"TheOneKEA" wrote:

Those Who Know have repeatedly stated that despite rammed roads, poor
bus links and increased housing, the restoration of the rail link Will
Not Happen until someone can get enough money together to convince the
DfT that the restoration of the route is viable.

The truth is that a comprehensive survey was commissioned by a rail
industry consortium to establish whether the Oxford-Cambridge route
would be viable. The report showed it wouldn't be, not by a long way.
It wasn't even a marginal case. The consortium that commissioned and
supported the study was disbanded soon after the report was completed.

That should have drawn a line, ending any further speculation about
Oxford-Cambridge. But no. It keeps cropping up on here, time and
time (and time) again. And again.

Oxford-Cambridge is dead and buried. Just forget it.

Tony Polson wrote:
That should have drawn a line, ending any further speculation about
Oxford-Cambridge. But no. It keeps cropping up on here, time and
time (and time) again. And again.

Oxford-Cambridge is dead and buried. Just forget it.

I agree with you about Oxford-Cambridge. But I was talking about
Aylesbury-Bletchley, or Aylesbury-Bedford, or any number of other
possibilities that would be brought about by the restoration of the
relevant trackwork. I wish I could find a copy of the study and see the
results for myself.

TheOneKEA wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
That should have drawn a line, ending any further speculation about
Oxford-Cambridge. But no. It keeps cropping up on here, time and
time (and time) again. And again.

Oxford-Cambridge is dead and buried. Just forget it.

I agree with you about Oxford-Cambridge. But I was talking about
Aylesbury-Bletchley, or Aylesbury-Bedford, or any number of other
possibilities that would be brought about by the restoration of the
relevant trackwork. I wish I could find a copy of the study and see
the results for myself.

I came across this recently:

How planning deals might finance recovery of Milton Keynes' missing
rail connection

http://www.ciobinternational.org/ope...ArticleID=4855


--
Simon

"TheOneKEA" wrote:

I agree with you about Oxford-Cambridge. But I was talking about
Aylesbury-Bletchley, or Aylesbury-Bedford, or any number of other
possibilities that would be brought about by the restoration of the
relevant trackwork. I wish I could find a copy of the study and see the
results for myself.

The report was a commercially confidential strategic study for the
partnership that intended to promote the restoration of services
between Oxford and Cambridge and intermediate points. It was never
intended to be published and is very unlikely ever to be made
available to the public.

However, it is clear from the subsequent disbanding of the partnership
and rapid abandonment of any plans to re-open the line that it was a
very, very long way from ever being viable.

As for piecemeal re-openings such as Aylesbury-Bletchley or
Aylesbury-Bedford, the economics are rather different and a strategic
route study such as the one we are discussing is not likely to be all
that relevant. It might make interesting reading, but that's all.

TheOneKEA wrote:

THC wrote:
As the Croxley Rail Link is not just about the good people of Watford
and Hertfordshire (despite what you think) TfL have committed to pay
about £19 million in contribution to reflect the wider social and
economic benefits of this scheme to Londoners. The quicker this scheme
is sanctioned the better. It is an excellent chance for radically
improving rail connectivity for the whole of north west London at an
affordable enough price.

The biggest advantage is the creation of a second link between the
metropolitan centres of Harrow and Watford via the Metropolitan Line -
the existing link via the DC lines, while undoubtedly adequate, doesn't
have the same capacity that the four-track Met Main does.

I disagree. As it is on the outer end of the line, capacity is
unimportant, because more will be provided than is used. This is about
connectivity - making Watford Junction and central Watford easier to get
to from a large area of NW London and S Buckinghamshire (not just
Harrow)

It would only enhance the business case were Chiltern to take interest
in this scheme - direct Aylesbury North - Watford Junction services
(via Watford North Curve) anyone?

Everybody keeps bringing this up, and yet so far no one knows if
Chiltern really is interested in this or not.

They're not.

Considering that northward links from Aylesbury to Bletchley, Milton
Keynes and Bedford seem unlikely to ever take place, strengthening the
town's existing links to the south could be very beneficial.

Not as beneficial as restoring the Northward links as far as MK! This is
because Aylesbury already has good links to London, and Watford's too
big a detour for those travelling to The North.

Besides, Aylesbury North to Watford Junction seems like a no-brainer of
a service to run anyway - it creates capacity on the outer stretches of
the Met without having to go into the city and it provides a fast link
from south Bucks to the WCML without requiring passengers to drive to
MKC or go all the way into Euston.

Creating capacity where it's not needed is a total waste of money.
Increasing connectivity is more useful, but Chiltern don't think the
demand is high enough for direct services from Aylesbury. Driving to MKC
(or alternatively HH and change at MKC) would be far quicker for WCML
passengers. Even the bus would be competitive with a Watford detour! It
would only be really useful for those travelling to Watford, and doesn't
offer such a significant advantage over changing trains at Moor Park.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

TheOneKEA wrote:

THC wrote:
Chiltern's franchise was renewed for a 20-year term in February 2002
when the late great Sir Alastair Morton was in charge at the SRA - they
were the only company to secure one of that length and so are sitting
pretty for some time to come. There may have been a five-year break
clause but I recall reading that this is conditional only on poor
performance, therefore unlikely to be invoked.

Indeed. Chiltern's longevity in the reliability department is matched,
AFAIK, only by c2c.


I also remember that the heads of agreement for this particular
refranchise contained proposals for an M1/M6 parkway and a reopened
portion of the Great Central to serve it. And a new/relaid line from
Princes Risborough to Oxford. That kind of vision in a franchise bid
seems so far away now.

The former is still a possibility, unless the GCML is transformed into
the NSHSL. The latter will never happen, as it would require too many
disruptive alterations to the M40 at Junction 8.

Why would it require any at all? Surely it could just bridge it?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Tony Polson wrote:

"TheOneKEA" wrote:
(unsnip)
Tony Polson wrote:
The truth is that a comprehensive survey was commissioned by a rail
industry consortium to establish whether the Oxford-Cambridge route
would be viable. The report showed it wouldn't be, not by a long way.
It wasn't even a marginal case. The consortium that commissioned and
supported the study was disbanded soon after the report was completed.

That should have drawn a line, ending any further speculation about
Oxford-Cambridge. But no. It keeps cropping up on here, time and
time (and time) again. And again.

As it should! A single report is not sufficient reason to abandon such
an idea. In the early 80s a report said a similar thing about extending
the Alice Springs line to Darwin.

Oxford-Cambridge is dead and buried. Just forget it.

Considering its potential for future growth and its usefulness for
freight, it's time to resurrect it!

I agree with you about Oxford-Cambridge. But I was talking about
Aylesbury-Bletchley, or Aylesbury-Bedford, or any number of other
possibilities that would be brought about by the restoration of the
relevant trackwork. I wish I could find a copy of the study and see the
results for myself.

The report was a commercially confidential strategic study for the
partnership that intended to promote the restoration of services
between Oxford and Cambridge and intermediate points.

When was it written?

It was never intended to be published and is very unlikely ever to be made
available to the public.

Have you read it?

However, it is clear from the subsequent disbanding of the partnership
and rapid abandonment of any plans to re-open the line that it was a
very, very long way from ever being viable.

So who now owns the report?

As for piecemeal re-openings such as Aylesbury-Bletchley or
Aylesbury-Bedford, the economics are rather different and a strategic
route study such as the one we are discussing is not likely to be all
that relevant. It might make interesting reading, but that's all.

The combination of a strategic route and local links is likely to bring
greater benefits than the piecemeal local links alone.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Aidan Stanger wrote:
I also remember that the heads of agreement for this particular
refranchise contained proposals for an M1/M6 parkway and a reopened
portion of the Great Central to serve it. And a new/relaid line from
Princes Risborough to Oxford. That kind of vision in a franchise bid
seems so far away now.

The former is still a possibility, unless the GCML is transformed into
the NSHSL. The latter will never happen, as it would require too many
disruptive alterations to the M40 at Junction 8.

Why would it require any at all? Surely it could just bridge it?


That would be the cause of the disruptive alterations. It's generally
frowned upon to build a new bridge over an operating motorway...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:
I also remember that the heads of agreement for this particular
refranchise contained proposals for an M1/M6 parkway and a reopened
portion of the Great Central to serve it. And a new/relaid line from
Princes Risborough to Oxford. That kind of vision in a franchise bid
seems so far away now.

The former is still a possibility, unless the GCML is transformed into
the NSHSL. The latter will never happen, as it would require too many
disruptive alterations to the M40 at Junction 8.

Why would it require any at all? Surely it could just bridge it?


That would be the cause of the disruptive alterations. It's generally
frowned upon to build a new bridge over an operating motorway...

--
I read somewhere that Chiltern have definitely abandoned their plan to
rebuild the Risborough-Oxford line. However they are still interested
in reaching Oxford from the north via a new chord at Bicester. I'm not
sure whether they've actually purchased the land for the chord, but it
is officially protected from being built on.

Andy

Aidan Stanger wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:

THC wrote:
As the Croxley Rail Link is not just about the good people of Watford
and Hertfordshire (despite what you think) TfL have committed to pay
about £19 million in contribution to reflect the wider social and
economic benefits of this scheme to Londoners. The quicker this scheme
is sanctioned the better. It is an excellent chance for radically
improving rail connectivity for the whole of north west London at an
affordable enough price.
The biggest advantage is the creation of a second link between the
metropolitan centres of Harrow and Watford via the Metropolitan Line -
the existing link via the DC lines, while undoubtedly adequate, doesn't
have the same capacity that the four-track Met Main does.

I disagree. As it is on the outer end of the line, capacity is
unimportant, because more will be provided than is used. This is about
connectivity - making Watford Junction and central Watford easier to get
to from a large area of NW London and S Buckinghamshire (not just
Harrow)
It would only enhance the business case were Chiltern to take interest
in this scheme - direct Aylesbury North - Watford Junction services
(via Watford North Curve) anyone?
Everybody keeps bringing this up, and yet so far no one knows if
Chiltern really is interested in this or not.

They're not.

Considering that northward links from Aylesbury to Bletchley, Milton
Keynes and Bedford seem unlikely to ever take place, strengthening the
town's existing links to the south could be very beneficial.

Not as beneficial as restoring the Northward links as far as MK! This is
because Aylesbury already has good links to London, and Watford's too
big a detour for those travelling to The North.

Besides, Aylesbury North to Watford Junction seems like a no-brainer of
a service to run anyway - it creates capacity on the outer stretches of
the Met without having to go into the city and it provides a fast link
from south Bucks to the WCML without requiring passengers to drive to
MKC or go all the way into Euston.

Creating capacity where it's not needed is a total waste of money.
Increasing connectivity is more useful, but Chiltern don't think the
demand is high enough for direct services from Aylesbury. Driving to MKC
(or alternatively HH and change at MKC) would be far quicker for WCML
passengers. Even the bus would be competitive with a Watford detour! It
would only be really useful for those travelling to Watford, and doesn't
offer such a significant advantage over changing trains at Moor Park.

That would require Chiltern services to stop at Moor Park. Otherwise the
Aylesbury - Watford journey would require either a journey via
Harrow-on-the-Hill (which is a very long detour) or changes at both
Rickmansworth and Moor Park, and although potential passengers may put
up with a single change, they're unlikely to be too keen on two changes
(especially given the wait likely to be involved at Rickmansworth).

I wouldn't consider a link to the WCML to be the primary objective of a
through Aylesbury - Watford service, but I imagine Watford is an
important destination in its own right - it has 1.25 jobs per
working-age resident, therefore requiring significant levels of inward
commuting. Job growth in Aylesbury is unlikely to match population
growth, with the numbers of new households planned.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London