Post deleted due to copyright issues

Post deleted due to copyright issues

Hi Guys thanks for the input - I'm not explaining myself.

Part of the rationalisation meant that Foregate Street was reconfigured from a station on a double line to two single line stations.

WP made the following statement
Now what I don't understand is how reconfiguring the station saves 2 signal boxes.
I am not disputing other work that removed redundant track work - it is the singling of WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) to WOF and WOF to Rainbow Hill that I don't understand. By implementing two sections of single line working, this must surely make operations more complex. Additional signals and equimpent are required that would not necessarily be needed if double track remained.

Hi WP we are never going to agree on this, but out of interest which two whole signal boxes were no longer operated? Exactly what did each signal box control?

The 1973 scheme involved taking a double track from Henwick through Foregate St and creating 2 single lines - one to Droitwich & one to Shrub Hill.
You are saying you require 2 fewer signal boxes to run two seperate single lines with associated single line operating equipment than a double line. Looking at the diagram - if it was left as a double line operation signals A,F,G and H would not have been required. The only limitation is that Birmingham - Hereford trains would miss out Shrub Hill.
Which 2 signal boxes were made redundant by this exercise?

But they didn't put track in -they removed track. The concept that it would never be used is also wrong - it would have been used in exactly the same manner that it had been used previously.

A whole lot of cost could have been saved if they'd left well alone.

When does short-termism become vandalism?

Spot on Paul - even this thread has been running over 5 years and nothing other than endless talking has been done.

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) there are no definitive plans, I don't believe there has been any planning application put in - the concept that it is a ready to run project is a pretty much a joke.

Oh and the last time I looked ^7m wasn't less than ^5m but it indicates how inept Councils can be.

In the days when the Cathedral Express was such and not downgraded to the Cathedrals Semi-Fast it ran non-stop from Oxford to Paddington. That was before First took over the Thames franchise & decided long distance travel is a lower priority. Not sure what the timing was then.

The most 'relaible' service seems to have been when the padding was at it's most excessive just prior to re-doubling. II do you have access to the punctuality figures out of interest.

So the track layout is determined by the timetable?

Surely you have a track layout that allows the best flexibility within a sensible budget.

Exactly how many other two platform stations are there in the country that are restricted to two single line operations? II you may know.


Hi Ellendune, have a W on me!!

Driving from Pershore to Worcester this morning the skies got very dark, a squadron of pigs flew over followed by a Class 180 approaching Norton. 

Hi Basset,

I understand the point that you and BNM are making regarding rules & BNM has rightly pointed out that there are certainly times when shortening a journey could save money and the AP system could be abused. However in this case he had not underpaid he had overpaid for the journey he was taking and therefore could in no way be attempting to cheat / abuse the system. While I understand rules are rules there should surely be a level of common sense that prevails. ie same train, paid more, not out to cheat the system?

Hi BNM. While I understand the 'it's within the rules' game - surely this example is blatant manipluation with respect to their fares policy. If I ask the TM^▸ (Train Manager, or possibly Ticket Machine, depending on context) for the cheapest ticket should I therefore get the Worcester fare & not the Pershore one? If I am charge the Pershore fare am I being diddled?

Regarding the ^2 Paddington - Reading all I did was extrapolate your example and on the train you selected that is the value put on that sector by FGW^▸ (First Great Western). I genuinely don't understand how that fits into the market driven / regulated strategy on that train on that day.

So out of interest is your gripe that he was leveraging his position as a councillor or that rules are rules and despite having paid for the journey he should pay a penalty (of over ^100) because he got on a train at a later station - ie he already overpaid for the journey he was eventually taking

Hi there BNM. The Paddington - Westbury AP is ^9 as you state - the Reading - Westbury fare is ^7 on the same train. Can you please explain to my simple mind why the market led / government regulated fare on the Paddington - Reading section is valued at ^2? Not enough patronage between those 2 stations perhaps?

Not some much 'shovel read' as 'wet dream' sadly

I've taken a quick look at the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website & single fares Newton Abbot - Paddington are ^13.00 - ^102 (absurd range but heh-ho) the Exeter - Paddington fares are ^12.50 - ^98 so he actually paid MORE than he would have had he booked the journey he took (on the same train).

It bewilders me why the 'rules are rules' brigade cannot understand the passengers point of view. He is in no way trying to cheat the system.

There are too many rules and a vacuum of common sense in the rail industry.

Is 3 Macclesfield?