Problems with lineside equipment at Worcester

[whole diary]

[SandTEngineer]

Referring to the 1973 timetable.  4 Worcester bound trains (2 of which terminated) and 3 Birmingham bound trains per day utilsed the 'Birmingham' line platform at Foregate Street (in the peak periods only) and 14 Down trains and 14 Up trains used the 'Shrub Hill' platform at Foregate Street.  So the layout was suited to the train sevice pattern.  No trains called at Foregate Street on Sunday

[SandTEngineer]

........and thank your lucky stars that the Shrub Hill to Norton Junction rationalisation never got implemented as this would have meant two parallel single lines, one between Shrub Hill and Evesham and one between Shrub Hill and Abbotswood Junction

[Andy W]

Referring to the 1973 timetable.  4 Worcester bound trains (2 of which terminated) and 3 Birmingham bound trains per day utilsed the 'Birmingham' line platform at Foregate Street (in the peak periods only) and 14 Down trains and 14 Up trains used the 'Shrub Hill' platform at Foregate Street.  So the layout was suited to the train sevice pattern.  No trains called at Foregate Street on Sunday

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.

I didn't think Worcester was that bad. How big it this hole that is so large it covers the Worcester Area

Hi Ellendune, have a W on me!!

[Worcester_Passenger]

Well.  Looking back, the layout through Foregate Street is quite sensible for the train service pattern then running.  They saved on the pointwork (and signalbox) at the former Rainbow Hill Junction and only had to install a new facing crossover at Henwick (the trailing one already being in existence).  At Norton Junction the existing trailing crossover was used for egress from the Oxford line and this limits the speed to 20mph in that direction.  Quite sensible and cost effective ecomomies (at the time).

Actually, they did better than that, because they saved the signalbox at Rainbow Hill Junction and the one at the north end of Shrub Hill (Worcester Shrub Hill Junction box). A signalling scheme which took out two boxes and transferred some of the work to the adjoining three is a pretty good scheme for 1973. A brand-new power box would have been nicer, but there wouldn't have been the money for capital investment on that scale.

[SandTEngineer]

Well.  Looking back, the layout through Foregate Street is quite sensible for the train service pattern then running.  They saved on the pointwork (and signalbox) at the former Rainbow Hill Junction and only had to install a new facing crossover at Henwick (the trailing one already being in existence).  At Norton Junction the existing trailing crossover was used for egress from the Oxford line and this limits the speed to 20mph in that direction.  Quite sensible and cost effective ecomomies (at the time).

Actually, they did better than that, because they saved the signalbox at Rainbow Hill Junction and the one at the north end of Shrub Hill (Worcester Shrub Hill Junction box). A signalling scheme which took out two boxes and transferred some of the work to the adjoining three is a pretty good scheme for 1973. A brand-new power box would have been nicer, but there wouldn't have been the money for capital investment on that scale.

.......yes I forgot to mention that one as well

In response to the earlier post.  Track and signalling layouts are always engineered to the proposed service.  It is extremely costly to put in additional ironwork that may be never used, or used once in a blue moon!  I know this stinks of short-termism but 'hey ho' thats the modern railway for you 

[Andy W]

In response to the earlier post.  Track and signalling layouts are always engineered to the proposed service.  It is extremely costly to put in additional ironwork that may be never used, or used once in a blue moon!  I know this stinks of short-termism but 'hey ho' thats the modern railway for you 

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?

[Worcester_Passenger]

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

You have to balance that against the savings in operating two whole signalboxes, probably on a 24-hour basis (given they're junctions, it wouldn't be easy to switch them out), for forty years.

I think the railway made the right call back in 1973.

[John R]

So, assuming a 24/7 box needs six staff to cover it, then in today's money that's at least 250k pa just for staffing costs, let alone maintenance of the box, point work etc. I can see why it might have been considered attractive.

[Andy W]

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

You have to balance that against the savings in operating two whole signalboxes, probably on a 24-hour basis (given they're junctions, it wouldn't be easy to switch them out), for forty years.

I think the railway made the right call back in 1973.

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?

[Worcester_Passenger]

Well.  Looking back, the layout through Foregate Street is quite sensible for the train service pattern then running.  They saved on the pointwork (and signalbox) at the former Rainbow Hill Junction and only had to install a new facing crossover at Henwick (the trailing one already being in existence).  At Norton Junction the existing trailing crossover was used for egress from the Oxford line and this limits the speed to 20mph in that direction.  Quite sensible and cost effective ecomomies (at the time).

Actually, they did better than that, because they saved the signalbox at Rainbow Hill Junction and the one at the north end of Shrub Hill (Worcester Shrub Hill Junction box). A signalling scheme which took out two boxes and transferred some of the work to the adjoining three is a pretty good scheme for 1973. A brand-new power box would have been nicer, but there wouldn't have been the money for capital investment on that scale.

[Andy W]

You have to balance that against the savings in operating two whole signalboxes, probably on a 24-hour basis (given they're junctions, it wouldn't be easy to switch them out), for forty years.

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?

[Nottage_Halt]

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

You have to balance that against the savings in operating two whole signalboxes, probably on a 24-hour basis (given they're junctions, it wouldn't be easy to switch them out), for forty years.

I think the railway made the right call back in 1973.

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?

In fact, three 'boxes were closed as a result of the 1973 Worcester rationalisation.  Wylds Lane Junction, which controlled the entrance/exit to the goods lines at the London end of the layout (close to the Metal Box siding, somewhere near where North Sidings Ground Frame  now exists.  A little to the west, is the still standing Shrub Hill Station Box.  Heading west from the passenger station at Shrub Hill, there was Shrub Hill Junction 'box, in the "V" of the divergence between the Hereford and Birmingham routes.  The third closed 'box, was Rainbow Hill Junction, situated in the "V" between the lines from Shrub Hill and Tunnel Junction, at the western end of the triangular layout.

Earlier, (early/mid 1960's?) Foregate Street Station lost its signalbox, which had been situated on a bridge joining both platforms, above the tracks.  Even earlier than this last 'box at Foregate Street, was it's predecessor, which has lately become a caf^, at the country end of platform 1.

And there were  at various times other signalboxes at Worcester too, on the goods lines.

Nick

[SandTEngineer]

Foregate Street SB^▸ (Signal Box) closed on Sunday 16 August 1959.

[Andy W]

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

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

You have to balance that against the savings in operating two whole signalboxes, probably on a 24-hour basis (given they're junctions, it wouldn't be easy to switch them out), for forty years.

I think the railway made the right call back in 1973.

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.

[Nottage_Halt]

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.
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.

The fact that Foregate Street Station ended-up with two bi-directional platforms was a by-product of the rationalisation, rather than the main purpose of those works back in 1973.

By, moving the junction between the Hereford and the Tunnel Junction lines out to Henwick, Rainbow Hill Junction box could be closed.  Putting control of the junction between the Droitwich and Hereford lines (west of SH station) onto Shrub Hill Station box, allowed the elimination of Shrub Hill Junction box.  This left two single lines eastwards from Henwick - one to Shrub Hill, the other to Tunnel Junction.

The additional signalling amounted to not all that much - acceptance lever & track circuit working over the newly created bi-directional lines, some new signals and re-control of others and some switches.  The new stuff would have been far less than what was recovered during the works.

As Henwick almost certainly had to remain in-situ to control the Level Crossing, the rationalisation design seems to have been a rather good one in the circumstances (no money) and diminished traffic of its time.