Extensions of East-West Rail Past Oxford

[Topological]

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?

Yes, it is. Though maybe the extension of the EWR fills the role of Oxford Stopper and the connection at Didcot Parkway would be ok (I am assuming any Swindon would reverse at Didcot rather than using the chord).

Seeing the discussion of Islip (?) not wanting too many London trains so people do not clog up the roads in the village when parking to take the train, perhaps a similar argument applies to the stations between Oxford and Didcot.

This is all sepculative after all.

 

[MarkyT]

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.

The filled in bay at the east end of the surviving island platform couldn't be accessed today as platforms #1 and #3 were extended through its throat area leaving no space for a new turnout to diverge between the converging tracks outside the starting signals. A platform #0 to the north couldn't be accessed from the down main today without a very comprehensive remodelling of the big ladder junction at the east throat (=expensive and disruptive). A solution to that might be to cross local trains over onto a bi-di relief on the north side before that, West of Stratton Green bridge on the eastern approaches. the current four track alignment might be adapted to provide a 'right turn lane' for incoming locals to turn into en route to this bidi relief from Highworth Junction.

 

[Topological]

The filled in bay at the east end of the surviving island platform couldn't be accessed today as platforms #1 and #3 were extended through its throat area leaving no space for a new turnout to diverge between the converging tracks outside the starting signals. A platform #0 to the north couldn't be accessed from the down main today without a very comprehensive remodelling of the big ladder junction at the east throat (=expensive and disruptive). A solution to that might be to cross local trains over onto a bi-di relief on the north side before that, West of Stratton Green bridge on the eastern approaches. the current four track alignment might be adapted to provide a 'right turn lane' for incoming locals to turn into en route to this bidi relief from Highworth Junction.
View attachment 149017

Thank you for that @MarkyT

I must confess I was assuming platform 0 only needed to loop off 1 since those two would then perform the function that 1 and 3 do now for up mains.

However, I had missed the fact that the down trains towards Gloucester need to use 3 and not 4. Therefore 3 will still be needed for those and cannot be blocked all the time by terminators from Didcot/Oxford.

IF the down main can access platform 1 then it would be no problem because the down trains to Gloucester can use 1 (as a direct replacement for 3), but that may well need the pointwork you suggest.

Ending up with a lot of work to get a useful platform 0, but maybe worth it given the numbers going between Swindon and Oxford (plus the marginal saving on the fact that Didcot terminators are based just to the East of Swindon)

 

[Basil Jet]

Is there a reason why East West Rail couldn't merge with the Swindon - Westbury stopper?

 

[jimm]

Yes, it is. Though maybe the extension of the EWR fills the role of Oxford Stopper and the connection at Didcot Parkway would be ok (I am assuming any Swindon would reverse at Didcot rather than using the chord).

Seeing the discussion of Islip (?) not wanting too many London trains so people do not clog up the roads in the village when parking to take the train, perhaps a similar argument applies to the stations between Oxford and Didcot.

This is all sepculative after all.

I've already pointed out in another thread that the claims made about people in Islip wanting fewer trains to stop were completely spurious, so please don't repeat them here.

 

[Topological]

I've already pointed out in another thread that the claims made about people in Islip wanting fewer trains to stop were completely spurious, so please don't repeat them here.

Link to discussion for reference: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-oxford-stock.258002/

The original point is raised by @Bletchleyite

It was, if I recall, actually at the request of the locals, because they didn't want to become an unofficial A34 Parkway (the station is very, very convenient, being just off that road). The infrequent service suits their purpose (if any ever bother using it) and they can drive to Oxford Parkway (it's one of those expensive, posh villages with basically 100% car ownership) if they want more frequency.

(Curious thing: Oxford Parkway is literally right next to the A34 but reaching it from the road is a massive faff via Kidlington - I wonder if they ever intended to add another junction?)

I have no idea which side is true over there hence my post only says "discussion of" rather than making any factual claim that the people of Islip genuinely lobbied for fewer calls on Chiltern trains to Marylebone.

 

[jimm]

I have no idea which side is true over there hence my post only says "discussion of" rather than making any factual claim that the people of Islip genuinely lobbied for fewer calls on Chiltern trains to Marylebone.

Whether or not this thread is speculative, the claim made about Islip had no basis in fact, which is what I pointed out a month ago - on the contrary, the residents were complaining about Chiltern's plan to cut their service - so why would you refer to it now?

As for the stations between Oxford and Didcot, the only place there was ever an issue over parking in roads near the station was at Radley, which was because the car park used to be tiny, so FGW built an extension in 2013.

 

[A S Leib]

Is there enough capacity on the Golden Valley line for a second hourly Swindon – Gloucester (/ Cheltenham), and could that be extended any further east? The main problems with extending it to Oxford that I can see are that out of the three main routes west of Swindon it has lowest demand from Oxford and Milton Keynes. It also wouldn't be competitive with road timewise for Oxford – Cheltenham journeys (at least 01:40 by train – maybe slightly less if avoiding Didcot and skipping Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse – against just under two hours by bus or just over an hour and park & ride time by car).

 

[JonathanH]

H

Is there a reason why East West Rail couldn't merge with the Swindon - Westbury stopper?

Yes. Simplicity of operation and finding funding to support operation of additional services.

 

[MarkyT]

Is there enough capacity on the Golden Valley line for a second hourly Swindon – Gloucester (/ Cheltenham), and could that be extended any further east? The main problems with extending it to Oxford that I can see are that out of the three main routes west of Swindon it has lowest demand from Oxford and Milton Keynes. It also wouldn't be competitive with road timewise for Oxford – Cheltenham journeys (at least 01:40 by train – maybe slightly less if avoiding Didcot and skipping Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse – against just under two hours by bus or just over an hour and park & ride time by car).

I think that's why Swindon is the compelling contender because it gives equal access to all trains heading west that stop at Swindon, and while extending to a major interchange, not going so far as to introduce too much extra performance risk. Extending routes needlessly adds complexity and risk as trains encounter more junctions and trains, every one of which adds delay potential. Didn't Central Trains teach us that joining up sprinter diagrams across the country from coast to coast isn't always a good idea. Note The vast majority of trains to and from the west do stop at Swindon. If a new platform #0 was constructed north of the station it might be sensible to plan and safeguard for possible through running in the future with a new track connection direct from the west end (initially buffers) to the Golden Valley, potentially giving an entire new fourth full-length platform and potential for a drastically improved north entrance and passageway or bridge across the station. Such a new long (~270m) side platform might have a shorter (170m) terminal bay platform (#-1 - working title!) along the east part of its rear face. In the meantime, making #0 a through platform from the outset could be challenging if rail access to the logistics warehouse to the north of the station at the west end of the station must be retained (I have no knowledge of traffic status or siding agreements).

 

[Topological]

I think that's why Swindon is the compelling contender because it gives equal access to all trains heading west that stop at Swindon, and while extending to a major interchange, not going so far as to introduce too much extra performance risk. Extending routes needlessly adds complexity and risk as trains encounter more junctions and trains, every one of which adds delay potential. Didn't Central Trains teach us that joining up sprinter diagrams across the country from coast to coast isn't always a good idea. Note The vast majority of trains to and from the west do stop at Swindon. If a new platform #0 was constructed north of the station it might be sensible to plan and safeguard for possible through running in the future with a new track connection direct from the west end (initially buffers) to the Golden Valley, potentially giving an entire new fourth full-length platform and potential for a drastically improved north entrance and passageway or bridge across the station. Such a new long (~270m) side platform might have a shorter (170m) terminal bay platform (#-1 - working title!) along the east part of its rear face. In the meantime, making #0 a through platform from the outset could be challenging if rail access to the logistics warehouse to the north of the station at the west end of the station must be retained (I have no knowledge of traffic status or siding agreements).

I must confess my initial thought was that 0 would be through and therefore have access from the West. Whether the will would be there to allow access from all lines to 0 is another question. However, it looks a fairly straightforward task given London-bound trains can access platform 1 from both the Bristol and Golden Valley directions.

I like the idea of a -1 as well, though that might be pushing it a bit far, especially if 3 can be used for terminators. The advantage of 3 over 0 is that it is in the middle of the formation and should therefore reduce clashes relative to having to wait to get across to 0 when terminating from the Didcot direction.

Writing about it like this makes it seem like it should have been done ages ago.

 

[mangyiscute]

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??

The anytime fares from anywhere West of Didcot to anywhere East of Swindon are very expensive as this is the section they've decided is going to be the expensive part, to ensure that fares can't be undercut massively during peak times by splitting. It does mean that there are some extortionate fares, Didcot to Swindon is £29.70 single, £59.40 return in peak which for a 15 min journey is insanity (and even £15 return in off peak is bad too)

 

[Verulamius]

I note that in FGW's 96th access right application with Network Rail it is proposing two return journeys on Saturday between Bristol and Oxford. However this is not until mid September.

5: Saturdays from 14th September a Bristol – Oxford through service to provide journey op-
portunity and to help ameliorate consistent country end overcrowding on Bristol – London
services. Two return daytime services are proposed formed by 125mph Class 802 bimode
units and these will have contingent right;

 

[70014IronDuke]

Is there a reason why East West Rail couldn't merge with the Swindon - Westbury stopper?

Sounds good at first sight, but there is a long single-track section west of Thingley Jcn, so without improved signalling, this route can't take an hourly e/w service. It would also greatly increase the risk of importing delays to the 'core' East-West route.

 

[cle]

I note that in FGW's 96th access right application with Network Rail it is proposing two return journeys on Saturday between Bristol and Oxford. However this is not until mid September.

This is interesting. I wonder if this is a test for EWR but either way, it's a good sign that they are exploring the cross-Oxford/Didcot potential again.

Many will mention 20 year old trials as proof it won't work (see Silverilnk vs Overground provision/experience) - but I think it's definitely time to try it again properly.

 

[The exile]

This is interesting. I wonder if this is a test for EWR but either way, it's a good sign that they are exploring the cross-Oxford/Didcot potential again.

Many will mention 20 year old trials as proof it won't work (see Silverilnk vs Overground provision/experience) - but I think it's definitely time to try it again properly.

Surely the reason it “didn’t work” then was the massive speed differential between turbos and HSTs leading to pathing problems? That would only start to raise its head once calls are inserted at Grove, Swindon East, RWB, Corsham etc….

 

[70014IronDuke]

Surely the reason it “didn’t work” then was the massive speed differential between turbos and HSTs leading to pathing problems? That would only start to raise its head once calls are inserted at Grove, Swindon East, RWB, Corsham etc….

I would posit that one reason 'it didn't work' was unreliability, plain and simple. Too many cancellations for whatever reason.

 

[cle]

Surely the reason it “didn’t work” then was the massive speed differential between turbos and HSTs leading to pathing problems? That would only start to raise its head once calls are inserted at Grove, Swindon East, RWB, Corsham etc….

None of these stations exist so we're probably good for now. It would also be a far more premium/pleasant travel experience. Faster also.

Good use of the 5 car sets, to be honest, and maybe even handy interworking with Oxford terminators?

 

[The exile]

I would posit that one reason 'it didn't work' was unreliability, plain and simple. Too many cancellations for whatever reason.

Thought it was hit on the head by the SRA as it blocked too many express paths.

 

[class ep-09]

None of these stations exist so we're probably good for now. It would also be a far more premium/pleasant travel experience. Faster also.

Good use of the 5 car sets, to be honest, and maybe even handy interworking with Oxford terminators?

Just a thought - if paths are granted - could Bristol - Oxford run in the redundant Bristol - Paddington super-fasts ?
I know these paths were taken between Reading ( or Didcot ?) and Paddington by 387’s but they should still exist between Bristol / Bristol Pkw and Didcot , should they not ?

 

[mangyiscute]

Just a thought - if paths are granted - could Bristol - Oxford run in the redundant Bristol - Paddington super-fasts ?
I know these paths were taken between Reading ( or Didcot ?) and Paddington by 387’s but they should still exist between Bristol / Bristol Pkw and Didcot , should they not ?

I think they do still exist, although some might be taken by Grand Union for their new London to Carmarthen service that will hopefully come soon.
I think GWR will also want to operate these services via Bath, so new paths would need to be found through Bath, unless one of the Bristol to London trains was diverted to run via Bristol Parkway, but this comes with its own issues.

 

[The exile]

I think they do still exist, although some might be taken by Grand Union for their new London to Carmarthen service that will hopefully come soon.
I think GWR will also want to operate these services via Bath, so new paths would need to be found through Bath, unless one of the Bristol to London trains was diverted to run via Bristol Parkway, but this comes with its own issues.

Getting an additional IET path through Bath shouldn’t be too difficult off peak.

 

[Topological]

Getting an additional IET path through Bath shouldn’t be too difficult off peak.

Provided the South Wales to London are not on divert

 

[The exile]

Even then!

 

[70014IronDuke]

Thought it was hit on the head by the SRA as it blocked too many express paths.

You may well be correct. I was (trying) to answer why a lot of folk seem to be saying that he Bicester - Bristol service was a commercial failure.

I remember at the time it was running, half the time it wasn't - IYSWIM.

 

[cle]

I think they do still exist, although some might be taken by Grand Union for their new London to Carmarthen service that will hopefully come soon.
I think GWR will also want to operate these services via Bath, so new paths would need to be found through Bath, unless one of the Bristol to London trains was diverted to run via Bristol Parkway, but this comes with its own issues.

These lines are not super busy west of Swindon. There is easily enough capacity for the Carmarthen and then a (100mph+) EWR to Bath and Bristol. The route through Bath especially, has capacity.

 

[mangyiscute]

These lines are not super busy west of Swindon. There is easily enough capacity for the Carmarthen and then a (100mph+) EWR to Bath and Bristol. The route through Bath especially, has capacity.

I thought Bath to Bristol might be quite busy - you have 5tph in terms of passenger trains, plus 1-2 freight trains per hour, but the real issue is that you have a mix of non stop intercity, stopping local services and freight services all traveling at different speeds. I'm sure you could path an extra hourly train, but I doubt it would be as simple as some seem to think.

 

[JKF]

I suspect if EWR was extended it would run via Bath, there had to be some potential for tourist traffic between Oxford & Bath, both desirable locations.

 

[cle]

Bath is 3x busier than Bristol Parkway too. And Chippenham isn't far behind BPW either. Together, as a proposition they dwarf BPW.

As well as tourism, Bath has reasonable business demand, a uni, and a wealthy local population who use the train heavily.

Worth noting too, that as well as Oxford, Bicester is a huge draw. And also about 3x bigger than when this was last trialled (both town and outlets!)

 

[fishwomp]

Worth noting too, that as well as Oxford, Bicester is a huge draw. And also about 3x bigger than when this was last trialled (both town and outlets!)

.. and when the Bicester line was reopened in 1987 (ish) to passengers, it was under the Spellar Act (would have had a simple closing process had it not worked out). There was no Bicester Village then at all. They didn't know how important that line would eventually become!