Should Didcot to Oxford be electrified to release Turbos for work elsewhere?

[zwk500]

Agreed. Part of the Electric Spine route of course.

Isn't electric spine effectively dead anyway?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Isn't electric spine effectively dead anyway?

Effectively yes - but there is no doubt that freight flows (as we have seen with Nuneham) go through there especially from Southampton. It is a key bit of infrastructure. At the time it is true, a few in the freight industry did not understand prioritising the Spine over F2N/F2MN , but Didcot -Oxford would be a key stage and was part of the original GWML spark programme anyway.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Because Oxford has north facing bays this isn't a benefit.

To be fair, the latest EWR announcement (at least if I've read it right) says that the north-facing bays won't be sufficient for the level of EWR services proposed, and that extra accommodation needs to be found. The two proposals are sidings to the south of Oxford station, or through running onto a restored Cowley branch line.

 

[RobShipway]

Bi-modes can take advantage of wires as well. The restoration of London-Oxford semi-fasts extended back from didcot as 387s replacing Turbos would be a massive benefit, leaving only the Chiltern and XC trains at Oxford on Diesel (and freight)

If you need bi-mode anyway (which you do) for freight, electrifying Basingstoke ahead of Didcot-Birmingham only lets you convert the stopping service on the branch. Given the problem of the 3rd rail interface Oxford is much easier to do once P5 is in.
Reading-Basing will be the last bit to be done, after Chiltern electrification to Birmingham and EWR has been done, imho.

Fair enough.

You do realise that the bulk of the freight using Reading-Basingstoke is intermodal trains heading to Southampton that come down via… the Didcot-Oxford route?

I must confess I had forgotten about that point.

To be fair, the latest EWR announcement (at least if I've read it right) says that the north-facing bays won't be sufficient for the level of EWR services proposed, and that extra accommodation needs to be found. The two proposals are sidings to the south of Oxford station, or through running onto a restored Cowley branch line.

Is there not capacity to rebuild Oxford station further north to where the siding are located?

I know that people will ask, well where do you keep the trains that are either doing the Didcot Parkway - Oxford services or London - Oxford services, the answer to that question would be within the area where the Chiltern Trains currently terminate within the existing Oxford Station.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't electric spine effectively dead anyway?

As ever, it was never alive.

 

[cle]

To be fair, the latest EWR announcement (at least if I've read it right) says that the north-facing bays won't be sufficient for the level of EWR services proposed, and that extra accommodation needs to be found. The two proposals are sidings to the south of Oxford station, or through running onto a restored Cowley branch line.

Going back to my question/comment - wasn't one of the bays to become a through road? With the actual station building rebuild?

And then there would only be one bay. If another was added (a P-zero) - and with another through road, could those two be enough?

I do think Cowley is useful as a glorified siding/turnback, and if it attracts new rail users or disperses Oxford traffic better, then amazing. Maybe 2tph to MKC is simpler than the Marylebone services mentioned, especially if the latter end up 8 cars one day.

 

[YourMum666]

Chippenham to Bristol should have been done as well, as it would free up more IETs

 

[anthony263]

Chippenham to Bristol should have been done as well, as it would free up more IETs

Chippenham/Parkway/Patchway to Bristol TM should be done. GWR said they could order battery/ electric units particularly for the Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr service that be a big help with how many DMUs it free up.

 

[stevieinselby]

Chippenham to Bristol should have been done as well, as it would free up more IETs

Really? I can't see GWR wanting anything less than an intercity train running London to Bristol, and there are no other suitable electric intercity trains for them to replace the IETs with, so it would remain IET as it is now.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Chippenham/Parkway/Patchway to Bristol TM should be done. GWR said they could order battery/ electric units particularly for the Cardiff to Portsmouth hbr service that be a big help with how many DMUs it free up.

Bathampton to third rail territory seems a bit far for battery units right now although will likely improve as tech advances. You're better off releasing turbos as the OP suggested and running five car 158s, although with the way they've reformed a large number to two car units again it's unlikely and therefore a downgrade along the core commuter parts of the route

 

[swt_passenger]

As ever, it was never alive.

We should probably refer to it as non-electric and spineless.

 

[YourMum666]

Really? I can't see GWR wanting anything less than an intercity train running London to Bristol, and there are no other suitable electric intercity trains for them to replace the IETs with, so it would remain IET as it is

387s run to Cardiff quite frequently, same would happen with the Bristol branch, maybe a newer semi fast service could be introduced with wires

 

[TheWalrus]

387s run to Cardiff quite frequently, same would happen with the Bristol branch, maybe a newer semi fast service could be introduced with wires

You could revive Oxford-Bristol with semi-fast 387s, but I think going from IET to 387 on London to Bristol would probably be seen as a downgrade

 

[JonathanH]

387s run to Cardiff quite frequently, same would happen with the Bristol branch, maybe a newer semi fast service could be introduced with wires

Once a day, as a means of maintaining crew knowledge.

 

[supervc-10]

It definitely made sense to hold off completing Oxford until the remodel. Wasn't something similar said about Temple Meads too?

In a *logical* world, which obviously is not the one we live in, both Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads would be wired up properly and some '801' type units would be bought for those routes and south Wales, and the bi-modes could be cascaded to routes that need them (XC, for example). Damn shame we don't live in a logical world!

Restoring the two sides of the local stoppers makes a lot of sense. It looks to me from Google Maps that all the platforms at Didcot are wired, and the 3 northerly platforms (which I take it come off the slows, and are normally the ones used by the stoppers and terminating trains?) wouldn't need remodelling to connect through to Oxford (please correct me if I'm wrong). Fewer changes, fewer ECS moves, less diesel used. Win win win. The Turbos would be appreciated in the SW, helping relieve capacity constraints, I'm sure!

 

[cle]

If a 387 service was ever run to Bristol, it should be on top of the existing ones. Maybe it covers the Didcot call, and Slough too if workable. Take up a Chippenham tph, if on that route.

I don’t see Bristol-Oxford in isolation any time soon. Maybe one day there is a service to MKC which adds new regional connectivity, inc Bicester as a destination (Bicester-Bath could be handy for foreign tourists) - but doubtful right now.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If a 387 service was ever run to Bristol, it should be on top of the existing ones. Maybe it covers the Didcot call, and Slough too if workable. Take up a Chippenham tph, if on that route.

I don’t see Bristol-Oxford in isolation any time soon. Maybe one day there is a service to MKC which adds new regional connectivity, inc Bicester as a destination (Bicester-Bath could be handy for foreign tourists) - but doubtful right now.

You'd need 4 tracking all the way from Oxford to Didcot and Didcot to Swindon for that to happen I suspect.

 

[mangyiscute]

The main benefit of the electrification imo is to increase capacity from London to Oxford - an 8 car 387 would be perfect for this route since it isn't too long but needs high capacity - a 5 car IET doesn't cut it.

 

[JonathanH]

The main benefit of the electrification imo is to increase capacity from London to Oxford - an 8 car 387 would be perfect for this route since it isn't too long but needs high capacity - a 5 car IET doesn't cut it.

There are very few self contained diagrams though, so 5-car and 9-car IETs would still be the primary traction on the fast Oxford services. The 387s would work semi-fasts as extensions of the Didcot services.

 

[mangyiscute]

There are very few self contained diagrams though, so 5-car and 9-car IETs would still be the primary traction on the fast Oxford services. The 387s would work semi-fasts as extensions of the Didcot services.

If the electrification was completed, I'm sure that the units could be re-diagrammed to make full use of this, since GWR I'm sure would fully appreciate releasing more IETs to work elsewhere

 

[JonathanH]

If the electrification was completed, I'm sure that the units could be re-diagrammed to make full use of this, since GWR I'm sure would fully appreciate releasing more IETs to work elsewhere

Not really. A 387 takes up two paths out of Paddington if used on a service that is fast to Reading. There is an advantage in using 125mph stock on services to Oxford. Also, the single lines on the Cotswold route make it awkward to keep those services self contained on one side of the hour, and Oxford terminators self contained on the other side.

 

[cactustwirly]

Do GWR have enough 387's for Didcot to Oxford though? Don't forget they lost a few to Great Northern and they they still need a few 12-car trains for some workings.

New bi-mode commuter trains should take over the Turbos, preferably 110mph ones!

I'm sure the 12s can be reduced to 8 to free up some 387s.
It's happened elsewhere on Southern to replace 455s and 313s

It definitely should be, it was the plan. But the project was horribly run and the money ran out.

Some shills on here are now revisionist-ing this into a good thing. But it's stupid. I'm sure that it'll be top of the list to get re-activated. To me, it's more important than getting to Bristol, which hasn't impacted any services - only pans up/down. This created a whole new bitty problem.

Plus Oxford has more network 'sparks goals' - either up to Coventry, or over to Bletchley. Which improve business cases for future infill. Nothing like that at Bristol really.

And the new semi service (fast to Slough) getting to Oxford would be something of a consolation for Slough-Oxford journeys. Plus give a quicker journey into London for the Berks/Ox calls, if re-connected.

The old stopping service was never fast, and was timetabled to sit at Didcot for 20 minutes to allow freight to overtake.
The current Didcot semi-fast also have a long dwell at Reading too

 

[JonathanH]

I'm sure the 12s can be reduced to 8 to free up some 387s.

Is there actually a need to get 80x units off Oxford services? The reality is there will be 5-car 80x on some trains to the Cotswolds, even if 387s worked terminators.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing in any way against the electrification of the line between Didcot and Oxford, just what people deem to be the outcome of it being done.)

 

[cactustwirly]

Is there actually a need to get 80x units off Oxford services? The reality is there will be 5-car 80x on some trains to the Cotswolds, even if 387s worked terminators.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing in any way against the electrification of the line between Didcot and Oxford, just what people deem to be the outcome of it being done.)

I thought we were discussing the extension of the stoppers to Oxford which would require a handful of extra 387s

 

[Falcon1200]

The old stopping service was never fast, and was timetabled to sit at Didcot for 20 minutes to allow freight to overtake.

I don't recall that being the case; The Up stoppers from Oxford did certainly sit at Didcot to allow the following Cross Country service to overtake, but it was nothing like 20 minutes.

 

[JonathanH]

I thought we were discussing the extension of the stoppers to Oxford which would require a handful of extra 387s

No, it seems that people want 387s on Oxford fasts as well.

Extension of the Didcot stoppers to Oxford would probably just need to see the return of 387172-387174.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Let's say some 800s get freed up, where would they actually go?

Is there any actual point to replacing the 800s with a few 387s

 

[JonathanH]

I don't recall that being the case; The Up stoppers from Oxford did certainly sit at Didcot to allow the following Cross Country service to overtake, but it was nothing like 20 minutes.

It changed from timetable to timetable. There was definitely one timetable period where the Didcot dwells became quite long.

 

[FlyingPotato]

In terms of the speed difference between the two units, what impact would that have on journey times

 

[JonathanH]

In terms of the speed difference between the two units, what impact would that have on journey times

80x units can do Paddington to Reading in 22/23 minutes, 387s do it in 25/26 minutes. The differential between Reading and Oxford is likely to be less significant.

The point is that with a three minute headway, 25 minutes to Reading is two 125mph paths.