Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[Energy]

The 'inbetween stations' can be well served by stopping trains to/from Banbury, Aylesbury (via High Wycombe), High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross, as they were when Chiltern ran 'fast' trains to Oxford.

And they have traffic to Oxford as well.

So you're condemning Chiltern to be purely a short-distance commuter railway - back to the 1980s then yes?

No, condemning it to the 1980s would be saying that the double tracking and speed improvements aren't needed. Chiltern's upgrades are great but it's a line better for serving Leamington Spa, Banbury etc. Other lines serve London to Oxford and Birmingham traffic better.

I assume you would remove their Birmingham trains as well, as passengers can use Avanti or LNR...

No, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Warwick etc. have traffic to Birmingham as well. You can have a service while having little end to end traffic.

And there's me thinking competition and giving passengers choice was a good thing. Bring on Beeching round 2, is that what we want?

Competition didn't work. All running duplicate services will do is push up operating costs.

 

[HSTEd]

And there's me thinking competition

The railway can't meaningfully compete with itself, there is no market here. Given that all prices and traffic levels are defacto imposed by the state and much of the cost base is shared in any event.
The competitor is the car.

giving passengers choice was a good thing.

A comparative handful of Passengers should not be provided choice through increases in subsidy paid by the entire population.
I very much doubt you can make any real social case for Birmingham Curzon Street/Snow Hill trains leaving for Marylebone instead of Euston, and there is precious little other reason to pay the subsidies such operations would require.

Bring on Beeching round 2, is that what we want?

So no rationalisation of services or infrastructure is ever permitted, lest it lead to "Beeching round 2"?
That way leads to ossification, ballooning subsidies and the collapse of public and political support for the railway.

 

[cle]

The 'inbetween stations' can be well served by stopping trains to/from Banbury, Aylesbury (via High Wycombe), High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross, as they were when Chiltern ran 'fast' trains to Oxford.

The point here is that there is also a lot of demand to Oxford from these places. Not everything is focused on London, and much like Cambridge - Oxford also has a lot of inbound demand, high-paying jobs, leisure, cultural and recreational attractions etc.

And overall on this thread - that Chiltern does a lot of things. End to end, London - Birmingham, sure. But also commuting to both of those from points all along the route, and into Oxford from points along the route (Birmingham-Oxford was planned). That requires a few stopping patterns. I would say speed London-Birmingham is the least important thing (as options already exist and HS2 will mop this up - and have plenty of seats) - but fast journeys from Bicester, Leamington and Banbury to London do also need to factor.

 

[12LDA28C]

A comparative handful of Passengers should not be provided choice through increases in subsidy paid by the entire population.

Sounds like a quote straight out of the DfT guide to the managed decline of Britain's railways.

I very much doubt you can make any real social case for Birmingham Curzon Street/Snow Hill trains leaving for Marylebone instead of Euston, and there is precious little other reason to pay the subsidies such operations would require.

Plenty of passengers travel from Solihull, Dorridge, Warwick, Leamington to Marylebone. Should they be forced to travel north to Birmingham or via Coventry to make their journey instead?

 

[HSTEd]

Plenty of passengers travel from Solihull, Dorridge, Warwick, Leamington to Marylebone. Should they be forced to travel north to Birmingham or via Coventry to make their journey instead?

It would be cheaper for the taxpayer if they did, and journey times will be comparable or better once reasonable allowances are made for the change to the high intensity Curzon Street to Euston service. Only Leamington Spa is slower via Birmingham to any significant extent (and even then only by interchange time), Solihull certainly ends up with a far faster service.

Does it really matter what direction passengers happen to be travelling at any given instant in their journey?

And at the end of the day the OOC/Euston is a far more attractive terminal proposition than Marylebone. Far superior links for onward travel in London.

EDIT:

Leamington Spa also can't get much more than a few minutes slower because traffic would just switch to the via Coventry route.

 

[Energy]

Plenty of passengers travel from Solihull, Dorridge, Warwick, Leamington to Marylebone.

Thats why the Marylebone to Birmingham services stop in those places?

I don't think you understand, this isn't some suggestion that Chiltern should be gone but that other lines do end-to-end London-Birmingham/Oxford traffic better so running fast services that don't stop at places like Dorridge and Warwick does not make sense.

 

[12LDA28C]

Thats why the Marylebone to Birmingham services stop in those places?

I don't think you understand, this isn't some suggestion that Chiltern should be gone but that other lines do end-to-end London-Birmingham/Oxford traffic better so running fast services that don't stop at places like Dorridge and Warwick does not make sense.

I don't think you understand - this is exactly the suggestion that @HSTEd is making, see post #365.

 

[Energy]

I don't think you understand - this is exactly the suggestion that @HSTEd is making, see post #365.

And I'm not suggesting that.

@HSTEd is not wrong that for many switching in Birmingham might be the same time but the traffic is enough to justify a direct London service.

 

[12LDA28C]

And I'm not suggesting that.

I never said you were, I wasn't replying to you. Personally I believe it would be a major backward step for Chiltern to stop running Marylebone - Birmingham, plenty of things could be 'cheaper for the taxpayer', maybe the Govt should try and tackle the huge waste and inefficiency in the NHS if cost savings are top of their agenda but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Falcon1200]

Other lines serve London to Oxford and Birmingham traffic better.

Depending where you live in and around Oxford, Oxford Parkway can be a much more convenient station for getting to London than Oxford proper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depending where you live in and around Oxford, Oxford Parkway can be a much more convenient station for getting to London than Oxford proper.

Nothing stopping you changing at Oxford if speed is of the essence.

 

[Mgameing123]

The point here is that there is also a lot of demand to Oxford from these places. Not everything is focused on London, and much like Cambridge - Oxford also has a lot of inbound demand, high-paying jobs, leisure, cultural and recreational attractions etc.

And overall on this thread - that Chiltern does a lot of things. End to end, London - Birmingham, sure. But also commuting to both of those from points all along the route, and into Oxford from points along the route (Birmingham-Oxford was planned). That requires a few stopping patterns. I would say speed London-Birmingham is the least important thing (as options already exist and HS2 will mop this up - and have plenty of seats) - but fast journeys from Bicester, Leamington and Banbury to London do also need to factor.

Yes and also we can’t forget the gem that is Biecester Village.

Depending where you live in and around Oxford, Oxford Parkway can be a much more convenient station for getting to London than Oxford

That’s why having the Chiltern route is nice. Not only it goes from London to Oxford. It also serves Biecester Village & High Wycombe which are some good destinations.

 

[cle]

I never said you were, I wasn't replying to you. Personally I believe it would be a major backward step for Chiltern to stop running Marylebone - Birmingham, plenty of things could be 'cheaper for the taxpayer', maybe the Govt should try and tackle the huge waste and inefficiency in the NHS if cost savings are top of their agenda but that's a topic for another thread.

I think they will always run it - but it won't be targeted at being the fastest London-Birmingham service. It is Avanti I would worry about after HS2 opens (fares considered)

But it's the logical place to run that service, which might sell a single seat two or even three times. More than many, due to it's many uses. If anything, another tph would enable other patterns. The Banbury which used to go to Stratford, is a path, at least to Leamington.

Services in Japan comfortably run 2-3 hour end to end segments on local and regional services which change over a lot. Maybe someone really is riding from Atami to Utsonomiya, they're free to - but they likely will choose a faster way. This is, or could be, no different.

 

[Falcon1200]

Nothing stopping you changing at Oxford if speed is of the essence.

Not everyone likes changing any more than they have to, and in any case the connections at Oxford are tight, to say the least; Often 2 to 4 minutes! Doable in the Up direction with a cross platform change, not so much in the Down where the extremely congested footbridge has to be negotiated. Also of course two separate TOCs are involved with potential ticketing complications.

 

[cle]

Not everyone likes changing any more than they have to, and in any case the connections at Oxford are tight, to say the least; Often 2 to 4 minutes! Doable in the Up direction with a cross platform change, not so much in the Down where the extremely congested footbridge has to be negotiated. Also of course two separate TOCs are involved with potential ticketing complications.

At least we do know that Oxford will get better - but also busier, i.e better frequency. For example, Bicester Village will have 5-7tph to Oxford in a couple of years.

Oxford will have another through platform. It might also have another Cotswold service, even if just to Hanborough, but maybe Worcester.

Other plans could be further EWR platforms (another through as part of the main side rebuild plans) - potential Cowley and a revival of the Oxford-Moor St service which Chiltern would likely run - - - which would complete this triangle, as such.

I'd love to see Oxford-Stratford also, part of a little Oxford S-Bahn with Cowley maybe... but unlikely.

 

[12LDA28C]

At least we do know that Oxford will get better - but also busier, i.e better frequency. For example, Bicester Village will have 5-7tph to Oxford in a couple of years.

Really? Two trains an hour from Marylebone and two from Milton Keynes makes four, where are the other trains coming from?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? Two trains an hour from Marylebone and two from Milton Keynes makes four, where are the other trains coming from?

Three from EWR in the end - one Bedford and two MKC - though two initially. That gives you the five. I don't know about 7 - perhaps post "full" EWR?

 

[JamesT]

Really? Two trains an hour from Marylebone and two from Milton Keynes makes four, where are the other trains coming from?

Bedford?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bedford?

I assume the 5th is Bedford-Oxford not via MKC (which is post Marston Vale work), then the other two are from Cambridge once the full EWR is in place? I'm fairly sure that was the plan, though it does change quite often. Either way Oxford Parkway-Oxford will be quite frequent, probably making it the preferred park and ride.

 

[12LDA28C]

Bedford?

Three from EWR in the end - one Bedford and two MKC - though two initially. That gives you the five. I don't know about 7 - perhaps post "full" EWR?

In 'a couple of years'? We'll be lucky to see EWR trains from Bedford running by the end of the decade. Even to MKC is now not predicted to start until 2025.

 

[The Planner]

The EWR and Marylebone services will be quite close together as well, at least on weekends.

 

[12LDA28C]

The EWR and Marylebone services will be quite close together as well, at least on weekends.

Have you been privy to projected paths / timetables then?

 

[cle]

Three from EWR in the end - one Bedford and two MKC - though two initially. That gives you the five. I don't know about 7 - perhaps post "full" EWR?

Sorry if not clear. I said Bicester to Oxford, and so was including both Chiltern (2-3) and EWR (4) in that future total.

Those EWR are 2 MKC and 2 Bedford - which will become Cambridge. In turn there will be another 2tph Cambridge-Bletchley. But it’ll change again no doubt - eyes on that curve…

 

[12LDA28C]

Sorry if not clear. I said Bicester to Oxford, and so was including both Chiltern (2-3) and EWR (4) in that future total.

Those EWR are 2 MKC and 2 Bedford - which will become Cambridge. In turn there will be another 2tph Cambridge-Bletchley. But it’ll change again no doubt - eyes on that curve…

But you said 'in a couple of years'. We certainly won't see services from Bedford in that timescale.

 

[The Planner]

Have you been privy to projected paths / timetables then?

Yes.

 

[cle]

But you said 'in a couple of years'. We certainly won't see services from Bedford in that timescale.

The starting timetable is for 4tph EWR out from Oxford, I thought. If not, I apologize, it does seem to move around a lot. I thought Marston could take 2tph at the beginning - with more needing the new Bedford station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The starting timetable is for 4tph EWR out from Oxford, I thought. If not, I apologize, it does seem to move around a lot. I thought Marston could take 2tph at the beginning - with more needing the new Bedford station.

No, the starting timetable is just 2 to MKC, nothing on the MV bar the existing hourly 150 (by then). It'll then add one, not two, Bedford-Oxford. Work is needed on the MV (or at least Bedford station) to get more than that.

 

[Meerkat]

I assume industry costs, NR’s lack of knowledge about its assets means a Chiltern design/finance/build/operate deal for electrification/new stock wouldnt get any bidders?
Maybe without the train operations to avoid most strike risk.

 

[Energy]

I assume industry costs, NR’s lack of knowledge about its assets means a Chiltern design/finance/build/operate deal for electrification/new stock wouldnt get any bidders?
Maybe without the train operations to avoid most strike risk.

Huh? So far MML electrification is going much better than previous electrification with NR and its subcontractors delivering it within good time and budget.

Chiltern electrification will be subject to cost.

 

[Meerkat]

Huh? So far MML electrification is going much better than previous electrification with NR and its subcontractors delivering it within good time and budget.

Chiltern electrification will be subject to cost.

That’s good news. Would that be enough encouragement for a consortium to take the risk (or most of it) to electrify a line against a usage fee (or rights to operate for a set period)?