Is there a picture of the signal controlling access to the Long Marston Branch from the Evesham direction?

The steel section of the bridge at Honeybourne station was added to the original Brunel bridge in the early 1900's when the Stratford to Cheltenham line was constructed. At this time Honeybourne changed from a two to a four platform station.

I think "Honeybourne Junction" is a as subsinct a name for the new set of points to the north end of the station. "Sheenhill" does not really cut the mustard in my opinion.

I look forward to work commencing on the island platform at Honeybourne. I would imagine this will not be to erksome given it's seemingly good condition.

As a regular user of the station pre 1969 and post 1981,it's rehabilitation is long over due. I feel Honeybourne has a great deal of passenger growth potential going forward.

As an aside, will the new siganlling around Honeybourne effectively act as a block post between Evesham & Moreton?

What will be the official name of the repositioned junction of the Long marston Branch? It is roughly positioned on the location of where Honeybourne Station North Junction used to be located up until 1971. I believe all junctions have to be designated a formal name and nameplate.

Thanks Aidrian re: Honeybourne signalling specification. I had no idea a branch had to carry pax before a feather could be warranted. I'm not a fan of cats eyes signals as they are so hard to see and easily vandalised. But i'm sure they are cheaper than a full upright colour light.
Will there be any intermediate signals between Evesham and Moreton other than those protecting the crossings at Littleton and Blockley?

So access to Long Marston from the Worcester direction will be controlled from Evesham remotely by way of a colour light and feather/motorised points and from Oxford by a "GPL^▸ (Ground Position Light)" for a shunt from down to up to branch? Which box will control the "phantom" Campden Tunnel crossover? Is this a ground frame, GPL or a fictional piece of point work?

Sorry to keep banging on about this subject. There still seems to be some conjecture?

The ^200k p/a maintenance costs, quoted earlier, per set of remote points seems a liitle on the high side from a lay man's perspective. How much does a ground frame cost in comparison (inc the hut and associated paraphanalia)? The basic tarck work is the same surely?

So the single crossover at the former Honeybourne North Junction will be a ground frame operated by a token rather than controlled from Evesham and a color light with feather/remotely operated points? I really thought tokens wee being abolished.

All access to Long Marston will be from Worcester only? I thought the idea was to allow trains to run from Oxford to Long Marston direct via an engine run around at Honeybourne?

The cost saving of maintaining only a single line must also be taken into account. However, in the case of the Cotswold line this must be neglible as no maintenance went on at all between 1971-1983.

I am still coming to terms with new track layout for Honeybourne. Would I be right in assuming there will in effect be a loop passing through the now redundant platforms with a spur onto the East Loop to Long Marston and a turnaout to access the rehabilitated sidings? This set up would require crossovers at both Honeybourne Station North and Honeybourne Station South Junctions.

The loop would make sense as it could allow freight trains to pause to allow passengers trains to pass.

I seem to remeber there was access from the Stratford platforms back on to the mainline in the Oxford direction pre 1971.

Anyway, all will become clear shortly.

Has the track layout and siganlling at Honeybourne north been finalised or is still up in the air?

Will there be a crossover or will trains returning from Long Marston run wrong line to Evesham where a few new signals will be required?

I guess the later option would be cheapest with the low volumes on the branch. Would the returning movements not interfere with the smooth operation of trains on the mainline?

I guess there will be no news until Network Rail's meeting in March?

Don,

I made the initial comment regarding the tax payer footing the bill for the project which willc questioned. Network Rail is a quango set up as a buffer between government and it's policies and the what happens on the ground. If soemthing goes wrong or a project goes over budget the government blames the quango so the political fall out is minimised. When it comes to capital expenditure it is the government who has to pay. If, in the case of this government, it has no money it borrows money on the markets in the shape of bonds. These bonds are effectively underwritten by the taxpayer.

So I am afraid to say every tax payer has a right to be concerned that the project seems to be over budget. Any extra cash will have to be borrowed by the government and paid back by the taxpayer in higher taxes and /or reduced public spending.

I am all for the project and the benefits will be enjoyed by millions of taxpayers who use the Cotswold line in the future.

I am annoyed that the existing project is being delayed to what seems to be inadequate budgeting. If the project was costed at ^63 million there is no excuse for it costing more. Each element of the project should have been costed carefully before any works started. What "circumstances beyond our control" have been experienced which require additional funding now?

 

I find it hard to believe that there was no budget (fixed budget + contingency) for the project or at least one which was officially made public. There must have been a figure at the outset surely? If the initial budget has had to be trimmed to make economies then this is one thing. Being forced to make economies now because costings for the first phase of the project were wrong is something quite different and shows a level of incompetence somewhere. Perhaps I am being cynical.

The siganlling and track layouts should have been decided upon long ago. The fact that changes are having to be made at this stage shows the economies are being forced upon the project. The likely deduction is that somebody has costed the project incorrectly in the first place.

Oversights and mistakes happen. I just wish somebody at Network rail would have the balls to come clean and tell taxpayers what is going on.

Hi, as a newbie to the Coffee shop I have to say I am very optimistic about the redoubling project reaching fruition if a little later than planned.

Certainly the flow of up to date information from Network Rail could be more forthcoming. That said there is already too much physical and political capital invested in the project for it to stall completely.

If the project is over budget then economies have to be made. If its the signalling that has to be replanned than so be it.

I'm sure the siganllers at Evesham, Moreton and Ascot will not be complaining if their respective boxes get a further lease of life.

The somewhat antiquted semaphore siganlling has done its job for many decades and could continue to do so. A smattering of colour lights between boxes should be more than adequate to control movements and optimise headways.

I would imagine the remodled Honeybourne Station North Junction could be controlloed by Evesham box without any problems assuming a crossover is provided between up & down lines.