Norton and a shorter drive, so I would have thought a spot of targeted marketing to direct people there would help - might also be an idea to get the developers to pay for a reinstated X8 railbus link.

Certainly a good idea - the X8 is sorely missed.

Ultimately, though, a Charlbury-Paddington annual season is £500ish cheaper than a Kingham-Paddington one, which is why a fair number of Chipping Norton commuters already use Charlbury in preference to Kingham (I know a handful, and the volume of traffic every time I cycle along the Spelsbury Road shortly after a down train comes in shows they're far from alone!). East CN will be equidistant from Charlbury and Kingham - Google Maps reckons 10 minutes from the south end of the development to either station.

Though you're right about parking being easier at Kingham, that's not an issue for someone whose regular commute is the 6.00/6.30/7.15 train: Charlbury isn't full up by that point so you might as well save the £500, and 10 minutes' travelling time each way. And, of course, the more people travel on the early trains, the sooner the car park fills up for the later ones. (Personally I think the Charlbury car park expansion is less insuperable than it's sometimes painted, but I should be careful what I say lest people think the Town Council is recommending a particular development...)

Whether it's Kingham or Charlbury, ultimately there are going to be 2000+ new residents in Chippy who, under the current plans, are only being offered the same old hourly service.

As for the indicative train service pattern/timetable, there is no getting away from the fact that westbound traffic from the stations at the eastern end of the line is thin and only really picks up from Moreton-in-Marsh onwards - and Moreton is a far nicer spot to switch trains should it be needed than Haddenham & Thame Parkway, to take an example of where a similar transfer is needed to make some station-to-station journeys on Chiltern services.

And any actual timetable and service pattern is still a long way from becoming a reality.

Indeed, there's a long way to go before any real timetable comes into effect. I would be astonished if Kidderminster really does end up with an hourly off-peak Paddington service - it merits one or two extensions at best IMO, and I can't believe that GWR would consider one-third of the ORCATS share between Kidderminster and Worcester worthwhile for tying up an IET for the extra hours each day.

But it's disappointing that no-one has been fighting the corner for improvements at Charlbury or Kingham, not even our county council, which is why we (local passengers and the Town Council) need to start agitating for them. There are local elections in May and then the whole of OCC is up for election next year, which may focus minds a little.

jimm · 8 Feb 2020

jayah said:
It has already been mentioned that the plan is to use the second hourly fast path from London for the extra services. The problem with projecting even more peak formations far into the Cotswolds is pretty evident.

As you have noted it is not just the Banbury line that suffers from poor punctuality. There is already a case of over ambitious track occupancy northwest of Oxford and adding more double track and more services is not going to make that any better.

Charlbury is at least as deserving of extra trains to Oxford as Hanborough is and currently is better used by around a third.

Er yes. But where we are now and where we might be should this scheme come to fruition are two different places.

The need to sort out the Oxford to Didcot corridor and Oxford station - and all the things that could flow from doing those things, such as having an Oxford station able to cope with splitting and joining of services without stuffing up other trains for miles around - are well-known. The rail corridor was discussed by the Oxfordshire Growth Board just the other day.

The first stage of a study into railways across Oxfordshire will be discussed by the Oxfordshire Growth Board in Didcot Civic Hall tomorrow afternoon.

According to the Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study, work on the railway between Oxford and Didcot is 'fundamental' to most other rail upgrades across the county, including the Cowley branch line.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18186094.oxford-railway-lines-future-agenda-growth-board-meeting/

Doctor Fegg said:
Certainly a good idea - the X8 is sorely missed.

Ultimately, though, a Charlbury-Paddington annual season is £500ish cheaper than a Kingham-Paddington one, which is why a fair number of Chipping Norton commuters already use Charlbury in preference to Kingham (I know a handful, and the volume of traffic every time I cycle along the Spelsbury Road shortly after a down train comes in shows they're far from alone!). East CN will be equidistant from Charlbury and Kingham - Google Maps reckons 10 minutes from the south end of the development to either station.

Though you're right about parking being easier at Kingham, that's not an issue for someone whose regular commute is the 6.00/6.30/7.15 train: Charlbury isn't full up by that point so you might as well save the £500, and 10 minutes' travelling time each way. And, of course, the more people travel on the early trains, the sooner the car park fills up for the later ones. (Personally I think the Charlbury car park expansion is less insuperable than it's sometimes painted, but I should be careful what I say lest people think the Town Council is recommending a particular development...)

Whether it's Kingham or Charlbury, ultimately there are going to be 2000+ new residents in Chippy who, under the current plans, are only being offered the same old hourly service.

Indeed, there's a long way to go before any real timetable comes into effect. I would be astonished if Kidderminster really does end up with an hourly off-peak Paddington service - it merits one or two extensions at best IMO, and I can't believe that GWR would consider one-third of the ORCATS share between Kidderminster and Worcester worthwhile for tying up an IET for the extra hours each day.

But it's disappointing that no-one has been fighting the corner for improvements at Charlbury or Kingham, not even our county council, which is why we (local passengers and the Town Council) need to start agitating for them. There are local elections in May and then the whole of OCC is up for election next year, which may focus minds a little.

There is nothing stopping GWR adjusting the fares to encourage people to go to Kingham. For example, Oxford and Didcot to London season tickets cost the same amount and have done for years, in part to discourage people from driving to Didcot for a perceived 'saving'. And for whatever reason, parking at Charlbury is cheaper (30p a day or so) than Kingham or Moreton-in-Marsh.

Not that people ever seem to take account of the real costs of the driving bit of such journeys, in the same way some people have taken to driving from Worcester to Warwick Parkway - or Charlbury to Oxford Parkway. Which won't be doing much for air pollution through Woodstock, which was bad long before the Parkway opened.

The problems of traffic and pollution around Oxford are, understandably, a big issue for the county council, which is why the focus is on Hanborough, as they perceive that developing the service there is one way to help address those problems by getting all those people from Witney, in particular, to head there and get a train into the city. Many do this already, of course.

In Worcestershire, Kidderminster is, in part, a good place to turn trains round, with most of the passengers north of Worcester probably expected to come from Droitwich. And the county council has raised the possibility of a new station at or near Fernhill Heath (a request stop to set down passengers by the Kidderminster portion of the afternoon down run of the Cathedrals Express in the early 1960s), to act as a mini-Parkway for the north of Worcester, which would seem an obvious place to serve, should it be built.

tago · 9 Feb 2020

A cynic might argue that as Hanborough is just outside both Oxford’s Green Belt and the Cotswold AONB, any train improvements might be a receptacle for future major Southward expansion of the village.....!

davetheguard · 9 Feb 2020

tago said:
A cynic might argue that as Hanborough is just outside both Oxford’s Green Belt and the Cotswold AONB, any train improvements might be a receptacle for future major Southward expansion of the village.....!

Only a cynic? I'm sure that these are just the sort of things considered -amongst others- when proposals for new & enhanced infrastructure come up.

Tobbes · 9 Feb 2020

I'm confused about why the slightly served and used stations between Hanborough and Charlbury are the reason for not double tracking this section.

If the political will to close them doesn't exist, and you don't want to pay for a second platform, lifts and whatnot (sensible given the cost) why not redouble the section and use the existing bi-di signalling with a set of points at each end to allow a small number of stopping services to use the existing single platform and have a plain line double track running through the station site?

tago · 9 Feb 2020

See post 16.

Tobbes · 9 Feb 2020

tago said:
See post 16.

Yes, but I'm confused about why what I was proposing wasn't possible.

jimm · 9 Feb 2020

Tobbes said:
I'm confused about why the slightly served and used stations between Hanborough and Charlbury are the reason for not double tracking this section.

If the political will to close them doesn't exist, and you don't want to pay for a second platform, lifts and whatnot (sensible given the cost) why not redouble the section and use the existing bi-di signalling with a set of points at each end to allow a small number of stopping services to use the existing single platform and have a plain line double track running through the station site?

Redoubling in that area is not needed in order to deliver the services proposed in the business case report sent to the DfT.

There are other bits of the infrastructure on that section that would likely need expensive work to take double track again, before you even get to the question of the two halts.

In the case of Finstock the platform is built out on to the trackbed over where the former down (towards Worcester) line was, so if you redouble then you have to close the station or rebuild it from scratch, no ifs or buts. This picture by Martin Loader shows the platform under construction in 1986.

http://www.hondawanderer.com/Finstock_Station_1986.htm

No one is ever going to waste money on points to allow one train a day to operate wrong line for almost seven miles in the manner you suggest. In any case the platform at Combe is on the north side of the formation, while the one at Finstock is on the south side.

Even if you moved the platform at Finstock back to the location of the one closed in 1986, that would cost a lot of money which the DfT wouldn't wear, even if rather more passengers use Finstock than the shiny £2.4m edifice that the Scottish Government provided at Breich for all of 342 passengers in 2018-19.

Tobbes · 9 Feb 2020

jimm said:
Redoubling in that area is not needed in order to deliver the services proposed in the business case report sent to the DfT.

There are other bits of the infrastructure on that section that would likely need expensive work to take double track again, before you even get to the question of the two halts.

In the case of Finstock the platform is built out on to the trackbed over where the former down (towards Worcester) line was, so if you redouble then you have to close the station or rebuild it from scratch, no ifs or buts. This picture by Martin Loader shows the platform under construction in 1986.

http://www.hondawanderer.com/Finstock_Station_1986.htm

No one is ever going to waste money on points to allow one train a day to operate wrong line for almost seven miles in the manner you suggest. In any case the platform at Combe is on the north side of the formation, while the one at Finstock is on the south side.

Even if you moved the platform at Finstock back to the location of the one closed in 1986, that would cost a lot of money which the DfT wouldn't wear, even if rather more passengers use Finstock than the shiny £2.4m edifice that the Scottish Government provided at Breich for all of 342 passengers in 2018-19.

Thanks @jimm for such a comprehensive reply - I'm grateful. How much more traffic would be needed to require redoubling beyond that proposed in the current proposals?

jimm · 9 Feb 2020

Tobbes said:
Thanks @jimm for such a comprehensive reply - I'm grateful. How much more traffic would be needed to require redoubling beyond that proposed in the current proposals?

I suspect that is getting into realms outside the scope of this thread and the moderators' guidance about what is to be discussed here - probably no more double track would be needed unless/until reopening of Honeybourne-Stratford became a live prospect.

Tobbes · 9 Feb 2020

jimm said:
I suspect that is getting into realms outside the scope of this thread and the moderators' guidance about what is to be discussed here - probably no more double track would be needed unless/until reopening of Honeybourne-Stratford became a live prospect.

Excellent, tyvm

Meerkat · 10 Feb 2020

Finstock and Combe need to be closed!
The linked re Finstock mentions the platform was changed because the track was re-aligned. Was that for speed - if so it might be partly why they don’t want to redouble it??

jimm · 10 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
Finstock and Combe need to be closed!
The linked re Finstock mentions the platform was changed because the track was re-aligned. Was that for speed - if so it might be partly why they don’t want to redouble it??

Why? There is no pressing need to close them.

I repeat, the proposals contained in the business case report do not require double track in this area. And with about four miles cut off the single-line section if Wolvercote junction to Hanborough is redoubled, the line occupation time on the remaining single section would be reduced substantially, so there should be opportunities to push through more trains as far as Charlbury or Moreton-in-Marsh anyway.

The task force's aim was to come up with a workable - and viable - proposal that did not cost the earth and reflected the current situation out on the ground - such as plugging the additional services beyond Oxford into the second hourly fast train path between Oxford and Paddington.

Gold-plated complete redoubling, with electrification on top, would be very nice, as would four-tracking of Didcot-Oxford, a new Oxford station and resignalling of the Worcester area with a far more flexible track layout, but despite what both the major political parties tried to claim at the end of last year, money does not grow on trees.

Meerkat · 10 Feb 2020

jimm said:
Why? There is no pressing need to close them.

They are a waste of money and not what railways should be doing.

jimm · 10 Feb 2020

A waste of money in what way? Even if they were closed, there would still be a need to provide trains at the same times of day to serve all the other stations on the line, so no savings whatever to be had there, unless you are going to count a modest amount of fuel and some brake pad wear.

Other than recently-installed replacement lighting and information screens, expenditure on the two stations is minimal and the last time I looked, the railways were in the business of providing transport to people - Combe is currently the busiest I have known it in the past 20 years.

Unless and until there is a compelling reason for closure to be contemplated - ie a plan for complete redoubling between Oxford and Charlbury, which is not part of the task force's scheme - then they may as well carry on performing their intended role.

Meerkat · 11 Feb 2020

jimm said:
A waste of money in what way? Even if they were closed, there would still be a need to provide trains at the same times of day to serve all the other stations on the line, so no savings whatever to be had there, unless you are going to count a modest amount of fuel and some brake pad wear.

Other than recently-installed replacement lighting and information screens, expenditure on the two stations is minimal and the last time I looked, the railways were in the business of providing transport to people - Combe is currently the busiest I have known it in the past 20 years.

Unless and until there is a compelling reason for closure to be contemplated - ie a plan for complete redoubling between Oxford and Charlbury, which is not part of the task force's scheme - then they may as well carry on performing their intended role.

“A modest amount” on every stopping service, “minimal” expenditure....it all adds up, plus the slower service for the other passengers.
Railways are in the business of mass transport, not stopping at every hamlet.

jimm · 12 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
“A modest amount” on every stopping service, “minimal” expenditure....it all adds up, plus the slower service for the other passengers.
Railways are in the business of mass transport, not stopping at every hamlet.

In the business of mass transit? In all the places served by the railways in rural England, Wales and Scotland? And the costs of putting more people on the roads, especially anywhere near places with congestion and pollution problems like Oxford, also add up.

The trains calling at the halts are extra peak-period local services, running in between standard pattern fast services (wth the afternoon train only running as far as Moreton-in-Marsh), so most passengers on the Cotswold Line are utterly untroubled by their existence.

In the context of the business case report that this thread is about, there is no need whatever to close Combe and Finstock. That's all there is to it.

Meerkat · 12 Feb 2020

jimm said:
In the business of mass transit? In all the places served by the railways in rural England, Wales and Scotland? And the costs of putting more people on the roads, especially anywhere near places with congestion and pollution problems like Oxford, also add up.

The trains calling at the halts are extra peak-period local services, running in between standard pattern fast services (wth the afternoon train only running as far as Moreton-in-Marsh), so most passengers on the Cotswold Line are utterly untroubled by their existence.

In the context of the business case report that this thread is about, there is no need whatever to close Combe and Finstock. That's all there is to it.

Railways don’t have much business being in rural areas, it’s only politics and nostalgia that keeps them there.
Those peak period local services have other passengers on them that would rather not stop at every hamlet.
But you are correct that this is a bit off topic....

jimm · 12 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
Railways don’t have much business being in rural areas, it’s only politics and nostalgia that keeps them there.
Those peak period local services have other passengers on them that would rather not stop at every hamlet.
But you are correct that this is a bit off topic....

I'm sure your attitude would go down very well in Worcester, but without the passengers from the rural area between there and Oxford, the Cotswold Line would be a financial basket case.

As you apparently do not use these trains yourself, let me assure you, as someone who has done so with varying dress of regularity for the past 20 years or so, that the passengers on them - especially since the December timetable change meant the afternoon train no longer starts in London or serves Worcestershire stations - that they are used almost entirely by people making purely local commutes from the stations from Moreton-in-Marsh onwards into Oxford plus a few into Didcot in the morning - and vice versa in the afternoon.

They take a whole four or five extra minutes to get between Charlbury (the busiest stop) and Oxford than trains that just call at Hanborough.

Meerkat · 12 Feb 2020

Five extra minutes on every trip. That’s worth a decent amount for a speeding up business case.

Kingham West · 12 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
Finstock and Combe need to be closed!
The linked re Finstock mentions the platform was changed because the track was re-aligned. Was that for speed - if so it might be partly why they don’t want to redouble it??

The section from Moreton to Oxford is the commercial railway , broadly in on of the Worlds economic growth areas, large amounts of First Class and full fare traffic .The more stations they more income.

Worcester , Moreton Is important, but a Social Railway.
Closing Finstock and Coombe would be rather poor value for money , they need improved services.

Kingham West · 12 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
Railways don’t have much business being in rural areas, it’s only politics and nostalgia that keeps them there.
Those peak period local services have other passengers on them that would rather not stop at every hamlet.
But you are correct that this is a bit off topic....

I fear the cash revenue from Worcester, is less than Moreton and Kingham, not certain why you want to run half empty trains , with passengers with off peak tickets , past the real revenue generators , which is the Rural Areas .
Society is changing , rail users tend to live in villages , and drive to the station in the BMW

geoffk · 12 Feb 2020

I'm interested in this as I worked for Worcestershire County Council in the 1990s and until 2003 and was involved in a Cotswold line study, along with the other local authorities, train companies, Railtrack and the Cotswold Line Promotion Group. Hopefully the work we did has fed into the improvements already made on this line as well as those outlined above, should they come about.

jimm · 12 Feb 2020

Kingham West said:
The section from Moreton to Oxford is the commercial railway , broadly in on of the Worlds economic growth areas, large amounts of First Class and full fare traffic .The more stations they more income.

Worcester , Moreton Is important, but a Social Railway.
Closing Finstock and Coombe would be rather poor value for money , they need improved services.

It is Combe, with one 'o' - not the even more lightly-used halt in Cornwall.

And no, they do not need more trains. They are both poorly located, well away from the villages they purport to serve, but have their uses for a modest number of passengers in the peak periods due to Oxford's chronic traffic congestion. When there were four request calls each way every Saturday up to the end of 2006, passengers were a rarity.

Hence why the task force business case report (and the county council's rail strategy) says nothing about these two halts.

DynamicSpirit · 13 Feb 2020

jimm said:
As you apparently do not use these trains yourself, let me assure you, as someone who has done so with varying dress of regularity for the past 20 years or so, that the passengers on them - especially since the December timetable change meant the afternoon train no longer starts in London or serves Worcestershire stations - that they are used almost entirely by people making purely local commutes from the stations from Moreton-in-Marsh onwards into Oxford plus a few into Didcot in the morning - and vice versa in the afternoon.

From Wikipedia, station usage figures 2018/19:

Hanborough: 224 000 (= 614/day)
Combe: 2722 (= 7/day)
Finstock: 1714 (= 5/day)
Charlbury: 286 000 (= 784/day)

(Obviously you need to make some allowance for the extremely limited service at Combe and Finstock suppressing demand, but even so....)

Meerkat · 13 Feb 2020

DynamicSpirit said:
From Wikipedia, station usage figures 2018/19:

Hanborough: 224 000 (= 614/day)

Combe: 2722 (= 7/day)

Finstock: 1714 (= 5/day)

Charlbury: 286 000 (= 784/day)

(Obviously you need to make some allowance for the extremely limited service at Combe and Finstock suppressing demand, but even so....)

Isn’t the data entry/exit (ie a commuter is two per day), which would make the usage look even more pointless?

DynamicSpirit · 13 Feb 2020

Meerkat said:
Isn’t the data entry/exit (ie a commuter is two per day), which would make the usage look even more pointless?

I believe it is. You could perhaps say 3-4 commuters/day since I got the daily figure by dividing the annual one by 365, but I think the one stopping train a day only runs Monday-Friday.

Cotswold Line improvements debated in the House of Commons

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member