East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Arun Sharma]

2 hours ago, VarsityJim said:

Are these articles online somewhere?

Please could you provide a link to them if yes?

Many thanks!

Sorry, I seem to have misplaced the BTK articles at present. I am not aware of any online articles covering this line though perhaps Wiki may well have articles on the original line and its genesis.

Afternote: Look up 'Varsity Line' on Wikipedia - quite an extensive article.

Edited January 23 by Arun Sharma

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Straying OT somewhat, but I find it strange that the GWML electrification scheme stopped at Oxford, and did not include Banbury. Maybe there isn't quite the traffic for it, but it would seem a natural extension.

 

Electrification is expensive - there is no way the 1tph GWR service to Banbury comes anywhere close to justifying that. the only way electrification to Banbury makes any sense is part of a bigger scheme to do the line up to Birmingham.

 

The business case for Didcot - Oxford is slightly better as you have Costwold line trains plus Oxford terminators which can make use of it.

 

 

[Covkid]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Electrification is expensive - there is no way the 1tph GWR service to Banbury comes anywhere close to justifying that. the only way electrification to Banbury makes any sense is part of a bigger scheme to do the line up to Birmingham.

 

The business case for Didcot - Oxford is slightly better as you have Costwold line trains plus Oxford terminators which can make use of it.

 

And that neatly sums up the situation Phil

The only part of the "oughties" electrification programme which seems to have worked well was the electrification of Walsall - Rugeley via Cannock.

 

The passenger service was mostly half hourly 2 and 3 car DMUs which operated between Birmingham and Rugeley, and were repalced by 4 car class 350 EMUs. I believe one or two loco hauled charter trains have operated over the route but AFAIK an AWC pendolino has never operated over the route except maybe as a test unit.   There was a brief period when the Cannock line was given an hourly service to London Euston but reliability of the service collapsed and the operator reverted to Birmingham International as the turnback point. 

 

So why was the Cannock line chosen to be electrified despite being purely a half hourly local passenger service, when the Oxford - Banbury service is arguably as busy ?

 

The silo mentality of UK electrification demonstrates the inability of the DfT etc to actually make the industry work for more than one customer.      

[Nearholmer]

I don’t know the configurations of the places under discussion, but in general costs can vary hugely according to how easy/difficult it is to access substations.
 

An “infill” between locations where there are subs nearby at each end can sometimes be surprisingly low cost (depends a bit on available capacity), whereas an extension that requires complete new sub(s), or worse still a grid intake, can be horribly expensive on a route-mile basis. Some of it is down to design standards of availability that are selected, of course, because if it decided that a “wet string” extension, with no provision to feed from the remote end, and the lower availability associated with that, is acceptable, then costs can be kept down - it’s a “you get what you pay for” equation.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, Covkid said:

 

 

So why was the Cannock line chosen to be electrified despite being purely a half hourly local passenger service, when the Oxford - Banbury service is arguably as busy ?

 

 

I believe because the local transport authority was willing to part fund it!  Moreover it was a cheap scheme to do - with electrified railways in place at both ends there was no need for nerw feeders from the national grid etc. It also reduced the number of diesel units at Birmingham New street and allowed better fleet utilisation i.e. one electric fleet rather than a mix of units on Birmingham - Wallsall trains.

 

There is a running theme in terms of electrification whereby if it is being funded by third parties (e.g Scotland and now the Welsh valleys) it happens - if it involves the DfT and Whitehall then they will do everything they can to NOT fund it! More disapointly still they seem to have have ignored a key lesson of the GWML project, namely that if you want to have the ability to keep costs down, then a contentious pipeline of schemes that maintain industry skills and knowledge is CRUCIAL thus increasing the chances of another GWML style screw up in the future.

 

[Nearholmer]

Continuous might be better than contentious, but: yes, very.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Continuous might be better than contentious, but: yes, very.

and decreasing instead of increasing🙂

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I don’t know the configurations of the places under discussion, but in general costs can vary hugely according to how easy/difficult it is to access substations.
 

An “infill” between locations where there are subs nearby at each end can sometimes be surprisingly low cost (depends a bit on available capacity), whereas an extension that requires complete new sub(s), or worse still a grid intake, can be horribly expensive on a route-mile basis. Some of it is down to design standards of availability that are selected, of course, because if it decided that a “wet string” extension, with no provision to feed from the remote end, and the lower availability associated with that, is acceptable, then costs can be kept down - it’s a “you get what you pay for” equation.

In that respect, the 23 miles from Oxford to Banbury might not be as expensive as you think. Maybe if it was ever joined up to the wires in Brum or via Leamington to Cov, the extra traffic would justify an extra feeder station, but possibly Oxford- Banbury could be done as a low cost extension, a bit like Cambridge -Kings Lynn.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

In that respect, the 23 miles from Oxford to Banbury might not be as expensive as you think. Maybe if it was ever joined up to the wires in Brum or via Leamington to Cov, the extra traffic would justify an extra feeder station, but possibly Oxford- Banbury could be done as a low cost extension, a bit like Cambridge -Kings Lynn.

Oxford 0 Banbury really only works as a mixed traffic route.  The local service, with a basic 2 hourly interval in each direction, is a relatively minor part of what uses it.   The real stuff is container trains to/from Southampton plus Cross Country services on what amounts to a core, and busy, for them section of route between Reading and Birmingham.

 

Neither the container trains nor Cross Country's trains operate over routes with end-to-end electrification (and of course south of Basingstoke are on a very different system of electrification).   The level of joined-up thinking to resolve all of that rapidly fell by the wayside when the grand 'electric spine' idea bit the dust.  I can't see DafT ever getting anywhere near reviving that unless they are told to do, or else,  by a dictatorship run by RMweb members.

[Nearholmer]

Making a wild leap in assumptions, and imagining that 25kV has been provided Didcot-Oxford (which in any sane world surely the London passenger traffic alone would justify), the classic “old railway” thing to do would be to extend a “wet string”, so overhead line only to Banbury, no grid infeed at the remote end.
 

This would only be able to support a very thin service, and would be prone to non-availability, but would expand the boundary of electrification. In other words, a modest move on the chessboard, preparing for the next move and the one after, eventually getting to Birmingham.

[The Stationmaster]

51 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Making a wild leap in assumptions, and imagining that 25kV has been provided Didcot-Oxford (which in any sane world surely the London passenger traffic alone would justify), the classic “old railway” thing to do would be to extend a “wet string”, so overhead line only to Banbury, no grid infeed at the remote end.
 

This would only be able to support a very thin service, and would be prone to non-availability, but would expand the boundary of electrification. In other words, a modest move on the chessboard, preparing for the next move and the one after, eventually getting to Birmingham.

The only trains likely to use it would - if enough sets were availabe to cover them -  the local stoppers running every other hour in each direction. However at one stage - but not for very long - there was an SX Banbury - Paddington train which in reality was a commuter train from Reading, Twyford, & Maidenhead - and was worked by a Class 80X unit!

[SM42]

Well it seems that the Stewartby brickworks site may become a major tourist attraction as its been bought by Universal? Studios 

 

It seems good transport connections to London were a clincher. 

 

Obviously never used the Bedford Bletchley service those studio moguls

 

Andy

 

 

Edited February 5 by SM42

[Pannier Tank]

13 hours ago, SM42 said:

Well it seems that the Stewartby brickworks site may become a major tourist attraction as its been bought by Universal? Studios 

 

It seems good transport connections to London were a clincher. 

 

Obviously never used the Bedford Bletchley service those studio moguls

 

Andy

 

 

 

According to Realtime Trains https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:S52375/2024-02-06/detailed Rail Replacement buses are back in operation again!.

[Nearholmer]

It’s gone into confusion-land again, because of strikes I think. The buses have run throughout, so oddly enough a “faux train service” on days when there’s been none elsewhere, but no actual trains for several days.

[simon b]

13 hours ago, SM42 said:

Well it seems that the Stewartby brickworks site may become a major tourist attraction as its been bought by Universal? Studios 

 

It seems good transport connections to London were a clincher. 

 

Obviously never used the Bedford Bletchley service those studio moguls

 

Andy

 

 

I was listening to a phone in on radio 4 about this, they were asking people's thoughts on Universal building their studios and theme park there. Not once was the railway mentioned, everyone was complaining about the extra traffic and the new roads that would have to be built. Even the local MP didn't mention anything about EWR going past its doors. I'll bet the Americans are planning for a station, even if our lot aren't.

[SM42]

I think they are probably right.

 

I wouldnt expect hordes of tourists to arrive by train, even if it saw significant improvements in provision once the EWR project completes

 

Amdy

 

 

[Oldddudders]

The appeal of a railway station in planning applications is enormous. The planners fondly imagine a metro-like frequency, feeding punters into their development. Back in the '80s, Battersea Leisure, backed by the Alton Towers people, were desperate to get a train service to a new station by the power station. Tough.

 

When looking at a new station on the WLL in the late '90s, a football club (Chelsea?) was anxious to have a direct footway from its ground to a new station already authorised. With a Class 313 2 or 3 times an hour? Unthinkable. 

 

As this thread's contributors well-know, the Marston Vale is a Cinderella railway that time forgot, and EWR is not yet able to guarantee any real upgrade. I note Stewartby is being compared to what now goes on at Leavesden. There, too, there was a clamour for a new station just north of the Watford Tunnels, with consultants trying to prove how easy it would be. Look out for the same exercise at Stewartby, proving that 6-figure crowds can be safely and easily moved by rail each day. 

 

 

 

Edited February 6 by Oldddudders

[Edwin_m]

Universal do at least recognise the existence of railways on the map on this very basic project website: https://universalukproject.co.uk/

 

There might be some potential for visitors to arrive by train - lots do at Bicester Village.  But it most likely needs a frequent London service without a change, so I'd expect Universal to focus on the proposed Wixams station on Thameslink, slightly further away on the east side of the site.  

[Mike_Walker]

13 minutes ago, SM42 said:

I think they are probably right.

 

I wouldnt expect hordes of tourists to arrive by train, even if it saw significant improvements in provision once the EWR project completes

 

Amdy

 

 

But Chiltern make a nice business out of transporting tourists to and from Bicester for the shopping there.  They even "downgraded" the station from "Town" to "Village" to emphasise how convenient it is although the present station is an impressive upgrade to what went before.  The same would probably also apply for Universal.

[simon b]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

 

 

There might be some potential for visitors to arrive by train - lots do at Bicester Village.  But it most likely needs a frequent London service without a change  

 

Like a London to Bedford service that use's the Aylesbury link?

[The Stationmaster]

I do wonder exactly what the line capacity will be between Bletchley and Bedford as it is going to have to really improve on the existing to serve a potentially  busy tourist attraction.  Plus of course the problem of train length vs platform lengths at various stations?   Could a 'tourist express' fit into the capacity n the route I wonder?

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

But Chiltern make a nice business out of transporting tourists to and from Bicester for the shopping there.  They even "downgraded" the station from "Town" to "Village" to emphasise how convenient it is although the present station is an impressive upgrade to what went before.  The same would probably also apply for Universal.

You are missing the point - Bicester Village enjoys direct services to a London terminal. In that respect it scores well against road transport which thanks to the A40 / M40 corridor makes Bicester Village easy to reach from London

 

Any station on the EWR serving the proposed theme park by contrast will allways require people to change trains when heading there from London (or anywhere on the MML / ECML / WCML) which is always a turn off even if connections are good. However, like Bicester village, road links to the proposed theme park site from London (or elsewhere) are good which means that a lack of direct train services is a disincentive when people are considering transport modes.

 

 

Finally you also need to consider the demographics- Bicester village (being a upmarket destination consisting of high end retail outlets and eateries) tends to attract single people and couples who are not hugely worried about the cost of getting there. A large proportion of the visitors to theme parks are groups and once you round up the cost of train tickets for a family or a bunch of teenagers then travelling by car will always come out significantly cheaper.

Edited February 6 by phil-b259

[Rugd1022]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s gone into confusion-land again, because of strikes I think. The buses have run throughout, so oddly enough a “faux train service” on days when there’s been none elsewhere, but no actual trains for several days.

 

I had a clear run across the branch from Bletchley to Bedford last night with 6M68, I actually attained the giddy high of 60mph going over the top at Ridgemont!

[Nearholmer]

Ah, I meant passenger trains.

 

None of that honking and tooting at level crossings if you’re going across after bedtime, by the way. It disturbs my sleep.

[Pannier Tank]

On 06/02/2024 at 08:16, Pannier Tank said:

 

According to Realtime Trains https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:S52375/2024-02-06/detailed Rail Replacement buses are back in operation again!.

 

Trains running again today!