Talk:Oxford–Bicester line

Future
The draft [nb, draft - we shouldn't even be using it yet!] text says [a] Further delays in discharging planning conditions through local planning authorities, which have impacted the programme to date, are expected and will be mitigated as far as possible through continuing dialogue. and [b] TWAO submission assumed decision timescales of 18 months. That does not add up to me to justify the doom and gloom text that user:Cantab72 has added. Unless a better citation can be produced, I suggest the TWAO reference should be removed as POV editor opinion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First, your text is a significant improvement on what I had said and I accept the comments re timescale for the TWAO were out of scope. However, isn't it reasonable to try and estimate when the East West Rail link might be operational based on what Network Rail is saying? My estimate would be as follows: Autumn 2016 the case for a TWAO is ready - based on Network rail's own comments in their Oxford Bicester collaboration pages. Assume it then takes 18 months to complete - again Network Rail's estimate - this brings us to Spring 2018. Project is going to take 2 years before trains can run so 2020 is earliest. Also in their draft enhancements report when they can give dates in 2019 they do, even if they are beyond the end of CP5.
 * re the draft nature of the Network Rail pages enhancement report: I first found it through an explicit link on the DfT page announcing the Hendry consultation so it was 'released' by the DfT even if Network Rail had put 'draft' all over it. It may well remain draft until the Hendry consultation is complete.
 * Since the article is really about the Oxford to Bicester Rail Link and the TWAO is complete - except for the discharge of planning conditions to mitigate noise in North Oxford - then if you feel that references to TWAO should be removed I would see the point in this. The TWAO for the next section of East West Rail shouldn't be a big issue as the changes to the alignment are, I understand, relatively minor. The risk is that those living along the route of East West Rail decide to be difficult because they are upset about HS2. However, none of this really belongs in the article.
 * Thanks for your advice.
 * Cantab72 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have some core policies, they include WP:NOR and WP:V. If the text that you want to add goes against either of these, it shouldn't be included. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see from Rail Technology that extension of the Bicester Line fully into Oxford General has been moved back yet again, to December 16, because of TWAO challenges from local residents. So the odds of Cantab72 being right and me being wrong have just moved firmly against me. However, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we have to stick to reporting what reliable sources say, no matter what we think ourselves. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW Chiltern Railways themselves had already announced the December 2016 opening date - the only problem with their press releases is that they seem to disappear - their announcement about the Cowley Branch, which was relatively recent, has disappeared, or at least I can't find it. I believe the delay has two elements: one that Network Rail has only recently got planning permission for the extra platforms at Oxford (work due to start on 15 Feb '16 - see notices at Oxford Station) and the need for Network Rail to provide a noise and vibration mitigation plan, as required under the TWAO, to be agreed by Oxford City Council. My reading of the City Council planning info is that this should be decided by 8 February but ... . Even if it, it is possible that the residents concerned will raise a legal objection. Cantab72 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The editorial in Modern Railways January 2016 has a good overview of Oxford Bicester in terms of the developments to date an future arrangements. In particular, it mentions that both tracks are bidirectional. Is it worth adding this as a reference in the article? Cantab72 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)