Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Worcester_Passenger]

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

Now saying that they didn't fall from the brideg, but were indeed hit by the train - see http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9774491.Man_killed_by_train_in_rush_hour_rail_horror/. Just south of Shrub Hill station.

[Richard Fairhurst]

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.

Wish it didn't, and that it continued through to Oxford like the weekday train - it'd be nice to be able to have a Saturday evening out in Worcester without having to rush the last pint in the Plough or the Postal Order!

[IndustryInsider]

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.

I didn't include that one as it's an ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) move (which used to be done in the same way under the old signalling arrangements), wheareas passenger trains couldn't go back towards Pershore without a shunt move until the new signal was installed.

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

Now saying that they didn't fall from the brideg, but were indeed hit by the train - see http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9774491.Man_killed_by_train_in_rush_hour_rail_horror/. Just south of Shrub Hill station.

I believe he jumped off the bridge onto the top of the train rather than in front of it.

[Adrian the Rock]

... 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. 

You'd also need to install a signal with a fixed red aspect on the London end of the Evesham down platform but, yes, that apart it shouldn't be hugely difficult.

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...

I don't know for certain, but I imagine they still use traditional 'is line clear' bell codes for the single line.  Evesham would refuse to accept a second up train with one in the up platform that is about to reverse.

...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...

No, only the fixed red signal mentioned above.  Obviously a move from the single line into the down platform could only be permitted if the down section from Honeybourne was absolutely clear.  The down signals there would provide the necessary signal protection for the shunting move at Evesham, until the train there had left back towards Worcester.

Are you allowed to run trains in opposite directions with intermediate signal protection?

If you mean could you shunt a train on the single line at Evesham with another one already running up to a new up intermediate signal at, say, Pershore, I'm afraid the answer is no.

...but alterations at Honeybourne to allow the trains to start back from there (in passenger service) would be slightly more expensive.

Yes.  To terminate and reverse up trains from Honeybourne platform would entail an additional track circuit though the platform and, probably, an up starting signal at the end of it, as well as a down signal for the reversing trains.  Obviously the existing crossover at the junction can be used.

Terminating down trains at Honeybourne would be possible with a small modification to enable the shunting signal west of the junction to signal trains back towards Moreton - currently it can only be used for reversals from there which are going onto the Long Marston line.  At a pinch, this could be done without providing an up starting signal per the above, as the situation would be analogous to empty trains which reverse at Malvern Wells now, proceeding into the block section to Newland East on the authority of a shunting signal.  In practice one would probably then provide a main running aspect for the move, though.

[IndustryInsider]

After chatting to a member of Network Rail at moreton today, one or possibly both lines through the station area to be replaced on Sunday.  i.e. they may replace the other line at a later date, depending on time and or finance I guess.

It took a while, but the down line through Moreton-In-Marsh now has new ballast, sleepers and track - relaid during a Sunday engineering possession along with a small stretch of old jointed track east of the station as well.  No more weeds that are taller than the average human to be seen at Moreton station now!

[martvw]

I was up at Worcester Shrub Hill Station on sunday 26th to see what track work was going on as no trains were running in to Shrub Hill Station until 16.30. The point on the down line that leads to the two bay platforms has been removed and replaced with plain track. I could see a track tamper down by the old metal box factory working away.There was also a track tamping machine at the north end of the platforms but there seemed to be a problem with it? I did wonder what work was going on down the Cotswold line .So thanks for the news from Moreton-in-marsh IndustryInsider.

[FellowTraveller]

9:31 from Kingham held at Charlbury for 7 minutes waiting access to single line section on Thursday 19th December 2013. Any news on when/if this single section will be redoubled as there is still clearly a bottleneck?

[CLPGMS]

There is still no news about redoubling the remaining single line sections of the Cotswold Line.  The Charlbury to Wolvercote section does pose particular problems and, really, it would be better if trains were not planned to pass one another at Charlbury.  In the event of a late running train from Oxford, a decision has to be made as to which train proceeds first.  Another recent example was on Wednesday 10th December, when the 1514 from Hereford to Paddington was delayed at Charlbury by 24 minutes.  This followed the failure of a Cross Country Voyager in the platform at Oxford with the 1552 from Paddington to Worcester waiting behind it in the Hinksey area. Eventually, the Worcester train left Oxford 29 minutes late and took precedence over the single line section.

[stebbo]

I thought the major obstacle to further redoubling - at both ends - was the need to replace the existing signalling at Oxford and at Worcester. The Oxford end should, I assume, be dealt with when the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification gets to Oxford. As for Worcester, heaven knows.

The problem of delays from Oxford could be partially resolved by laying double track from Wolvercote Junction as far as the old Yarnton station which would allow a Worcester bound train to move off the Birmingham line and, conversely, allow an Oxford bound train to leave Charlbury. But again I assume the signalling generally needs sorting and this suggestion doesn't obviate the pressing need to complete the redoubling. And, of course, none of this really helps the problem of capacity from Oxford through to Didcot and Reading.

Also, and perhaps other members can help, I remember it being said many moons ago that the bigger need was to redouble north west from Evesham. If my memory is correct can someone who knows a bit more than me about the technicalities remind me why that is.   

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

CLPGMS is quite correct. The problem is that too many trains are timed to pass at Charlbury and Evesham, i.e. at the end of the now long middle stretch of double track. The full benefits of the redoubling project are just not been obtained. If all trains passed somewhere around Moreton, i.e. somewhere over the middle of the double track, one late running train would be less likely to delay another as happens so frquently now at both Charlbury and Evesham.
The next critical point in the life of the Cotswold Line is likely to be in two years time when Chiltern Trains start running their half hourly service from Oxford Parkway (Watereaton) to Marylebone. With a doubled frequency, Chiltern will be high likely to poach many existing West Oxon rail travellers from FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Therefore the need to redouble Charlbury to Wolvercote will become ever more important. I am aware that there are aspirations to increase the frquency of FGW trains at the eastern end of the line (because that is where the most growth in traffic is coming from) by running more of the terminating trains from London to Charlbury instead of Oxford. There are, of course, already the signalling facities at Charlbury to do this.

[CLPGMS]

Although Andrew's observation makes sense, it does not tie in with the ambition for an hourly interval service along the Cotswold Line.  Passing trains at Moreton-in-Marsh would effectively reduce the possible frequency to 90 minutes.  With the existing sections of single track, the optimum passing places for an hourly interval service would be in the region of Ascott-under-Wychwood and Littleton and Badsey level crossing.  This would only allow for between 5 and 10 minutes late running of a train from Oxford at Charlbury and from Worcester at Evesham.

[FellowTraveller]

CLPGMS is quite correct. The problem is that too many trains are timed to pass at Charlbury and Evesham, i.e. at the end of the now long middle stretch of double track. The full benefits of the redoubling project are just not been obtained. If all trains passed somewhere around Moreton, i.e. somewhere over the middle of the double track, one late running train would be less likely to delay another as happens so frquently now at both Charlbury and Evesham.
The next critical point in the life of the Cotswold Line is likely to be in two years time when Chiltern Trains start running their half hourly service from Oxford Parkway (Watereaton) to Marylebone. With a doubled frequency, Chiltern will be high likely to poach many existing West Oxon rail travellers from FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Therefore the need to redouble Charlbury to Wolvercote will become ever more important. I am aware that there are aspirations to increase the frquency of FGW trains at the eastern end of the line (because that is where the most growth in traffic is coming from) by running more of the terminating trains from London to Charlbury instead of Oxford. There are, of course, already the signalling facities at Charlbury to do this.

Realising the full benefits to rail passengers, and no doubt an ROI for NR^» (Network Rail - home page), ought to be a priority to drive the full redoubling of the Cotswold Line. Is anyone campaigning this? (Thank you to all who have posted such informative updates.)

[martvw]

Would it not be possible to redouble both the north (Evesham to Norton) and the south (Charlbury to Wolvercote) sections to give the maximum stretch of double track, but stop just short of Norton junction at the north end and just short of Wolvercote junction at the south end to keep the cost down, Pershore could really do with a upgrade just like Chalbury had.

[Adrian the Rock]

I thought the major obstacle to further redoubling - at both ends - was the need to replace the existing signalling at Oxford and at Worcester. The Oxford end should, I assume, be dealt with when the GW^▸ (Great Western) electrification gets to Oxford. As for Worcester, heaven knows.

This sounds unlikely to me - double line signalling is simpler than for single lines so this shouldn't involve major changes.  For example, at the Worcester end it would only entail changes at Norton Junction and these would be about the same scale as those done at Kidderminster when the turnback siding was added, which happened well before that line was resignalled.

But I had heard there would be problems in reinstating the up platform at Pershore, as the adjacent land is not owned by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and this would prevent the platform being rebuilt to contemporary standards (eg minimum width, disability access etc).

A new down platform would also be needed at Hanborough; I don't know whether or not there are any similar issues there.

[ellendune]

I thought the signalling issue related to making changes to Oxford PSB^▸ (Power Signal Box), but once that is replaced in 2015? then the signalling issues would go away.