Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[CLPGMS]

The incident occurred on the double track between Worcester Shrub Hill and Norton Junction, so no train would have been on the single line.

Trains between Worcester and Cheltenham were also affected.

[bobm]

According to the Worcester News the person may not have been hit by a train, but fell from an overbridge.

Medics also attended but the man, believed to have injuries consistent with having fallen from a height, was pronounced dead at the scene.

[IndustryInsider]

The incident occurred on the double track between Worcester Shrub Hill and Norton Junction, so no train would have been on the single line.

Ah, right - that would explain it, thanks!

[Louis94]

I'm assuming that special arrangements had to take place in order for that shunt to take place at Evesham as surely there would have been a train in section (the one the person hit) preventing the signal from clearing?

The incident didnt occur on the single line.

[Andy W]

I think that today provides a good example of why a signal is needed in the up direction on the single track just west of Evesham - a fatality this morning between Worcester Shrub Hill and Norton Junction prevented trains from running between Worcester and Evesham.  There is a facility for trains from the Oxford direction to terminate at Evesham and return whence they came.  In order to do this, they have to enter the Evesham/Norton single line.  That signal prevents a train from returning until the points have been correctly set.

Of course, in effect, it replaced a semaphore signal on the single line a bit nearer to Evesham station.

Yes today does prove some worth but exactly how many times do down trains terminate at Evesham? As close to never as makes no difference. More importantly if the project had been more seriously planned then you should be able to terminate up trains to enable an Evesham Worcester Kidderminster Birmingham service to be planned at some time.

The previous semaphore was there to stop trains so that the token could be retrieved IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), this is no longer required.

Also out of interest could the service have terminated at Evesham and run 'wrong line' to Honeybourne and use the points that give access to the up line / Long Marston branch? Or am I having a "BTLine" moment (sorry BTLine)

[IndustryInsider]

As close to never as makes no difference. More importantly if the project had been more seriously planned then you should be able to terminate up trains to enable an Evesham Worcester Kidderminster Birmingham service to be planned at some time.

That can now happen can't it?  The signal on the 'Up' line controlling movements in the 'Down' direction, E2453, can route passenger trains from the 'Up' platform back towards Worcester.  Previously, in order for that to happen the train would have needed to shunt empty back onto the single line (either at the Pershore end or the Honeybourne end) and back into the 'Down' platform.  The only restriction I can now see is that a train can't be routed straight from Evesham West Junction to the 'Down' platform, but should that be required in the future I would have thought it would be pretty easy to implement as the infrastructure is all in place with E2452 just needing a junction indicator or theatre box installed. 

Also out of interest could the service have terminated at Evesham and run 'wrong line' to Honeybourne and use the points that give access to the up line / Long Marston branch? Or am I having a "BTLine" moment (sorry BTLine)

There's no signal to control that move, although Clayfields AHB crossing has been fitted with wrong direction controls, so in theory it could happen but only for emergency working or engineering work I would have thought.

Also, in order for shunt a train from the 'Up' platform to the 'Down' platform via the Honeybourne end, the train would now have to go all the way to Honeybourne, rather than just onto the single line and back - but that would hardly ever have to happen.

[Andy W]

As close to never as makes no difference. More importantly if the project had been more seriously planned then you should be able to terminate up trains to enable an Evesham Worcester Kidderminster Birmingham service to be planned at some time.

That can now happen can't it?  The signal on the 'Up' line controlling movements in the 'Down' direction, E2453, can route passenger trains from the 'Up' platform back towards Worcester.  Previously, in order for that to happen the train would have needed to shunt empty back onto the single line (either at the Pershore end or the Honeybourne end) and back into the 'Down' platform.  The only restriction I can now see is that a train can't be routed straight from Evesham West Junction to the 'Down' platform, but should that be required in the future I would have thought it would be pretty easy to implement as the infrastructure is all in place with E2452 just needing a junction indicator or theatre box installed. 

Also out of interest could the service have terminated at Evesham and run 'wrong line' to Honeybourne and use the points that give access to the up line / Long Marston branch? Or am I having a "BTLine" moment (sorry BTLine)

There's no signal to control that move, although Clayfields AHB crossing has been fitted with wrong direction controls, so in theory it could happen but only for emergency working or engineering work I would have thought.

Also, in order for shunt a train from the 'Up' platform to the 'Down' platform via the Honeybourne end, the train would now have to go all the way to Honeybourne, rather than just onto the single line and back - but that would hardly ever have to happen.

Hi II many thanks for putting me straight. I very much appreciate your input.

I see you could run a train to Evesham from Worcester, terminate it and run back to Worcester using the up platform. There would need to be a block on issing another token to an up service from Norton until the first service had returned down the single line. I would have thought that would be pretty complex. As you say they could switch an up train to the down line at the end of the single line, I guess they would then need signals on the down line east of Evesham station in both directions. Are you allowed to run trains in opposite directions with intermediate signal protection?

Sorry - rambling

If the Evesham Honeybourne down was also signalled for "wrong line" then you could terminate a down service at Evesham and run wrong line up to Honeybourne which I thought would be a possibility today rather than running down to the single line to switch platorms

Out of interest is much of the double line signalled for wrong line working to cover emergencies etc?

[SandTEngineer]

None of it 

[Andy W]

None of it 

Thanks for the response SandT

[IndustryInsider]

I could see it costing a lot more if it had been.  The one AHB crossing is fitted with wrong direction controls as I mentioned (that just involves installing a few activation treadles and putting up a maximum speed sign), but with three other CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) barrier crossings which would all have required protecting signals as well as the additional 'normal' signals and any additional crossovers that would have been needed to make bi-di signalling worthwhile, you'd have added many millions to the cost.

[Andy W]

I could see it costing a lot more if it had been.  The one AHB crossing is fitted with wrong direction controls as I mentioned (that just involves installing a few activation treadles and putting up a maximum speed sign), but with three other CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) barrier crossings which would all have required protecting signals as well as the additional 'normal' signals and any additional crossovers that would have been needed to make bi-di signalling worthwhile, you'd have added many millions to the cost.

Yes II it wouldn't be money well spent for the few occaisions it would be beneficial. So the only stretch that is 'bi-directional' is the up stretch from the end of the single line to Evesham station, I presume.

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, and also the short section from Charlbury Junction to the stop signal at the west end of Charlbury station on the 'Up' line.

[Andy W]

Yes, and also the short section from Charlbury Junction to the stop signal at the west end of Charlbury station on the 'Up' line.

OK.

Sorry to be a bore -
On the East side of the line a down train can terminate at Charlbury (Oxford - Charlbury) by running off the single section into the up platform. On arrival it becomes then next up train - but the single line is also clear should there be a following down service.

On the West side of the line and up train terminating at Evesham (Worcester - Evesham) would terminate on the up platform & become the next down service.
In this case the up line is blocked until it returns to Worcester as there is no provision to run wrong direction from the end of the single line to the station in the up direction.

It would appear to me (baffled and bemused) that the layout at Charlbury is ideal for a terminating service from Oxford (the direction that you may expect a terminating service) whilst the layout at Evesham does not appear to be so flexible to accomadate a terminating service from Worcester. Perhaps the answer is that any such service in the future would run through to Honeybourne?

Is that correct?

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, that's correct.  Possibly a bit odd as you point out, though with a daily service using the Charlbury turnback and none scheduled to use the Evesham turnback perhaps that's why?  As I said, alterations to allow that to happen at Evesham should it become a reality would be pretty simple, but alterations at Honeybourne to allow the trains to start back from there (in passenger service) would be slightly more expensive.

[CLPGMS]

One train each week does use the turnback facility at Evesham - the 2241 Saturdays only, from Great Malvern to Evesham, which then returns empty stock to Worcester depot.