Extensions of East-West Rail Past Oxford

[The Planner]

Interesting figures; How long was the previous Oxford/Bristol service allowed to reverse at Didcot?

No idea, you'll need an old WTT for that.

 

[Snow1964]

The EWR website suggests the most likely first extension beyond Oxford would be a reopened Cowley branch line. That wouldn’t have the issues with interacting with GWML services.
I’ve also seen it suggested that to get any more services between Oxford and Didcot may need four tracking.

In 1932 the GWR four tracked the line between Challow and Wantage Road (including the stations). Some of this has been removed. There was also four tracking near Oxford added ahead of D-day in 1940s

The Four tracking is often suggested, but it actually just needs a third track, with the centre one reversible to allow slow freights to be overtaken (I am sure Didcot-Swindon has been full bi-directional since mid 1970s).

There have been suggestions of a semi-fast regional service via Chippenham (also linked to possible reopening of Corsham and Wotton Basset stations). The most logical routing would be one linking the Science Parks from Bristol via Bath, Corsham, Swindon, Abingdon area, Oxford. But really need a 110mph BEMU configured with seats suitable for 3+ hours (or EMU if electrification gaps done)

 

[The Planner]

In 1932 the GWR four tracked the line between Challow and Wantage Road (including the stations). Some of this has been removed. There was also four tracking near Oxford added ahead of D-day in 1940s

The Four tracking is often suggested, but it actually just needs a third track, with the centre one reversible to allow slow freights to be overtaken (I am sure Didcot-Swindon has been full bi-directional since mid 1970s).

There have been suggestions of a semi-fast regional service via Chippenham (also linked to possible reopening of Corsham and Wotton Basset stations). The most logical routing would be one linking the Science Parks from Bristol via Bath, Corsham, Swindon, Abingdon area, Oxford. But really need a 110mph BEMU configured with seats suitable for 3+ hours (or EMU if electrification gaps done)

That third track needs to be a decent length, or it just ends up as a glorified loop. Its more expensive as you need more S&C as well, 6 point ends instead of 4.

 

[zwk500]

The Four tracking is often suggested, but it actually just needs a third track, with the centre one reversible to allow slow freights to be overtaken (I am sure Didcot-Swindon has been full bi-directional since mid 1970s).

Given the layout at Didcot, having the third track on the north side makes more sense. And Didcot-Swindon is Bi-di but reduced capacity on wrong-direction moves.

 

[MarkyT]

In 1932 the GWR four tracked the line between Challow and Wantage Road (including the stations). Some of this has been removed.

It was all removed in the 1960s and 70s when the line was modernised and resignalled. Much was restored in the early 90s as part of the freight-sponsored 'ESI(P)*' scheme to accommodate trains of imported coal between Avonmouth and Didcot Power Station.

* Electricity Supply Industry (Privatisation).

The Four tracking is often suggested, but it actually just needs a third track, with the centre one reversible to allow slow freights to be overtaken (I am sure Didcot-Swindon has been full bi-directional since mid 1970s).

Given the layout at Didcot, having the third track on the north side makes more sense. And Didcot-Swindon is Bi-di but reduced capacity on wrong-direction moves.

There's already a north side bidi relief line heading west out of Didcot station as far as Milton Jn, and a down freight waiting for its path can then cross both main lines to weave into a long down goods loop extending nearly a mile west to Steventon.

With the reliefs (slows if you insist!) either side of the mains between Wantage Road and Challow, something that might help is swapping positions of the down main and down goods loop between Milton Jn and Steventon. That would create a middle line that a down stopping or freight train crossing from the north side could drop into, traversing the up main while there's a margin even though an express might be zipping by simultaneously on the down main, which the slower movement can then slip out behind on a yellow, sprinting to the turnout at Wantage Road to get out of the way of the following express. Possibly the next best thing to a grade separation. Something like this:

 

[A S Leib]

From the ORR origin-destination matrix, Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Islip, Bicester Village, Bletchley + Milton Keynes Central to...

Swindon - 35,526
Chippenham, Bath Spa + Bristol Temple Meads - 66,956
Bristol Parkway, Newport + Cardiff Central - 13,716
Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse, Gloucester + Cheltenham - 9,865

Adding on Aylesbury and High Wycombe doesn't put it up by much - fewer than 500 for Bristol.

 

[zwk500]

There's already a north side bidi relief line heading west out of Didcot station as far as Milton Jn, and a down freight waiting for its path can then cross both main lines to weave into a long down goods loop extending nearly a mile west to Steventon.

With the reliefs (slows if you insist!) either side of the mains between Wantage Road and Challow, something that might help is swapping positions of the down main and down goods loop between Milton Jn and Steventon. That would create a middle line that a down stopping or freight train crossing from the north side could drop into, traversing the up main while there's a margin even though an express might be zipping by simultaneously on the down main, which the slower movement can then slip out behind on a yellow, sprinting to the turnout at Wantage Road to get out of the way of the following express. Possibly the next best thing to a grade separation. Something like this:

That design is very good, if the alignment is possible to maintain 125mph with the DM on the outside, as it's basically a replication of the loop between Crewe and Weaver Jn (Hartford-Acton bridge?) on the WCML.
Personally I'd prefer to extend the bi-di relief out to Wantage itself, and then replicate your design with Wantage-Challow, but I'm not sure if there'd be room for 3 tracks through the village without taking out some garages. If you can, then Down freight would be able to skip the rather inefficient practice of looping at Milton Jn, Steventon and then Challow in such a short space, while Up freight would loop once at Wantage Road and then have a clean run to Foxhall Jn.

 

[JamesT]

Although 4-tracking on the GWML is interesting, my understanding for EWR is that the 4-tracking being suggested was between Oxford and Didcot, on the branch rather than the mainline.
I assume this implies the current two tracks providing stoppers to Culham/Appleford/Radley, express services that skip them, and freight are effectively full.

 

[The exile]

Add a station at Grove for Wantage on the A338 exactly where the Challow loops start/end, and it would boost the commuter potential of those towns.

There are at least 2 other reopening candidates along the line which need a stopping service before they make any sense.

 

[zwk500]

Although 4-tracking on the GWML is interesting, my understanding for EWR is that the 4-tracking being suggested was between Oxford and Didcot, on the branch rather than the mainline.
I assume this implies the current two tracks providing stoppers to Culham/Appleford/Radley, express services that skip them, and freight are effectively full.

Certainly very busy, although a grade separation of Didcot east jn would probably drive a 'Didcot avoider avoider' which might some way to relieving it without triggering full 4 tracking.

 

[class ep-09]

That design is very good, if the alignment is possible to maintain 125mph with the DM on the outside, as it's basically a replication of the loop between Crewe and Weaver Jn (Hartford-Acton bridge?) on the WCML.
Personally I'd prefer to extend the bi-di relief out to Wantage itself, and then replicate your design with Wantage-Challow, but I'm not sure if there'd be room for 3 tracks through the village without taking out some garages. If you can, then Down freight would be able to skip the rather inefficient practice of looping at Milton Jn, Steventon and then Challow in such a short space, while Up freight would loop once at Wantage Road and then have a clean run to Foxhall Jn.

There would be only need for 110mph on the DM (and UM) as there is 110mph PSR at Steventon Bridge .
That PSR just need to be extended eastwards slightly to allow down trains to get to the “loop” and back without losing any time .

 

[Topological]

From the ORR origin-destination matrix, Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Islip, Bicester Village, Bletchley + Milton Keynes Central to...

Swindon - 35,526
Chippenham, Bath Spa + Bristol Temple Meads - 66,956
Bristol Parkway, Newport + Cardiff Central - 13,716
Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse, Gloucester + Cheltenham - 9,865

Adding on Aylesbury and High Wycombe doesn't put it up by much - fewer than 500 for Bristol.

Not sure if it is relevant, but Swindon has a day return to Bicester Village. Very useful if going for a day's shopping trip from further afield.

You would assume going to Bristol was the right direction after Swindon. If Swindon had an east facing bay then that might be far enough to begin with, but those Bristol line numbers are strong.

If there were local stations on Swindon to Bristol Parkway then this could be the train to serve them, but that depends on the comparative contribution of Chippenham and Bath versus Bristol Parkway.

 

[rapmastaj]

From the ORR origin-destination matrix, Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Islip, Bicester Village, Bletchley + Milton Keynes Central to...

Swindon - 35,526
Chippenham, Bath Spa + Bristol Temple Meads - 66,956
Bristol Parkway, Newport + Cardiff Central - 13,716
Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse, Gloucester + Cheltenham - 9,865

Adding on Aylesbury and High Wycombe doesn't put it up by much - fewer than 500 for Bristol.

Local stations in Bristol/Bath/Wiltshire should add in a good few more trips here too.

https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/OXF/
The sterling work from @RailAleFan shows just how important this route would be. Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa are respectively the 10th, 12th and 17th most popular destinations from Oxford. By comparison, Birmingham New Street is the 13th most popular destination from Oxford.

 

[JamesT]

Local stations in Bristol/Bath/Wiltshire should add in a good few more trips here too.

https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/OXF/
The sterling work from @RailAleFan shows just how important this route would be. Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa are respectively the 10th, 12th and 17th most popular destinations from Oxford. By comparison, Birmingham New Street is the 13th most popular destination from Oxford.

But are those destinations best served by a short train that’s come from Milton Keynes? Or by improving the connection at Didcot to the existing long fast trains?

 

[MarkyT]

Not sure if it is relevant, but Swindon has a day return to Bicester Village. Very useful if going for a day's shopping trip from further afield.

You would assume going to Bristol was the right direction after Swindon. If Swindon had an east facing bay then that might be far enough to begin with, but those Bristol line numbers are strong.

If there were local stations on Swindon to Bristol Parkway then this could be the train to serve them, but that depends on the comparative contribution of Chippenham and Bath versus Bristol Parkway.

Swindon could be a sensible compromise terminus with its wide connections for S. Wales, Bristol, Gloucester, Melksham. If there's demand and sensibly timed interchange, then people will still travel. An additional east end bay platfrorm might be attached to platform 4 on the south side. Can't see any way of putting even a short east bay into the island platform (1,2,3) The new platfrom might be made full Intercity length so 80x could be accommodated if expedient, and also up to 12 car suburban trains.

 

[Topological]

Swindon could be a sensible compromise terminus with its wide connections for S. Wales, Bristol, Gloucester, Melksham. If there's demand and sensibly timed interchange, then people will still travel. An additional east end bay platfrorm might be attached to platform 4 on the south side. Can't see any way of putting even a short east bay into the island platform (1,2,3) The new platfrom might be made full Intercity length so 80x could be accommodated if expedient, and also up to 12 car suburban trains.

If such a bay could be added then it would make sense, especially with the stabling for the 387s at Swindon.

However, this is almost talking it up to two bays.

There was plenty of railway land anyway.

 

[fishwomp]

[..] Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa are respectively the 10th, 12th and 17th most popular destinations from Oxford. By comparison, Birmingham New Street is the 13th most popular destination from Oxford.

Interesting but Birmingham centre itself isn't so important, as it's not a huge employment or business destination from Oxford. For leisure, it's not that good for shopping or things to do, and you would likely not buy a ticket to Birmingham if you had family in the region, but a local station on the reasonable suburban network, and other travel in that direction like the airport or destinations on XC beyond the city collectively require the service. FWIW the ticket price is extortionate to Brum and I would always split tickets.. but I think that would be an outlier behaviour in the numbers.

But are those destinations best served by a short train that’s come from Milton Keynes? Or by improving the connection at Didcot to the existing long fast trains?

Definitely, if more Didcot stops were made in the Bristol/Swansea services. Nothing worse than having to change at both Swindon and Didcot to from Swansea which is what often happens today. In the absence of those stops (delaying everyone else). a Swindon direct services would be the right fix.

 

[zwk500]

Definitely, if more Didcot stops were made in the Bristol/Swansea services. Nothing worse than having to change at both Swindon and Didcot to from Swansea which is what often happens today. In the absence of those stops (delaying everyone else). a Swindon direct services would be the right fix.

Fairly sure all bristol services stop at Didcot normally. And how big is the market from South Wales that might use such a link?
Seems a poor use of capacity on that section of the GW line given the demand for travel from Glos/South Wales to Bucks

 

[Falcon1200]

The sterling work from @RailAleFan shows just how important this route would be. Swindon, Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa are respectively the 10th, 12th and 17th most popular destinations from Oxford. By comparison, Birmingham New Street is the 13th most popular destination from Oxford.

I'm somewhat surprised by those figures, especially that for Swindon, as a) there is a direct bus service and b) Swindon is a dump! Are they for passengers finishing their journeys there or merely changing? My experience is that trains between Oxford and Birmingham for example are, always, very busy, but with many (including me) changing at New Street rather than going into the city.

Back on topic, I can see an extension to Didcot being feasible, at least until the line to Oxford line is electrified and therefore replacing the current local service, however anything beyond has the disadvantage of eating up capacity on the GWML. A station at Wantage Road would also seem worth considering, but has the same disadvantage, plus would people (in most cases) drive there for what would be a limited train service compared to that already offered from Didcot?

 

[Topological]

I'm somewhat surprised by those figures, especially that for Swindon, as a) there is a direct bus service and b) Swindon is a dump! Are they for passengers finishing their journeys there or merely changing? My experience is that trains between Oxford and Birmingham for example are, always, very busy, but with many (including me) changing at New Street rather than going into the city.

Back on topic, I can see an extension to Didcot being feasible, at least until the line to Oxford line is electrified and therefore replacing the current local service, however anything beyond has the disadvantage of eating up capacity on the GWML. A station at Wantage Road would also seem worth considering, but has the same disadvantage, plus would people (in most cases) drive there for what would be a limited train service compared to that already offered from Didcot?

A question about Swindon is whether the figure includes people using day returns. From Swansea, Swindon is a useful split for day trips to Oxfordshire (Including Bicester Village)

 

[mangyiscute]

Add a station at Grove for Wantage on the A338 exactly where the Challow loops start/end, and it would boost the commuter potential of those towns.

Fully agree that this site should be seriously considered in the next batch of new station funding or whatever it is called, imo I think it would be possible to extend the Didcot stopper to terminate there by using one extra train, it would require re-pathing that section of the GWML but I reckon it could be done.
I was thinking if/when the line to Witney gets built, that could have its services terminating at Cowley (yes I am dreaming I know)

Your definition of 'very' might be doing some rather heavy lifting there. Comparatively little traffic would go all the way from MK to Reading, it'd be MK-Oxford and Bicester-Reading most likely. MKC to Reading via London would be c.1h20ish, depending on your connection at Paddington, but from Pad you'd be on your train to the final destination. MKC to Reading via Bicester would be 1h15ish, with shorter trains and a change at Reading to factor in.

Although considering the interchange times shown across London, journey planners would have via London at more like 1h45

 

[rapmastaj]

Outside of London, the largest passenger flow between two stations that aren't connected by direct trains is Swindon to Oxford.

It's hardly surprising, given that (along with Reading) Swindon is the closest large town to Oxford, so obviously there will be a good deal of travel between them. The reason why the buses are so successful is precisely because of the poor rail service.

 

[fishwomp]

Outside of London, the largest passenger flow between two stations that aren't connected by direct trains is Swindon to Oxford.

It's hardly surprising, given that (along with Reading) Swindon is the closest large town to Oxford, so obviously there will be a good deal of travel between them. The reason why the buses are so successful is precisely because of the poor rail service.

Um. The reason buses are so successful? With an 85 minute journey time (4x per hour), versus a train of between 37 mins and 60 mins depending on luck or absence of luck - 21x per hour (connections suck) it's not really true that buses are a better service.

Why buses are successful:
1) the intermediate towns of Farringdon and Shrivenham are large and cannot be rail served.
2) fares - peak single - £45 on the train, £5 (£2 currently?) on the bus; off-peak single £14.10.

 

[JonathanH]

Why buses are successful:
1) the intermediate towns of Farringdon and Shrivenham are large and cannot be rail served.
2) fares - peak single - £45 on the train, £5 (£2 currently?) on the bus; off-peak single £14.10.

£28.90 anytime single if you avoid Reading - still a lot of money.

 

[fishwomp]

£28.90 anytime single if you avoid Reading - still a lot of money.

Ah yeah, my bad.
The distance by road is 30 miles... so that's £1/mile.
Anytime single to London is £39.20 (~55 miles by road / rail) - something's wrong when the peak London fare is cheaper per mile than to Swindon. Wondering what do the fare setters know that I don't about Swindon??

 

[lachlan]

£28.90 anytime single if you avoid Reading - still a lot of money.

And this is part of the problem - some trains skip Didcot so you either need to pay extra, travel via Reading anyway and hope you don't get caught, or wait extra (there's a gap of 2 hours iirc on Sunday evenings) for a service that calls at Didcot

 

[Topological]

Looking at Swindon, a platform 0 looks doable. There are currently 3 tracks to the north of the platform 1 face and some land beyond that.

Platforms 0 and 1 would then be London-bound fasts. Platform 3 would become the platform for trains terminating from Paddington/Oxford and then Platform 4 would do as it currently does.

Swindon station Platform 1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...indon_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1442933.jpg

 

[70014IronDuke]

Looking at Swindon, a platform 0 looks doable. There are currently 3 tracks to the north of the platform 1 face and some land beyond that.

Platforms 0 and 1 would then be London-bound fasts. Platform 3 would become the platform for trains terminating from Paddington/Oxford and then Platform 4 would do as it currently does.

Swindon station Platform 1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...indon_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1442933.jpg

Just for a reality check (for me, at least) - Swindon used to have an east-facing bay or two, didn't it?

The fares between Oxford and Swindon are ridiculous.

 

[Topological]

Just for a reality check (for me, at least) - Swindon used to have an east-facing bay or two, didn't it?

The fares between Oxford and Swindon are ridiculous.

Old maps and the pictures seem to confirm that there were. Whether such platforms could be restored, or whether they would be long enough, is a different question.

My proposal was based on the idea that the Didcot terminator from Paddington could continue to Swindon as well.

 

[zwk500]

My proposal was based on the idea that the Didcot terminator from Paddington could continue to Swindon as well.

Isn't that the split of the Oxford stopper (to allow the London-Dicot section to use the new wires) that at some point will go back there?