Just for the benefit of posters not aware of the previous thread, here's my rough proposal being discussed:
I am trying to visualise that as it doesnt make sense to me, the current down platform 2 is on the DPL (which is being extended up towards Wolvercote) and the current plan is to put a loop behind that for another down platform. You have extended the DGL/No1 reception at Hinksey up to make your recess loop which would join the new down loop platform? That would mean your up recess loop would already be there as the current D/UPL as you have slewed all the lines over, it doesnt read quite right to me, unless you have binned the new down loop platform.
It's all a bit confusing as you have to keep switching from the current layout, the proposed layout (aka. knowing what's feasible in the space available), and what I propose. I will try to be as clear as I can, please ask for clarification if I'm rubbish at doing so!
Basically, taking the new down loop line as the westernmost alignment, platform 2 would be built with the loop all as planned. I have indeed extended the Hinksey reception road as a down running line, connecting to the new loop. This means that if so required, you could just shuffle the lines across if you really wanted the recess line used for normal traffic. It also keeps the non-passenger bits of track connected, simplifying things.
..and yes, the down main would be realigned through the current platform 2, the alignment is plenty wide enough to accommodate this, I believe. Disruption can be kept to a minimum as the down loop could be built whilst the current layout is in operation, and realigning the down main should be fairly simple, which would maintain two down roads at all times.
Realigning the former down through as a temporary up through should be fairly easy, and keeps the freight flowing during the work.
The old up platform is then extended over the former up lines to meet the temporary up through, and here you lose capacity for a short period of time, but you do maintain the passenger capacity. Demolishing the old platform section as required then gives you the room for the new up loop on the footprint of the current up platform.
Using the space that is proposed to be used for the new down platform face and track, I propose instead a "down EWR" track and the accompanying platform. Now, as this is proposed elsewhere, we know there is room, but as I've removed the through roads, I have an extra two tracks' worth of width to play with, and I've used them for the "up EWR" platform face and associated track.
I might have a go at overlaying the current platform area's aerial photography (or the diagram from the planning docs) with my proposal as I'm fairly sure there's space precisely because I've removed the through roads. If you want to keep those, then I agree you would require much more land take to the east, which would be a tough sell (or buy!
)
The Planner is quite right about how various things line up in reality, as against a nice neat computer diagram. And trains can cross from the down loop on to the Bicester line at the junction.
Agreed in general, but here I think it could be doable. I'm not clear what you're referring to here, the current arrangement, or my proposal?
There just isn't the space available on that site to have six through platforms. You might at a pinch get five, with two islands and a single face, but three islands is not going to happen.
As mentioned above, I beg to differ, but I'll go off and try to make some rough measurements to back that up.
And the connections into the stabling sidings from the north end were removed a few years ago.
I took Mark's diagram as my basis, they're easy enough to leave out, along with the associated crossovers.
With the projected increases in container traffic to and from Southampton, I'm of the view that keeping freight through roads, to keep Freightliners going at full tilt well away from passengers of a nervous disposition, are a pretty good idea.
As I've said back up the thread, the draft Western Route Strategy highlights concerns about capacity between Oxford North and Didcot from 2019 anyway, with what is already expected to be running then, never mind Cowley services, with quadruple track and flyovers at Oxford North and Didcot expressly mentioned as potential solutions.
I left the flyover out of this as I was trying to keep things isolated, but I left the ladder in precisely for the proposed EWR services from Reading, should they need to use the main platforms. If they instead moved across south of the station, they could use the EWR platforms along with Chiltern, but this highlights the flaw that only a flyover can solve - in my proposal it would be movements from the down lines to the up EWR lines.
Depending on the demand, perhaps there would then be the case I alluded to before my diagram in the previous thread of restoring the LNWR line from the station to the Junction, which then removes the need for a lot of the crossovers, at the cost of losing access to the (apparently, disconnected!) north sidings. This firmly moves the conflict south of the station, where a flyover could take the EWR traffic away from the main platforms, freeing those up for traffic to Worcester and Banbury.
Seeing as this was getting bit infrastructure focused I have started a new Oxford thread here:
Great diagram mr_jrt. Unfortunately the layout it illustrates probably wouldn't work very well in my opinion.
Thanks for doing this, Mark. You clearly have a great deal more knowledge than I do given your excellent diagrams over the years, but I was wondering, were there any particular problems that jumped out at you as reasons why you think it wouldn't work well?
Incidentally, the other part of this that I quite like is that if there aren't any down freight trains recessed, the services can run from Bicester to Cowley without conflicting with the mains whatsoever, and if there are, you just run around them using the crossovers, though this obviously impacts on capacity.
