Great Western Coffee Shop

here (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?dir=\RUS%20Documents\Route%20Utilisation%20Strategies\West Midlands and Chilterns&pageid=4449&root=\RUS%20Documents\Route%20Utilisation%20Strategies)

It's a shame that the data that it's based on doesn't inspire confidence.

Figure 3.8 source note : "The number of rail journeys made on Centro ticket [sic] has not been estimated between 1998 and 2008." Why not, one might usefully ask, when the figure shows that in 2009-10 they accounted for about 25% of traffic. What on earth is Centro for? They've been busily specifying services throughout their patch. Surely they can't have been doing that on the basis of no passenger information whatsoever?

According to table 3.6, there is no standing on the peak-hour arrivals at New Street on the Cross-City South's longer-distance services. So the standing-room-only from Bromsgove (and sometimes Droitwich) that I see every time I travel must be a mirage.

Figure 3.9 : good to see that there's 6 cross-city trains per hour inwards from Barnt Green. Those ones that I see reversing at Longbridge must be another mirage.

Figure 3.11 : journey time from Worc. Foregate St to Snow Hill is 62 mins, not 67.
Journey time from Shrub Hill to Snow Hill is 60 mins, not 65.

Figure 3.19. It's good to know that Worcester - Hereford has a prevailing linespeed of 100-125 mile/h while the main line south from Bromsgrove can only do 65-75.

I know little about other corridors into B'ham, but extrapolating from my knowledge I'd give this a low mark, with a "must try harder" comment.

It's a draft for comment - see Chapter 8 & get yours in pronto!

They mention a very useful 5 trains per hour to Stratford from Marylebone.

Er...  that doesn't seem right.  ???

Paul

But moving on beyond the statistical glitches, there are some interesting proposals, not least on the fringes of FGW-land at Banbury, where they are advocating wholesale changes to the station area in conjunction with resignalling (Pages 67-8) and at Worcester (page 68), where the proposal for infrastructure improvements is flagged up in the accompanying press release, alongside the reopening of the Stourbridge-Round-Oak-Walsall freight line, which is also linked in with Worcester resignalling and capacity enhancements at various points in the document. Plus a kind of outer-suburban cross-city line, operating half-hourly Worcester-Tamworth (pi52)

Ahead of resignalling, it mentions the possibility of adding extra intermediate block signals, infrastructure improvements at Malvern Wells and a providing a turnback at Hereford station to improve capacity in the short term (p153)

There is also discussion of ways to tackle overcrowding on the Birmingham-Oxford-Reading-South Coast corridor and a move to a seven-day timetable on the route, as well as diverting all Oxford-Birmingham services via Coventry and the airport.

Yes I noticed that. I think it suggests they might operate the station slightly differently, at least as far as trains terminating from the south are concerned. Having said that, it's possible that could be done now anyway, as the new semaphores (put in for the Reading diversions and discussed in another thread) should also allow the FGW service to return from a platform rather than running right through to the loop north of the station for its turnback? 

Dependent on timings of other XC and Chiltern through services anyway. 

After the resignalling I'd suggest the 'outer' face of the down side island should be optimised as the through route, allowing terminating trains to be in the middle of the station.

Paul

Just to drag us back to the glitches, there does seem to be an awful lot of them, even for a draft.  As well as the ones mentioned there's talk in the Evergreen 3 section of a new passing loop being installed at Bicester and the full Evergreen 3 timetable to Oxford commencing in May 2012 - both of which are wrong as far as I know.  I don't remember the GW RUS having so many errors.  Still, an interesting document.

Interesting too to see the increased coverage and size of the recent finalised RUSs. 

Once they've issued the WCML draft planned for next month they'll have done the set of first generation documents.

If anyone looks up the first one, for SWT, published Dec 2007, it seems to be a much simplified summary only, running to about 40 pages rather than getting on for 200 in most recent attempts.

Paul

One thing I've always though might be useful would be to turn the goods lines into a 70mph-capable though route, which would give the Freighliners a slightly straighter run past and keep them out of the platform roads. Anyway certainly sounds like they envisage a thorough reshaping of the entire area, one way or another.

Why?....Obviously not a local....!
The track is practically falling to bits on the outer road - it has a 20 or 30mph speed limit on it. The points network also needs upgrading....

Permanent speed restriction of 15 mph, but with realigned track, new points and changes to the signalling there's no reason why it couldn't be a fair bit more, though getting it up to 75mph (the speed of the current through road) would probably be a bit of an ask.

You are taking the proposition completely out of context though.
 
'Willc' wrote in summary "...Banbury, where they are advocating wholesale changes to the station area in conjunction with resignalling."

as written in the RUS though they impliy a total renewal, so the current quality or alignment of any particular line is irrelevant:
Paul

Yup, thanks - makes sense now.