Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[willc]

As I said, the only broad gauge trains known to have ever ventured west of Oxford were an inspection train to Evesham in June 1853 and the epic trip to Wolverhampton and back just before Easter in April 1854.

Without seeing them, I'm guessing what you're referring to are the footings of the old viaducts. The OWW^▸ (Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton) ones were different from the Cornish ones, in that they only had small stone or brick bases, with most of the piers being timber, as well as the deck and 'arches'.

John Boynton says their demise was because although Brunel designed them to use standard-sized pieces of timber, so you could just replace one piece at a time as needed, the particular type of Baltic yellow pine wood (from modern-day Lithuania) he specified had become scarce and had rocketed in price by the 1870s and nothing else as durable was available, so the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) decided to build the current structures.

And they didn't hang around. Stambermill used four million bricks but went up in just four months in 1881-2! The Cornish viaducts lasted longer (the timber could survive up to 60 years in favourable conditions), most until the main line was doubled in 1908, with the last three on branches replaced in the early 1930s.

Another factor may have been consumer resistance - people just didn't like travelling on them. They don't look especially sturdy, although they apparently were.

About the only other major timber viaducts I know of in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) were at Denby Dale and Mytholmbridge on the Holmfirth branch. Today a stone viaduct carries Huddersfield-Sheffield trains across the valley at Denby Dale, but the original structure was a timber trestle, like the sort you see on old films from the US. Both suffered damage from gales during construction in 1849-50. As early as 1851, Robert Stephenson was asked to inspect them but gave them a clean bill of health. Mytholmbridge was replaced with stone (at the second attempt, after a collapse during initial construction) in the 1860s. Denby Dale's timber structure lasted until the early 1880s.

There is a slightly fanciful representation of it here - and certainly not from 1737!
http://www.mctague.co.uk/details/views_general/denby.html

There is a well-known photo of it part-demolished but I can't find it on the web.

[TerminalJunkie]

About the only other major timber viaducts I know of in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) were at Denby Dale and Mytholmbridge on the Holmfirth branch.

It perhaps doesn't count as 'major', but there was a timber viaduct near Torrington:
http://ndrailusers.wikispaces.com/Marland+Viaduct

[IndustryInsider]

Sorry to bring this up again, Willc, but I was just wondering about Campden Tunnel. Do you know whether the financial problems the line faced meant that the tunnel was built for a single line broad gauge track? I know it had a double track standard gauge railway (and will soon have that status again), but having looked at the tunnel entrance there appears to be no room for a double track of broad gauge width.

[Andy W]

From John Boynton's book "Broad gauge rails were not always provided for both lines of double track, but the broad gauge was uninterrupted and capable of carrying a train." As WillC has already posted one broad gauge train did do the full trip.
It is most likely the both Campden and Rainbow Hill tunnels would only have a single broad gauge track laid.

[eightf48544]

As I said, the only broad gauge trains known to have ever ventured west of Oxford were an inspection train to Evesham in June 1853 and the epic trip to Wolverhampton and back just before Easter in April 1854.

I  recall reading in a book I think called Great Western in the West Midlands that the OWW^▸ (Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton) got into a lot of trouble with the Board of Trade with the twin gauge. As I remember there seemed to be a single separate standard and broad gauge track at least between Worcester and Eversham. The BoT ruled that standard and broad gauge trains could not pass on these single tracks. However, when a timetable was published it seemed that trains were timed to pass each other on this section. As it was sometime after publication the BoT got to hear about it suggests there might have been broad gauge trains over part of the line to Worcester.

Of course the timetable in question could have been one of the many gallent attempts by the railways to  create new fiction. A tradition with timetables that still flourishes today.

[willc]

Interesting redoubling detail contained in a lengthy interview in the new issue of Rail with Dave Ward of Network Rail and FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s Projects Director Matthew Golton, where Golton explicitly says he is hoping for it to be completed in time for the May 2010 timetable change, rather than the December, which seems to move the schedule back to the first target date given, rather than that December, which became the stated goal later on. Timetabling options for the revamped route are being prepared.

Golton adds: "It is so critical to get the work done before Reading". And Dave Ward says he thinks the redoubling is even more vital than Reading, due to the impact of knock-on delays from Cotswold problems.

Although the report says possession times have been agreed and plans drawn up to extend Cheltenham workings to and from Worcester during a blockade, no timetable for work is given, beyond the usual formula of school holidays and the summer.

[IndustryInsider]

Interesting redoubling detail contained in a lengthy interview in the new issue of Rail with Dave Ward of Network Rail and FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s Projects Director Matthew Golton, where Golton explicitly says he is hoping for it to be completed in time for the May 2010 timetable change, rather than the December, which seems to move the schedule back to the first target date given, rather than that December, which became the stated goal later on. Timetabling options for the revamped route are being prepared.

Golton adds: "It is so critical to get the work done before Reading". And Dave Ward says he thinks the redoubling is even more vital than Reading, due to the impact of knock-on delays from Cotswold problems.

Although the report says possession times have been agreed and plans drawn up to extend Cheltenham workings to and from Worcester during a blockade, no timetable for work is given, beyond the usual formula of school holidays and the summer.

Yes, though the article was a bit too much like a party political broadcast for my liking. Talk of the work to upgrade the loops north of Oxford station as being completed already may have just been an editorial error, but it is several months off and all that has been done so far is the dropping of rails and sleepers ready for track work.

Also, as far as I am aware, the southbound bay platform at Oxford has not yet received funding - yet the article reads as though it's already all been agreed. I also wonder what alternative provision will be made for the car park spaces that will be lost due to the construction?

The usual trendy phrases are all included. There's lots of talk about lessons from the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) being learned, and step changes in performance - but until they have been proven to have been learned I remain sceptical. May 2010 will be a very challenging time-scale as will the current budget for the Cotswold Line project.

Another over-the-top statement concerns the relief line speed enhancements between Reading and Paddington. The article states that "There have been instances where the fast lines have been closed, but the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s have run on the relief lines. Previously this would have caused huge delays". What nonsense! Granted the speed increases will have had a small impact on the delays any incident that closes the main lines would result it, to suggest it has prevented huge delays in itself is a total fallacy!

[willc]

Yes, though the article was a bit too much like a party political broadcast for my liking.

Perhaps, but unless you know the issues inside out, it can be hard to get a handle on every single thing going on in this neck of the woods and I'd rather FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are making the right noises and talking to each other, rather than at each other's throats. Though they do need to start delivering all these projects on time and to budget.

And yes, actual work on the Oxford loops upgrade hasn't started and no, there's no funding in place for the south bay, though I expect the hope is that NR can find some money out of its general enhancements pot and get a contribution from the county council, who aren't exactly innocent when it comes to talking about this platform as if it's a done deal either.

I'm not sure parking spaces are in that short supply though. Ring-Go's introduction put an end to non-rail users taking advantage of FGW providing the cheapest all-day parking near the city centre and there always seem to be spaces available at about 10am when I pass on my way to work, whereas you'd be doing well to find one at Swindon and at Banbury you would usually have a hike from the most distant of the industrial units Chiltern is renting for overflow parking.

[signalandtelegraph]

Thought you might like this job description that landed in my inbox from a recruitment agency.

Requirement for a Signalling Project Engineer.

The project is to re-double portions of the Oxford-Worcester line (OWW^▸ (Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton)) totalling 20 miles. The portions to be double tracked are from East of Charlbury to the existing double track section at Ascott-under-Wychwood, and from West of Evesham to the existing double track section at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. The work also includes extensive signalling alterations for Ascott, Moreton and Norton Junction signalboxes, together with abolition of Evesham signalbox and all the existing token sections.

The scheme has recently been authorised for GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 4 design (full scheme) and full design for advance enabling works, including extensive cable diversions. The major project milestones are a 6 week blockade during the 2009 Summer school holidays (tunnel formation works, drainage and track laying, bridge waterproofing and various track renewals/track slews) followed by full signalling installation works and track laying for a signalling commissioning in late 2010.

Full authority for the GRIP 5-8 elements other than enabling works is expected in April 2009.

Early emphasis is therefore on scoping the enabling works (cable diversions), scoping signalling and location case moves prior to track laying, and scoping the full GRIP 4 design.

[IndustryInsider]

The work also includes extensive signalling alterations for Ascott, Moreton and Norton Junction signalboxes, together with abolition of Evesham signalbox and all the existing token sections.

Thanks for that signalandtelegraph. The abolition of Evesham Signal Box - blimey, that's the first time I've heard that mentioned?!

[IndustryInsider]

I'm not sure parking spaces are in that short supply though. Ring-Go's introduction put an end to non-rail users taking advantage of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) providing the cheapest all-day parking near the city centre and there always seem to be spaces available at about 10am when I pass on my way to work, whereas you'd be doing well to find one at Swindon and at Banbury you would usually have a hike from the most distant of the industrial units Chiltern is renting for overflow parking.

From my observations there's usually around 30-50 free spaces on a weekday come midday when it's busiest. That's increased by about 10% on the quietest days, Monday and Friday, so yes there is spare capacity. But if they're installing a full length platform that would surely have to take out one whole row of spaces which is more than 50, and surely it would be foolish to remove spare capacity that might be needed in future years with a regular East-West Rail and Chiltern Railways service on the cards? There is the possibility of using railway land on the old South Yard as an overspill car park perhaps - or has NR^» (Network Rail - home page) sold that off now? Perhaps a second deck could be added to a smaller car park too, in a Beaconsfield type way?

[Btline]

...The work also includes extensive signalling alterations for...Norton Junction signalbox...

...abolition of Evesham signalbox...

...and all the existing token sections...

[signalandtelegraph]

The work also includes extensive signalling alterations for Ascott, Moreton and Norton Junction signalboxes, together with abolition of Evesham signalbox and all the existing token sections.

Thanks for that signalandtelegraph. The abolition of Evesham Signal Box - blimey, that's the first time I've heard that mentioned?!

I thought it was strange thing to say  but other people I have spoken to today have heard that Norton- Evesham is being doubled (it did say west of Evesham so it is possible!).  Don't know what contol method will be,  presumably Absolute Block MiM to Norton?

[Btline]

It would certainly make sense to double Norton to Evesham so trains no longer have to queue.

[stebbo]

Or even double Evesham to past Pershore.

I'm no engineering expert, but I had thought that there were issues about redoubling all the way to Norton or Wolvercote due to antiquated signalling around Worcester and Oxford.

But, hey, any extra redoubling is welcome. I've long thought the current scheme is welcome as being a good, but temporary, solution to the problem of redoubling the whole line.