Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Btline]

It would be better to double Honeybourne to Pershore, than Evesham to Morton, because it allows more flexibility.

With the current plans, train will be passing close to the edges of the loop.

With two loops, trains could be timetabled to pass in the middle of both loops (i.e. at Evesham and Kingham), with leeway provided by the double track - not padding.

It would also catalyse station improvements at Pershore station (unlike the current plans, which ignore Pershore), which is needed to increase passenger numbers, and be satisfactory for the area.

[eightf48544]

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.

This explanation for not altering the interfaces at either end of the line had been put forward before, Which is why Norton to Eversham and doubling  a short stretch from Wolvercote to allow a train from Oxford to get on the line and not block the Banbury line are not in scheme. The upgrading of the freight loops North of Oxford has been put forward to slove the latter problem.

I suppose trains will still have to queue to get between Eversham and Norton. Thus extension from Eversham to Pershore would seem like a good idea.

But as stebbo says any redoubling is a start. Let's hope it doesn't suffer the "boiling frog syndrome". Newtworkrail really has to pull out all the stops  on this one and get it done on time and budget. If not the Board members ought to face a considerable pay cut. It's a good time to do it as contractors are desparate for work and there's lots of earth moving equipment going spare.

[willc]

As I've said before, this scheme was modelled to death by Network Rail before they came up with the plan that is to be implemented.

While it leaves two roughly equal stretches of single line at either end, it also reduces the time needed to clear these remaining single sections to about 10-12 minutes, as a rule of thumb, rather than the 15-20 which currently prevail, so that's a clear gain already, even if trains have to wait in the event of disruption, while removal of the long Moreton-Evesham single section takes out the biggest obstacle of all to improved running.

With train meets no longer dictated by the infrastructure, the timetablers have far more room for manoeuvre and I'm sure will take full advantage of the extra flexibility.

This flexibility will mean trains won't be "queuing" unless something goes badly wrong, so you won't get the situation I suffered the other week where Moreton station was occupied by a preceding train and my train sat at the edge of town for half an hour waiting for it to leave, while a train ahead of both these services reached Evesham and another then came the other way. If the double track had been down now, that situation couldn't have happened. Keeping the single line all the way to Honeybourne wouldn't have helped keep things moving in those circumstances

"West of Evesham" has always been in the plan, with about a mile of track towards Pershore due to be redoubled. Even if they have yet to publicly pin down the final budget for the project as it stands - estimates vary from the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s published ^48m up to the ORR's consultants' ^100m+ with Network Rail offering various figures in between - the priority now is, as eightf says, to just get on and deliver this scheme. With all the other demands on NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s funds, there just isn't any money there for another 10 miles of new rails to Norton Junction.

And for the umpteenth time, NR has made it clear since the spring that they view this as phase one of redoubling the line, with the rest very much in their thinking once Oxford and Worcester resignalling schemes fall due in the middle of the next decade, with all the opportunities those will present for increasing capacity on a number of routes.

[Btline]

Where do people think trains will cross (in the standard off peak clockface times)?

Hopefully not near the edges, otherwise there will be queuing.

[IndustryInsider]

Where do people think trains will cross (in the standard off peak clockface times)?

Hopefully not near the edges, otherwise there will be queuing.

It would be rather silly if, having spent over ^100m on a scheme, the timetable planners schedule trains to cross near the two single sections, wouldn't it? If you break it down you're looking at a 45 minute middle section of double track, with two single sections of about 10 minutes either end (including two intermediate station stops, one at each end).

If you're looking at running an hourly service, then if that leaves Oxford at xx:00, it will clear the single line section at about xx:15. It will then go on to the single line west of Evesham about xx:00 and pass Norton Junction at xx:10 to arrive Worcester Shrub Hill at xx:15.

If you run the train coming the other way at xx:30 from Shrub Hill (which gives ample time for the down train to clear Henwick) it will pass Norton at xx:35 and reach Evesham at xx:45. Then it will reach the other single section east of Charlbury by xx:30 and carry on to Oxford for an xx:50 departure.

Below is how a sample hourly service would look if that was the case. It allows for a sensible layover at Great Malvern for a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) to go to Malvern Wells and turn round in (40 minutes), and would mean trains cross at the following locations every hour:

1) Shipton
2) Littleton & Badsey L/C (halfway between Evesham and Honeybourne)
3) Just east of Newlands signal box (between Malvern Link and Henwick)

As now, you could curtail some trains at Shrub Hill/Foregate and extend others through to Hereford but be able to keep the basic pattern below.


Oxford                  1000    1100    1200    1300                    Great Malvern           1215    1315    1415    1515
Hanborough              1008    1108    1208    1308                    Malvern Link            1220    1320    1420    1520
Charlbury               1016    1116    1216    1316                    Worcester F. St.        1230    1330    1430    1530
Kingham                 1026    1126    1226    1326                    Worcester S. Hill       1235    1335    1435    1535
Moreton-In-Marsh        1036    1136    1236    1336                    Pershore                1243    1343    1443    1543
Honeybourne             1048    1148    1248    1348                    Evesham                 1250    1350    1450    1550
Evesham                 1057    1157    1257    1357                    Honeybourne             1258    1358    1458    1558
Pershore                1105    1205    1305    1405                    Moreton-In-Marsh        1310    1410    1510    1610
Worcester S. Hill       1115    1215    1315    1415                    Kingham                 1320    1420    1520    1620
Worcester F. St.        1120    1220    1320    1420                    Charlbury               1330    1430    1530    1630
Malvern Link            1130    1230    1330    1430                    Hanborough              1338    1438    1538    1638
Great Malvern           1135    1235    1335    1435                    Oxford                  1348    1448    1548    1648

Of course it's only an example, but a train would have to be over 10 minutes late at any point to run the risk of conflicting with something coming the other way that's on time. I can't see any way of making it much better than that?

[Btline]

Thanks, v interesting.

Let's hope the trains are not more than 10 mins late!

[IndustryInsider]

Let's hope the trains are not more than 10 mins late!

But if they were, the service recovery would be very quick rather than still be affecting trains several hours later.

[willc]

Let's hope the trains are not more than 10 mins late!

But if they were, the service recovery would be very quick rather than still be affecting trains several hours later.

Quite. And that still applies with a 30-minute peak frequency, or even 20-minute, should you want to try to fit an extra train or two into the morning flow towards London, or in the early evening going back to Worcester or beyond and it makes pathing trains running against the peak flows, especially services into Worcester in the mornings, a far simpler exercise.

The track layout is designed to handle a 15-minute frequency if necessary, though that would obviously push things hard and would require very punctual running, but even then, as Industry Insider says, the ability to recover fast from disruption is hugely increased as a result of the changes, plus the line can handle diversions between Oxford and the West Midlands for XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) or, if clearances permit, freight.

[Don]

Hi Guys,
First post, although been watching for a while.

A signalman at Oxford told me that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is intending to run an "intensive local service" from Moreton-in-Marsh to somewhere South of Oxford once the track has been doubled to see if they can increase trade and (in conjunction with Oxford City Council) reduce car journeys into Oxford. 

How much this is a plan, and how much is gossip/wishful thinking I do not know.  But it sort of makes sense and sounds like a good idea.  Closing Evesham is apparently true with Norton Junction gaining a small panel to do Evesham's job, and closing the signal box at Ascott is being considered with the work going to a small panel in Moreton-in-Marsh.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for posting, Don, and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!

Interesting times in your part of the network, by the sound of it?

[willc]

Yes, interesting post Don.

Would be interesting to see an hourly Turbo shuttle running Moreton-Kingham-Shipton-Ascott (served perhaps every two/three hours off-peak) Charlbury-Hanborough-Oxford-Radley-Culham-Appleford-Didcot, with peak-only calls added for Combe and Finstock instead of the current all-stations services, which are lightly used west of Moreton. On current running times it would be a tight squeeze and need some slick turnrounds to keep to a regular interval but certainly sounds feasible.

But before those at the western end of the line go 'a-ha, now you can cut out all those pesky stops at Hanborough', a lot of peak custom here is through to and from Reading and London and has been built up thanks to the through trains, so you can't just drop them, especially while FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s rolling stock fleet is stretched to the limit and adding even one extra HST^▸ (High Speed Train) working in the peaks from 2010 looks like a tall order.

And if the idea is to keep cars out of Oxford, then you need to look long and hard at station car parking, especially at Hanborough, which would be a key location for extra park-and-ride traffic, but where there is nowhere left to expand parking, short of paying for the bus museum to move to a new site, and also Shipton, which would be a key beneficiary of a better service but has no proper parking area at present.

The recent improvements at Charlbury's car park have given a little breathing space, but an improved service could mean the need to look at creating more spaces on the old allotments land between the station approach road and the Burford road, especially if making room for a ramped footbridge took out several of the existing spaces. South of Oxford, more trains serving Radley would make best use of the newly improved parking facilities.

The signalling experts will know the rules, I'm sure, but if you shut Ascott box, the Moreton signaller would then be supervising four level crossings (Ascott, Bruern, Blockley, Chipping Campden) which sounds rather a lot for one person who is also handling train movements.

[IndustryInsider]

How much this is a plan, and how much is gossip/wishful thinking I do not know.  But it sort of makes sense and sounds like a good idea.  Closing Evesham is apparently true with Norton Junction gaining a small panel to do Evesham's job, and closing the signal box at Ascott is being considered with the work going to a small panel in Moreton-in-Marsh.

Thanks for throwing these plans/rumours into the pot, Don - it makes me wonder even more about the budget for these works with all these extra little bits being added on to what we thought was the original specification!

[Btline]

Can we have some extra local trains into Worcester as well - commuters, students and shoppers would use a reliable service. Why not have some cheap fares to fill the seats?

Although it is good that Hanborough passengers are going up - it is nice for longer distance passengers not to be stopping every five minutes - it is rather frustrating, and must put people off, who get the feeling that driving is quicker.

[IndustryInsider]

Can we have some extra local trains into Worcester as well - commuters, students and shoppers would use a reliable service. Why not have some cheap fares to fill the seats?

You'll find the signalling situation at Worcester would prohibit more than a scant handful of extra trains. Not that the two stations are that busy, but just that long Absolute Block sections (especially in the Malvern direction) and inflexible working at Shrub Hill and Foregate Street make it impossible.

My suggestions of what could be possible for Worcester are in an old CANBER^▸ (Campaign Against the New Beeching Report) post here: http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/37

[Btline]

Foregate Street is full (with the present signalling and trackwork), although Shrub Hill could probably cope with an extra train hear or there.

I agree that the signalling needs to be sorted (like in your Canber post).

And the track is dreadful. It would only need one crossover (+ associated signalling) to reap benefits in flexibility and service recovery (as well has switching HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to platform 2, where it curves the right way, reducing the VERY long dwells).

But if all was done like in your post, it would be even better.

Don't forget Droitwich signal box which is a few miles north, it too could be axed.

But before they do anything, they need to make up their minds about the opening of Norton Parkway, and the axing of Shrub Hill.