Such as...?

That would actually be a much bigger job than redoubling to Evesham.  It would entail restating Rainbow Hill Jn; it wouldn't really be worth doubling from SH to there as that section would be really short, so one would want to have a facing crossover between Foregate St and RHJ so trains from Malvern/Hereford can get to the SH line.  The same crossover would also allow terminating trains from Birmingham to continue running into P2 at FS as they do now and those from or London/Oxford/Bristol/etc to do the same using either platform.

But to make this work you'd need to address the present anomaly whereby the signal (HK5) reading from FS P1 to SH is controlled by Henwick but the one opposite it, (TJ20) from FS P2 towards Tunnel Jn, is controlled by the latter.  Without a full Worcester resignalling, it probably makes most sense for Henwick to control all of the FS area through to RHJ (inclusive).  With the layout as envisaged above, this would require signalled moves for:

• SH line to P1
• SH line to P2
• TJ line to P1
• SH line to P2
• P1 to SH
• P2 to TJ
• P2 to SH

ie a total of seven routes in place of the one currently worked from Henwick (HK5), plus two more if you add routes directly from FS into the up siding at Henwick.  In addition there would be two extra sets of points, to/from the SH branch and the facing crossover.

And, if you were doing this, it would also be sensible to resolve the situation of Henwick's down homes being so far in rear of the level crossing and yet not having distant/repeater arms for the down starter which must be almost a mile beyond them.  Ideally these should be replaced with 4-aspect signals, with additional 3-aspect ones a short distance before the LC^▸ (Level Crossing).  But this would add two further signalled routes.

At the moment there are only seven free spaces in Henwick's 25-lever frame.  One more lever could be freed up as an acceptance lever from TJ would no longer be needed.  So only the most the basic version could be squeezed in at all, even if you could get the required new levers manufactured and a very significant re-locking of the frame done.  (More levers could be freed if you decided to abolish either or both of the existing crossovers at Henwick, but that would come at the cost of significantly less flexible layouts and entail even more signal/locking changes.)

In practice, therefore, a new panel would be all but essential, and once it's decided to go for a panel one may as well resignal the whole Henwick area.  The latter would at least be a useful stage work on the step towards full Worcester resignalling.

[I am assuming the block sections would be TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block) from TJ to RHJ (because Henwick won't see trains' tail lamps until/unless they run on towards Malvern); the other direction could be AB because TJ can see the tail lamps as trains pass; and RHJ-SH would continue worked by acceptance levers as the single-line section from SH is currently.  Another point one would have to consider is whether it makes sense to have a separate new signal at RHJ on the line from SH, or whether the signals controlling the routes into the FS platforms shouldn't somehow be combined with SH75 on the Shrub Hill down advanced starting bracket.]

This sounds unlikely to me - double line signalling is simpler than for single lines so this shouldn't involve major changes.  For example, at the Worcester end it would only entail changes at Norton Junction and these would be about the same scale as those done at Kidderminster when the turnback siding was added, which happened well before that line was resignalled.

But I had heard there would be problems in reinstating the up platform at Pershore, as the adjacent land is not owned by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and this would prevent the platform being rebuilt to contemporary standards (eg minimum width, disability access etc).

A new down platform would also be needed at Hanborough; I don't know whether or not there are any similar issues there.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek video of last weekend's HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diversions via Banbury:

http://youtu.be/XF1HVDDKJz0

Enjoy!

You'd also need to install a signal with a fixed red aspect on the London end of the Evesham down platform but, yes, that apart it shouldn't be hugely difficult.


I don't know for certain, but I imagine they still use traditional 'is line clear' bell codes for the single line.  Evesham would refuse to accept a second up train with one in the up platform that is about to reverse.


No, only the fixed red signal mentioned above.  Obviously a move from the single line into the down platform could only be permitted if the down section from Honeybourne was absolutely clear.  The down signals there would provide the necessary signal protection for the shunting move at Evesham, until the train there had left back towards Worcester.


If you mean could you shunt a train on the single line at Evesham with another one already running up to a new up intermediate signal at, say, Pershore, I'm afraid the answer is no.


Yes.  To terminate and reverse up trains from Honeybourne platform would entail an additional track circuit though the platform and, probably, an up starting signal at the end of it, as well as a down signal for the reversing trains.  Obviously the existing crossover at the junction can be used.

Terminating down trains at Honeybourne would be possible with a small modification to enable the shunting signal west of the junction to signal trains back towards Moreton - currently it can only be used for reversals from there which are going onto the Long Marston line.  At a pinch, this could be done without providing an up starting signal per the above, as the situation would be analogous to empty trains which reverse at Malvern Wells now, proceeding into the block section to Newland East on the authority of a shunting signal.  In practice one would probably then provide a main running aspect for the move, though.

Just on the short section through the junction points.


Not sure myself.  I think I saw one version of the plan where the down signal was just an overlap distance before the junction, with its repeater shortly before Evesham station.  It's possible the risk of passing the latter at Y was considered, or the disadvantage of trains starting off then having to wait unknown amounts of time when they reached the signal.  Another possibility may have been the risk of confusion given the siting of the other signal that allows reversing moves from the up platform at Evesham, ie of the driver of a train on the down line mistakenly believing that that was 'his' signal when it had actually been cleared for a train in the up platform.


The signal at Norton Jn gives the train a movement authority as far as the signal just before the junction at Evesham.  Without the latter signal, the line would also have to be clear right through Evesham station.  As it is, a train can leave NJ while the one in front is still in the Evesham up platform.  The current signalling also allows the single line to be used for reversing moves at the NJ end - if Worcester Parkway ever happens that may become a not-uncommon move.  Obviously you don't need the line clear any further than the signal West of Evesham when doing that!

There are no tokens - not even electronic ones like they use on the RETB^▸ (Radio Electronic Token Block) lines.  The Evesham - Norton Junction section is track-circuit block (TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block)) with an acceptance lever at Norton Jct.  Authority to enter the single line is (normally) given solely by the cleared signals.

This means that, in principle, the route can be set for a down train from Evesham as soon as the up arrival has cleared the section plus the track circuit (ZDS) that covers the junction points.  In practice, however, the boxes would first have to have an exchange of communication something along the following lines:

E:  train out of section for [up train]
NJ:  acknowledge
E:  is line clear for [down train]
NJ:  reverse acceptance lever, then acknowledge line clear.

Then Evesham can clear the down signal.

Yes.  The actual block section will become Moreton-Honeybourne, with Honeybourne-Evesham being a separate TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block) section.

A short video of some of the diversions at Banbury on Dec 30th:

http://www.roscalen.com/signals/Banbury/South.htm#Videos

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that large modern Integrated Control Centres is the future.  What is far less clear is how rapidly that future will arrive.  I suspect there will be a major squeeze on funding in CP5 and that will force NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to stick to essential schemes only.  Oxford: very possibly.  Worcester area: well, I remember when the planned date for doing that was 2009.  If push comes to shove, mechanical signalling can be kept going more easily than 70s panel boxes.  Recontrol of Ascott to Didcot would be very feasible.  But will they really be able to afford resignalling Moreton-in-Marsh?


Unfortunately they don't have a magic wand which will enable the whole of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) area to be resignalled with ERTMS overnight.  It will take years.  They need to find some suitable successor to the existing GWML ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) system, but I suspect the affordability of full-blown ERTMS will be questioned again.  Just the same as they didn't extend the original ATP pilots, but developed the much more cost-effective TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) instead.

The main savings would be in only having to make selective changes to Moreton-in-Marsh and Ascott-under-Wychwood, rather than resignalling those completely.

Controlling it all from Didcot would undoubtedly have reduced the running costs, but that's academic if you can't afford the capital expenditure involved in achieving it.

Where did the six years come from?

Axle counters are only needed in the Down direction.  On the Up, the signaller at Moreton-in-Marsh can observe the tail lamp of arriving trains to give Train Out of Section in the normal way.  (This is obviously not possible for the Evesham signaller when Down trains reach Honeybourne, hence the need for axle counters.)


Yes, though perhaps more analogous to Intermediate Block (IB) sections.



This will not be the Salsibury-Exeter (and Ledbury-Shelwick Jn) tokenless block system.  It is TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block) with an acceptance lever at Norton Jn.  Similar to the Ascott-Wolvercot and Droitwich-Stoke Works Jn sections except that axle counters will be used instead of actual track circuits.


If my memory serves, the signal leading from the Up Cotswolds to the Long Marston branch will also be a position-light aspect ('cats eyes') rather than a feather, as the branch is not a passenger class line.

From my (somewhat scratchy) memory, the plans I saw (also some months ago) had a crossover between the branch/sidings line and the Up Cotswolds line, north of the station, and a trailing crossover between the main lines immediately north of that.  The latter is required anyway to enable trains from Long Marston to reach the Down Cotswolds line to continue their journies towards Worcester.

On the Down Cotswold line a GPL^▸ (Ground Position Light) shunt signal was shown immediately beyond (in advance of) the trailing crossover.  This will presumably allow trains from the Oxford direction to reverse onto the branch at that point.

That would allow multiple-unit or top-and-tailed trains to reach the branch with only a single reversal.  Non-top-and-tailed freights would presumably have to propel across the two crossovers then reverse again into the sidings before running round there.

I'd load up my cameras and head back to the early 60s on former GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) stations and lines.  Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton LL, Birmingham SH, probably Stourbridge Jn, Bristol, S Wales area.  Take lots of photos of the signals as they were then.

I'd also go to Worcester SH in about 1967/8 before the layout got rationalised.  Hereford, too.

Here's a photo I took a couple of weeks back, from the road overbridge: