Nuneham Viaduct: what alternative provision could be provided?

[snowball]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/nuneham-viaduct-shut-didcot-oxford.246310/

The ideal solution, in view of discussions in other threads, but taking a few years, would be to build a new 2-track bridge alongside, divert the railway on to it, demolish the old bridge, build a new 2-track bridge in its place, and widen the railway to 4 tracks.

 

[zwk500]

The ideal solution, in view of discussions in other threads, but taking a few years, would be to build a new 2-track bridge alongside, divert the railway on to it, demolish the old bridge, build a new 2-track bridge in its place, and widen the railway to 4 tracks.

That'd be a long-term solution though as it would also involve rebuilding Radley and Culham stations. The bridge needs to be reopened slightly sooner than in the next 5-10 years.

 

[Mikey C]

Will Chiltern be able to lengthen the Oxford services, by maybe running the 68/Mk3s all day on that route?

 

[zwk500]

Welcome to the forum - your first post I see. Yes after May Day bank holiday- but yikes there is the Coronation coming up so I assume they want it doing before then for the extra potential traffic perhaps.

If it lasts that long I'd expect plans to include diverting Worcester services via Swindon and strengthening Chiltern's Oxford Services with an Oxford-Worcester to fill in the gap. The bigger issue is for how long the GWML+WCML can absorb the Southampton-Midlands freight without causing a maintenance backlog or losing trade to the A34.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If it lasts that long I'd expect plans to include diverting Worcester services via Swindon and strengthening Chiltern's Oxford Services with an Oxford-Worcester to fill in the gap. The bigger issue is for how long the GWML+WCML can absorb the Southampton-Midlands freight without causing a maintenance backlog or losing trade to the A34.

Yes because diverting a ship to Felixstowe is not quite as easy to say the least!

 

[zwk500]

Yes because diverting a ship to Felixstowe is not quite as easy to say the least!

Indeed, one shudders to think what the lead time would be for a berthing slot. The bigger shipping companies might be able to juggle their schedules around but it is going to end up costing somebody.

Absurd timeline would be to divert the ships to Antwerp or Rotterdam and the Class 92s start shuttling container trains from Frethun to Ripple Lane..

 

[Class 170101]

Will Chiltern be able to lengthen the Oxford services, by maybe running the 68/Mk3s all day on that route?

Don't tell the DfT that don't they want the Class 68s / Mark IIIs removed?

Indeed, one shudders to think what the lead time would be for a berthing slot. The bigger shipping companies might be able to juggle their schedules around but it is going to end up costing somebody.

Absurd timeline would be to divert the ships to Antwerp or Rotterdam and the Class 92s start shuttling container trains from Frethun to Ripple Lane..

Good luck finding a path on HS1 during the day. Also what do you do with the train once it reaches Barking?

 

[12LDA28C]

Will Chiltern be able to lengthen the Oxford services, by maybe running the 68/Mk3s all day on that route?

In a word, no. Chiltern are severely restricted as to the number of Class 68 arrivals / departures at London Marylebone per day.

They could try and release some units from elsewhere possibly but that would involve rewriting the train plan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a word, no. Chiltern are severely restricted as to the number of Class 68 arrivals / departures at London Marylebone per day.

They could try and release some units from elsewhere possibly but that would involve rewriting the train plan.

Could GW send 165s to Chiltern and use the spare 80xs from not operating to Oxford to backfill?

Given the high demand to Oxford and this going on for a while, there would be an argument for Chiltern implementing an emergency timetable to increase their capacity to Oxford; people from Birmingham have the choice of Avanti and LNR so don't need the third option.

 

[Benjwri]

Could GW send 165s to Chiltern and use the spare 80xs from not operating to Oxford to backfill?

GWR 165s wouldn’t add that many units, the majority of them are in the west and run routes that the 800s aren’t cleared on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

GWR 165s wouldn’t add that many units, the majority of them are in the west and run routes that the 800s aren’t cleared on.

Any is better than none, and presumably you could further backfill with 166s released by 80x?

Two obvious ones to free up are the Bedwyn shuttle unit and the Oxford-Didcot stopper, but I'm sure they could manage a few more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing the Bedwyn shuttle would leave stations unserved under GWR’s new timetable as the Paddington - Bedwyn service was withdrawn and supplemented by the 387 service to Newbury.

Use an 80x instead. There will be at least one spare due to the absence of the Oxford fast.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Use an 80x instead. There will be at least one spare due to the absence of the Oxford fast.

I’m not sure why you’d want to go to the effort of replacing a 165 with an 80x on the Bedwyn shuttle. What would you do with the turbo released?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not sure why you’d want to go to the effort of replacing a 165 with an 80x on the Bedwyn shuttle. What would you do with the turbo released?

Send it to Chiltern to strengthen their Oxford service.

 

[cactustwirly]

Send it to Chiltern to strengthen their Oxford service.

As as been described that isn't possible as they are incompatible with Chiltern 165s

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Send it to Chiltern to strengthen their Oxford service.

GWR ones aren’t gauge cleared on Chiltern routes since the ride height modifications.

 

[LYRobert]

As as been described that isn't possible as they are incompatible with Chiltern 165s

Why, oh WHY! have we allowed vehicles which run on our rails to become "Incompatible" with each other? Once (and I remenber it well) coaches, wagons, locos all had a screw-link couplings and a vacuum hose to suck the brakes off, so anything could couple to anything else - and aften did. No doubt drivers' control equipment could have been be made compatible as well, so that any motive power could have moved any vehicle or any train of them train anywhere, any time. But no, fragmentation of the system has meant fragmentation of all that as well. What a pickle !
In the building industry we all have to build to a set of rules (The Building Regulations) but that doesn't stifle innovation - provided everything complies. Why not the railway as well?

 

[12LDA28C]

Why, oh WHY! have we allowed vehicles which run on our rails to become "Incompatible" with each other? Once (and I remenber it well) coaches, wagons, locos all had a screw-link couplings and a vacuum hose to suck the brakes off, so anything could couple to anything else - and aften did. No doubt drivers' control equipment could have been be made compatible as well, so that any motive power could have moved any vehicle or any train of them train anywhere, any time. But no, fragmentation of the system has meant fragmentation of all that as well. What a pickle !
In the building industry we all have to build to a set of rules (The Building Regulations) but that doesn't stifle innovation - provided everything complies. Why not the railway as well?

I suggest you might find 'fragmentation of the system' has been going on for rather longer than you might think, the GWR building railways to broad gauge, for example.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I suggest you might find 'fragmentation of the system' has been going on for rather longer than you might think, the GWR building railways to broad gauge, for example.

I know this is off topic, apologies, but it does beg the question as to why we are not building towards a postition of interoperability and wide route clearance. Which is of course what we did with Brunel's gauge.

 

[zwk500]

I know this is off topic, apologies, but it does beg the question as to why we are not building towards a postition of interoperability and wide route clearance. Which is of course what we did with Brunel's gauge.

Brunel's gauge was famously not compatible with the majoirty of the railway...

 

[a_c_skinner]

Brunel's gauge was famously not compatible with the majoirty of the railway...

Yes, we sorted that out.

 

[Irascible]

Pretty sure I've seen notes about trials of mixed-gauge trains too, so there were compatibilities even then.

Do we have (military) railway engineers still? emergency bridge provision sounds like the sort of thing they'd have jumped on for training.

 

[HSTEd]

Do we have (military) railway engineers still? emergency bridge provision sounds like the sort of thing they'd have jumped on for training.

I believe there is still a detachment, but I'm not sure how big it actually is these days.

 

[Trainbike46]

GWR ones aren’t gauge cleared on Chiltern routes since the ride height modifications.

so different 165 have separate clearing procedures???

More importantly, is this a clearance excercise that could be undertaken quickly, to allow the use of GWR 165s to increase chiltern capacity?

Send it to Chiltern to strengthen their Oxford service.

This feels like such an obvious idea.

If the Chiltern and GWR units can't couple to each other, just only couple GWR with GWR, and Chiltern with Chiltern, and then run maximum length units on all oxford-marylebone services

In the short term, Chiltern needs more capacity to Oxford, to make up for the missing GWR service, and this seems like the easiest way to do that

 

[HamworthyGoods]

so different 165 have separate clearing procedures???

Yes because the different 165s are set at different heights, this was to allow the GWR 16x to operate around Bristol without needing significant infrastructure changes. That however now means they are a different height to the Chiltern ones.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yes because the different 165s are set at different heights, this was to allow the GWR 16x to operate around Bristol without needing significant infrastructure changes. That however now means they are a different height to the Chiltern ones.

Is it likely to be easy to clear the GWR 165s for Chiltern use?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Indeed, one shudders to think what the lead time would be for a berthing slot. The bigger shipping companies might be able to juggle their schedules around but it is going to end up costing somebody.

Absurd timeline would be to divert the ships to Antwerp or Rotterdam and the Class 92s start shuttling container trains from Frethun to Ripple Lane..

It would be more likely, though highly improbable, to re-route at least the Trafford Park bound boxes via Liverpool by trans-shipping them at another port. There's already a certain amount of trans-shipment of boxes for places like Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin so the principle is well established but I would guess the timelines for implementation are no shorter than rectification of the bridge. And shippers would likely decide to just go for the extended road-haulage option and see how things shake out.

 

[Trainbike46]

It would be more likely, though highly improbable, to re-route at least the Trafford Park bound boxes via Liverpool by trans-shipping them at another port. There's already a certain amount of trans-shipment of boxes for places like Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin so the principle is well established but I would guess the timelines for implementation are no shorter than rectification of the bridge. And shippers would likely decide to just go for the extended road-haulage option and see how things shake out.

How much options would there be to reroute freight trains?

In other countries they sometimes cancel passenger services to make space for rerouted freight

 

[zwk500]

How much options would there be to reroute freight trains?

In other countries they sometimes cancel passenger services to make space for rerouted freight

Thr only container cleared routes north of London are the WCML, ECML, and GEML to Felixstowe.

 

[A0wen]

In the short term, Chiltern needs more capacity to Oxford, to make up for the missing GWR service, and this seems like the easiest way to do that

Question is what %age of those who board a GW Oxford - London service make the full journey, as opposed to alighting at Didcot or Reading.

Chiltern don't need to replace GW seats on a 1:1 basis - a combination of RRBs to Didcot and perhaps some increase in Chiltern capacity is all that's needed. Pretending Chiltern somehow need to accommodate all of GW's passengers is wrong.