Chiltern Oxford stock

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Why did Chiltern's Oxfords go from being a 99% 168 operation (there was I think one daily 165/172 but aside from that it was very rare) to being almost exclusively operated by pairs of 165s? This seems like quite a major downgrade, and strange seeing as so many more 168s seem to be popping up on Aylesburys and Wycombe stoppers lately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because they're now stopping diagrams (mostly).

168s on Aylesburys are mostly peak extras (in which case they use whatever is available) or morning south/evening north (to get them out of the depot onto other services from Marylebone without wasting paths while at the same time providing with-flow peak strengthening without running them back half empty). During the day it's almost all 165s.

 

[43096]

Why did Chiltern's Oxfords go from being a 99% 168 operation (there was I think one daily 165/172 but aside from that it was very rare) to being almost exclusively operated by pairs of 165s? This seems like quite a major downgrade, and strange seeing as so many more 168s seem to be popping up on Aylesburys and Wycombe stoppers lately.

There was also a locomotive-hauled diagram in the evening peak to Oxford that has also stopped.

 

[12LDA28C]

It coincides with many Oxford services now being timed for 75mph units so that 165s can be substituted for 168s with no loss in running time, if Class 168 availability is poor. When Chiltern began running to Oxford, trains were limited stop (e.g. Marylebone - Bicester Village - Oxford Parkway - Oxford) and timed for an hour or less Marylebone - Oxford Parkway and around 1 hour 5 minutes to Oxford, competing to a certain extent with GWR.

Since Covid many trains are timed for 1 hour 20 mins or longer to Oxford as more intermediate stops have been added into the schedules with the resultant increase in journey times, also more recovery time has been built in, to achieve higher punctuality figures. This means schedules can be maintained by Class 165s which was not previously the case. Also of course Chiltern no longer operate Class 172s, meaning a net loss of four 100mph capable units, not to mention the ongoing Class 168 refresh program. Also competition on similar routes seems to be actively discouraged these days so there doesn't seem to be much incentive for Chiltern to reduce journey times on the route back to what they once were.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It coincides with many Oxford services now being timed for 75mph units so that 165s can be substituted for 168s with no loss in running time, if Class 168 availability is poor. When Chiltern began running to Oxford, trains were limited stop (e.g. Marylebone - Bicester Village - Oxford Parkway - Oxford) and timed for an hour or less Marylebone - Oxford Parkway and around 1 hour 5 minutes to Oxford, competing to a certain extent with GWR.

Since Covid many trains are timed for 1 hour 20 mins or longer to Oxford as more intermediate stops have been added into the schedules with the resultant increase in journey times, also more recovery time has been built in, to achieve higher punctuality figures. This means schedules can be maintained by Class 165s which was not previously the case. Also of course Chiltern no longer operate Class 172s, meaning a net loss of four 100mph capable units, not to mention the ongoing Class 168 refresh program. Also competition on similar routes seems to be actively discouraged these days so there doesn't seem to be much incentive for Chiltern to reduce journey times on the route back to what they once were.

That makes sense, thank you. It felt very much like back then, the Marylebone route was being advertised as the new simplest way to travel from Oxford to London, especially with many GWR fasts being in the hands of 3 car Turbos and facing congestion at Reading, but now GWR does, without a doubt, seem once again the flagship option.

 

[fishwomp]

Since Covid many trains are timed for 1 hour 20 mins or longer to Oxford as more intermediate stops have been added into the schedules with the resultant increase in journey times, also more recovery time has been built in, to achieve higher punctuality figures. This means schedules can be maintained by Class 165s which was not previously the case. Also of course Chiltern no longer operate Class 172s, meaning a net loss of four 100mph capable units, not to mention the ongoing Class 168 refresh program. Also competition on similar routes seems to be actively discouraged these days so there doesn't seem to be much incentive for Chiltern to reduce journey times on the route back to what they once were.

Also, GWR times went down to 45-50 mins instead of 1hr in around 2019 when the Hitachi timings were set, so something other than speed had to be the way to keep the business - as it was no longer neck and neck. Chiltern have Oxford Parkway, and also don't do the peak-restrictions of GWR. Other than that, I'd pick GWR now every time during the day. Evening times frequencies are lower so it pays to work out what's running and head to right tube station.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Are the same trains each day booked for 168s now, or is it really a case of 165s booked for everything and allocate a few Clubman to whichever diagrams are easiest on the day?

 

[cactustwirly]

Haven't Chiltern reduced the loco hauled diagrams so more 168s are required for Birmingham services

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

This change seemed to have happened a fair while before that.

 

[12LDA28C]

Are the same trains each day booked for 168s now, or is it really a case of 165s booked for everything and allocate a few Clubman to whichever diagrams are easiest on the day?

Some trains are indeed booked for Class 168 traction, for example this week the 0711 MYB - OXF and 0844 return are diagrammed 3-168 and the 0839 MYB - OXF and 1019 return are 4-168 but again, as they are stopping services a 165 could be substituted if required.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Some trains are indeed booked for Class 168 traction, for example this week the 0711 MYB - OXF and 0844 return are diagrammed 3-168 and the 0839 MYB - OXF and 1019 return are 4-168 but again, as they are stopping services a 165 could be substituted if required.

Thanks. The service has changed considerably then. It does make sense that more stops were added as Bicester and Wycombe already have fast services to London, and Oxford has GWR, whereas new connections can now be made with smaller towns and Oxfordshire.

 

[12LDA28C]

Thanks. The service has changed considerably then. It does make sense that more stops were added as Bicester and Wycombe already have fast services to London, and Oxford has GWR, whereas new connections can now be made with smaller towns and Oxfordshire.

Also Chiltern is still only running 83% of pre-Covid services so logically those trains still running will need to make more station stops to make up for the shortfall in the overall number of trains being operated.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I do fail to see why they can't give Islip a better service than one in four. I appreciate it's not the most heavily-used of stations, but it's hardly an attractive option with such a low frequency. Mind you, the 1tp2h is better than when the line first opened and there were gaps of up to three hours.

 

[12LDA28C]

I do fail to see why they can't give Islip a better service than one in four. I appreciate it's not the most heavily-used of stations, but it's hardly an attractive option with such a low frequency. Mind you, the 1tp2h is better than when the line first opened and there were gaps of up to three hours.

Islip is very lightly used, I'm not convinced demand justifies any more than a two-hourly service, indeed according to Wikipedia, the most recent census gives the population of the village as only 652 and it's a 3-mile drive to reach Oxford Parkway station for a much more frequent service. For many years the good citizens of Islip only had use of the local Oxford - Bicester Town shuttle and could only dream of a direct service to London...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do fail to see why they can't give Islip a better service than one in four. I appreciate it's not the most heavily-used of stations, but it's hardly an attractive option with such a low frequency. Mind you, the 1tp2h is better than when the line first opened and there were gaps of up to three hours.

It was, if I recall, actually at the request of the locals, because they didn't want to become an unofficial A34 Parkway (the station is very, very convenient, being just off that road). The infrequent service suits their purpose (if any ever bother using it) and they can drive to Oxford Parkway (it's one of those expensive, posh villages with basically 100% car ownership) if they want more frequency.

(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?)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It was, if I recall, actually at the request of the locals, because they didn't want to become an unofficial A34 Parkway

What a bizarre (yet understandable) situation, for locals to deliberately request an infrequent service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What a bizarre (yet understandable) situation, for locals to deliberately request an infrequent service.

Have a look at a map. It's quicker to get to from the A34 than Oxford Parkway is, and their village would have become littered with cars parking for free rather than paying at Parkway. Asking for a less frequent service removed that appeal.

(I don't entirely see, pre Parkway, any point in the Water Eaton P&R site, the shortest route to it by road involves passing within about 100m of the Pear Tree site - unless it was just overflow or perhaps avoiding peak congestion at the Pear Tree roundabout by reaching it via Kidlington as I think the signage suggests)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Have a look at a map. It's quicker to get to from the A34 than Oxford Parkway is, and their village would have become littered with cars parking for free rather than paying at Parkway. Asking for a less frequent service removed that appeal.

My family and I admittedly use the village of Bedhampton as a park and ride for Portsmouth's Gunwharf Quays outlet (just off the A3(M), free and avoids the Portsmouth bridge queues), so I can see the appeal of a similar situation in Islip - and the prospects of that unsettling locals.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

On that basis, was there actually much point in reopening Islip at all? Id be interested to know if EWR intend to serve there at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On that basis, was there actually much point in reopening Islip at all? Id be interested to know if EWR intend to serve there at all.

There are according to Wiki 20K entries/exits, so it's not unused, just not that heavily used. There are stations with fewer.

 

[12LDA28C]

On that basis, was there actually much point in reopening Islip at all? Id be interested to know if EWR intend to serve there at all.

Pretty sure it's a rather long and complicated process to actually permanently close a station...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

On that basis, was there actually much point in reopening Islip at all? Id be interested to know if EWR intend to serve there at all.

London is probably the "biggest" market apart from Oxford, and seeing as only a quarter of those stop there, I'd be surprised if they stopped EWR there.

 

[The Planner]

London is probably the "biggest" market apart from Oxford, and seeing as only a quarter of those stop there, I'd be surprised if they stopped EWR there.

It was being considered as E-W paths are very close to London paths and it did initially solve some issues. They are staying in the London paths now.

 

[cactustwirly]

What a bizarre (yet understandable) situation, for locals to deliberately request an infrequent service.

The train service has no bearing on locals.
They'll just drive I imagine. It's a tiny village, although I suspect there would be demand for peak services to Oxford/London

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The train service has no bearing on locals.
They'll just drive I imagine. It's a tiny village, although I suspect there would be demand for peak services to Oxford/London

Not everyone drives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not everyone drives.

I very strongly suspect 100% of households in Islip have at least one car, most probably two or more, and kids would be able to use their bicycle (Oxford is big on cycling) to reach Parkway easily enough if they wanted (but equally kids mostly seem happy to arrange their lives around infrequent train services in rural areas if not getting a lift in Daddy's Range Rover/Jag). It's that sort of place. You don't move to little villages without being a driver.

To go into Oxford they probably drive to Pear Tree P&R for the frequent service from there.

 

[Birmingham]

It coincides with many Oxford services now being timed for 75mph units so that 165s can be substituted for 168s with no loss in running time, if Class 168 availability is poor. When Chiltern began running to Oxford, trains were limited stop (e.g. Marylebone - Bicester Village - Oxford Parkway - Oxford) and timed for an hour or less Marylebone - Oxford Parkway and around 1 hour 5 minutes to Oxford, competing to a certain extent with GWR.

Since Covid many trains are timed for 1 hour 20 mins or longer to Oxford as more intermediate stops have been added into the schedules with the resultant increase in journey times, also more recovery time has been built in, to achieve higher punctuality figures. This means schedules can be maintained by Class 165s which was not previously the case. Also of course Chiltern no longer operate Class 172s, meaning a net loss of four 100mph capable units, not to mention the ongoing Class 168 refresh program. Also competition on similar routes seems to be actively discouraged these days so there doesn't seem to be much incentive for Chiltern to reduce journey times on the route back to what they once were.

Journey times have similarly increased on the Birmingham route too, with all services now calling at Dorridge and Warwick, nearly all at Bicester North and Haddenham & Thame Parkway, and many at High Wycombe. Long gone are the days of the headline times from Birmingham, but it’s particularly a snub for passengers from Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, and Banbury who previously benefitted from the fast services which only called those stations and for whom it is actually their principal service.

 

[swt_passenger]

I very strongly suspect 100% of households in Islip have at least one car, most probably two or more, and kids would be able to use their bicycle (Oxford is big on cycling) to reach Parkway easily enough if they wanted (but equally kids mostly seem happy to arrange their lives around infrequent train services in rural areas if not getting a lift in Daddy's Range Rover/Jag). It's that sort of place. You don't move to little villages without being a driver.

To go into Oxford they probably drive to Pear Tree P&R for the frequent service from there.

Back around 2008/2009 when Evergreen 3 was still in development the section through Islip was to remain single track with only the one platform. IIRC certain infrastructure work was considered to be premature, and would be done later on by/for EWR, but as we now know it was eventually decided to include full doubling.

I don’t think the TWA inspectors report is readily available online now, but I think it does highlight somewhere that the intention was for Islip station to remain a facility for local users only, ie it was definitely not to have a significant sized carpark. That does hint that a major frequency increase was not supported?

 

[cactustwirly]

Not everyone drives.

Looking at the sort of village it is, that's a handful of people.
It's like Shipton under Wychwood tbh.

 

[Towers]

My family and I admittedly use the village of Bedhampton as a park and ride for Portsmouth's Gunwharf Quays outlet (just off the A3(M), free and avoids the Portsmouth bridge queues), so I can see the appeal of a similar situation in Islip - and the prospects of that unsettling locals.

I’m sure the residents of Bedhampton would be most humbled at your gracious description of their locale!