Chiltern Oxford Link completed

[jimm]

Anyone know if Chiltern plan to send in more trains, possibly loco hauled sets, to Oxford over Christmas to relieve the amount of people wanting to use their trains instead of GWR's as a link to London as of tomorrow?

Is it so hard to just look at journey planners and Chiltern's website?

The standard half-hourly service will be operating, while the following information has been posted on the Chiltern website's Changes to Train Times section for some time now on the entries for December 24, 27 and 28:

Due to the planned closure of the railway between Ealing Broadway and Paddington, some Chiltern Railways services between Marylebone and Oxford will have additional carriages.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

There seems to be a lot of five car 168 workings to Oxford as far as I can tell.

 

[Chris125]

I see a driver's eye view from Bicester Village to Oxford has been uploaded, well worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjdIjsIVc90

 

[HowardGWR]

I see a driver's eye view from Bicester Village to Oxford has been uploaded, well worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjdIjsIVc90

Thanks. It demonstrates how much needs to be done to provide a free run into and out of the terminating station.

 

[XDM]

What happens on this great video with the final lengthy signal stop within sight of the Oxford platform is absolutely typical of the Network Fail we have grown to hate. The whole endeavour spoilt for a hapence of tar. One wonders if there is a faction in Network Rail who want to limit rail travel. They build,at future generations' cost, a great 100 mph railway,& then put in a completely unnecessary conflicting move with gw trains also coming in from the north. That conflicting move was not designed by shooter's team & was put in by network fail at the last minute to save a hapance. So depressing. The signal stop cost the time it would take to travel at 75 mph instead of 90 to 100 mph.

 

[L&Y Robert]

What happens on this great video with the final lengthy signal stop within sight of the Oxford platform is absolutely typical of the Network Fail we have grown to hate. The whole endeavour spoilt for a hapence of tar. One wonders if there is a faction in Network Rail who want to limit rail travel. They build,at future generations' cost, a great 100 mph railway,& then put in a completely unnecessary conflicting move with gw trains also coming in from the north. That conflicting move was not designed by shooter's team & was put in by network fail at the last minute to save a hapance. So depressing. The signal stop cost the time it would take to travel at 75 mph instead of 90 to 100 mph.

We were on the Up Loop, were we not? I thought that was just a temporary arrangement to get the service running on the start date, and the dedicated Chiltern road into platforms 1 and 2 will be built and commissioned in due course. I noticed several dead-end and plainly unfinished roads (tracks) in the video, and so there's plainly more work to do. I can't see Chiltern putting up with a situation where conflicting movements are even possible, and under GW control - a competitive company.

In another video we seemed to leave the station on the Down Main, and shimmy across to the Bicester line well north of the station. Is that possible?

 

[The Planner]

Rubbish. Chilterns design was several sections of single line track between Oxford and Bicester. It was only decided to be double tracked when East West came into the frame. The independant line was binned off several years ago due to cost.

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, when I made my comment #1984, I assumed the arrangement that caused the hold up was temporary and the line to the left hand side as we looked at it was merely yet to be finished and connected. That is correct isn't it?

 

[L&Y Robert]

Rubbish. Chilterns design was several sections of single line track between Oxford and Bicester. It was only decided to be double tracked when East West came into the frame. The independant line was binned off several years ago due to cost.

The conflict is the crossover from Up Main to Up Loop - Platform 3. Platforms 1 and 2 roads seem to be spawned off the Up Loop just south of the crossover, and that's the conflict. It won't do in the long term, will it? The independent line ("Rubbish") will re-appear in some form or other, I'll betcha!

 

[The Planner]

The independant will never come back unless EW and put it on their side of the signalling and pay for it as Oxford resig doesnt allow for it AFAIK. My "rubbish" comment is over the notion that Chiltern designed the double track layout to Bicester, they didnt.

Having watched the video the delay is due to Oxford North not being complete and the permissive move into the platform as the other unit is in there. It isnt going to be that slow normally.

 

[t_star2001uk]

The delay was caused waiting for the late running FGW service from Banbury (3 late at OXF). Why it was put into platform 1 was because of a shunt that was taking place using platform 3. As this unit was booked to stand at Oxford for a while there was nowhere else for it to go...

 

[HowardGWR]

The independant will never come back unless EW and put it on their side of the signalling and pay for it as Oxford resig doesnt allow for it AFAIK. My "rubbish" comment is over the notion that Chiltern designed the double track layout to Bicester, they didnt.

Having watched the video the delay is due to Oxford North not being complete and the permissive move into the platform as the other unit is in there. It isnt going to be that slow normally.

Thanks for the reply. BTW I think your spell checker on 'independant' (sic) needs looking at, as the same mistake has been made more than once now. What I don't get is all this talk about who pays for a line. Surely NR builds a line at its cost and then rents it out via the access charges?

 

[II]

The conflict is the crossover from Up Main to Up Loop - Platform 3. Platforms 1 and 2 roads seem to be spawned off the Up Loop just south of the crossover, and that's the conflict. It won't do in the long term, will it? The independent line ("Rubbish") will re-appear in some form or other, I'll betcha!

The Phase 1 layout (Phase 0 is the current layout) will have the Rewley Road sidings slewed over to the east which will make room for a 40mph line branching off shortly after OX135 (which will become OD2380) on the Up Oxford Relief. This will lead directly to Platforms 1 and 2 and will remove the conflicting move with Platform 3 that you mention.

Phase 1 works have recently started and will continue throughout next year, culminating in a much more flexible layout - but not until 2018 unfortunately when Oxford PSB moves to Didcot TVSC. Other improvements for the Phase 1 works include 4-aspect signalling between Didcot and Oxford (including Platform 4 at Oxford), bi-di signalling between Didcot and Tackley, the extension of the Down Passenger Loop to Wolvercote Junction and a much revised layout both sides of Oxford including crossovers with much increased turnout speeds.

I believe some of these improvements come on stream next year, but sadly we have to wait until the box closes in 2018 for the Platform 1/2/3 conflict to be resolved. Until then, workings at Oxford will continue to be very inefficient and will cause delays to trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I assume the initial arrangement which had Chiltern running directly into P1/2 under Marylebone signalling died a death early on?
As that was before the impasse over the resignalling and electrification of the GWR layout, it would be interesting to know if the original plan would have been delivered quicker and cheaper...

Phase 1 sounds impressive - lets hope it gets delivered (along with the Oxford station rebuild).

 

[The Planner]

The Phase 1 layout (Phase 0 is the current layout) will have the Rewley Road sidings slewed over to the east which will make room for a 40mph line branching off shortly after OX135 (which will become OD2380) on the Up Oxford Relief. This will lead directly to Platforms 1 and 2 and will remove the conflicting move with Platform 3 that you mention.

Phase 1 works have recently started and will continue throughout next year, culminating in a much more flexible layout - but not until 2018 unfortunately when Oxford PSB moves to Didcot TVSC. Other improvements for the Phase 1 works include 4-aspect signalling between Didcot and Oxford (including Platform 4 at Oxford), bi-di signalling between Didcot and Tackley, the extension of the Down Passenger Loop to Wolvercote Junction and a much revised layout both sides of Oxford including crossovers with much increased turnout speeds.

I believe some of these improvements come on stream next year, but sadly we have to wait until the box closes in 2018 for the Platform 1/2/3 conflict to be resolved. Until then, workings at Oxford will continue to be very inefficient and will cause delays to trains.

Is the Up and Down Jericho part of phase 1 then? It has been a while since I have looked at the plans. Getting the improved signalling to the Banbury fringe will be a real improvement, the headway is a real pain as it is. Never really understood the bi di to Tackley, would have expected that to have been dropped when Banbury couldnt afford it on their scheme.

 

[II]

It's certainly far more comprehensive than Phase 0, which was basically specified to just do enough to get Chiltern into Oxford.

There's also a Phase 2 which includes an additional crossover, some additional signalling moves and the additional bi-di Platform 5 at Oxford. It looks increasingly likely that bi-di on the section between Wolvercote Junction and Tackley will be delayed until Phase 2.

I only hope that Phase 2 (especially the platform 5 element) doesn't have to wait until the station gets redeveloped as that could take many years.

 

[II]

Is the Up and Down Jericho part of phase 1 then? It has been a while since I have looked at the plans. Getting the improved signalling to the Banbury fringe will be a real improvement, the headway is a real pain as it is. Never really understood the bi di to Tackley, would have expected that to have been dropped when Banbury couldnt afford it on their scheme.

From the plans I've seen (dated late March this year), yes the vast majority of changes are incorporated into Phase 1 and are certainly reflected in what work has been completed so far on the ground.

The Bi-di element at Tackley surprised me slightly as well. Though the ground frame at Tackley was replaced with 40mph power operated points a couple of month ago which will be largely redundant until bi-di is introduced so I can only assume it will still happen in time.

 

[OneTrackMind]

Phase 1 works have recently started and will continue throughout next year, culminating in a much more flexible layout - but not until 2018 unfortunately when Oxford PSB moves to Didcot TVSC...

I was unaware that Oxford PSB had been given a closing date but it appears that getting everything into the TVSC as quickly as possible is the current priority.

Given the postponed electrification of Didcot to Oxford, I would not be surprised if some of those budgeted funds were allocated to the Oxford phased development in order to speed up the progress in time for East West rail.

 

[II]

It was originally May 2015, then 2016, then 2017 and now 2018 AIUI. So who knows for sure!

 

[fgwrich]

While passengers seem happy with the services into Oxford, it seems that the demand has led to overcrowding on peak hour services. I would be interested to know if there's been any noticeable affect on the GW services into Padd yet?

https://www.facebook.com/BBCSouthToday/videos/1243958029028118/

 

[II]

While passengers seem happy with the services into Oxford, it seems that the demand has led to overcrowding on peak hour services. I would be interested to know if there's been any noticeable affect on the GW services into Padd yet?

Can't say I've noticed much impact on GWR passenger numbers yet, and from observations as Chiltern services arrive and depart Oxford they don't seem very busy at all. Off peak services have an average of 20-50 people on board I would guess, of which a reasonable number will have been Bicester Village passengers rather than Marylebone. I've yet to see many of the peak services yet though.

Other factors are at play of course:

1) Oxford Parkway is obviously attractive to quite a few people, but it's unclear how much of that is new traffic, and how much has transferred from GWR services from the main Oxford station.

2) The Chiltern route is obviously busy anyway, so if you're potentially adding new passengers to already busy trains, then it won't be long before you've got capacity problems even if only a small percentage transfer.

3) Unlike trains leaving Paddington, all services from Marylebone can be used back home for off-peak tickets to Oxford, so that will no doubt encourage a higher percentage to use Marylebone in the peak hours when the trains are struggling the most.

 

[NickBucks]

This issue was subject to a report on BBC South Today (Oxford) last night and overcrowding is a problem but probably from Oxford Parkway where the piece was filmed. A PR employee of Chiltern seemed to think that the numbers of passengers being attracted was a good thing but promised improvements. Hard to see how this can re achieved easily when Chiltern's " Meet the Managers" form constantly states that they have no more rolling stock available and that pathing issues on the line from Marylebone via HW prevent them running more trains.

 

[route:oxford]

This issue was subject to a report on BBC South Today (Oxford) last night and overcrowding is a problem but probably from Oxford Parkway where the piece was filmed. A PR employee of Chiltern seemed to think that the numbers of passengers being attracted was a good thing but promised improvements. Hard to see how this can re achieved easily when Chiltern's " Meet the Managers" form constantly states that they have no more rolling stock available and that pathing issues on the line from Marylebone via HW prevent them running more trains.

Chiltern still have a few Mk3 that could be upgraded don't they?

 

[didcotdean]

Someone from Chiltern on BBC Radio Oxford earlier this week responding to the peak overcrowding only talked about shuffling the allocations to match better the experienced demand.

 

[II]

Someone from Chiltern on BBC Radio Oxford earlier this week responding to the peak overcrowding only talked about shuffling the allocations to match better the experienced demand.

Will Chiltern be taking on the eight LO 172/0s when they become redundant from the Gospel Oak to Barking line next year? Appreciating that is still some way off, but other than another loco hauled set I can't see any option but to shuffle the allocations.

 

[swt_passenger]

Will Chiltern be taking on the eight LO 172/0s when they become redundant from the Gospel Oak to Barking line next year? Appreciating that is still some way off, but other than another loco hauled set I can't see any option but to shuffle the allocations.

Publicly, nobody knows. It gets suggested in these forums every few months though, because is is logically a reasonable use for them.

 

[TH172341]

Someone from Chiltern on BBC Radio Oxford earlier this week responding to the peak overcrowding only talked about shuffling the allocations to match better the experienced demand.

Not much else Chiltern can do right now - lengthening on the Oxford runs would mean taking units off the Birmingham route, just causing problems elsewhere.

In regard to the ex LO 172s - no word on their future yet. It'd make more sense though for those to transfer to the next West Mids operator, and trying to pool the 172s together, and perhaps a couple of 170s in exchange.

I could see Chiltern maybe going in for a few ex Scotrail units if possible; Southern seem to be losing interest in the remaining ones they have an option on considering the hellish nature in converting them to 171s....

 

[didcotdean]

Passenger numbers at Ox & Bucks Chiltern stations have typically doubled in the last 8 years; a select few in less time than this.

 

[II]

In regard to the ex LO 172s - no word on their future yet. It'd make more sense though for those to transfer to the next West Mids operator, and trying to pool the 172s together, and perhaps a couple of 170s in exchange.

Yes, that would be another sensible candidate, although they closer match the existing Chiltern 172s than the LM ones what with being non-gangway.

 

[TH172341]

Yes, that would be another sensible candidate, although they closer match the existing Chiltern 172s than the LM ones what with being non-gangway.

Yeah the non-gangway ends is a minor inconvenience - however in terms of maintenance and parts it makes far more sense for 172s to all end up at Tyseley really. Shame they were only built to two car though :roll: