Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[willc]

More dribs and drabs of info about redoubling as a result of an announcement from DafT apparently linked to a visit to the area today by Lord Adonis, just that DafT forget to tell us media types it was happening and then put out a sketchy announcement at 5pm on a Friday.

What it does confirm is that resignalling will go ahead, with the line being controlled from the new Thames Valley signalling centre at Didcot, with Ascott, Evesham and Moreton boxes to close, and that the running speed through the points in and out of the single line sections at Charlbury and west of Evesham will be 70mph.

And no firm budget figure yet, just "more than ^50m".

As an aside I have been doing some unscientific, glance at watch, timings this week of trains between Wolvercot and the Cornbury Park road bridge where the single line will end - Turbos on the 8.52 from Malvern, with a Hanborough intermediate stop, manage it in 10 minutes, while tonight 180104 on the 17.51 ran from a standing start at the signal just before the junction non-stop to Charlbury station in eight minutes, so a notch over seven minutes to clearing the place the point will be. The driver was pushing hard, as we were late due to knock-on delay from the 17.22 but 180s have done similar times all week.

Although I haven't been on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), I know full well - and it was the booked timing for many years - that a non-stop Oxford-Charlbury run, with a clear run through Wolvercot junction, can and should be done in 12 minutes, again around about eight minutes over what will remain as the single line. Allowing for a Hanborough stop, say another three or four minutes, even an HST will be off the single-line in 11 or 12 minutes - a clear improvement on the 18 or so that is allowed at present for Wolvercot-Ascott - so the possibility of pushing through four trains an hour is there.

And the same will apply at the other end of the line too - on rather more gently graded track than that facing a westbound train from Wolvercot - for Hanborough stops read Pershore.

[eightf48544]

Although I haven't been on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), I know full well - and it was the booked timing for many years - that a non-stop Oxford-Charlbury run, with a clear run through Wolvercot junction, can and should be done in 12 minutes, again around about eight minutes over what will remain as the single line. Allowing for a Hanborough stop, say another three or four minutes, even an HST will be off the single-line in 11 or 12 minutes - a clear improvement on the 18 or so that is allowed at present for Wolvercot-Ascott - so the possibility of pushing through four trains an hour is there.

And the same will apply at the other end of the line too - on rather more gently graded track than that facing a westbound train from Wolvercot - for Hanborough stops read Pershore.

In the current climate much as I would like 4 tph I can't see anyone trying to push 4 tph through this section because of the tight margins on clearing the single line particulay with a Hanborough stop.

Bearing in mind that at Wolvercote an up train has to have clear run across the down Banbury (although that should not be a problem if trains are on time as it should be an down Cotswold waiting to get onto the single line)  and onto a clear Up line, no late running XCs^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)).

If there were  intermediate sections both ways on the single line it might be possible to flight two trains in the same direction one after each other within 30 minutes. Thus get 4 trains an hour, 2*2 although whether this makes for a viable timetable I'm not sure. Can you fit an up all stations Charlbury Oxford in front of a Charlbury Oxford fast within 30 minutes? In the Down direction the stopper follows the fast.

The other way of ensuring 4 trains an hour in alternate directions is to double half to a mile from Wolvercote to allow the Down trains onto the single line whilst the Up train waits to cross the junction. This slightly shortens the running time on the single line and gives more leeway with late running trains as the Down train can enter the single line as soon as the Up train has cleared the point rather wating until it's  crossed the junction. It should give enough extra minutes spare to get 4 tph in alternate directions through with confidence.

[willc]

Well, when Network Rail announced the scheme, they said the track layout could handle 4tph and on the basis of the running times I noted, it certainly could with punctual running, of the kind FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) now seem to have got the hang of - even with four HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) all stopping at Hanborough, not a traffic pattern you are ever likely to see.

Given there is to be new signalling - which, as Oxman previously suggested, brings the prospect of intermediate signals within the single sections - you could indeed flight following trains, which would be of particular value in the morning peak, when the traffic flow towards Oxford and London is concentrated into a shorter space of time and pathing trains running against the flow is most difficult.

Nothing is going to happen at Wolvercot junction because you can't touch the Oxford signalling system, plus the single-lead junction pointwork was relaid at great expense a couple of Christmases ago to allow trains heading towards Oxford to run faster.

[Don]

If there were  intermediate sections both ways on the single line it might be possible to flight two trains in the same direction one after each other within 30 minutes. Thus get 4 trains an hour, 2*2 although whether this makes for a viable timetable I'm not sure. Can you fit an up all stations Charlbury Oxford in front of a Charlbury Oxford fast within 30 minutes? In the Down direction the stopper follows the fast.

Weekday mornings we already have that, with the first two trains - the 05:02 Worcester - Paddington is followed by the Great Malvern - Paddington (leaving Worcester at 05:36) and arriving at Oxford at 06:25 & 06:53. And then nearly an hour later, the stopper follows the Hereford - Paddington arriving in Oxford at 07:46 and 08:11 respectfully.

One assumes with less and shorter single line sections, that four trains per hour in one direction may well be an option.

[eightf48544]

Nothing is going to happen at Wolvercot junction because you can't touch the Oxford signalling system, plus the single-lead junction pointwork was relaid at great expense a couple of Christmases ago to allow trains heading towards Oxford to run faster.

After a number of accidents particulary in Scotland didn't HMRI^▸ (Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate) suggest that single lead junctions although cheap weren't the best thing since sliced bread and recommended that they be no longer installed and replaced where possible? Yet Wolvercote was renewed a couple of years ago.

Comundrum which contributes more to the smooth operation of the railway and its overall safety, abolition of single lead junctions or platform end fences?

A friend of mine has come up with a variation of Parkinson's law "Work expands to fill the time available" namely:

 Health and Safety expands until it is no longer safe or healthy.

[willc]

Wolvercot isn't strictly a single lead, as the 'branch' line itself - the Cotswold Line - is single track. In the case of Bellgrove in 1989, which I think you're referring to, that was where the branch point was single, but the 'branch' immediately divided back into double track. And I'm sure the apparently prohibitive expense of doing anything to the signalling kit at Oxford was a factor when the renewal was done, just as it was when the redoubling was being designed.

Returning to a couple of points touched on a while back. I was passing through Aston Magna yesterday and stopped to get out to have a look at the curve and surrounding area.

I'm not sure there's going to be any significant reduction in speed there - the current track sticks pretty tightly to the inside of the curve and is heavily canted and there looks to be room to lay the second track on the outside. The only problem may be through the road bridge at the Moreton end, as the track is laid towards the centre here at present, though removal of the disused abutments of another bridge just beyond it and moving the track across would allow a slightly straighter approach from Moreton.

The water feature on the map someone asked about was I think something to do with the old brickworks but is now an angling lake for the Shipston-on-Stour angling club.

And if you're interested in Brunel's wooden viaducts, I came across a book called Brunel's Timber Bridges and Viaducts, by Brian Lewis, published by Ian Allan in 2007. Lots of photos, many taken when replacements in stone, brick and metal were starting to go up and lots of drawings showing how they were put together, including old ones from Network Rail's plans office at Swindon and, in the case of the Black Country section of the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton, the original colour-wash drawings, which are held in the National Archive.

[stebbo]

Would tend to agree on the Aston Magna curves. As I passed through yesterday, from what I could see in remaining daylight the track seemed to stick pretty much to the inside of the curve.

[IndustryInsider]

Well, when Network Rail announced the scheme, they said the track layout could handle 4tph and on the basis of the running times I noted, it certainly could with punctual running, of the kind FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) now seem to have got the hang of - even with four HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) all stopping at Hanborough, not a traffic pattern you are ever likely to see.

Nothing is going to happen at Wolvercot junction because you can't touch the Oxford signalling system, plus the single-lead junction pointwork was relaid at great expense a couple of Christmases ago to allow trains heading towards Oxford to run faster.

4tph on both remaining single sections would indeed be possible, though probably not for prolonged periods due to the fact the scheme is being funded to improve the PPM^‡(resolve) rating and that would probably be jeopardised with such an intensive service outside of the peak hours.

The renewals to the points at Wolvercote Junction were just a straight replacement and no increase in linespeed resulted. It's still 40mph both ways. You could probably knock that up to 50 or maybe 60mph but the sharp curve immediately after the junction would prohibit anything higher.

Has the 25mph restriction in the down direction at Norton Junction been mentioned at all in the press releases you've seen, Will? That could really do with a new 70mph cross over too.

[willc]

Surprised the Wolvercot speed limit wasn't raised, Oxford-bound HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) always seem faster through there. Maybe that's just that the crossover looks slightly longer than its predecessor, so making progress a bit smoother. I would have thought 45-50mph was feasible.

Nothing about Norton that I've seen, which makes me suspect it's going to be left until renewal work there comes due, or Worcester resignalling, whichever comes first, though I will take the opportunity of the roadshow visit to Moreton station next week to ask the question of Network Rail's representatives.

I suppose 4tph may be handy if XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) are ever to use the line for diversions, clearances permitting - at least they would be running through flat out, so eight minutes or so for single-line transits, given that performance of a Voyager would be akin to an Adelante. Would be interesting to see what a non-stop Oxford-Worcester run would work out at.

[Andy W]

Endless potential for conflict where loops start and end is not flexible - it just piles delay on delay as soon as one train is out of sequence. If it's so easy as you seem to believe to run a railway with lots of loops every few miles, why don't they all look like that?

Simple - because they didn't start in the mess that the Cotswold line is currently. It does not pile on delay at all it reduces delay which is,within reason, directly proportional to the length of single line

Think how much they could save without all that pesky double track to look after - the kind of thinking which got the Cotswold Line where it is now in the first place.

Gibberish, The Cotswold line got into a mess by people who's agenda was nothing to do with railway operations which is why people are now trying to undo the damage they did, not just on the Cotswold line.

As for respect for signallers, the Network Rail - nothing to do with me - solution means that if there is a problem train, then the signallers and other staff can focus on sorting that out, while the service on the other line can take care of itself using the long double track section. Throw in lots of loops and keeping everything else moving is going to be what occupies the signaler, never mind that if a failure happens on single line, or something is limping up Campden bank, then everything grinds to a halt anyway - again double track keeps the service moving and offers the option of wrong-line working in emergency - that's flexibility.

I assume you are not suggesting that while one train limps up Camden Bank another runs wrong line to overtake it? The problems 'limping up Camden Bank are rare. The problem is far more general - why on earth does a single length offer wrong line working while multiples wouldn't? As for stranded trains - again multiple loops would impact less line.
Three 'loops' each many miles long - keeping stations on the double track - not on the single would be far more effective than we plan which both maximises the length of the single lines and the number of stations (Hanborogh & Pershore in particular) that remain on single line. It could also allow 4TPH as a bonus but that is outside the remit of the operation.

[willc]

The Cotswold line got into a mess by people who's agenda was nothing to do with railway operations

An odd description of the then Western Region of British Railways.

RE^▸ (Religious Education) Campden bank, I was referring to the difficulties caused when a train is struggling on the single line. If your preferred track layout was adopted, retaining single track there, then that problem would continue - and it can cost southbound trains 10 or 15 minutes, even with a run at the bank without stopping at Honeybourne. I know, I have stood on the platform at Moreton waiting for HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) that are running on one engine with no idea of when they will eventually appear.

I'm sure Network Rail would be interested to know why they have got it so wrong - perhaps you could tell them.

[eightf48544]

The Cotswold line got into a mess by people who's agenda was nothing to do with railway operations

An odd description of the then Western Region of British Railways.

I tend to agree with Andy W that many of the rationalisations were dictated by people who knew nothing about operations.

Like all regions the WR was acting on orders to take out as much infrastructure as possible. The argument now is did they take out too much infrastructure at the time  hindsight suggests they did.

In some cases pre grouping rivalry played a part for example signalling West of Salisbury so that the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) would never again be a rival to the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) for Exeter London traffic. So WR went for Westbury as the main line and singled West of Salisbury which at the time was seen as a way of saving the line from closure.

[willc]

As the saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

And when you are handling six or seven Worcester/Hereford trains a day and a couple of Moreton stoppers, with the odd freight, as they were back then, 50 miles of double track probably looked like a luxury, whether or not those repsonsible knew anything about operations, especially in a climate where railways were regarded as something that had had their day.

If they had been told that by the late 1990s the line would be handing the kind of service it does now, they might have had second thoughts, but I have no idea how things will look 30 or 40 years down the line. Do you?

[Don]

The rationalisation of the Cotswold and other lines was planned by professional railwaymen who were given a job to do. - To cut costs on a railway which was, at that time, being re-designed to run a much reduced service and without which, lines such as this could potentially have closed altogether.  It is rude and unfair to say otherwise.

The government of the day felt that the railways were an old expensive transport system partly due to the modern feel of the motoring and partly due to insider pressure groups from the road transport industry and as a result were biased and reduced the budget.

The present government has much the same pro-road insider pressure group power problem, plus a second pro-air travel one, but motoring is no longer seen as a panacea, and there is both the environmental factor to consider, and the modern look of our neighbours rail systems.

Having met two of the people who are designing the new Cotswold track layout and signaling, I can confirm that both are intelligent and professional railway men who are working from a list of requirements produced by Network Rail and First Great Western and who, with others, are working towards designing the right system for the job within the budget set.

Does anyone know what the requirements are the they are working from as this would be most useful to this discussion?

[willc]

The fundamental baseline requirement is to get punctuality on the route up to the industry targets and keep it there - and stop knock-on delays from the Cotswold Line messing up the other services sharing the tracks between London and Didcot.

Network Rail's outline plan followed a year of work to decide the best way to achieve those aims and that was the basis on which the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) approved funding in Network Rail's five-year plan.