Chiltern Oxford stock

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Chiltern giving up those 172s was a very shortsighted idea during Covid. WMR have enough 196s and now Chiltern are short. Is there any chance of them getting these 172s back? They won't be getting new rolling stock for another several years at least.

And it's a pity about the ending of Oxford fasts. Up until a couple of years ago I sometimes travelled to Oxford on this route as a 168 is superior to an IET in comfort and cheaper and only took 10 minutes longer. Now GWR is the only serious option as 1h 20 on a 3+2 seating 165 is not appealing at all.

This is a very subjective statement. I'm sure many would believe the train with bi-mode use, 26m long carriages, end doors and refreshments to be superior.

For Oxford London customers, the much improved GWR service is absolutely not an unreasonable option to take to London in place of the former Marylebone fasts. It's likely to be more expensive than Chiltern, but if you're that budget-conscious, the service via High Wycombe is fine. Those that choose to book Ryanair don't expect a British Airways standard of service, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it's a pity about the ending of Oxford fasts. Up until a couple of years ago I sometimes travelled to Oxford on this route as a 168 is superior to an IET in comfort and cheaper and only took 10 minutes longer. Now GWR is the only serious option as 1h 20 on a 3+2 seating 165 is not appealing at all.

The Chiltern units are about half 2+2.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The Chiltern units are about half 2+2.

I wouldn't be surprised if some actually find the 3+2 more comfortable, as the 2+2 is very upright, the same type of seat as in a 172 or the 3+2 sections of a 377. Though at least on the 165s they have armrests. I find travelling on a 172 for a long journey abhorrent.

 

[RailWonderer]

This is a very subjective statement. I'm sure many would believe the train with bi-mode use, 26m long carriages, end doors and refreshments to be superior.

For Oxford London customers, the much improved GWR service is absolutely not an unreasonable option to take to London in place of the former Marylebone fasts. It's likely to be more expensive than Chiltern, but if you're that budget-conscious, the service via High Wycombe is fine. Those that choose to book Ryanair don't expect a British Airways standard of service, for example.

It was nothing to do with budget, GWR are still the cheapest IC operator, I just always prefer a 168 to an IET. I don't think anyone would argue IETs are more comfortable unless you are very tall as they do have slightly more legroom otherwise a non-issue.

The Chiltern units are about half 2+2.

Those cushions have flattened with age even if they are the same seats as those on the class 379s and 172s.

I find travelling on a 172 for a long journey abhorrent.

I did a Stratford Upon Avon - Brum 55 min each way on a WMR 172 and it was fine, but any longer than that and it would start to feel hard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those cushions have flattened with age even if they are the same seats as those on the class 379s and 172s.

They're neither amazing nor rubbish in my view. But they aren't 3+2 and they are full width with armrests (if they haven't fallen off).

 

[RPM]

Chiltern giving up those 172s was a very shortsighted idea during Covid. WMR have enough 196s and now Chiltern are short. Is there any chance of them getting these 172s back? They won't be getting new rolling stock for another several years at least.

And it's a pity about the ending of Oxford fasts. Up until a couple of years ago I sometimes travelled to Oxford on this route as a 168 is superior to an IET in comfort and cheaper and only took 10 minutes longer. Now GWR is the only serious option as 1h 20 on a 3+2 seating 165 is not appealing at all.

A DfT-mandated decision to move the 172s. Both TOCs are under DfT control and both are seen as costs by the Treasury so there is no longer any reason to make the Chiltern option competitive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A DfT-mandated decision to move the 172s. Both TOCs are under DfT control and both are seen as costs by the Treasury so there is no longer any reason to make the Chiltern option competitive.

Competition has shifted, rightly, to market segmentation, which gives you options of "fast and expensive" or "slow and cheap", just as on the WCML.

 

[Jimini]

Competition has shifted, rightly, to market segmentation, which gives you options of "fast and expensive" or "slow and cheap", just as on the WCML.

The Bicester example cited above doesn't fit that narrative though. Sounds more like Hobson's Choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Bicester example cited above doesn't fit that narrative though. Sounds more like Hobson's Choice.

There isn't (and isn't intended to be) competition at Bicester. It's one TOC.

 

[12LDA28C]

Is there any chance of them getting these 172s back?

No.

 

[Jimini]

There isn't (and isn't intended to be) competition at Bicester. It's one TOC.

I meant more that they used to have fast / limited stop options pre-Covid that originated from Oxford, but now the options are to wedge onto an ex. Birmingham service from Bicester North, or sit on a stopper from Bicester Village and rattle your way slowly down to Marylebone. Bit of a bait and switch for anyone who bought in that area after the Oxford link opened and before Covid graced our shores.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I meant more that they used to have fast / limited stop options pre-Covid that originated from Oxford, but now the options are to wedge onto an ex. Birmingham service from Bicester North, or sit on a stopper from Bicester Village and rattle your way slowly down to Marylebone. Bit of a bait and switch for anyone who bought in that area after the Oxford link opened and before Covid graced our shores.

It's the same choice that countless stations around the country have (albeit split between two physical stations). Fast and busy or slow and good choice of seats. At Bletchley I always choose slow and good choice of seats, but others prioritise time over comfort. It's not at all unusual and it's not a particularly unreasonable situation.

 

[RailWonderer]

Competition has shifted, rightly, to market segmentation, which gives you options of "fast and expensive" or "slow and cheap", just as on the WCML.

Rightly is your view. I personally would have liked to see the DfT butt out of Chiltern's operation and allow them to still run Oxford fasts. I always preferred the comfort of the Chiltern line to the GWML. I'd even pay more for it if journey times were matched.

 

[12LDA28C]

Rightly is your view. I personally would have liked to see the DfT butt out of Chiltern's operation and allow them to still run Oxford fasts. I always preferred the comfort of the Chiltern line to the GWML. I'd even pay more for it if journey times were matched.

I'm sure all TOCs would like the DfT to 'butt out' of their operations so they can be left along to run their service as they see fit but that's not where we are any more, more's the pity.

 

[Merioneth]

There is almost a superb traffic-free cycle route from Islip to Oxford Parkway.

Almost.

View attachment 147084

https://twitter.com/richardf/status/1527992553399898113

When I run on that route I only do it northbound. Bare feet through the river and dry on the lawn. The other way, there are lots of spiky plants!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

(Curious thing: Oxford Parkway is literally right next to the A34 but reaching it from the road is a massive faff via Kidlington - I wonder if they ever intended to add another junction?)

(Belated response, only just spotted this post.)

No, they didn't. Have a look at some old OS maps - Sabre is good for this: https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/

Effectively the A43 (before it became the A34) used to follow Bicester Road around the edge of Kidlington. It then rejoined the current line at the Peartree Roundabout. Oxford Parkway didn't exist then, but if it had, it would only have been a few hundred yards away from the Kidlington Roundabout on the main road.

The current line, basically a Kidlington bypass, came along in 1990. It had two junctions for local traffic: the diverge into Kidlington, and Peartree Roundabout. There was never an intention to add a third junction for the Banbury Road. Indeed, I suspect it's so close to Peartree that a junction wouldn't be permitted.