Great Western Coffee Shop

Hi,

I was wondering, when and why did they remove part of the line at Bradford Junction? If it was still there it would be possible to get from Bath and Bradford-on-Avon to Melksham.

If your not sure of where this location is click the link to view Google map: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=melksham&ie=UTF8&ll=51.338521,-2.211127&spn=0.012279,0.029011&t=h&z=15 (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=melksham&ie=UTF8&ll=51.338521,-2.211127&spn=0.012279,0.029011&t=h&z=15)
(Google maps shows that the line is still there, click on satilite view and you can see the removed line)

Also, at Thingley Junction there was a line that would allow services to run between Melksham and Corsham:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=thingley+junction&sll=51.338521,-2.211127&sspn=0.012279,0.029011&ie=UTF8&ll=51.43226,-2.142978&spn=0.012254,0.029011&t=h&z=15 (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=thingley+junction&sll=51.338521,-2.211127&sspn=0.012279,0.029011&ie=UTF8&ll=51.43226,-2.142978&spn=0.012254,0.029011&t=h&z=15)

Westbury resignalling in the early 80s if I remember correctly. Presumably no regular trains used it, so the expense of resignalling a line that would not see regular use was not justified.

The story is that it was accidentally left out during the resignalling, rather that it bieng intentional. But it could have been an intentional accident!

Yeah it sounds like an excuse and suggests there may have been another reason. It doesn't make sense to remove a significant part of track just because they forgot to include it in plans for resignalling. On the other hand, if they did forget to include it during resignalling it's just another example of the shoddy standards when it comes to maintaining and improving the railway network.

As part of the resignalling a reversing facility was provided at Bradford South Junction which still enables trains to run from Bath to Chippenham via Bradford Junction (rev).  The north curve was therefore redundant and the costs were lower.

Isn't that reversing move permitted by shunt only, though? - which in turns means no passenger trains can use it in service...

Hi, rogerw, and welcome to the forum!

Thanks for that useful information, too - I can see this topic running for a while!

I knew I had a recent picture ...

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/bnc.jpg)

No, there are no "Dummy" signals in the area!

Blimey, I've only just noticed that signal.....

Down Melksham to Down Trowbridge short of Trowbridge station, colour light as well. They could probably do one better and bring that into the station.

Has there ever been any plans to re-double the track on the Melksham line? If they doubled the line between Trowbridge and Chippenham maybe there would be a need to put that track back at Bradford junction?

If they replaced the track, and the track at Thingley Junction it would actually be possible to have trains running in a loop from Bristol temple meads or Bath (If they used the disued platform), for example, services could stop at the following: Bristol temple meads, Keynsham, Bath Spa, Freshford, Bradford-On-Avon, Melksham, Corsham (if it was re-opened), Bath spa.

Good loop idea, got the impression though that the main flows were from West Wilts - Swindon and not in the already well served loop you suggest. Redoubling isn't really vital anyhow - passenger numbers have never warranted it.

Would be great and if Box Tunnel was closed Bristol to Paddington could run Bristol, Bath, Chippenham etc save the 125 going via Bristol Parkway or via the B&H line

Traffic flows ... from Trowbridge / Westbury / Warminster / Frome - substantially more rail travel to Bath and Bristol than to Chippenham and Swindon, though you only have to look at the charts produced by the DfT (last October) or the A350 road (West Wilts to Chippenham for Swindon) to realise that the low train usage is probably caused by the p**s poor service.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/newjamland.jpg)

From Melksham ... there's nothing to be gained from analysing current ticket stats.  Half of the two trains a day each way (06:18, to become 06:15 off Swindon, and 20:20 arrival back there) are so badly times that - well - I don't think we could have picked worse timing, and neither of them offers a sensible daily commute to of from anywhere.  The other trains - 07:02 off Westbury and 19:35 back there - are not much better and only for the hardy who enjoy a really long work day. Looking at the roads / talking to people?  Equal split, I would say, between commuters going out to Bath / Bristol and Chippenham / Swindon.

A restored curve at Bradford would give a sensible diversionary route from Bath to Chippenham when Box tunnel was not available, and also allow either the 06:30 or 06:40 London trains from Temple Meads to leave earlier, run via Bradford-on-Avon and Melksham and regain its timing at Thingley - thus providing a through London service from B-o-A and Melksham to Paddington (note to anyone at FGW who reads this - at your peak hour 115 fare from Melksham to Paddington, if this brough an average of 3 passenegers every day, it would pay the extra price you want for a more appropriate TransWilts service!).

Restored curve at Thingley?  I think I would prefer to see trains reversing at the third platform at Chippenham; that's in the Network Rail wish list.  I also note that from Melksham, with a 3-hourly train service (we hope) from December, by changing at Trowbridge or Chippenham you have in effect a service every 90 minutes to Bath (but it competes with the direct bus) and Bristol (really very useful indeed - people do not want to change Bus to Bus or Bus to Train in Bath!)

Doubling?  There is good capacity at the moment, and for considerable growth in terms of both passengers and freight.  Resignalling and a layby / loop is probably an easier step that complete redoubling and even that would be quite a way away.   I'm not saying "never" - if the restored service blossoms at 35% per annum then perhaps it will come quicker than we think.  But remember too that passenger trains could be lengthened; the only short platform you have is Melksham.

This is a very interesting debate and fully illustrates the great rationalisation that took place after the Beeching report, which in my opinion has proved to be far more of barrier to increasing train services than the Beedhing closures.

The Beeching closures were whole lines the BR rationalisations in the 70s and 80s weren't closures but taking out perceived redundant assests due to the genaral belief that railways were dying. This included redundant double track e.g. the singling of the Cotswold  and Salisbury to Exeter lines and the taking out so called redundant junctions which didn't have regular train services but could be used as diversionary routes, as in the case of Bradford North loop.

The Bradfard North loop could be a very intersting case to put together a coherent argument for all line re-instatements. It is obviously very useful as a diversionary route when Box tunnel is closed. Hoever, how often is Box tunnel closed?

It could also be used for a stopping service from Bristol to Swindon serving Bradford and Melksham. However using the loop means that Trowbridge cannot be served by these trains.

In a previous post I suggest providing a proper turnback facility at Trowbridge to allow the Bristol to Swindon stopping trains to reverse in the station. If this was properly signalled for passenger trains, HSTs on diversion (or even on service trains as suggested by Grahame above) could also make use of this facility when required.

So the questions I would ask regarding the reinstatement of the loop are:

1. Is it viable soley as a diversionary route?

2. Is it viable as diversionary route and to provide a stopping service from Bristol to Swindon not calling at Trowbridge?

From the tenure of the post so far I would suggest the answer to question 1 is no and to question 2 is possibly at sometime in the future.

Therefore, would a possibly cheaper scheme of providing a proper train reversing facility at Trowbridge, allowing both a regular stopping service from Bristol to Swindon and diversions when required be a good compromise?

Totally agree that the rationalisation that took place after the Beeching report has proved to be a big barrier to increasing train services, but we should not forget that the report itself took out lines that would be useful today because it was thought at the time that they were "unnecessary duplications."

Also, the report left open the option of closing the Southern route to Exeter at some point in the future on that very basis.

Ironic, considering today's official view of the line, and the proposed infrastructure enhancements.

Dont forget also that several line and station reopenings since Beeching have been considered success stories, and I do think that further re-openings would be likely to continue that trend.

I feel that a mix of rationalisation reversal and line re-openings would be the best way of expressing the argument for line-reinstatements that you rightly say we should make.

You wouldn't have to miss out Trowbridge entirely if Staverton halt was reinstated. That side of town has had huge growth in housing in the past 15 years.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2070.0

Yeah that would be kool, although it would prob only be used if there was a loop service that services Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon, then Swindon to Bath spa (stopping at Melksham, Staverton instead of trowbridge and then stations to Bath)