Signalling at Worcestershire Parkway

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Question for the signalling experts - can a train arriving from Worcester Shrub Hill in passenger service terminate at Worcestershire Parkway and return in passenger service back into Worcester?

[IndustryInsider]

Question for the signalling experts - can a train arriving from Worcester Shrub Hill in passenger service terminate at Worcestershire Parkway and return in passenger service back into Worcester?

I expect it could, but only if a pilotman was provided.  In the same way that passenger trains from the west can and have terminated and started back from Hanborough when there's engineering work taking place east of Hanborough.

[grahame]

Question for the signalling experts - can a train arriving from Worcester Shrub Hill in passenger service terminate at Worcestershire Parkway and return in passenger service back into Worcester?

I expect it could, but only if a pilotman was provided.  In the same way that passenger trains from the west can and have terminated and started back from Hanborough when there's engineering work taking place east of Hanborough.

So not something it's signalled for in daily traffic then - thanks.

[Oxonhutch]

I expect it could, but only if a pilotman was provided.  In the same way that passenger trains from the west can and have terminated and started back from Hanborough when there's engineering work taking place east of Hanborough.

In the Hanborough case, does the pilotman talk the driver past the Morton-in-Marsh Up Starter?

[IndustryInsider]

I expect it could, but only if a pilotman was provided.  In the same way that passenger trains from the west can and have terminated and started back from Hanborough when there's engineering work taking place east of Hanborough.

In the Hanborough case, does the pilotman talk the driver past the Morton-in-Marsh Up Starter?

It's Ascott box that controls the area, not Moreton.  But, IIRC^▸ ('if I recall/remember/read correctly'), the pilotman does indeed talk the driver past the signal at Charlbury with the signallers authority.  Then at Hanborough the pilotman obtains authority for the return journey.

[SandTEngineer]

Just to clarify.  To turn a train back in a signalled single line section where there is no signal provided at the reversing location generally requires PILOTMAN (or should that be PILOTPERSON) working.

[eightf48544]

Ideally  the Cotswold line should have been redoubled at least part way to Pershore. Worcestershire Parkway  High level then having two platforms.This would alow an Oxford bound train to clear Norton jn whilst waitng the single line. With the appropriate signalling i.e making the Cotswold lines bi-directional trains could be turned round from both directions

But that would have cost too much .

[ellendune]

Just to clarify.  To turn a train back in a signalled single line section where there is no signal provided at the reversing location generally requires PILOTMAN (or should that be PILOTPERSON) working.

Why not just pilot - oh I see it is used to mean a pilot engine. 

[JontyMort]

Ideally  the Cotswold line should have been redoubled at least part way to Pershore. Worcestershire Parkway  High level then having two platforms.This would alow an Oxford bound train to clear Norton jn whilst waitng the single line. With the appropriate signalling i.e making the Cotswold lines bi-directional trains could be turned round from both directions

Specifically, by allowing an up train into Parkway even if it were going to be delayed there by a late-running train from Evesham, it would have made connections towards Cheltenham and Bristol much more resilient.

It certainly should have been re-doubled between Norton Junction and Parkway - a ridiculously short chainage. Talk about ships and ha’p’orths of tar.

[IndustryInsider]

If it were controlled by modern signalling that might have been a fairly straightforward task, but could Norton Junction signalbox deal with the extra signalling needed?  An extra platform at Worcestershire Parkway, on a steep embankment, would also have costed quite a bit extra.

Possibly one for the future, though judging by the North Cotswold Line Taskforce's recent report, it is more likely that Evesham to Pershore will be redoubled rather than Norton Junction to Pershore.

[JontyMort]

Possibly one for the future, though judging by the North Cotswold Line Taskforce's recent report, it is more likely that Evesham to Pershore will be redoubled rather than Norton Junction to Pershore.

Yes, I’ve seen the report. But isn’t there a problem with the up platform at Pershore - sold off or something?

[SandTEngineer]

Possibly one for the future, though judging by the North Cotswold Line Taskforce's recent report, it is more likely that Evesham to Pershore will be redoubled rather than Norton Junction to Pershore.

Yes, I’ve seen the report. But isn’t there a problem with the up platform at Pershore - sold off or something?

As I keep saying when these problems come up, there is always the PENRYN solution......

[TonyN]

The land for the up platform at Pershore is still available but there is currently no access as the land behind the platform was sold off.
The current plan is to add a new car park on the up side at the east end of the station. A footbridge is available to link the car park but it is steps only no ramps or lifts.
Disabled parking would be on the existing small car park adjacent to the existing platform on the down side.

The problem with the task force proposal to double to just west of pershore is that there would then be a requirment to provide another footbridge with ramps or lifts.
Much cheaper to just keep the existing single platform and double to just east of the station.
No need for a passing loop so not realy a Penryn solution sorry S+TE

[SandTEngineer]

The land for the up platform at Pershore is still available but there is currently no access as the land behind the platform was sold off.
The current plan is to add a new car park on the up side at the east end of the station. A footbridge is available to link the car park but it is steps only no ramps or lifts.
Disabled parking would be on the existing small car park adjacent to the existing platform on the down side.

The problem with the task force proposal to double to just west of pershore is that there would then be a requirment to provide another footbridge with ramps or lifts.
Much cheaper to just keep the existing single platform and double to just east of the station.
No need for a passing loop so not realy a Penryn solution sorry S+TE

Sorry, didn't make myself very clear.  No need to double track from Evesham, just install a PENRYN style passing loop at Pershore.  Much cheaper (at NR^» (Network Rail - home page) prices) I would estimate.

[eightf48544]

As I keep saying when these problems come up, there is always the PENRYN solution......

Or the even simpler Bad Dobran solution where trians meet head to head on the single platform! Less signalling units but the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road, formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) would never allow it. I've a video taken at another station on the line of two trains meeting head on.

i should say there is a point between the trains to take one round the other.