Chiltern Oxford Link completed

[jimm]

Could I just ask (as someone from afar who is interested in this project) that people might just stop posting so vehemently and attacking each other's politics here - it's really detracting from what is an interesting subject, i.e. the new Chiltern service to Oxford.

We all have different political views and perhaps elsewhere might be a better place to express them?

Just a thought.

I have not attacked anyone's politics at any stage - I have no idea what route oxford's politics are, though he seems to think he knows all about mine - what I have been doing is pointing out that councillors, of whatever party or none, are supposed to represent people and have opinions on issues, such as how Network Rail goes about projects in their area.

And just because someone doesn't like the some of the views of a certain group of councillors does not give them the right to constantly misrepresent the actual position of those councillors here as being anti-rail - as would be patently obvious to anyone who cares to look at the reports and letters on the Oxford Mail website, where the member of Railfuture referred to above - who I have met on occasion - is also an enthusiastic correspondent and perfectly capable of sticking up for himself, without someone on here trying to make out he is some sort of martyr who we should all be rushing to defend against nasty 'anti-rail' people, who are nothing of the sort anyway. One of them is a former chairman of the Cotswold Line Promotion Group, for goodness sake!

Put the councillors and Railfuture in a room together and I think you would find that agree on far more than they disagree about when it comes to railways.

And since I disagree with Railfuture's opposition to HS2 and find their enthusiasm for reopening the Great Central route baffling, does that make me anti-rail too?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for the clarification about OBRAG's position on the latest iteration of the timetable and the website link. Interesting too to read some of your other thoughts on the topic.

On your other point, a reasonable definition here would be a group of people who express strongly held opinions about a particular cause: in their case passenger rail services on this line. And, yes looking through their website, most of the concerns they express most strongly are about service provision to/from Islip - itself a perfectly reasonable issue to have strongly held opinions about.

So, yes, the term "vociferous lobby group" is most certainly accurate, but I am sorry if you don't like it.

It's just that I know some of the people involved with Obrag and think they see themselves as a bit more than a one-issue 'lobby group'. That they focused heavily on getting a better deal for Islip was hardly surprising. There wasn't anything to find fault with in terms of future services between Oxford and Bicester, whereas Islip, where traffic effectively doubled after the enhanced timetable began in 2009, was going to see the clock turned back under Chiltern's initial proposals, with a sparse service scattered across the day.

 

[berneyarms]

I have not attacked anyone's politics at any stage - I have no idea what route oxford's politics are, though he seems to think he knows all about mine - what I have been doing is pointing out that councillors, of whatever party or none, are supposed to represent people and have opinions on issues, such as how Network Rail goes about projects in their area.

And just because someone doesn't like the some of the views of a certain group of councillors does not give them the right to constantly misrepresent the actual position of those councillors here as being anti-rail - as would be patently obvious to anyone who cares to look at the reports and letters on the Oxford Mail website, where the member of Railfuture referred to above - who I have met on occasion - is also an enthusiastic correspondent and perfectly capable of sticking up for himself, without someone on here trying to make out he is some sort of martyr who we should all be rushing to defend against nasty 'anti-rail' people, who are nothing of the sort anyway. One of them is a former chairman of the Cotswold Line Promotion Group, for goodness sake!

Put the councillors and Railfuture in a room together and I think you would find that agree on far more than they disagree about when it comes to railways.

And since I disagree with Railfuture's opposition to HS2 and find their enthusiasm for reopening the Great Central route baffling, does that make me anti-rail too?

I'm merely suggesting that you could both be a little less forceful - it's certainly putting me off reading this thread.

Let's maybe calm down a little.

 

[Buttsy]

I'm merely suggesting that you could both be a little less forceful - it's certainly putting me off reading this thread.

Let's maybe calm down a little.

Hear hear!

 

[BanburyBlue]

Hear hear!

Well said Berneyarms.

 

[jimm]

I'm merely suggesting that you could both be a little less forceful - it's certainly putting me off reading this thread.

Let's maybe calm down a little.

I would far rather talk about the project itself and if there wasn't such manifest misrepresentation going on, I wouldn't have said a thing in the first place.

When someone persists in that misrepresentation, over and over, then I will be as forceful as I like in pointing that out.

Back in February, the same poster's hazy relationship with the truth brought us the revelation that there was a growing campaign in villages along the Cotswold Line against any further redoubling.

Except there is no such campaign, never mind a growing one. On the contrary, there is widespread support from all quarters everywhere from Oxford to Worcester for the two remaining single-line sections to be redoubled.

 

[route:oxford]

Put the councillors and Railfuture in a room together and I think you would find that agree on far more than they disagree about when it comes to railways.

They'll just all blame somebody else...

Thanks for acknowledging the attack happened though.

 

[dysonsphere]

Well said Berneyarms.

Quite am getting very fedup with the slanging match. Go and get a room somewhere.

 

[jimm]

They'll just all blame somebody else...

Thanks for acknowledging the attack happened though.

Not acknowledging any such thing. Simply that there was what I think might be termed a robust exchange of views, rather like this one.

Quite am getting very fedup with the slanging match. Go and get a room somewhere.

So are you saying I should just ignore the misinformation and distortion from routeoxford - here and in other threads - and let everyone else get the impression that his claims are true, when they aren't? Which isn't going to help you or anyone else get an accurate picture of what is going on with this project,is it?



And here is some information about the said project, in a letter from the city council about the noise and vibration conditions
dated Tuesday with some information about the number of trains to be allowed to use the route. Section H is the bit through Wolvercote.

Passenger train movements on Section H between 0700 hours and 2300 hours shall not be in excess of 8 movements per hour. Freight train movements between 2300 hours and 0700 hours on the following day shall not exceed 8.

In addition, trains will not be permitted to use the section until vibration monitoring equipment is in place at vibration-sensitive properties, this kit will be managed by ERM, environment consultants who work for Chiltern.

Full document is at this link, along with other recent related correspondence and documents, here http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decVanilla/RailwayDevelopments.htm

I trust this bit of my post was 'on-thread' enough for some of you.

 

[The Planner]

Is that 8tph in total between 0700-2300? Or 8tph in each direction? Interesting if in total as the 2043 predictions for growth are going to be somewhat higher than that.

 

[jimm]

Is that 8tph in total between 0700-2300? Or 8tph in each direction? Interesting if in total as the 2043 predictions for growth are going to be somewhat higher than that.

If movements means the total number of trains allowed, which appears to be the case, then yes, a total of eight passenger trains per hour in the 0700-2300 window - plus I think one freight path per hour is also expected - and then a total of eight overnight freights. Not sure where that leaves the suggested hourly XC path if two Chiltern and two East West trains each way account for all the permitted passenger paths each hour.

As for 2043, perhaps we need to be looking at one of the ideas floated by a certain group of councillors, which is to create a new grade-separated junction for the Bicester route at Wolvercot junction with a connecting line over to the Parkway station, partly using the alignment of the old connection from the Cotswold Line at Yarnton junction to Banbury Road junction, which was just the other side of the road bridge from the Parkway. This then allows you to close the railway through Wolvercote, putting the trains through an area without housing and where any noise they make would be drowned out by traffic on the A34.

And before someone says the A34 is now in the way, yes, it is, but the Edinbrugh bypass was in the way of the Borders Railway and they managed to work out how to overcome that obstacle. This idea would also avoid the need to build a flyover at Oxford North junction and trying to pile decent foundations for said structure into what I suspect is less than ideal ground in the vicinity, where the drainage channels alongside the railway formation are full of water year-round.

 

[Andyjs247]

Sorry but I don't understand what legislation gives a local authority power to decide retrospectively what traffic can or cannot run on a railway line. The line itself has been in operation since 1850; it is not new. All the NIMBY residents in North Oxford would have been aware that their property was adjacent to an operational railway line. Surely it is down to Network Rail to decide operational matters, ie what traffic can run, when?

 

[The Planner]

Western route study should be out soon, as well as the West Mids and Chilterns one, can't honestly see that option being in there, though granted they won't have considered the issues raised here.

 

[route:oxford]

As for 2043, perhaps we need to be looking at one of the ideas floated by a certain group of councillors, which is to create a new grade-separated junction for the Bicester route at Wolvercot junction with a connecting line over to the Parkway station, partly using the alignment of the old connection from the Cotswold Line at Yarnton junction to Banbury Road junction, which was just the other side of the road bridge from the Parkway. This then allows you to close the railway through Wolvercote, putting the trains through an area without housing and where any noise they make would be drowned out by traffic on the A34.

A certain group of Councillors?

That's outrageous. After your relentless tirade about my comments about the North Oxford Liberal Democrats, you might at least acknowledge that it's the North Oxford Liberal Democrat Councillor, whose house backs onto the railway, that is demanding this route.

And before someone says the A34 is now in the way, yes, it is, but the Edinbrugh bypass was in the way of the Borders Railway and they managed to work out how to overcome that obstacle. This idea would also avoid the need to build a flyover at Oxford North junction and trying to pile decent foundations for said structure into what I suspect is less than ideal ground in the vicinity, where the drainage channels alongside the railway formation are full of water year-round.

It's not just the A34 that will be in the way. The new strategic Northern Gateway link road is in the way too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

After your relentless tirade about my comments about the North Oxford Liberal Democrats, you might at least acknowledge that it's the North Oxford Liberal Democrat Councillor, whose house backs onto the railway, that is demanding this route.

In the interests of balance, maybe we could have a view from some other anti-political party, anti-Labour or anti-Tory perhaps.
I'm sure the anti-SNP would have an opinion on an English matter, they have one on everything else.
Sorry. It's getting tedious.

 

[jimm]

Sorry but I don't understand what legislation gives a local authority power to decide retrospectively what traffic can or cannot run on a railway line. The line itself has been in operation since 1850; it is not new. All the NIMBY residents in North Oxford would have been aware that their property was adjacent to an operational railway line. Surely it is down to Network Rail to decide operational matters, ie what traffic can run, when?

I know it is very boring wading through paperwork, but it might help provide a more accurate picture of what actually happened.

It is not the case that the council is deciding how many trains should run. Condition 19 of the Transport and Works Act Order approving the Chiltern scheme set out requirements about noise and vibration mitigation that Chiltern had to meet before it could run any trains.

All the council had the power to do was approve Chiltern's proposed actions to meet the mitigation requirements, so I assume that the number of trains is the result of a figure provided by Chiltern/Network Rail, but there is a limit to how much paperwork I feel like looking at myself. There's plenty to go at at the link in my post No 1119 from this morning.

And here is what was said in some of the paperwork relating to the second stage of the public inquiry in 2012

6.2 Condition 19
Role of the Local Planning Authority
6.2.1 Under the provisions of the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (CD/1.29/2.1) and Condition 19, the role of the local planning authority is limited to the approval of the details of the noise and vibration assessment, mitigation and monitoring as submitted by Chiltern. Responsibility for the noise and vibration monitoring lies with Chiltern, not the local planning authorities. Chiltern Railways has already committed to fund an independent expert to report to the local planning authorities on the robustness of noise and vibration schemes of assessment. The local planning authority will be able to approve the appointment of that independent expert.
6.2.2 Each local planning authority has a duty to discharge and enforce the planning conditions. Section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides for enforcement of a planning condition by a breach of condition notice, which can be used alongside an enforcement notice. It is entirely appropriate that these conditions fall to be enforced by the local planning authority. Neither Cherwell District Council nor Oxford City Council has raised any concern about the form of the condition or its enforcement. Chiltern is satisfied that they will carry out their duties, assisted by the independent expert, in the discharge and enforcement of this condition.

This is all backed up by a document drawn up for the city councillors which made clear what they could and could not do, when deciding to approve the proposed mitigation, including a note that

Concerns about possible future intensification of use of this rail line cannot bear on the Council’s decision

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Library/Do...nical Briefing to WAC Members 11 06 15 v8.pdf

Western route study should be out soon, as well as the West Mids and Chilterns one, can't honestly see that option being in there, though granted they won't have considered the issues raised here.

I don't think it will be either but the idea of an Oxford North flyover isn't that developed either thus far and there are plenty of other issues to address in and around Oxford first, ahead of any future changes to the connection to the Bicester line and the number of trains that might run that way through Wolvercote.

 

[midlandred]

Two photos from today of Islip Station:

Photo 1

Photo 2

 

[Andyjs247]

I know it is very boring wading through paperwork, but it might help provide a more accurate picture of what actually happened.

It is not the case that the council is deciding how many trains should run. Condition 19 of the Transport and Works Act Order approving the Chiltern scheme set out requirements about noise and vibration mitigation that Chiltern had to meet before it could run any trains.

All the council had the power to do was approve Chiltern's proposed actions to meet the mitigation requirements, so I assume that the number of trains is the result of a figure provided by Chiltern/Network Rail, but there is a limit to how much paperwork I feel like looking at myself. There's plenty to go at at the link in my post No 1119 from this morning.

And here is what was said in some of the paperwork relating to the second stage of the public inquiry in 2012



This is all backed up by a document drawn up for the city councillors which made clear what they could and could not do, when deciding to approve the proposed mitigation, including a note that



http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Library/Do...nical Briefing to WAC Members 11 06 15 v8.pdf

Thank you for sharing jimm

If I've understood that document correctly, Oxford City Council has no power to revisit the planning permission deemed to have been given by the Secretary of State. The permission was conditional (Condition 19) on operational noise and vibration being predicted and mitigation being installed if prescribed levels were exceeded. And a Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy was agreed as part of the original TWAO permission.

That permission considered the 'reasonable planning scenario' - basically the 4tph passenger plus 1tph freight trains each way from Chiltern Railways and EWR Western Section. Concerns relating to possible future use of the line (extra traffic) cannot be considered though.

It seems the plan and proposed mitigation measures in respect of noise and vibration have now been independently assessed, considered satisfactory and recommended for approval. Network Rail made some changes, including relocation of some switches/crossings to enable the recommendation of approval. But there may be conditions attached to the approval.

I am not an expert but, being realistic, I can see that some monitoring could be required to determine if the mitigation measures actually work or whether further measures are required. Given that different future traffic scenarios cannot be considered, I can't really see how the council can propose any restrictions on train speed, frequency or future use.

 

[jimm]

Thank you for sharing jimm

If I've understood that document correctly, Oxford City Council has no power to revisit the planning permission deemed to have been given by the Secretary of State. The permission was conditional (Condition 19) on operational noise and vibration being predicted and mitigation being installed if prescribed levels were exceeded. And a Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy was agreed as part of the original TWAO permission.

That permission considered the 'reasonable planning scenario' - basically the 4tph passenger plus 1tph freight trains each way from Chiltern Railways and EWR Western Section. Concerns relating to possible future use of the line (extra traffic) cannot be considered though.

It seems the plan and proposed mitigation measures in respect of noise and vibration have now been independently assessed, considered satisfactory and recommended for approval. Network Rail made some changes, including relocation of some switches/crossings to enable the recommendation of approval. But there may be conditions attached to the approval.

I am not an expert but, being realistic, I can see that some monitoring could be required to determine if the mitigation measures actually work or whether further measures are required. Given that different future traffic scenarios cannot be considered, I can't really see how the council can propose any restrictions on train speed, frequency or future use.

Looks like a good summary to me, though my understanding is that the council's approval of the mitigation and monitoring measures was the final hurdle and, so long as the sound barriers are in place and the monitoring equipment is installed and working, then trains can run through the area once the rail infrastructure needed is in place, notably the conversion of the Jericho line between Oxford North junction and Oxford station to bi-directional working, which is due to be done as part of the phase 1 Oxford resignalling during a blockade next February, from the 13th to 21st, giving Chiltern time to train its drivers on the new section ahead of starting services in the spring.

The only fly in the ointment now looks to be the progress of the prior approval* application for the alterations to create the second bay platform at the north end of Oxford station, though the main obstacle there seems to be the size of the temporary building proposed to provide staff accommodation, with some concern about it overshadowing and overlooking adjacent houses along Rewley Road. However, revised drawings were sent to the council in mid-June, which I take it were the result of talks about addressing the concerns, so a resolution may be on the cards soon. The case number on the council's online planning system is 15/00096/PA11 if anyone wants to look at the documents and drawings.

* In case anyone doesn't know what prior approval is, the 19th century Acts of Parliament approving construction of railways included clauses allowing the companies to do what they liked on their own land in order to provide a railway service, powers which have passed down to Network Rail. Some other public bodies also have similar powers in relation to their activities.

What this means is that Network Rail can still do whatever work it wants without a council being able to stop it, but as a courtesy it uses the prior approval process to tell planing authorities what it is proposing, so councils can have a say, with the view to reaching a mutually-agreed final version. Network Rail still has the nuclear option of pressing ahead anyway if they can't agree, but that would be unusual.

 

[dysonsphere]

Two photos from today of Islip Station:

Photo 1

Photo 2

Footbridge is intresting why no disabled acess from platform to platform, looking on Google Earth parking on south side only.

 

[jimm]

Footbridge is intresting why no disabled acess from platform to platform, looking on Google Earth parking on south side only.

There used to be a ramped access from the road bridge south of the station down to the Bicester-bound platform when the station previously had two platforms. This is to be reinstated to provide access for those not able to use the footbridge and a pavement will be provided over the road bridge.

Shown on this plan

http://www.obrag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Islip-Station-Layout.pdf

According to the Obrag website, lift towers could apparently be added next to the footbridge but Chiltern's view is that with forecast traffic levels at Islip they would be too expensive and the reinstated ramp meets the access requirements.

Over on the Cotswold Line a similar footbridge is going to be installed at Kingham later this year, with the lift towers due to be added at some point next year, because the funding is coming from another pot of money.

 

[neonison]

We note that the Marylebone - Princes Risborough - Oxford service is shown in the GBTT from Sunday 25th October though Chiltern's own website has "opening September".

Is anything definite yet?

 

[IrishDave]

Chiltern's website has it opening on October 26th.

 

[neonison]

Thanks for that.
It would appear that the first train is on Sunday 25th October - the 07.44 Oxford Parkway - Marylebone which traverses the curve 07.57 with the first down train, the 07.35 from Marylebone to Oxford Parkway passing that way about half an hour later.

 

[dysonsphere]

There used to be a ramped access from the road bridge south of the station down to the Bicester-bound platform when the station previously had two platforms. This is to be reinstated to provide access for those not able to use the footbridge and a pavement will be provided over the road bridge.

Shown on this plan

http://www.obrag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Islip-Station-Layout.pdf

According to the Obrag website, lift towers could apparently be added next to the footbridge but Chiltern's view is that with forecast traffic levels at Islip they would be too expensive and the reinstated ramp meets the access requirements.

Over on the Cotswold Line a similar footbridge is going to be installed at Kingham later this year, with the lift towers due to be added at some point next year, because the funding is coming from another pot of money.

As I push my partner in a wheelchair I would avoid Islip thats a 450 yard push from car park up slope across road bridge and back down new ramp thats hardly easy or convient and wet if raining.

 

[HowardGWR]

As I push my partner in a wheelchair I would avoid Islip thats a 450 yard push from car park up slope across road bridge and back down new ramp thats hardly easy or convient and wet if raining.

Is there a safe stop near the bridge where one could unload the passenger, then go and park, then walk back, then complete the transfer?

 

[Andyjs247]

We note that the Marylebone - Princes Risborough - Oxford service is shown in the GBTT from Sunday 25th October though Chiltern's own website has "opening September".

Is anything definite yet?

I had heard that driver training was due to commence 10 September (see post #1020). The billboards at Bicester Town also still say "opening summer" for the public start of service, but it was then announced in April to be on 26 October. Nothing in Realtimetrains yet regarding driver training runs (which I might have expected to be appearing in the system by now).

Thanks for that.
It would appear that the first train is on Sunday 25th October - the 07.44 Oxford Parkway - Marylebone which traverses the curve 07.57 with the first down train, the 07.35 from Marylebone to Oxford Parkway passing that way about half an hour later.

I expect there will be an ECS working beforehand that will then form the first train from Oxford Parkway carrying passengers

 

[FordFocus]

When is the line officially open for traffic and no longer having a possession on. Wouldn't have thought driver training runs would be in the system until a few days before. Can only see them been STP or VSTP.

 

[Andyjs247]

Is there a safe stop near the bridge where one could unload the passenger, then go and park, then walk back, then complete the transfer?

Not really. The rail replacement bus stops on Kidlington Road (ie away from the station on Bletchingdon Road) as it is a safer place to wait.

The railway bridge on Bletchingdon Road by the station will have a proper footway installed - it is just a grass verge at present. It would be possible to drop someone off by the bridge but it is not ideal waiting by the bridge for any length of time. It is wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass but there's not enough room for parking without it being a hazard IMO.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Sounds like Chiltern are hoping that people in that particular situation at Islip will just use Oxford Parkway station instead? How far is it by road? 5-10 minutes? I wonder if there will be an easement allowing people with mobility issues to double back at Oxford Parkway or Bicester Village?

 

[jimm]

Sounds like Chiltern are hoping that people in that particular situation at Islip will just use Oxford Parkway station instead? How far is it by road? 5-10 minutes? I wonder if there will be an easement allowing people with mobility issues to double back at Oxford Parkway or Bicester Village?

The population of Islip is a colossal 600 or so. It is a local station to meet local needs and the Parkway is indeed just a couple of miles away if anyone isn't up to using a ramp. The volume of passengers is never going to justify the costs of installing and maintaining lifts. And if the local GPs are sympathetic, they might allow the use of their car park to drop off/pick up wheelchair users. The surgery is across the road from where the top of the ramp will be.

As I noted above, doubling back is going to be permitted on a number of journeys to/from Islip as a matter of course, so I doubt it would be a problem for Chiltern if someone has particular mobility concerns but with the extra time that would then be involved, the Parkway looks a far more practical option, to be frank. Chiltern may even pay for a taxi. At nearby Kings Sutton they have no choice, as the only access to the northbound platform is the footbridge, so cabs are laid on to/from Banbury as required.