Oxford Station platform 5 and western entrance

[The Planner]

And as regards Chiltern's choice of via Bicester in preference to via Thame, was 'both/and' considered? And now of course we have the advantage of knowing passenger numbers via the chosen route pre and during Covid and may be better able to forecast regarding Thame etc and to take into account recent and projected housing and other developments; also of course that it will be GBR considering. Something for a 'shadow GBR' to consider?

It was either or, there is no chance whatsoever of the Thame route coming back.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let’s not forget that the via Bicester route was already there (unlike via Thame), and was designed to pick up traffic from a whole swathe of North Oxford, including Kidlington, Woodstock (and even Witney), and also to bring in the Bicester - Oxford flow, and also enable EWR. It wasn’t really about journey times Oxford - London.

 

[swt_passenger]

I quoted a section from the Chiltern Evergreen 3 TWA inspectors report in a thread a few years ago, in 2017, the source evidence documents for EG3 are no longer online, but the inspectors reports are. Basically, the decision to go via Bicester was settled by around 2003. I find it odd that the Thame route still gets mentioned to be honest:

There remained the Northern Corridor [via Bicester] and the Southern Corridor. [via Thame] These were further evaluated in a report by Chiltern to the former Strategic Rail Authority in 2003 (document CD/2.3). The report found that the Northern Corridor was better than the Southern Corridor in the following ways:
a) The Northern Corridor would largely use an existing railway whereas the Southern Corridor had to a significant extent been built over. The Northern Corridor would involve less construction and less disturbance.
b) The proposed Water Eaton Parkway station would have excellent links to Oxford city centre and (for example) other destinations such as the John Radcliffe hospital, and Kidlington. Car users from north and east Oxford and from north and west Oxfordshire could reach the railway without the present need to cross the city centre en route to Oxford station.
c) Extra revenue would result from improving the Bicester Town to Oxford commuter service with commensurate socio-economic benefits.
d) The Northern Corridor would support development of the East West Route, whereas the Southern Corridor would not.
e) Trains on the Southern Corridor would need to use the currently congested main line south of Oxford, whereas the Northern Corridor would use currently abandoned tracks to the north of Oxford, and those tracks could be reinstated to create extra capacity.
f) The Northern Corridor offered a higher benefit:cost ratio than the Southern Corridor.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/737769/twa-10-app-01-report.pdf

 

[Bald Rick]

I quoted a section from the Chiltern Evergreen 3 TWA inspectors report in a thread a few years ago, in 2017, the source evidence documents for EG3 are no longer online, but the inspectors reports are. Basically, the decision to go via Bicester was settled by around 2003. I find it odd that the Thame route still gets mentioned to be honest:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/737769/twa-10-app-01-report.pdf

When I wrote my comment in the previous post, I don’t know this existed, but glad we are consistent!

 

[BrianW]

Regardless of destinations of traffic, the whole point about the bridge rebuild/heightening is that standard double-deckers can get from the city centre out west (note the current bus station, and the new planned bus interchange are both on the east side of the rail line) - those services include local buses to the Park and Ride(!), services to Cumnor and Botley, and then the ones that go further afield like the 66 to Faringdon/Swindon, and the 4 to Wootton/Abingdon (the long way round). For the majority of those services, if you close the road, and make them go north or south first, in rush hour it could easily make a half hour trip at least twice as long.

If you're talking about allowing only buses/taxis etc, then good luck with that. Having a small (sensible!) road closure in Jericho to create an LTN and stop rat-running through there to avoid Woodstock Rd has caused enough arguments in the last year - and that's without a large number of people in work in Oxford!

Agreed. Bus/ taxi/ emergency vehicles only. Good plan then, though it's still a lot of money I dare say, although the presenter did allude to high maintenance costs of the existing bridge.
BTW- what became of the single-decker rather small electric buses I seem to recall at the station 20/30 years ago?
And light rail linking Water Eaton/ Pear tree/ Hanborough/ Redbridge ...
So much thinking to so little effect

And, rather like the Berlin and Red Walls) the Wolvercote Wall camd down, so hope for Jericho too??

 

[cle]

Bicester is a boom town since 2003 too, yes the Village shopping, but also huge housing/population growth which benefitted a lot from the earlier Evergreen Projects. Line speed and more Birmingham services made it a much more compelling commute to London. And the line to Oxford was hokey, but there. Thame never had a chance.

Cowley, no idea on the latest but it does relate to this project and platforming (especially through) - so I'd be keen to hear the status on that.

And would the end situation be:
P1 - EWR / Chiltern Bay
P2 - Through (from EWR/Banbury)
P3 - Through (from Banbury/Cotswolds)
P4 - Through (to EWR/Banbury)
P5 - Through (to Banbury/Cotswolds)

or could there be an additional north-facing (P0) bay? EWR would presumably need more, especially now that most trains seem to terminate at Oxford. Plus Chiltern - so that is looking like 4-6tph at least.

 

[JamesT]

Bicester is a boom town since 2003 too, yes the Village shopping, but also huge housing/population growth which benefitted a lot from the earlier Evergreen Projects. Line speed and more Birmingham services made it a much more compelling commute to London. And the line to Oxford was hokey, but there. Thame never had a chance.

Cowley, no idea on the latest but it does relate to this project and platforming (especially through) - so I'd be keen to hear the status on that.

And would the end situation be:
P1 - EWR / Chiltern Bay
P2 - Through (from EWR/Banbury)
P3 - Through (from Banbury/Cotswolds)
P4 - Through (to EWR/Banbury)
P5 - Through (to Banbury/Cotswolds)

or could there be an additional north-facing (P0) bay? EWR would presumably need more, especially now that most trains seem to terminate at Oxford. Plus Chiltern - so that is looking like 4-6tph at least.

Given the housing estate on that side, I think you'd struggle to fit a P0 in.
Currently Chiltern seem to have relatively long layovers in the bays as they seem to be the only users. When EWR comes in I could see that getting tightened up.
If the through P2 comes in, at least some of the Chiltern or EWR services would be sent through to somewhere like Cowley or Didcot, which reduces the demand on a North-facing bay.

 

[hwl]

Bicester is a boom town since 2003 too, yes the Village shopping, but also huge housing/population growth which benefitted a lot from the earlier Evergreen Projects. Line speed and more Birmingham services made it a much more compelling commute to London. And the line to Oxford was hokey, but there. Thame never had a chance.

Cowley, no idea on the latest but it does relate to this project and platforming (especially through) - so I'd be keen to hear the status on that.

And would the end situation be:
P1 - EWR / Chiltern Bay
P2 - Through (from EWR/Banbury)
P3 - Through (from Banbury/Cotswolds)
P4 - Through (to EWR/Banbury)
P5 - Through (to Banbury/Cotswolds)

or could there be an additional north-facing (P0) bay? EWR would presumably need more, especially now that most trains seem to terminate at Oxford. Plus Chiltern - so that is looking like 4-6tph at least.

Northbound is probably more a case of which ever is vacant at certain times. The various future line speeds suggest P4 will be preferred for terminating and turning back some services from the south (thus relieving P3 a bit) with those going further North sent through P5.

 

[cle]

Northbound is probably more a case of which ever is vacant at certain times. The various future line speeds suggest P4 will be preferred for terminating and turning back some services from the south (thus relieving P3 a bit) with those going further North sent through P5.

We learned upthread that EWR services would need to use 4. But then again, all EWR plans show nothing through Oxford.

I can't see any Chiltern/EWR being sent to Didcot itself. That line is nearly full, and needs the Paddington slows back on it first - once wires reach Oxford. After that, I'm not sure what else can fit. Cowley is also a much shorter turn, and a new market/actual growth.

 

[hwl]

We learned upthread that EWR services would need to use 4. But then again, all EWR plans show nothing through Oxford.

As nothing through hence they won't need to use P4. 6 tph on/off P1 and 2 shouldn't be pushing it, though Chiltern do like their extended layovers at either end to prevent escalating delays.

I can't see any Chiltern/EWR being sent to Didcot itself. That line is nearly full, and needs the Paddington slows back on it first - once wires reach Oxford. After that, I'm not sure what else can fit. Cowley is also a much shorter turn, and a new market/actual growth.

The performance of the stopper has a big impact on capacity and needs improving via electrification to open up more capacity to Didcot.

 

[Snow1964]

The Application for Transport and Works Order for western entrance at Oxford is now published

Application to confer powers of compulsory acquisition on Network Rail. This would be for the purpose of acquiring land and rights to facilitate improvement and upgrade works to create a new western entrance to Oxford Station, additional railway track and platforms, new rail bridges, highway improvements and associated works.

Oxford Station phase 2 improvements: Transport and Works Act order

Approval to confer compulsory acquisition powers on Network Rail to facilitate improvement and upgrade works in and around Oxford Station.

www.gov.uk

 

[zwk500]

The Transport and Works Order for western entrance at Oxford is now published

Oxford Station phase 2 improvements: Transport and Works Act order

Approval to confer compulsory acquisition powers on Network Rail to facilitate improvement and upgrade works in and around Oxford Station.

www.gov.uk

The application for it has been published. Not the order itself.

 

[Falcon1200]

My personal opinion is that a simpler solution to capacity at Oxford would have been two or three bay platforms south of Botley Road on the Becket Street car park, to remove the terminators from the south from the through platforms altogether. And it would not have needed any buildings demolished ! But at least something will, eventually, be done.
The removal of the level crossings north of Oxford is also a positive step. I wonder whether linking the recently re-instated Down Relief directly into the Worcester line at Wolvercote Jc has been considered, allowing non-conflicting parallel running from Oxford for Worcester and Banbury direction trains, although IIRC a relay room is in the way !

 

[WesternBiker]

I wonder whether linking the recently re-instated Down Relief directly into the Worcester line at Wolvercote Jc has been considered, allowing non-conflicting parallel running from Oxford for Worcester and Banbury direction trains, although IIRC a relay room is in the way !

That's occurred to me as well - though I suspect the frequency of services on the line to Worcester probably doesn't justify it, in terms of what additional capacity you would get, beyond what is already planned.

 

[Peter C]

Deleted.

 

[Fidelis]

That's occurred to me as well - though I suspect the frequency of services on the line to Worcester probably doesn't justify it, in terms of what additional capacity you would get, beyond what is already planned.

The North Cotswold Line Task Group proposals include doubling the line from Wolvercote to Hanborough, restoring the second platform at Hanborough providing a turnback north of Oxford station and enabling an additional 2tph as part of the Oxford Metro - Didcot. This would also be along with 2tph off peak Worcester-Paddington. Their studies show a benefit to cost ratio of the total scheme which includes doubling the line from Evesham to Pershore as well over 4:1.

 

[Senex]

That's occurred to me as well - though I suspect the frequency of services on the line to Worcester probably doesn't justify it, in terms of what additional capacity you would get, beyond what is already planned.

Remember that the layout originally did provide just that facility, down relief directly into down OWW, along with up Banbury directly into up relief, before the simplifications set in.

 

[BrianW]

My personal opinion is that a simpler solution to capacity at Oxford would have been two or three bay platforms south of Botley Road on the Becket Street car park, to remove the terminators from the south from the through platforms altogether. And it would not have needed any buildings demolished ! But at least something will, eventually, be done.
The removal of the level crossings north of Oxford is also a positive step. I wonder whether linking the recently re-instated Down Relief directly into the Worcester line at Wolvercote Jc has been considered, allowing non-conflicting parallel running from Oxford for Worcester and Banbury direction trains, although IIRC a relay room is in the way !

A late (too late?) thought, building on yours Falcon ...

- (Re) Create Platform 5 as a north-facing bay, thus avoiding need to demolish YHA.
- Create (if poss) a western entrance maybe through a modified part of the existing YHA or alongside it (less costly)
- Together with south-facing 'bay' platforms on the Becket Street car park these might make enough of a 'dent' that Platforms 3 and 4 will suffice for the through (ie stopping but not terminating) passenger services, esp if the foreseeable future is of less frequent but longer and more reliable trains (as per Williams-Shapps)

Are there figures for how many people travel on by train from south of Oxford to north/west/east; or vice-versa. Could there be more 'terminators'?

Just wondering too whether with increased use of Apps etc there is much call for a western 'ticket office' or for 'waiting' facilities as more folk turn up 'just-in-time'. I guess I'm sort of asking what the mid-C21 Oxford station needs to provide.

 

[JamesT]

A late (too late?) thought, building on yours Falcon ...

- (Re) Create Platform 5 as a north-facing bay, thus avoiding need to demolish YHA.
- Create (if poss) a western entrance maybe through a modified part of the existing YHA or alongside it (less costly)
- Together with south-facing 'bay' platforms on the Becket Street car park these might make enough of a 'dent' that Platforms 3 and 4 will suffice for the through (ie stopping but not terminating) passenger services, esp if the foreseeable future is of less frequent but longer and more reliable trains (as per Williams-Shapps)

Are there figures for how many people travel on by train from south of Oxford to north/west/east; or vice-versa. Could there be more 'terminators'?

Just wondering too whether with increased use of Apps etc there is much call for a western 'ticket office' or for 'waiting' facilities as more folk turn up 'just-in-time'. I guess I'm sort of asking what the mid-C21 Oxford station needs to provide.

This seems to be a lot of work to protect the YHA, at the expense of limiting the design of the station.
If the full Oxford Station Masterplan is implemented, the Becket Street carpark becomes a public transport interchange, so no room for bay platforms any more.
The general drift of proposals is for more through services through Oxford rather than fewer (e.g. Chiltern services extending South to Cowley, GWR sending terminators to Long Hanborough). Getting to and from bays on the South side would also likely create many conflicting moves.
Despite the creation of a second gateline on the Eastern side, Oxford station is very congested with passengers. If a Western entrance (which from the pictures I've seen doesn't appear to contain much in terms of waiting facilities, those are on the platforms) can alleviate some of that then it will be a huge benefit.

 

[Falcon1200]

Remember that the layout originally did provide just that facility, down relief directly into down OWW, along with up Banbury directly into up relief, before the simplifications set in.

Indeed, I remember watching the Down relief line being lifted, from the footpath alongside, around 1973 with one of the PWM shunters in use. Never thought it would be reinstated !

This seems to be a lot of work to protect the YHA, at the expense of limiting the design of the station.
If the full Oxford Station Masterplan is implemented, the Becket Street carpark becomes a public transport interchange, so no room for bay platforms any more.
The general drift of proposals is for more through services through Oxford rather than fewer (e.g. Chiltern services extending South to Cowley, GWR sending terminators to Long Hanborough). Getting to and from bays on the South side would also likely create many conflicting moves.
Despite the creation of a second gateline on the Eastern side, Oxford station is very congested with passengers. If a Western entrance (which from the pictures I've seen doesn't appear to contain much in terms of waiting facilities, those are on the platforms) can alleviate some of that then it will be a huge benefit.

Fair point about conflicting moves into south bays, but this will occur if more trains run through Oxford too, just at different places ! ie Wolvercote Jc, Oxford North/Aristotle Lane Jc (not sure of the current name), and Kennington Jc (if Cowley re-opens). But as you say the car park site will become the new bus interchange, which will be needed.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

I wonder whether linking the recently re-instated Down Relief directly into the Worcester line at Wolvercote Jc has been considered, allowing non-conflicting parallel running from Oxford for Worcester and Banbury direction trains, although IIRC a relay room is in the way !

Here's a photo of Wolvercote Junction, taken from the A40 road bridge: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wolvercote_Jnc.jpg
There is a bridge over Duke's Cut (a short section of canal linking the River Thames to the Oxford Canal) immediately south of the junction, which would presumably need widening if the Down Relief were to be extended. (You can see the bridge immediately in front of the 40 mph speed limit sign.)