Oxfordshire rail corridor study

[Nicholas43]

In the Cotswold Line debate thread,

... The rail corridor was discussed by the Oxfordshire Growth Board just the other day.

The 'Oxfordshire Growth Board' is a meeting of the chairs of the county and 4 district councils. At their meeting on 28 January 2020, they endorsed an ambitious shopping list, set out in this document:
http://democratic.southoxon.gov.uk/documents/b7828/Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study - Revised Appendix 3a and Executive Summary Tuesday 28-Jan-2020 14.pdf?T=9

Key interventions identified at this stage include Oxford station, which should be developed following the existing masterplan principles, four tracking between Oxford station and Radley, and grade separation of Didcot East Junction.

I don't see any mention of electrification Didcot - Oxford.
The 'revised appendix 3a' lists the desired service pattern:
From 2024: 2 trains per hour Milton Keynes - Didcot, 'in the paths of the current GW shuttles', all calling at Culham
1 tph Bedford - Oxford
0.5 tph Birmingham - Oxford (presumably in addition to 2 cross country ?)
From 2028: 2 tph Cowley - Marylebone
2 tph Hanborough - Didcot or Paddington, calling at Culham
1 tph Paddington - Great Malvern (presumably in addition to existing Herefords)
2 tph Cambridge - Bristol / Southampton
1 tph Birmingham - Bristol
0.5 tph Banbury - Oxford

 

[jimm]

In the Cotswold Line debate thread,
The 'Oxfordshire Growth Board' is a meeting of the chairs of the county and 4 district councils. At their meeting on 28 January 2020, they endorsed an ambitious shopping list, set out in this document:
http://democratic.southoxon.gov.uk/documents/b7828/Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study - Revised Appendix 3a and Executive Summary Tuesday 28-Jan-2020 14.pdf?T=9

I don't see any mention of electrification Didcot - Oxford.

Electrification is a matter for the DfT, so outside the scope of the report, which is about what services might be needed to help meet the county's future transport needs, not what is being used to power the trains.

 

[Clayton]

In the Cotswold Line debate thread,
The 'Oxfordshire Growth Board' is a meeting of the chairs of the county and 4 district councils. At their meeting on 28 January 2020, they endorsed an ambitious shopping list, set out in this document:
http://democratic.southoxon.gov.uk/documents/b7828/Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study - Revised Appendix 3a and Executive Summary Tuesday 28-Jan-2020 14.pdf?T=9

I don't see any mention of electrification Didcot - Oxford.
The 'revised appendix 3a' lists the desired service pattern:
From 2024: 2 trains per hour Milton Keynes - Didcot, 'in the paths of the current GW shuttles', all calling at Culham
1 tph Bedford - Oxford
0.5 tph Birmingham - Oxford (presumably in addition to 2 cross country ?)
From 2028: 2 tph Cowley - Marylebone
2 tph Hanborough - Didcot or Paddington, calling at Culham
1 tph Paddington - Great Malvern (presumably in addition to existing Herefords)
2 tph Cambridge - Bristol / Southampton
1 tph Birmingham - Bristol
0.5 tph Banbury - Oxford

Sounds good. Why so long to wait for Cowley though?

 

[swt_passenger]

Sounds defeatist. By referencing linking EWR to the Didcot to Oxford shuttles they seem to be tacitly accepting that those Oxford services won’t ever be joined to Paddington EMUs, which they should be if previously planned electrification ever happens...

 

[JonathanH]

Sounds defeatist. By referencing linking EWR to the Didcot to Oxford shuttles they seem to be tacitly accepting that those Oxford services won’t ever be joined to Paddington EMUs, which they should be if previously planned electrification ever happens...

Why? The demand between Didcot and Oxford appears to be met with shorter trains than those which run between Paddington and Didcot. By linking EWR with Didcot, it enables connections over a wider network without the need for two changes at Didcot and Oxford. If this is just about diesel vs electric trains, that can be overcome with bi-modes. There is capacity at Didcot for the current split service with platforms 3, 4 and 5 on the slow side.

 

[Nicholas43]

Why so long to wait for Cowley though?

I think because, if they happen, it will take ages to rebuild Oxford station and four-track Oxford to Radley, so that there are possible paths Kennington Junction to Oxford North Junction for Cowley to Marylebone trains, avoiding conflict with Up trains.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

From 2024:
0.5 tph Birmingham - Oxford (presumably in addition to 2 cross country ?)

Interesting, I hadn't heard about this development - is this a new proposal? Presumably this is an extension of the current

Moor St - Solihull - Dorridge - Lapworth - Hatton - Warwick - Leamington Spa​

service? (Appears to run in alternate hours to the Stratford - Leamington shuttle.)

Is Chiltern likely to have sufficient stock to run this additional service? My impression was that they were at the 'back of the queue' for DMU cascades. Presumably it would only require one additional unit (165?) if it's 1tp2h.

(I think also 2024 would be beyond the end of the current franchise, so presumably this would be part of a bid for renewal/extension.)

 

[Glenn1969]

Is this plan likely to be funded or just a wish list?

 

[30907]

Do I interpret this rightly as a cumulative proposal, so:
5tph Bletchley-Bicester
4 tph at Culham.
2tph Oxford-Swindon
Is this at all realistic?
(I am piously assuming that XC will be running decent length trains by 2028!)

 

[Clayton]

I think because, if they happen, it will take ages to rebuild Oxford station and four-track Oxford to Radley, so that there are possible paths Kennington Junction to Oxford North Junction for Cowley to Marylebone trains, avoiding conflict with Up trains.

Yes I think you’re right. It’s frustrating as the Cowley line is there and I occasionally see trains on it.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

In the Cotswold Line debate thread,
The 'Oxfordshire Growth Board' is a meeting of the chairs of the county and 4 district councils. At their meeting on 28 January 2020, they endorsed an ambitious shopping list, set out in this document:
http://democratic.southoxon.gov.uk/documents/b7828/Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study - Revised Appendix 3a and Executive Summary Tuesday 28-Jan-2020 14.pdf?T=9

I don't see any mention of electrification Didcot - Oxford.
The 'revised appendix 3a' lists the desired service pattern:
From 2024: 2 trains per hour Milton Keynes - Didcot, 'in the paths of the current GW shuttles', all calling at Culham
1 tph Bedford - Oxford
0.5 tph Birmingham - Oxford (presumably in addition to 2 cross country ?)
From 2028: 2 tph Cowley - Marylebone
2 tph Hanborough - Didcot or Paddington, calling at Culham
1 tph Paddington - Great Malvern (presumably in addition to existing Herefords)
2 tph Cambridge - Bristol / Southampton
1 tph Birmingham - Bristol
0.5 tph Banbury - Oxford

reading the latest issue of Rail page 27 suggests the plan is for 3 trains per hour between London Marylebone and Oxford with 2 trains per hour extending to Cowley from 2028 the Birmingham to Oxford service would run to Moor Street and be extended to Bristol 4 years later.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

reading the latest issue of Rail page 27 suggests the plan is for 3 trains per hour between London Marylebone and Oxford with 2 trains per hour extending to Cowley from 2028 the Birmingham to Oxford service would run to Moor Street and be extended to Bristol 4 years later.

Would there need to be two additional fast paths from Marylebone <-> Princes Risborough found for 2024?
- 1tph - additional Oxford service
- 1tph - East West Rail to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury Vale Parkway
Is this possible? Does anyone know if there's capacity across Neasden and in the Marylebone platforms for two additional services per hour?

Alternatively, the two new services above could just be made to work as extensions of current (slow-ish) services.
- 1tph Marylebone - Aylesbury via Princes Risborough extended to Milton Keynes
- 1tph Marylebone - High Wycombe extended to Oxford

I'd always thought that the EWR MK service would be an additional fast train.

Finally, is there likely to be suitable additional DMU/loco-hauled rolling stock available to Chiltern (or its successor) for these additional/extended services?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would there need to be two additional fast paths from Marylebone <-> Princes Risborough found for 2024?
- 1tph - additional Oxford service
- 1tph - East West Rail to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury Vale Parkway
Is this possible? Does anyone know if there's capacity across Neasden and in the Marylebone platforms for two additional services per hour?

Alternatively, the two new services above could just be made to work as extensions of current (slow-ish) services.
- 1tph Marylebone - Aylesbury via Princes Risborough extended to Milton Keynes
- 1tph Marylebone - High Wycombe extended to Oxford

I'd always thought that the EWR MK service would be an additional fast train.

Finally, is there likely to be suitable additional DMU/loco-hauled rolling stock available to Chiltern (or its successor) for these additional/extended services?

The most recent published EWR proposals have dropped the through service from Marylebone, part of DFT’s idea that a mini-franchise would operate EWR trains (if I recall correctly). It just gets described as an Aylesbury - Milton Keynes service.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

The most recent published EWR proposals have dropped the through service from Marylebone, part of DFT’s idea that a mini-franchise would operate EWR trains (if I recall correctly). It just gets described as an Aylesbury - Milton Keynes service.

Ah, interesting! I hadn't picked up on that before. Thank you!

But presumably this is all subject to the outcome of the Williams Review anyway...

 

[swt_passenger]

Ah, interesting! I hadn't picked up on that before. Thank you!

But presumably this is all subject to the outcome of the Williams Review anyway...

However, even when it was to be a through Marylebone service, I always thought it was to be an extension of the existing service, so wouldn’t actually have been an extra at Marylebone?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

However, even when it was to be a through Marylebone service, I always thought it was to be an extension of the existing service, so wouldn’t actually have been an extra at Marylebone?

no it was to have been a semi-fast service to Marylebone as the existing Aylesbury services are stopping services.

 

[The Planner]

no it was to have been a semi-fast service to Marylebone as the existing Aylesbury services are stopping services.

Doubt that would have worked, it has always been an extension from what I have known. More than likely to remove the requirement to do anything with Risborough to Aylesbury. I have never seen a required maximum journey time for it.

 

[Class 170101]

Doubt that would have worked, it has always been an extension from what I have known. More than likely to remove the requirement to do anything with Risborough to Aylesbury. I have never seen a required maximum journey time for it.

The only way I could see it working would be running via Amersham rather than via Risborough. Too many single line sections between Princes Risborough and Claydon LNE Jn for my liking.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only way I could see it working would be running via Amersham rather than via Risborough. Too many single line sections between Princes Risborough and Claydon LNE Jn for my liking.

The originally published plan was definitely to run the services via Wycombe and Princes Risborough, with associated improvements to the single line, including doubling north of Aylesbury. Those works have since been binned to save costs, and the service split at Aylesbury. That reduction in scope is documented in the TWA Order report.

As is usual, any useful older publications have generally been deleted from the EWR website.

 

[hooverboy]

Electrification is a matter for the DfT, so outside the scope of the report, which is about what services might be needed to help meet the county's future transport needs, not what is being used to power the trains.

given the government is committed to phase out fossil fuel by 2035/2040, perhaps they should be reconsidering the re-instating the original de-scoping.

cue another round of pointless risk assessments and consultations that were already done before the first descoping happened,but have been conveniently adjusted to make it look like some newfangled obstacles have arisen.

not rocket science really is it, using wires to connect 3 seperate wired rail arteries?

not a fan of this new government so far.
a lot of bandwagon jumping and window-dressing,rather than actually getting stuff done.

they haven't got rid of the rule by diktat bit yet thats hungover from labour(still evident in local government and council proceedings), they need a lot less regulation,enforced a lot better.

 

[hooverboy]

Would there need to be two additional fast paths from Marylebone <-> Princes Risborough found for 2024?
- 1tph - additional Oxford service
- 1tph - East West Rail to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury Vale Parkway
Is this possible? Does anyone know if there's capacity across Neasden and in the Marylebone platforms for two additional services per hour?

Alternatively, the two new services above could just be made to work as extensions of current (slow-ish) services.
- 1tph Marylebone - Aylesbury via Princes Risborough extended to Milton Keynes
- 1tph Marylebone - High Wycombe extended to Oxford

I'd always thought that the EWR MK service would be an additional fast train.

Finally, is there likely to be suitable additional DMU/loco-hauled rolling stock available to Chiltern (or its successor) for these additional/extended services?

the set up is nuts.

at least 2tph needed oxford-cambridge via mk.preferably 3.
the present set up is still to london-home counties centric.

it's an important commuter route,fair enough, but so is cross country ,especially oxford,mk,bedford,cambridge.
(bedford-cambridge is a nightmare by road)

 

[The Planner]

the set up is nuts.

at least 2tph needed oxford-cambridge via mk.preferably 3.
the present set up is still to london-home counties centric.

it's an important commuter route,fair enough, but so is cross country ,especially oxford,mk,bedford,cambridge.
(bedford-cambridge is a nightmare by road)

The infrastructure doesn't preclude that though (apart from the WCML to MK). It just won't start with that level of service.

 

[jayah]

given the government is committed to phase out fossil fuel by 2035/2040, perhaps they should be reconsidering the re-instating the original de-scoping.

cue another round of pointless risk assessments and consultations that were already done before the first descoping happened,but have been conveniently adjusted to make it look like some newfangled obstacles have arisen.

not rocket science really is it, using wires to connect 3 seperate wired rail arteries?

not a fan of this new government so far.
a lot of bandwagon jumping and window-dressing,rather than actually getting stuff done.

they haven't got rid of the rule by diktat bit yet thats hungover from labour(still evident in local government and council proceedings), they need a lot less regulation,enforced a lot better.

If you mandate electrification on every new line, all that will happen is fewer schemes will make the business case and the available funds will be burned through quicker.

In the not too distant future private cars and public buses will be zero emission at the tailpipe and the technological leap to do that for regional trains is not that great.

 

[Meerkat]

at least 2tph needed oxford-cambridge via mk.preferably 3.
the present set up is still to london-home counties centric.

it's an important commuter route,fair enough, but so is cross country ,especially oxford,mk,bedford,cambridge.

But London commuting is ideal for trains as London is dense with loads of transport options.
A commute from MK to Oxford is probably going to be from a suburban housing estate to an out of town business estate - very hard for public transport to compete.

 

[Kingham West]

But London commuting is ideal for trains as London is dense with loads of transport options.
A commute from MK to Oxford is probably going to be from a suburban housing estate to an out of town business estate - very hard for public transport to compete.

Hopefully , you can get to the business estate , by changing for the Cowley Branch, giving access to all those jobs.

 

[Tobbes]

at least 2tph needed oxford-cambridge via mk.preferably 3.
the present set up is still to london-home counties centric.

Ignoring the 2028 EWR start date (feels optimistic, given that there is no detailed route let alone TWAO in place yet), this isn't what's going to happen as the Ox-Cambs services won't run via MK anyway (there's no E-N chord at Bletchley, and I can't imagine that every service will see a reversal at Bletchley HL to run up to MK and reverse to come back to Bletchley before heading down to Oxford.)

 

[duffield]

The originally published plan was definitely to run the services via Wycombe and Princes Risborough, with associated improvements to the single line, including doubling north of Aylesbury. Those works have since been binned to save costs, and the service split at Aylesbury. That reduction in scope is documented in the TWA Order report.

As is usual, any useful older publications have generally been deleted from the EWR website.

They might be available via the 'Wayback Machine' at https://web.archive.org/. They appear to have 200 different copies of https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ going back to 2006. I haven't investigated further to see if they actually have what you might want though.

 

[Class 170101]

the set up is nuts.

at least 2tph needed oxford-cambridge via mk.preferably 3.
the present set up is still to london-home counties centric.

it's an important commuter route,fair enough, but so is cross country ,especially oxford,mk,bedford,cambridge.
(bedford-cambridge is a nightmare by road)

Ignoring the 2028 EWR start date (feels optimistic, given that there is no detailed route let alone TWAO in place yet), this isn't what's going to happen as the Ox-Cambs services won't run via MK anyway (there's no E-N chord at Bletchley, and I can't imagine that every service will see a reversal at Bletchley HL to run up to MK and reverse to come back to Bletchley before heading down to Oxford.)

Afraid I agree with Tobbes here. Oxford to Cambridge via Milton Keynes is not on the table here and never will be due to the reversal required at Bletchley. Whether Bedford to Bletchley local train will ever be extended to Milton Keynes is another question and I would argue there is some merit given that Milton Keynes is an important employment centre and draw for the local villages around it.

As to the viability of an Oxford and Aylesbury (maybe London via Amersham) to Milton Keynes service that certainly has some merit and is being proposed (except south of Aylesbury but...) as part of the timetable plan.

 

[The Planner]

Oxford to Milton Keynes is where most of this phases business case comes from.