Oxford Corridor Phase 2 & Platform 5 updates

[Elecman]

The ‘loud bangs’ are the explosive cartridges ( they are in effect bullet cartridges) powering the spike tool down into the cable being set off. An even louder bang will occur if one of those cables is actually live !!

 

[fishwomp]

A thread about the delays on Reddit today.. after a BBC article:

https://www.reddit.com/r/oxford/s/WmdV1DdnKY

Someone asked what was the reason for delay and got this response..

"They found some tools from the period work first began and had to call the archeologists in again."

A report has been written by a local group (quoting a Reddit comment here, not my own words)

The report is honestly crazy reading: [https://networkhell.co.uk/assets/Ne...co.uk/assets/Network-Hell-Report-2025-v1.pdf)

The basic summary is that it's the highways work not the railway work that's taking so long, but \*noone knows who wanted the highways work in the first place\*. The justification often provided is that it's so 'normal-sized' buses can fit under, but Oxford Bus say their normal buses (and those now ordered by most other companies) fit under anyway. The further justification in a key report was that even if the buses do in fact fit 'it is possible that human beings might grow taller and thus need taller buses' over the next hundred years..[]

 

[SynthD]

https://networkhell.co.uk/assets/Network-Hell-Report-2025-v1.pdf

That link without the )

One of the justifications for increasing the height of the rail bridge was because bus companies were having to buy specially made lower height buses. In fact, many new buses are manufactured in this lower height, low height buses are used
in many parts of the UK, and we have other low bridges on our network, which require these. Due to the uncertainty around the completion date
of the bridge works, when we bought the new electric fleet we decided to keep these vehicles to the same reduced height. So there was no urgent need to increase headroom under the bridge.

This is Oxford Bus Company’s paragraph on the standard but not standard buses they already have for this bridge. That doesn’t say whether the new four track bridge would have taken their buses without lowering the road.

I can’t find the original document with the taller human beings quote, does anyone recall seeing it?

 

[takno]

https://networkhell.co.uk/assets/Network-Hell-Report-2025-v1.pdf

That link without the )


This is Oxford Bus Company’s paragraph on the standard but not standard buses they already have for this bridge. That doesn’t say whether the new four track bridge would have taken their buses without lowering the road.

I can’t find the original document with the taller human beings quote, does anyone recall seeing it?

The whole document contains a rather breezy assertion that they wouldn't have needed to dig so far down, and therefore wouldn't have hit any problems.

It also rather ignores what OBC's reaction would have been if Network Rail had proposed not to increase the height under the bridge  before that turned out to be a catastrophic mistake.

 

[duffield]

https://networkhell.co.uk/assets/Network-Hell-Report-2025-v1.pdf

That link without the )


This is Oxford Bus Company’s paragraph on the standard but not standard buses they already have for this bridge. That doesn’t say whether the new four track bridge would have taken their buses without lowering the road.

I can’t find the original document with the taller human beings quote, does anyone recall seeing it?

Yes, this document says they have proof of the "taller human beings" claim - but then fails to provide that proof. So my default assumption is that it's made up, probably based on a misrepresentation, a throwaway remark or a joke by someone. I really can't believe that this was an actual consideration. The thing is, they have quite enough genuine complaints about the conduct of this entire project without putting in what appears to be a highly dubious assertion like this.

 

[Nottingham59]

Yes, this document says they have proof of the "taller human beings" claim - but then fails to provide that proof. So my default assumption is that it's made up, probably based on a misrepresentation, a throwaway remark or a joke by someone. I really can't believe that this was an actual consideration. The thing is, they have quite enough genuine complaints about the conduct of this entire project without putting in what appears to be a highly dubious assertion like this.

With better nutrition through the twentieth century, the average height of the British male has increased by 11cm since the 1870s. There's every reason to think the trend will continue for decades to come.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855

 

[fishwomp]

This is Oxford Bus Company’s paragraph on the standard but not standard buses they already have for this bridge. That doesn’t say whether the new four track bridge would have taken their buses without lowering the road.

Network Rail FAQ (undated) (looks to be from 2021) says:

Why do you need to replace the bridge on Botley Road?
The project will see the creation of a new platform, so an additional span will need to be installed to carry the new line over the road. This requires the road to be deepened, with our works increasing the height to facilitate standard height double decker buses

so that reads to me that the extra width of running lines required it, and bus height was a secondary benefit.
This bit of the FAQ has aged like milk:

How much disruption will there be on Botley Road?
Plans are still being formalised and more information will be available when a delivery contractor is onboard for the works. It is likely that there will be a period of single lane working under Botley Road whilst the works are taking place. A full closure of the road will be required for around 4 to 5 days whilst the main bridge decks are replaced. We are currently in discussions with the council about how best to manage disruption and will provide more information about the work closer to the time.

I can’t find the original document with the taller human beings quote, does anyone recall seeing it?

They say "paper" so it could just be the Oxford Mail.

 

[duffield]

With better nutrition through the twentieth century, the average height of the British male has increased by 11cm since the 1870s. There's every reason to think the trend will continue for decades to come.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855

I'm not disputing that, although the rate of increase will inevitably tail off at some point; I'm just doubting that this was a real consideration in this case. It doesn't make sense. Consider the options:

A new standard maximum height for buses is introduced, so all the other bridges across the country, which are currently suitable for the tallest buses, are going to be raised.
Or the slightly taller people will just manage with the current tallest buses.
Or the buses will be redesigned to make more efficient use of the current vertical space.

My money is all on the second and third options. Not on the first.

 

[JamesT]

Network Rail FAQ (undated) (looks to be from 2021) says:

so that reads to me that the extra width of running lines required it, and bus height was a secondary benefit.
This bit of the FAQ has aged like milk:

My understanding is that 'some' deepening was required for the road to get under the wider deck, however the view was taken that if you're going to dig it up, you might as well do it properly and make it suitable for full-size double-deckers.
It's not at all clear whether the issues discovered would have been avoided if they had only dug down enough to provide clearance for the short double-deckers.

The 'original' plan involved keeping the road open with traffic lights allowing one way at a time. Then only the actual bridge replacement would have required a full closure. I can't remember the exact timescales, but it was suggested that a full closure would allow the preliminary works to proceed faster than doing half the road at a time. Cue laughter with hindsight.

 

[W-on-Sea]

Network Rail FAQ (undated) (looks to be from 2021) says:

so that reads to me that the extra width of running lines required it, and bus height was a secondary benefit.
This bit of the FAQ has aged like milk:


They say "paper" so it could just be the Oxford Mail.

The paper seems to be "How have Europeans Grown So Tall?" by Timothy J. Hatton (of the Department of Economics, University of Essex) , published in Oxford Economic Papers, Volume 66, Issue 2, April 2014, Pages 349–372. Presumably peer-reviewed, as it's published by Oxford University Press, who say the journal is "refereed".

 

[Oxfordblues]

This project and all the challenges it has thrown-up seem to have replaced Brexit as a subject for a number of very angry people to vent their rage. Does "heads should roll" mean beheading the project managers? This is a complex infrastructure project which will deliver significant improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and rail travellers. Those who rant and rave should calm-down. Once the project is finally complete in 2026/27 they'll no doubt find another issue: the local flood alleviation scheme or the Oxford traffic filters perhaps?

 

[Parebunks]

This project and all the challenges it has thrown-up seem to have replaced Brexit as a subject for a number of very angry people to vent their rage. Does "heads should roll" mean beheading the project managers? This is a complex infrastructure project which will deliver significant improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and rail travellers. Those who rant and rave should calm-down. Once the project is finally complete in 2026/27 they'll no doubt find another issue: the local flood alleviation scheme or the Oxford traffic filters perhaps?

Exactly what improvements is it actually supposed to be delivering for anyone except a small minority of rail users? The fact is that the project has gone completely out of control and caused chaos and real suffering for large numbers of people with no real end in sight, and increasingly what seems to be genuine confusion about what it's actually for. The report is clear that deepening the roadway, which was tacked on to the fairly reasonable original rail project for very little reason, is what is causing the vast majority of these issues - fair enough that that may be complete in two or three years, but at that point it will be another five years before the railway work is actually completed! The testimonies in the report do very clearly reflect sentiment in Botley - it is becoming increasingly unpleasant or difficult to live in for many. It is shameful that the government allows this scale of either incompetence or outright corruption to go unchallenged - at the very least those involved should lose their jobs and Network Rail should be placed under proper government oversight or control in the future, with a greater role for local decision-makers in sense-checking projects of this scale.

 

[fishwomp]

This project and all the challenges it has thrown-up seem to have replaced Brexit as a subject for a number of very angry people to vent their rage. Does "heads should roll" mean beheading the project managers?

Oxford's history would suggest a pyre in Broad St - but perhaps in this day and age, metaphors not relating to capital punishment should be found!

This is a complex infrastructure project which will deliver significant improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and rail travellers. Those who rant and rave should calm-down. Once the project is finally complete in 2026/27 they'll no doubt find another issue: the local flood alleviation scheme or the Oxford traffic filters perhaps?

Botley Road prior to the closure was a mess due to the Westgate centre having car park queues from November through to January (at least) - utterly unusable - and quite bad the rest of the time. I doubt businesses miss having roads outside their shops being filled with non-customers and their fumes. It's much more feasible to get to the Botley Road retail parks now - you no longer have the Westgate traffic.. I expect residents near the station with their own cars have also observed they can come/go towards the ring road rather quickly now! I wonder what complaints we'll see when it reopens...

 

[themiller]

This project and all the challenges it has thrown-up seem to have replaced Brexit as a subject for a number of very angry people to vent their rage. Does "heads should roll" mean beheading the project managers? This is a complex infrastructure project which will deliver significant improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, bus-users and rail travellers. Those who rant and rave should calm-down. Once the project is finally complete in 2026/27 they'll no doubt find another issue: the local flood alleviation scheme or the Oxford traffic filters perhaps?

Project managers only manage the scope that they’ve been handed. It’s higher up the food chain where a project is defined e.g. Design or sponsor.

 

[BlueLeanie]

It didn't take long to find.

Not every double decker will fit.

(Embedded is an image of an ex-lothian double decker bus wedged under Botley Bridge in June 2022)

 

[4COR]

It didn't take long to find.

Not every double decker will fit.

Indeed, but that's the point of the statement from the bus companies (of which Heyfordian is no longer as they ceased trading in 2023) stating that the lower height models are more prevelant now, and evidently more so than when that bus was made (it's an 08 plate so some time ago).

 

[MarkyT]

It would be foolish not to rebuild to the standard minimum of 5.03m, as otherwise a bash is bound to happen sooner or later, even if the local companies use lower DD buses exclusively today due to bridge restrictions elsewhere. This bridge is on a major thoroughfare into the city, exposed to many other vehicles. That and the importance of the main line above for passenger and freight must be the factors that justify the decision, not short-term inconvenience during construction.

 

[BanburyBlue]

It didn't take long to find.

Not every double decker will fit.

I often wonder how long it takes for new Oxford bus drivers to stop holding their breath as they go under that bridge.

 

[themiller]

It would be foolish not to rebuild to the standard minimum of 5.03m, as otherwise a bash is bound to happen sooner or later, even if the local companies use lower DD buses exclusively today due to bridge restrictions elsewhere. This bridge is on a major thoroughfare into the city, exposed to many other vehicles. That and the importance of the main line above for passenger and freight must be the factors that justify the decision, not short-term inconvenience during construction.

As I understand it, there are few regulations for the dimensions of vehicles in the UK as there are with trains. Perhaps the UK should follow the EU and have a lower maximum height for lorries and buses which would lead to fewer ‘misunderstandings’ by drivers and fewer bridge strikes. A bonus from this would also mean fewer HGVs turned over in high winds.

 

[4COR]

As I understand it, there are few regulations for the dimensions of vehicles in the UK as there are with trains. Perhaps the UK should follow the EU and have a lower maximum height for lorries and buses which would lead to fewer ‘misunderstandings’ by drivers and fewer bridge strikes. A bonus from this would also mean fewer HGVs turned over in high winds.

Though potentially with the downside that more lorries need to be on the road.

 

[Wychwood93]

As I understand it, there are few regulations for the dimensions of vehicles in the UK as there are with trains. Perhaps the UK should follow the EU and have a lower maximum height for lorries and buses which would lead to fewer ‘misunderstandings’ by drivers and fewer bridge strikes. A bonus from this would also mean fewer HGVs turned over in high winds.

A Wiki search on the EU dimensions yielded this:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2014/140796/LDM_BRI(2014)140796_REV1_EN.pdf#:~:text=The%20%27Weights%20and%20dimensions%27%20Directive%20of%201996%20sets,%2844%20t%20for%20combined%20transport%2C%20e.g.%20by%20

The 'Weights and dimensions' Directive of 1996 sets maximum vehicle dimensions and weights for national and
international road transport in the EU: 16.5 metres (m) in length (18.75 m for road trains), 2.6 m in width, 4 m
in height and 40 tonnes (t) in weight (44 t for combined transport, e.g. by rail and water). However, Member
States are able to decide on derogations from these rules for vehicles used only in national transport....

 

[BlueLeanie]

Heard on local radio today that GWR wanted to widen Botley Rail Bridge back in 1905 as part of a massive station improvement project.

Their plan was to extend the slopes back, and deepen the cutting to give a 16'8" clearance with continuously operating pumps due to the water table.

Oxford Council were not happy as it would interfere with the town sewer that flowed beneath the bridge and put a stop to the plans.

Wonder if the "stone arch" that was found under the bridge was the former council sewer that stopped the upgrade 120 years ago?

 

[Edvid]

The commencement of works on the new rail bridge, as opposed to (just) the ongoing utility diversions, is noted in today's Oxfordshire Connect newsletter.

New rail bridge work

​

This week, piling work has started on the Botley Road site to install the foundations for the new rail bridge.

During this first phase of work, 16 concrete piles will be installed into the ground, eight on each side of the bridge. To form each pile, the rig drills down into the ground and then a crane is used to lift a case into place to be inserted into the ground. Concrete will then be poured into the hole. The images above show work taking place on the test pile ahead of the main work starting.

Once installed, these piles will form the foundations of the box culvert that will eventually become the northern walkway in the new bridge.

Piling work is scheduled to take place during the day until Tuesday 25 February. Due to the close proximity to the rail bridge, some of the work involving the crane needs to be done at night when trains aren’t running. This is scheduled to take place between Thursday 23 & Sunday 26 January and Saturday 15 & Tuesday 18 February.

 

[InOban]

The ‘loud bangs’ are the explosive cartridges ( they are in effect bullet cartridges) powering the spike tool down into the cable being set off. An even louder bang will occur if one of those cables is actually live !!

I take it the spiking didn't discover any live cables?

 

[Edvid]

Completion of Botley Road works is at least 17 months away, as per industry documents that were sent to the Oxford Clarion.

Botley Road could remain closed until June 2026

Rail industry documents passed to the Oxford Clarion show that the Government will need to overrule Network Rail if the Botley Road work is to finish before June 2026. The road was originally closed in April 2023, and was set to reopen in October 2024. But the discovery of a

oxfordclarion.uk

Rail industry documents passed to the Oxford Clarion show that the Government will need to overrule Network Rail if the Botley Road work is to finish before June 2026.

The road was originally closed in April 2023, and was set to reopen in October 2024. But the discovery of a large brick drainage structure under the roadbed, and “highly complex” utilities pipes and cables, led to reopening being postponed. No date has yet been announced.

A seven-day ‘possession’ (closure of the rail line) will be required to install the new, wider bridge deck. The fragmented nature of the railway industry means that Network Rail, which maintains the track, has to give GWR, CrossCountry and freight operators advance notice of any closures.

Network Rail has already agreed the full list of railway closures up until May 2026, and a week-long closure at Botley Road is not included. That means the earliest that work could start is 17 May 2026. When snagging and follow-up works on the road are taken into account, the completion date is likely to slip into June.

After campaigning by local residents and lobbying by local MP Layla Moran, Anneliese Dodds in Oxford East, and city and county councils, the Government’s rail minister has agreed to visit Oxford and set out a way forward – but could he overrule Network Rail’s timetables?

 

[The Planner]

Completion of Botley Road works is at least 17 months away, as per industry documents that were sent to the Oxford Clarion.

Botley Road could remain closed until June 2026

Rail industry documents passed to the Oxford Clarion show that the Government will need to overrule Network Rail if the Botley Road work is to finish before June 2026. The road was originally closed in April 2023, and was set to reopen in October 2024. But the discovery of a

oxfordclarion.uk

There is some lovely spin in that. Fragmented nature of the railway, it would still have to be negotiated and agreed under GBR as well. If there was a real push to get a blockade in earlier, then it could probably be done outside of the normal process.

 

[Oxfordblues]

There is some lovely spin in that. Fragmented nature of the railway, it would still have to be negotiated and agreed under GBR as well. If there was a real push to get a blockade in earlier, then it could probably be done outside of the normal process.

One lesson from the Nuneham Viaduct 9-week emergency blockade 3 April - 9 June 2023 was that if it really is as urgent as claimed then a blockade could be arranged with a timeframe shorter than the 18-months quoted.

 

[The exile]

One lesson from the Nuneham Viaduct 9-week emergency blockade 3 April - 9 June 2023 was that if it really is as urgent as claimed then a blockade could be arranged with a timeframe shorter than the 18-months quoted.

There’s always the matter of who considers it urgent and who is prepared to pay for the “urgency”. There, the comparison with Nuneham breaks down.

 

[class442]

If there was a real push to get a blockade in earlier, then it could probably be done outside of the normal process.

Ideally possessions should be planned early enough that they are in the Engineering Access Statement - I can't recall how early this comes out. I think if they are planned at least 12 weeks in advance (the inform traveller deadline) then they are subject to lower Schedule 4 compensation costs (to the TOCs). If it's less than 12 weeks then the possession is 'late notice' and will have higher Schedule 4 compensation costs, further increasing the project costs which NR would want to avoid. The Schedule 4 costs for a 7 day blockade would be huge either way.

So yeah, NR could definitely add plan another possession before May 2026, although the TOCs may be annoyed.

 

[The Planner]

Ideally possessions should be planned early enough that they are in the Engineering Access Statement - I can't recall how early this comes out. I think if they are planned at least 12 weeks in advance (the inform traveller deadline) then they are subject to lower Schedule 4 compensation costs (to the TOCs). If it's less than 12 weeks then the possession is 'late notice' and will have higher Schedule 4 compensation costs, further increasing the project costs which NR would want to avoid. The Schedule 4 costs for a 7 day blockade would be huge either way.

So yeah, NR could definitely add plan another possession before May 2026, although the TOCs may be annoyed.

CPPP at 26 weeks for lower compensation from what I have been told. Putting blocks in at 12 weeks out will upset people considerably.