Options for the proposed Birmingham Moor Street to Oxford service

[zwk500]

Quite possibly. But I maintain that it would be better to look at this properly to identify where the need exists and then provide the services that meet that need.

Maybe they have. If the demand is between Leamington and Birmingham, but also from King's Sutton and Heyford towards London, maybe this is the best way to serve the demand within the available options?

How many of the London trains terminate at Oxford? I appreciate that some continue along the Cotswolds line, but I know that some terminate and shunt into the Down Sidings before returning to London. Would it not be a better option to extend a few of these to Banbury? There's also more than just a few of the Didcots that terminate at Oxford which could be extended.

Is there time in the turnround to run to Banbury and back? If not, are there enough units to drop them into a later path?

 

[O L Leigh]

Maybe they have. If the demand is between Leamington and Birmingham, but also from King's Sutton and Heyford towards London, maybe this is the best way to serve the demand within the available options?

I presume you meant Tackley not Kings Sutton, as the latter could easily be catered for by adding a few more stops to the existing Chiltern service.

Leamington to Brum pre-covid was, what, 4-5tph (2 XC, at least 2 Chiltern and 1 WMT plus the route via Coventry with a change)...? I don't think we're too far away from getting back to that, certainly from mid-2023, which is way before any proposed additional service would start. Solihull had about 4tph (2 Chiltern and 2-3 WMT) with Dorridge not too far behind. On that section it is probably only Warwick that lacks a decent service, but perhaps it's proximity to Leamington Spa has caused that. Banbury to Oxford was a shade over 2tph (2 XC and the GWR local) so probably could do with some uplift. The connection between Banbury and Leamington Spa would have been about 4tph with direct connections to all major destinations, so it would continue to work as an interchange.

Is there time in the turnround to run to Banbury and back? If not, are there enough units to drop them into a later path?

I don't think so, so it probably would need an extra unit/driver (I'm fairly certain Oxford to Banbury is worked DOO) to make it work. But a whole new service would presumably require even more units as well as additional staff.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

How many of the London trains terminate at Oxford? I appreciate that some continue along the Cotswolds line, but I know that some terminate and shunt into the Down Sidings before returning to London. Would it not be a better option to extend a few of these to Banbury? There's also more than just a few of the Didcots that terminate at Oxford which could be extended.

One long-term aspiration is for the current Oxford terminators to continue to Hanborough and terminate there. But obviously that requires significant investment in redoubling from Wolvercot Junction to Hanborough, plus new platform(s) at Hanborough.

 

[Falcon1200]

On GWR, do they have sufficient DMUs in the Reading area now since electrification ?

I would suspect not, given that all GWR can provide for the Didcot/Oxford trains are generally, if not always, just a 2-car 165, which can get very cosy during busy times!

Another way to do this could be extending the existing two hourly Moor Street to Leamington Chiltern service on to Oxford.

Those trains however are very slow, calling at multiple places, and the one I was on last week was looped at Dorridge for one of the few remaining XC trains via Solihull to overtake!

Three extra bays at BMO? Interesting, the most I've previously seen is two ("plug in" the one which was built but never finished last time it was rebuilt, plus another, with differing opinions as to which side it should go on!).

Would a simpler solution not be to connect, as mentioned, the 'spare' platform at Moor St, and re-open the fourth platform at Snow Hill, now it is no longer required for the trams, allowing more Chiltern trains to terminate and lay over there?

As a regular user of the route, two trains an hour between Oxford and Birmingham are definitely required, but the point is well made that reverting to XC's pre-Covid service would result in single sets operating vice double units, and I often found the via Coventry trains to be overcrowded with just one set. A Chiltern addition would be most welcome, I would suggest calling at Solihull, Warwick, Leamington and Banbury only. The Moor St/Leamington and Banbury/Oxford stoppers would remain also.

 

[zwk500]

Would a simpler solution not be to connect, as mentioned, the 'spare' platform at Moor St, and re-open the fourth platform at Snow Hill, now it is no longer required for the trams, allowing more Chiltern trains to terminate and lay over there?

This adds about 5 minutes travel time and requires sending another train through the tunnel, which is already quite tightly packed. However I do agree the 4th Snow Hill platform should be reopened to heavy rail traffic.

 

[The Planner]

Quite possibly. But I maintain that it would be better to look at this properly to identify where the need exists and then provide the services that meet that need.

It has been by NR strategic planners, they are the ones proposing it.

XC via Coventry is vulnerable to delays and is already a significant issue. If you were going to run the second hourly service that way, it might as well make all the stops as it won't be any faster even if it only stopped at Coventry. Also, it's worth noting that running a fast/semi-fast service on a 2tph frequency would reduce XC's capacity along sections of the route, in which case you'd definitely need something extra making the trip to make up for the lost seats. 2tph via Cov would also depend on whether the second hourly path even exists along that section or whether that is currently used by LNR/Avanti. It's also going to require an additional path along the single line through Kenilworth. Granted there's not many passenger services through Kenilworth, but there's a decent amount of freight going that way.

Needs the redoubling from Milverton to Kenilworth doing, which is planned.

Would a simpler solution not be to connect, as mentioned, the 'spare' platform at Moor St, and re-open the fourth platform at Snow Hill, now it is no longer required for the trams, allowing more Chiltern trains to terminate and lay over there?

As a regular user of the route, two trains an hour between Oxford and Birmingham are definitely required, but the point is well made that reverting to XC's pre-Covid service would result in single sets operating vice double units, and I often found the via Coventry trains to be overcrowded with just one set. A Chiltern addition would be most welcome, I would suggest calling at Solihull, Warwick, Leamington and Banbury only. The Moor St/Leamington and Banbury/Oxford stoppers would remain also.

The fourth platform at Snow Hill is planned as well as the Moor St capacity. The fourth platform will come first, along with extended sidings on the Stourbridge side.

 

[O L Leigh]

It has been by NR strategic planners, they are the ones proposing it.

Righto. That wasn't clear from what had been posted so far.

Needs the redoubling from Milverton to Kenilworth doing, which is planned.

So that section is presumably full and any enhancements will be in the long term.

Not doubling all the way to Gibbet Hill...?

 

[The Planner]

Righto. That wasn't clear from what had been posted so far.



So that section is presumably full and any enhancements will be in the long term.

Not doubling all the way to Gibbet Hill...?

No, its not required to deliver the second XC and the bit north of Kenilworth was never double anyway.

 

[cle]

Ok so there is a plan for the Kenilworth stretch - and 2 x XC via Coventry (long aspired) - could exist in addition to the Oxford-Moor St, once done?

 

[daodao]

Oxford is just a sensible place to run to.

Would it not be more sensible to join this proposed service to one of the Oxford-Didcot shuttles, to reduce the number of trains terminating in the congested Oxford station? The other Oxford-Didcot shuttle could be extended as a stopper to Banbury and made hourly. It would be sensible for these services all to be run by Chiltern.

 

[RobShipway]

Would it not be more sensible to join this proposed service to one of the Oxford-Didcot shuttles, to reduce the number of trains terminating in the congested Oxford station? The other Oxford-Didcot shuttle could be extended as a stopper to Banbury and made hourly. It would be sensible for these services all to be run by Chiltern.

I would have to disagree, as GWR already operate the Oxford - Didcot shuttles, it would make sense for those to be extended to Banbury as others have already suggested in this thread. You already have a service that goes from Didcot Parkway to Banbury with services today as an example from Didcot Parkway at 06:09 (06:51 arrival), 08:07 (08:53 Arrival), 10:07 (10:52 Arrival), 12:06 (12:51 Arrival), 14:06 (14:51 Arrival), 16:06 (16:51 arrival), 18:07 (18:53 arrival), 19:34 (20:18 arrival) and finally 21:04 (21:52 arrival).

If the paths are available to extend the services terminating at Oxford to travel to Banbury, then that would give a better service. Although, it still maybe only a two car service, but given that there may not be the space in the bay platform at Banbury to have a larger train there, then a two car service is better than no service.

 

[SynthD]

Would it not be more sensible to join this proposed service to one of the Oxford-Didcot shuttles, to reduce the number of trains terminating in the congested Oxford station? The other Oxford-Didcot shuttle could be extended as a stopper to Banbury and made hourly. It would be sensible for these services all to be run by Chiltern.

The Oxford Didcot shuttles will be replaced by the Pad Didcot electric service running to Oxford when it can. Chiltern have terminating platforms, and there is a wish to run to Cowley. I can’t remember if that’s an industry or user wish.

 

[daodao]

Chiltern have terminating platforms

The terminating platforms at Oxford are only suitable for Chiltern's trains from the Bicester direction. There are just 2 other (through) platforms, so it desirable to minimise the number of trains terminating there. I see no benefit in exacerbating matters by electrifying just from Didcot to Oxford, but clearly in the long-term it would be desirable to electrify this segment combined with electrification from Oxford to Birmingham and ideally Oxford to Bedford.

 

[A S Leib]

Didn't they used to operate some witching hour services from Banbury or Stratford to Oxford? So it may well be signed / learned - if not expired. Who knows.

The 23:11 Marylebone to Banbury runs via Oxford (and an extra leaving Marylebone at 22:37 from the timetable change).

 

[zwk500]

Would it not be more sensible to join this proposed service to one of the Oxford-Didcot shuttles, to reduce the number of trains terminating in the congested Oxford station? The other Oxford-Didcot shuttle could be extended as a stopper to Banbury and made hourly. It would be sensible for these services all to be run by Chiltern.

As mentioned, the Oxford-Didcot is eventually intended to be joined to the Pad-Didcot. Also Chiltern would need to route learn to Didcot. Not impossible, but slightly harder.

The Oxford Didcot shuttles will be replaced by the Pad Didcot electric service running to Oxford when it can. Chiltern have terminating platforms, and there is a wish to run to Cowley. I can’t remember if that’s an industry or user wish.

Cowley is, I think, best described as a user intention. There's a lot of room though for Cowley to be tagged into EWR or Chiltern's London services as well as this Birmingham-Oxford service.

 

[JamesT]

The terminating platforms at Oxford are only suitable for Chiltern's trains from the Bicester direction. There are just 2 other (through) platforms, so it desirable to minimise the number of trains terminating there. I see no benefit in exacerbating matters by electrifying just from Didcot to Oxford, but clearly in the long-term it would be desirable to electrify this segment combined with electrification from Oxford to Birmingham and ideally Oxford to Bedford.

GWR used to terminate Worcester services in the bay before Chiltern started, so it’s eminently possible to terminate other trains from the North there.
Network Rail are starting work on the preliminaries for adding a third through platform on the West side. They’re closing Botley Road for the whole of next year, I’ve not seen a timeline for when the new platform will be available.
The Didcot-Oxford shuttles being replaced by Oxford-Paddington stoppers isn’t going to exacerbate matters, there’s no extra services.
Wiring more would be better, but at least doing Oxford-Didcot as was promised by the GWML electrification would free up some much needed Turbos for elsewhere on the network and stop some trains running on diesel in Oxford’s polluted city centre.

 

[zwk500]

The terminating platforms at Oxford are only suitable for Chiltern's trains from the Bicester direction.

The platforms can be reached from all tracks. Finding the gap to depart onto the northbound lines is not the most taxing timetabling task.

I see no benefit in exacerbating matters by electrifying just from Didcot to Oxford, but clearly in the long-term it would be desirable to electrify this segment combined with electrification from Oxford to Birmingham and ideally Oxford to Bedford.

How would electrification exacerbate matters? It would arguably help as trains can accelerate out of the platforms quicker.

 

[daodao]

How would electrification exacerbate matters?

It would force train services to terminate in Oxford, which current only has 2 (through) platforms accessible from the south, that could otherwise be linked to run through Oxford.

 

[zwk500]

It would force train services to terminate in Oxford, which current only has 2 (through) platforms accessible from the south, that could otherwise be linked to run through Oxford.

The only trains that will switch to EMUs are the Stoppers that already largely terminate at Oxford, the 1tp2h to Banbury being cut short at Oxford wouldn't be overly taxing. GWR bi-modes can run through if they want. XC and Chiltern won't be using Bi-Modes. Electrification won't happen before Platform 5 opens as well.

 

[AndrewE]

No, its not required to deliver the second XC and the bit north of Kenilworth was never double anyway.

but there was also the direct line from (just N of) Kenilworth to Berkswell and Brum...

 

[swt_passenger]

It would force train services to terminate in Oxford, which current only has 2 (through) platforms accessible from the south, that could otherwise be linked to run through Oxford.

A third through platform is being built now, and it will become the normal platform for down through trains. That will also allow the existing down platform - P4 - to be used for terminating trains from either direction.

 

[RobShipway]

Since they are still being tested, you may find that the class 769 units do the Paddington - Banbury stopping service either as two sets to Reading, then one set goes to Oxford/Banbury.

 

[JonathanH]

Since they are still being tested, you may find that the class 769 units do the Paddington - Banbury stopping service either as two sets to Reading, then one set goes to Oxford/Banbury.

No you won't. They don't have the necessary performance to run into Paddington, aren't cleared and the relevant traincrew aren't being trained on them.

769s are almost totally irrelevant to any aspiration for there to be an extra service between Oxford and Birmingham.

 

[Energy]

Since they are still being tested, you may find that the class 769 units do the Paddington - Banbury stopping service either as two sets to Reading, then one set goes to Oxford/Banbury.

I don't think anyone at NR or GWR would want the 769s near Paddington, they aren't quick to accelerate and are unreliable.

A 5 car 800 service from Paddington to Birmingham Moor Street via Oxford would be more likely.

 

[RobShipway]

I don't think anyone at NR or GWR would want the 769s near Paddington, they aren't quick to accelerate and are unreliable.

A 5 car 800 service from Paddington to Birmingham Moor Street via Oxford would be more likely.

I cannot see class 800 being able to stop at Birmingham Moor Street to be honest, as I think it maybe actually too wide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I cannot see class 800 being able to stop at Birmingham Moor Street to be honest, as I think it maybe actually too wide.

Too wide? They're really narrow.

 

[A0wen]

Too wide? They're really narrow.

Quite - Moor Street used to see Class 165s and they're wider than an 800.

 

[Benjwri]

I don't think anyone at NR or GWR would want the 769s near Paddington, they aren't quick to accelerate and are unreliable.

Would also have to be cleared on the line which would be more difficult than the 800, since the 3rd rail show has to be taken into account.
Coincidentally they also aren’t cleared to Paddington, and one demonstrated why being cleared is so important by taking the 3rd rail shoe off on ballast a while back.

 

[Energy]

Quite - Moor Street used to see Class 165s and they're wider than an 800.

They still see them on Birmingham to Leamington services. The 800s are slightly longer but substantially thinner so I doubt there will be problems.

Would also have to be cleared on the line which would be more difficult than the 800, since the 3rd rail show has to be taken into account.
Coincidentally they also aren’t cleared to Paddington, and one demonstrated why being cleared is so important by taking the 3rd rail shoe off on ballast a while back.

Agreed.

 

[GingerSte]

This adds about 5 minutes travel time and requires sending another train through the tunnel, which is already quite tightly packed. However I do agree the 4th Snow Hill platform should be reopened to heavy rail traffic.

Is that tunnel particularly tightly packed though? I'm aware of 4 TPH in each direction for the local services (this is down from 6 before Covid), and 1 (occasionally 2) TPH for the Chiltern ones.

Plus, the Chiltern services tend to use platform 2 at Snow Hill, so there's less of an issue with conflicting paths there than at Moor Street. When/If the new platform 4 is built, I imagine it would be used by the through trains, with 2 and 3 sharing the terminating services. (I assume a crossover would be added for down trains to access platform 3 without clashing with trains leaving platform 4.) This being the case, I can't see why Chiltern wouldn't want to continue more services to Snow Hill.