Plan for further CP6 Cotswold Line Improvements

[Andyjs247]

If a £275M plan for further development of the Cotswold Line becomes reality, there could be 2tph between Worcester and London plus an extra train each hour from Hanborough. 3tph would require two new platforms at Hanborough and reinstatement of double track between Wolvercot Junction and at least Hanborough.

GWR MD Mark Hopwood revealed plans at a launch event in Witney yesterday which was also addressed by the Prime Minister (also local MP) David Cameron.

See Oxford Mail article here.

HANBOROUGH station could be connected to Oxford by three trains every hour if a masterplan for the future development of the Cotswold Line rail route between Oxford and Worcester becomes a reality.

The plan also calls for two trains per hour linking Worcester with London, one of which would be an express serving only the busiest intermediate stations.

Revealing the proposals for a £275m investment in further improvements to the line between 2019 and 2024, at a launch event in Witney yesterday, train operator Great Western Railway’s managing director, Mark Hopwood, said: “We want to be bold – world-class counties like Oxfordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire need a world-class railway.”

It's a pity they didn't reinstate the whole double track to Charlbury a few years ago!

 

[coppercapped]

If a £275M plan for further development of the Cotswold Line becomes reality, there could be 2tph between Worcester and London plus an extra train each hour from Hanborough. 3tph would require two new platforms at Hanborough and reinstatement of double track between Wolvercot Junction and at least Hanborough.

GWR MD Mark Hopwood revealed plans at a launch event in Witney yesterday which was also addressed by the Prime Minister (also local MP) David Cameron.

See Oxford Mail article here.



It's a pity they didn't reinstate the whole double track to Charlbury a few years ago!

It was made clear at the time that re-doubling Wolvercote Junction would only be done at the same time as the Oxford area was re-signalled otherwise the cost would have been too high. Now that is being done, or will be done in the near future, together with the general increase in traffic, both road and rail, around Oxford means that it becomes economic to increase the Worcester service and improve the service to 'the halts'.

 

[jimm]

It was made clear at the time that re-doubling Wolvercote Junction would only be done at the same time as the Oxford area was re-signalled otherwise the cost would have been too high. Now that is being done, or will be done in the near future, together with the general increase in traffic, both road and rail, around Oxford means that it becomes economic to increase the Worcester service and improve the service to 'the halts'.

In terms of the halts, Shipton and Ascott-under-Wychwood may see more trains, as they are close to the communities they serve, which have 3,500 people living in them, with the prospect of getting towards 4,000 if proposed new homes go ahead and are both on the double-track section with two platforms in place and some rough-and-ready parking.

At Finstock and Combe, no chance of more trains - both are a long way from the villages, both of which are small, and have zero parking. Combe has an hourly bus link with Oxford for most of the day from the centre of the village, run by Stagecoach on a commercial route, so not at risk in the council cuts.

Both these halts only survived in the mid-1990s because BR mucked up closure procedures. They failed to do some safety assessment, I think, and by the time anyone realised the error, the laws had changed in the run-up to privatisation, so they just gave up.

If these new proposals do see the light of day, you would be pushing a lot of trains through the remaining single track between Hanborough and Charlbury on tight headways, so stopping any more services in the middle of all that lot is simply a non-starter.

 

[route:oxford]

At Finstock and Combe, no chance of more trains - both are a long way from the villages, both of which are small, and have zero parking. Combe has an hourly bus link with Oxford for most of the day from the centre of the village, run by Stagecoach on a commercial route, so not at risk in the council cuts.

Although, given the vast tracts of land near both station, they'd be absolutey perfect for large-scale housing development combined with increased service frequency. Something that is desperately needed within a short commute of Oxford.

 

[jimm]

Although, given the vast tracts of land near both station, they'd be absolutey perfect for large-scale housing development combined with increased service frequency. Something that is desperately needed within a short commute of Oxford.

Are these some places called Combe and Finstock I don't know about?

Both stations are in the Cotswolds AONB, at the bottom of the Evenlode valley, and pretty much all the level ground nearby is under water for much of winter due to flooding, including the past week. The roads aren't any good either - the B4022 past Finstock has one of the worst accident records of any road in West Oxfordshire - so these are just about the last places you would ever think of building lots of houses. And both are very close to other stations, in the shape of Hanborough and Charlbury.

Even if there were more trains, the odds of anyone using them are slim. When there were several trains calling at all the halts on Saturdays up to 2006, actually stopping at either place was a novelty.

 

[deltic08]

If a £275M plan for further development of the Cotswold Line becomes reality, there could be 2tph between Worcester and London plus an extra train each hour from Hanborough. 3tph would require two new platforms at Hanborough and reinstatement of double track between Wolvercot Junction and at least Hanborough.

GWR MD Mark Hopwood revealed plans at a launch event in Witney yesterday which was also addressed by the Prime Minister (also local MP) David Cameron.

No pressure from the sitting MP then. He just addressed the meeting.

I wish my MP had that much influence in reinstating the line through Ripon. £275m would easily cover it.

During last years General Erection, Julian Smith, MP, denied all knowledge of the campaign at a hustings even though I had had two face to face meetings and keep him informed of progress by monthly emails since he was elected in 2010. I cannot accuse him outright of lying but in my book it is.

 

[route:oxford]

Are these some places called Combe and Finstock I don't know about?

You must be getting a bit confused. You mentioned them earlier in the thread.

Both stations are in the Cotswolds AONB, at the bottom of the Evenlode valley, and pretty much all the level ground nearby is under water for much of winter due to flooding, including the past week.

AONB is a perfect place to build homes - nobody wants to buy a house somewhere horrible. The idea would be not to build directly on the flood plain - but work with geography. Ideally the line wouldn't flood though!

The roads aren't any good either - the B4022 past Finstock has one of the worst accident records of any road in West Oxfordshire - so these are just about the last places you would ever think of building lots of houses. And both are very close to other stations, in the shape of Hanborough and Charlbury.

Then that's a really good reason to rebuild, widen and improve the roads. Carnoustie, Golf Street & Barry Links are also close together - they haven't been closed yet.

Even if there were more trains, the odds of anyone using them are slim. When there were several trains calling at all the halts on Saturdays up to 2006, actually stopping at either place was a novelty.

Unlikely if several thousand homes were built.

 

[jimm]

You must be getting a bit confused. You mentioned them earlier in the thread.

Ho, ho...

AONB is a perfect place to build homes - nobody wants to buy a house somewhere horrible. The idea would be not to build directly on the flood plain - but work with geography. Ideally the line wouldn't flood though!

Work with geography? In a valley with rather steep slopes and a flat bottom prone to flooding? Why do you think the villages of Combe and Finstock were both built on high ground above the valley in the first place? Which is why they are both a mile from the stations that purport to serve them.

Then that's a really good reason to rebuild, widen and improve the roads. Carnoustie, Golf Street & Barry Links are also close together - they haven't been closed yet.

Or you could just try building somewhere where good road and rail links and other facilities are already available, like, er, Bicester or Didcot.

Unlikely if several thousand homes were built.

But they're not going to be built.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Although, given the vast tracts of land near both station, they'd be absolutey perfect for large-scale housing development combined with increased service frequency. Something that is desperately needed within a short commute of Oxford.

There's no shortage of developers trying that at Hanborough, which is much better suited. But as jimm says, Finstock and Combe are pretty unlikely.

 

[route:oxford]

Work with geography? In a valley with rather steep slopes and a flat bottom prone to flooding? Why do you think the villages of Combe and Finstock were both built on high ground above the valley in the first place? Which is why they are both a mile from the stations that purport to serve them.

Steep slopes? Only if you've lived your life in Norfolk...

For people living in normal counties, it's not unusual to have a bit of a slope here and there.

If you've ever visited Oxford, or at least gone beyond North Oxford, you might have spotted that even in the City there are some slopes. Try having a look around Morrell Avenue or Headley Way on Google Streetview.

Every home built near a railway station within a short commute of Oxford helps mitigate against the dreadful housing crisis in Oxford.

 

[jimm]

Steep slopes? Only if you've lived your life in Norfolk...

For people living in normal counties, it's not unusual to have a bit of a slope here and there.

If you've ever visited Oxford, or at least gone beyond North Oxford, you might have spotted that even in the City there are some slopes. Try having a look around Morrell Avenue or Headley Way on Google Streetview.

Every home built near a railway station within a short commute of Oxford helps mitigate against the dreadful housing crisis in Oxford.

I have scaled the towering heights of Headington Hill once or twice... But if you want to talk about Oxford's housing problems, perhaps stick to the comments on the Oxford Mail website rather than a railway forum.

There may be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if closure of Combe and Finstock is proposed again - which may very well be the case to make the most of capacity on the single-track section if these new proposals do secure funding in CP6 - but the reality is that most days of the week they typically yield no more than 15 passengers between them into Oxford and back, a figure that hasn't changed over many years. Money will be invested where it makes sense - and that is never, ever going to be at these two stations.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Steep slopes? Only if you've lived your life in Norfolk...

For people living in normal counties, it's not unusual to have a bit of a slope here and there.

If you've ever visited Oxford, or at least gone beyond North Oxford, you might have spotted that even in the City there are some slopes. Try having a look around Morrell Avenue or Headley Way on Google Streetview.

Every home built near a railway station within a short commute of Oxford helps mitigate against the dreadful housing crisis in Oxford.

But you haven't explained why Finstock and Combe, rather than Hanborough, Charlbury and Kingham.

I know the geography of the area far too well - heaven knows I've cycled up the b*stard that is Finstock Hill enough times - and I know where I would put new houses locally. It isn't Finstock and it isn't Combe.

If you want to get it past WODC planners it'd be Hanborough. If you want it to sell in five minutes it'd be Charlbury - the quarry or behind Hydac. Finstock? Not a chance.

 

[Andyjs247]

There's also the Oxford green belt to consider - the point of which is basically to stop Oxford sprawling beyond its boundaries and to preserve its setting. So I'd agree that you're not going to get any significant development at Combe or Finstock. Similarly in the case of Islip on the route between Oxford Parkway and Bicester.

Edit: Looking at the map the stronger AONB designation applies roughly beyond Long Hanborough travelling from Oxford. Either way, development is restricted by planning policy.

 

[route:oxford]

There's also the small matter of the Oxford green belt to consider - the point of which is basically to stop Oxford sprawling beyond its boundaries and to preserve its setting. So I'd agree that you're not going to get any significant development at Combe or Finstock. Similarly in the case of Islip on the route between Oxford Parkway and Bicester.

So build 1000s of homes near every station outwith a 1 mile radius of Oxford.

Bring vast numbers of commuter traffic onto the railway. That way, from every direction, daily commuters have a 1 mile wide awe inspiring "green belt" to admire the city from as they travel to work. With David Cameron's plan to extend the services through to Cowley - it'll ideally help towards lifting the "black list" some Business & Science Park employers have on recruiting West Oxfordshire staff.

 

[jimm]

There's also the small matter of the Oxford green belt to consider - the point of which is basically to stop Oxford sprawling beyond its boundaries and to preserve its setting. So I'd agree that you're not going to get any significant development at Combe or Finstock. Similarly in the case of Islip on the route between Oxford Parkway and Bicester.

Combe and Finstock are in the Cotswolds AONB, as I said previously. Long Hanborough is not in the AONB or the Green Belt - hence it is attractive to the housing developers.

Doe anyone actually have any thoughts on the proposals for further improvements to the Cotswold Line and its services?

Such as the proposal for a baseline service of 2tph to/from Worcester all day, which would answer the calls from that end of the line for faster trains by allowing skipping of some stations by some services, while guaranteeing at least an hourly service at the others and the prospect of more services, spread across the day, at the Wychwoods stations.

This idea to speed up Worcester services seems fair enough to me, whereas trying to take stops out of existing services in the situation that applies at the moment is simply not acceptable, given the large number of passengers using a number of the intermediate stations, set against the rather smaller amount travelling to and from Worcester.

And the extra rolling stock this would obviously require - another slice out of GWR's options for 30 more AT300s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With David Cameron's plan to extend the services through to Cowley

It will come as news to the people in the rail industry, not least at Chiltern, who came up with the idea of serving Cowley and have driven it forward that it was Mr Cameron's plan. GWR has also been interested in Cowley for quite a while, if not as open about their ambitions as Chiltern.

 

[route:oxford]

I have scaled the towering heights of Headington Hill once or twice... But if you want to talk about Oxford's housing problems, perhaps stick to the comments on the Oxford Mail website rather than a railway forum.

There may be much wailing and gnashing of teeth if closure of Combe and Finstock is proposed again - which may very well be the case to make the most of capacity on the single-track section if these new proposals do secure funding in CP6 - but the reality is that most days of the week they typically yield no more than 15 passengers between them into Oxford and back, a figure that hasn't changed over many years. Money will be invested where it makes sense - and that is never, ever going to be at these two stations.

So essentially you've only visited it once or twice. Well, it's a fairly steep hill -although nothing like living in Sheffield or some other Northern towns where it feels like there is a hill in every direction. Likewise, people living in the Top 'o the Toon in Stirling (along with tourists) manage to climb the hill from the station.

Sadly, my employer bans me from engaging with media/journalists. Sometimes there are broadly similar names and profile titles across a number of forums. For example "Jimm" pops up on a fairly diverse range of sites from railway, gamers, newspapers through to swinger & fetish - they may not all be you. If you've ever bought a "Not London" ticket on your rare visits to Oxford, you'll spot the term Route:Banbury - my own profile title is a play on this.

Oxfordshire County Council have evidenced that they do not support rural bus services. You can be sure that this will automatically protect low-use railway stations for at least a generation.

If the stations are protected, then may as well build on every bit of land nearby.

 

[Andyjs247]

Reading between the lines it suggests to me that of the potential 3tph from Hanborough to Oxford 2tph will be Worcester-Paddington (using bi-modes) and the other running through from Hanborough to the Cowley branch and Oxford Science & Business Parks. Just wondering what will run this - will GWR keep some 165s (are they keeping any for OXF-BAN local services)?

 

[jimm]

So essentially you've only visited it once or twice. Well, it's a fairly steep hill -although nothing like living in Sheffield or some other Northern towns where it feels like there is a hill in every direction. Likewise, people living in the Top 'o the Toon in Stirling (along with tourists) manage to climb the hill from the station.

Sadly, my employer bans me from engaging with media/journalists. Sometimes there are broadly similar names and profile titles across a number of forums. For example "Jimm" pops up on a fairly diverse range of sites from railway, gamers, newspapers through to swinger & fetish - they may not all be you. If you've ever bought a "Not London" ticket on your rare visits to Oxford, you'll spot the term Route:Banbury - my own profile title is a play on this.

Oxfordshire County Council have evidenced that they do not support rural bus services. You can be sure that this will automatically protect low-use railway stations for at least a generation.

If the stations are protected, then may as well build on every bit of land nearby.

Just because you can build on some steep hills, usually with a nice bit of solid rock in them, you can't build on others. And the Evenlode valley's slopes are not that solid. Network Rail has had contractors trying to stabilise a cutting near Stonesfield for well over a year now and they still haven't sorted it out.

People have been able to tramp up and down the road to and from Finstock and Combe stations for 80 years. Not many have ever chosen to do so. Building more houses is not going to change that, especially in the case of Combe, where they have a bus to and from Oxford every hour, all day, including late into the evening, on a commercial route, which is not going to be affected by the county council cuts - as I already pointed out. That compares with one train a day each way - no contest. And more people living in Finstock are going to be affected by the likely loss of all but peak-hour X9 buses between Chipping Norton, Charlbury, Finstock and Witney than would ever be affected by the closure of Finstock station.

Blaming the county council for ending bus subsidies is a bit rich, considering that axe that the Government is taking to funding for local government in Oxfordshire and everywhere else, which is ultimately driving the decision-making process. Still, George Osborne will be delighted to see that you blame the councillors, instead of him and the member for Witney...

So your employer tracks your every move on the internet, do they? Even on a Sunday morning? Hmm. In what way is posting anonymously on the internet engaging with the media? The key function of media policies is to stop people running their mouths off when speaking to the media, in order that the company presents a single voice to the world, preferably via a selected few official mouthpieces. And if you worked for a housing developer, they would probably be delighted someone was campaigning so strenuously for their interests.

In any case, the coincidence in views between you and the Oxford Mail commenter Andrewxford is quite remarkable at times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reading between the lines it suggests to me that of the potential 3tph from Hanborough to Oxford 2tph will be Worcester-Paddington (using bi-modes) and the other running through from Hanborough to the Cowley branch and Oxford Science & Business Parks. Just wondering what will run this - will GWR keep some 165s (are they keeping any for OXF-BAN local services)?

Yes, you're looking at two bi-mode services (to Worcester and Malvern/Hereford), so more AT300s will likely be needed.

In terms of low-cost rolling stock provision for the third Hanborough train, there will be a 165 available at Oxford much of the day, as two of the sets that will stay at Reading depot post-electrification will be allocated for Oxford-Banbury shuttles and the Cotswold Line halts trains.

This set would be able to potter up and down between Hanborough and Oxford/Cowley all day in between its trips to Worcester and back - assuming they can get in the line capacity between Oxford and Kennington and up the branch to allow for GWR, Chiltern's services and freight trains to the BMW Mini factory. Certainly I could see the morning halts service from Worcester carrying on though Oxford to Cowley being popular, as it would give a pre-8.30am arrival at the business parks. Similarly a return service up the Cotswold Line starting back at Cowley at about 5.15pm would also work well.

That said, presumably a business plan will include a priced option for electrification to Hanborough on top of more double track. The idea of wires as well has been mentioned a few times already in the past couple of years, so you could extend the 387 services out to Hanborough to give the 3tph, using the time they would otherwise be standing in sidings at Oxford waiting to go back to Paddington, and it solves the problems of shunt moves/long platform occupation at Oxford station, in a similar way to Chiltern's proposals sending their trains out to Cowley to turn back, rather than sitting in a platform at Oxford station for an extended period.

 

[Class 170101]

Personally I wouldn't wire just to Hanborough. If anything I would do either the whole of the North Cotswolds or none at all.

Instead release the DMU running the Oxford to Banbury shuttle by wiring that route (its supposed to be anyway) and use that DMU if required between Hanborough and Cowley. I say if required because I think Cowley would be better served by Chiltern as an extension of their Oxford services and I cannot see how Hanorough would warrant three trains per hour if the North Cotswold's goes half hourly between Oxford and Worcester.

Why is Banbury to Oxford a shuttle anyway and not an extension of the London to Oxford services?

 

[route:oxford]

Blaming the county council for ending bus subsidies is a bit rich, considering that axe that the Government is taking to funding for local government in Oxfordshire and everywhere else, which is ultimately driving the decision-making process. Still, George Osborne will be delighted to see that you blame the councillors, instead of him and the member for Witney...

Councillors are there to be blamed. They make the decisions - and there is still a lot of fat to be trimmed from our local authorities. Even left wing controlled regions are reluctant to increase tax rates to benefit vulnerable people - the SNP had the choice last week and decided the Conservative Party had indeed made the right decision on tax rates to support workers.

So your employer tracks your every move on the internet, do they? Even on a Sunday morning? Hmm. In what way is posting anonymously on the internet engaging with the media? The key function of media policies is to stop people running their mouths off when speaking to the media, in order that the company presents a single voice to the world, preferably via a selected few official mouthpieces.

I'm happy to stick to the boundaries of the media policies. It means when I contact Risk about being door-stepped by Journalists at home, I can do so without being duplicitous and can have a clear conscience.

In any case, the coincidence in views between you and the Oxford Mail commenter Andrewxford is quite remarkable at times.

He is quite prolific in his content, sometimes I wonder if he is a paid commentor/blogger to drive return page views - not unusual in the media industry these days. Similarly people say that I look just like Duke of Cambridge, it's just a remarkable coincidence.

This set would be able to potter up and down between Hanborough and Oxford/Cowley all day in between its trips to Worcester and back - assuming they can get in the line capacity between Oxford and Kennington and up the branch to allow for GWR, Chiltern's services and freight trains to the BMW Mini factory. Certainly I could see the morning halts service from Worcester carrying on though Oxford to Cowley being popular, as it would give a pre-8.30am arrival at the business parks. Similarly a return service up the Cotswold Line starting back at Cowley at about 5.15pm would also work well.

That said, presumably a business plan will include a priced option for electrification to Hanborough on top of more double track. The idea of wires as well has been mentioned a few times already in the past couple of years, so you could extend the 387 services out to Hanborough to give the 3tph, using the time they would otherwise be standing in sidings at Oxford waiting to go back to Paddington, and it solves the problems of shunt moves/long platform occupation at Oxford station, in a similar way to Chiltern's proposals sending their trains out to Cowley to turn back, rather than sitting in a platform at Oxford station for an extended period.

It's looking like the Cowley Branch could transform fairly quickly from a sleepy long siding into a fairly intensively used section of track.

With BMW, Unipart, and Rudolph & Hellmann - as well as the Business and Science Parks all kicking out around 5pm (around 20,000 people) - it'll need a fair few services at 5pm!

 

[TheKnightWho]

My main concern with something shuttling between Hanborough and Cowley is how it will get enough paths by constantly crossing the mainline on the flat.

 

[jimm]

Personally I wouldn't wire just to Hanborough. If anything I would do either the whole of the North Cotswolds or none at all.

Instead release the DMU running the Oxford to Banbury shuttle by wiring that route (its supposed to be anyway) and use that DMU if required between Hanborough and Cowley. I say if required because I think Cowley would be better served by Chiltern as an extension of their Oxford services and I cannot see how Hanorough would warrant three trains per hour if the North Cotswold's goes half hourly between Oxford and Worcester.

Why is Banbury to Oxford a shuttle anyway and not an extension of the London to Oxford services?

No one is going to wire the Cotswold Line until XC wiring goes ahead so there is 25kv overhead in place around Worcester. You can't justify the expense that would be needed there just for the Cotswold Line trains, same as wiring Swindon to Gloucester and Cheltenham makes no sense unless lots of other services in the area can be operated with electric traction.

Wiring to Hanborough would have, as I said, the operational benefit of removing shunt moves/long waits in platforms at Oxford, where, even with a rebuilt station, you are still going to need to push a lot of extra trains through the area, so moving the turnback location out of the city makes perfect sense. Not everyone who might want to get to work in Cowley and other places in the south of Oxford lives along the Chiltern route from Bicester, so why shouldn't you send GWR trains from the Cotswold Line and/or Banbury up there as well?

Long-term, the Banbury shuttle dmu will be freed by electrification but again, we don't know when XC/Electric Spine wiring is going to go ahead yet, so it will depend on that. You will still need a 165 for the Cotswold Line to work the morning and afternoon halts trains, certainly as long as Combe and Finstock survive, as you aren't going to bother giving them an IEP service. The current use of a 180 in the afternoons is to free up a Turbo for the Thames Valley afternoon peak.

Why can't you see that Hanborough would warrant 3tph? Traffic there has gone from 104,000 journeys in 2009-10 to 243,500 in 2014-15, making it busier than Moreton-in-Marsh and almost as busy as Evesham. There are plenty more new homes to be built in Witney and Carterton - maybe Woodstock too - to feed the station in its role as West Oxfordshire Parkway, so if that growth rate is maintained then it could soon be hard on the heels of Charlbury, the busiest intermediate station. And if 2tph from Worcester unlocks the suppressed demand from that city that some insist is there, then you will need every seat you can provide the closer you get to Oxford, especially at Hanborough as the last stop outside the city.

The current GWR service between Oxford and Banbury is a mixture of shuttles and through trains to/from London, the latter essentially in the peaks. It will go to all-shuttle once emus take over the London-Oxford semi-fasts as far as Didcot and eventually Oxford. Presumably once the wires could go up, you could run through again, but the bulk of traffic between Banbury and GWR-land is already catered for pretty well by XC services to Oxford and Reading - the places where most people want to go. No one would want to sit on a Turbo all the way from Banbury to Paddington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My main concern with something shuttling between Hanborough and Cowley is how it will get enough paths by constantly crossing the mainline on the flat.

Who says they would be crossing on the flat, as plans for the final shape of the Oxford area are still in the melting pot? Network Rail has already mentioned the idea of a flyover for Oxford North. You might want one at Kennington too. Wolvercot, where the Cotswold Line diverges, is not likely to need any such treatment as it is north of Oxford North junction where Chiltern and East West traffic will join and diverge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Councillors are there to be blamed. They make the decisions - and there is still a lot of fat to be trimmed from our local authorities. Even left wing controlled regions are reluctant to increase tax rates to benefit vulnerable people - the SNP had the choice last week and decided the Conservative Party had indeed made the right decision on tax rates to support workers.

Councillors don't decide how much money the government is going to give them, the money which makes up the largest part of council budgets. As for fat, there isn't much left in the councils where I have relatives and friends working - in fact there isn't much of anything left at all in terms of many services - so I doubt Oxfordshire is any different in that respect. Certainly the council leader's correspondence with his fellow Conservative Mr Cameron suggests that is his view too - but I'm sure you know better.

What the SNP decided was that putting up income tax just before the Scottish Parliament elections this May was not a great idea.

 

[Class 170101]

No one is going to wire the Cotswold Line until XC wiring goes ahead so there is 25kv overhead in place around Worcester. You can't justify the expense that would be needed there just for the Cotswold Line trains, same as wiring Swindon to Gloucester and Cheltenham makes no sense unless lots of other services in the area can be operated with electric traction.

I wasn't suggesting wiring the line. Merely trying to discredit the idea that wiring to JUST Hanborough would be a waste of money, time and resources. Whether or not wiring of the North Cotswold Line is done I agree depends both Bristol to Birmingham wiring and Electric Spine wiring.

Wiring to Hanborough would have, as I said, the operational benefit of removing shunt moves/long waits in platforms at Oxford, where, even with a rebuilt station, you are still going to need to push a lot of extra trains through the area, so moving the turnback location out of the city makes perfect sense. Not everyone who might want to get to work in Cowley and other places in the south of Oxford lives along the Chiltern route from Bicester, so why shouldn't you send GWR trains from the Cotswold Line and/or Banbury up there as well?

Why not just run through to Banbury instead of Hanborough. Banbury is being re-signalled and there are already bay / loop platforms here as demonstrated by GWR when they run HSTs via High Wycombe.

Long-term, the Banbury shuttle dmu will be freed by electrification but again, we don't know when XC/Electric Spine wiring is going to go ahead yet, so it will depend on that. You will still need a 165 for the Cotswold Line to work the morning and afternoon halts trains, certainly as long as Combe and Finstock survive, as you aren't going to bother giving them an IEP service. The current use of a 180 in the afternoons is to free up a Turbo for the Thames Valley afternoon peak.

Why must it be a 165? AT300 / IEP Bi-mode would be suitable for both Banbury and North Cotswold - plus it can operate to / from London on later journeys releasing the 165 elesewhere. SDO would deal with the halts.

Why can't you see that Hanborough would warrant 3tph? Traffic there has gone from 104,000 journeys in 2009-10 to 243,500 in 2014-15, making it busier than Moreton-in-Marsh and almost as busy as Evesham. There are plenty more new homes to be built in Witney and Carterton - maybe Woodstock too - to feed the station in its role as West Oxfordshire Parkway, so if that growth rate is maintained then it could soon be hard on the heels of Charlbury, the busiest intermediate station. And if 2tph from Worcester unlocks the suppressed demand from that city that some insist is there, then you will need every seat you can provide the closer you get to Oxford, especially at Hanborough as the last stop outside the city.

Daily usage figures based on your annual figure suggest 671 journeys per day. Taking a quick look at Wikipedia and glancing through google suggests a maxmium population of 3000 people. Now even allowing for some Park and Ride usage I cannot believe more than 10,000 people 'live' in the catchment of this station. Sorry but 2tph is more than enough particularly off peak.

The current GWR service between Oxford and Banbury is a mixture of shuttles and through trains to/from London, the latter essentially in the peaks. It will go to all-shuttle once emus take over the London-Oxford semi-fasts as far as Didcot and eventually Oxford. Presumably once the wires could go up, you could run through again, but the bulk of traffic between Banbury and GWR-land is already catered for pretty well by XC services to Oxford and Reading - the places where most people want to go. No one would want to sit on a Turbo all the way from Banbury to Paddington.

Indeed no one would sit on a Turbo / local EMU from Banbury to London its a two hour journey time, however if you want to remove some of the shunt moves away from Oxford then running through to Banbury becomes a sensible way to do it.
Arguably some of the Class 1 services from London that terminate at Oxford could run through to Banbury giving Banbury people options whether to use Marylebone or Paddington. Perhaps an extension to Stratford Upon Avon if Chiltern don't want to run the route.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Even left wing controlled regions are reluctant to increase tax rates to benefit vulnerable people - the SNP had the choice last week and decided the Conservative Party had indeed made the right decision on tax rates to support workers.

Not quite. The issues with the Calman tax powers are big enough that the SNP would never use them. They're effectively a trap designed specifically so that it would be damaging to use them, and theoretically politically damaging for the SNP not to use them either with their progressive rhetoric.

Going back on topic, how much of a benefit would it be to wire up a few kilometres of the lines north of Oxford just so that trains wouldn't need to terminate in the two available platforms? Even after the station is rebuilt it will still fundamentally be a through station, not one optimised for services to terminate, so it must not be the worst idea in the world. Continuing most services that bit northwards would also help to get car passengers to use the more plentiful capacity of Oxford terminating services (e.g. those future 12-car 387 rakes) rather than fighting for space on the trains that do go onwards to the Cotswolds and so on. I wonder just how much money you could get by selling off most of the car park land next to the main station...

 

[TheKnightWho]

[deleted]

 

[jimm]

Why not just run through to Banbury instead of Hanborough. Banbury is being re-signalled and there are already bay / loop platforms here as demonstrated by GWR when they run HSTs via High Wycombe.

The Hanborough plan - especially if you do electrify and use 387s - relies on getting to Oxford and back quickly - say 25 minutes for the round trip, ie the sort of time trains sit in the sidings at Oxford, so you don't need to buy extra trains. Even with electric traction taking a slice out of current running times, you could only get out to Banbury in that time, so you would need more rolling stock - and as I said, the Banbury-Oxford and Reading flows are largely catered for by the far more frequent XC service, so what would be the point of sending yet more trains to Banbury? The intermediate stops GWR serves are all small villages - and Kings Sutton also has Chiltern through services to and from London, so you aren't going to generate a lot more traffic by running more trains to them - whereas at Hanborough there is clearly demonstrated and growing demand on a big scale.

Why must it be a 165? AT300 / IEP Bi-mode would be suitable for both Banbury and North Cotswold - plus it can operate to / from London on later journeys releasing the 165 elesewhere. SDO would deal with the halts.

Because of passenger numbers on those services. In neither case is there the demand to justify the use of something the size of an 800.

Daily usage figures based on your annual figure suggest 671 journeys per day. Taking a quick look at Wikipedia and glancing through google suggests a maxmium population of 3000 people. Now even allowing for some Park and Ride usage I cannot believe more than 10,000 people 'live' in the catchment of this station. Sorry but 2tph is more than enough particularly off peak.

Did you miss the bit about the rate of growth in use of the station is the past five years? Hanborough parish population is about 2,500, with housing developers sniffing around on a number of sites, including one right next to the station with the offer of more station parking attached as a carrot. Woodstock, population 3,000 (and more developers wanting to build 1,200 homes here), is five minutes away. Witney is 10-15 minutes away, population 27,000. Carterton is 10 minutes further, with 15,000 people, plus the RAF's largest base on its doorstep at Brize Norton. Some park and ride usage? 250 spaces - all used on weekdays - and people once again parking on verges and nearby side roads a couple of years after 190 of those spaces were opened. Do you think GWR might just be aware of these things when coming up with their proposals?

Indeed no one would sit on a Turbo / local EMU from Banbury to London its a two hour journey time, however if you want to remove some of the shunt moves away from Oxford then running through to Banbury becomes a sensible way to do it.
Arguably some of the Class 1 services from London that terminate at Oxford could run through to Banbury giving Banbury people options whether to use Marylebone or Paddington. Perhaps an extension to Stratford Upon Avon if Chiltern don't want to run the route.

No, it doesn't become sensible, because of the running time issues and lack of demand at the intermediate stations that I noted above and the 2tph XC service...
People in Banbury are more than happy with what Chiltern delivers and there is no appetite on the part of GWR to give them 'options'. They might want to serve Stratford - and are on record as saying they are interested in the idea of some limited tourism-focused service linking London, Oxford and Stratford - but if they can do it via a reopened Honeybourne-Stratford link off the Cotswold Line, rather than trying to get paths between Banbury and Leamington, that would be the preferred option - and they have put money into the recent studies of Honeybourne-Stratford reopening. But that would probably require full Cotswold Line redoubling to provide enough paths for everything.

 

[route:oxford]

I wonder just how much money you could get by selling off most of the car park land next to the main station...

You mean the land that will be used for commercial offices, bus/coach hub and multi-storey carpark?

 

[Class 170101]

I am afraid Jimm that you have made up your mind and not open to any discussion whatsoever!

Hanborough even with 50,000 based on your figures still only warrants 2tph all day frequency. My local station has 5tph all day frequency with a population of 150,000 doubtless both places are still growing.

As for saying there is no demand to use a train the size of a Class 800 that could be said of my own station however once it reaches its final pick up point before London there is plenty of need for them.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You mean the land that will be used for commercial offices, bus/coach hub and multi-storey carpark?

Err, yes.

I do still think that it would be better to have minimal parking at the station rather than a MSCP. Some amount of parking will always be required for accessibility purposes but I think we should really try to ensure that as few people are driving into this built-up area as possible. Car parks in city centres are glorious wastes of space that could be used for far more productive uses with a significantly lower environmental impact. If, for instance, all trains to Oxford called at parkway stations located on the bypasses to the north and south of the city then there would be very few people who would be disadvantaged by removing the parking at the main station. As speeds would be low on the approach to the city, the journey time impact of adding an additional call near the Redbridge Park and Ride would be less than it would normally, while for many people it would actually reduce their end-to-end journey time as a result of not needing to get out of the city centre or double back.

 

[mr_jrt]

Still think they're making a mistake by not building in more through platforms in the Oxford rebuild. 6 through platforms would enable a lot of future service segregation.