Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Mookiemoo]

But given that Network Rail are already on record as saying that dealing with the remaining single track sections is on the cards when Oxford and Worcester are resignalled, and that Great Western draft Route Utilisation Strategy's endorsement of doing Wolvercot-Charlbury, I should think there's every chance that when the West Midland and Chiltern RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) comes out next year, it will say the same about redoubling Norton junction to Evesham, along with steps to sort out the myriad capacity problems in Worcester itself.

Is there really much of a capacity problem in Worcester?  I have over the years spent many an hour - usually in the morning peak so I cant speak for the evening - waiting on trains and it doesnt exactly feel like a hot bed of activity.   The platforms are not exactly a revolving door!

[Btline]

Is there really much of a capacity problem in Worcester?

Um. Cough. I assume/hope you're being sarcastic?

Thanks to the layout at Worcester, there are huge capacity constraints! That's why many trains have to terminate at Shrub Hill, and why trains entering the Worcester area on time can easily leave late - the layout is unreliable.

Most of the problem could be solved by the addition of a single scissor crossover (and associated signalling); but we really want full redoubling and no single lead junctions, with full sets of crossovers on all three sides of the triangle. (if we want to do it properly)

Of course a third platform at Foregate would be great, (but impossible I know!) and allow us to shut Shrub Hill, and let it rot - and fall down - in peace.

[Tim]

It is mainly a track layout issue at Worcester.  Foregate ST platforms are both bidirectional which means that in effect it serves two single tracks (one to-from droitwich and the other to-from Shrub hill).  Single track are always a capacity contraint

[Mookiemoo]

Is there really much of a capacity problem in Worcester?

Um. Cough. I assume/hope you're being sarcastic?

Thanks to the layout at Worcester, there are huge capacity constraints! That's why many trains have to terminate at Shrub Hill, and why trains entering the Worcester area on time can easily leave late - the layout is unreliable.

Most of the problem could be solved by the addition of a single scissor crossover (and associated signalling); but we really want full redoubling and no single lead junctions, with full sets of crossovers on all three sides of the triangle. (if we want to do it properly)

Of course a third platform at Foregate would be great, (but impossible I know!) and allow us to shut Shrub Hill, and let it rot - and fall down - in peace.

1. No I wasnt but I 99% of the time use Shrub Hill - it just never seems THAT busy in terms of train numbers

2. You cant shut Shrub Hill for one VERY good reason - no parking at Foregate. Not even close by.

[Btline]

If they build a Parkway, Shrub Hill will close.

Of course, they could rename Shrub Hill "Parkway" and add some large car parks on the abandoned railway land around...

[IndustryInsider]

1. No I wasnt but I 99% of the time use Shrub Hill - it just never seems THAT busy in terms of train numbers

That might demonstrate how restricted the capacity is. Hardly any trains, and still delays building up in the area! I expect you've witnessed trains sitting in the platform for no obvious reason on occasions?

[Class 50]

In the hypothetical world that absolute block is retained, and that may not be a bad thing at this stage, how would  Honeybourne, be signalled?.

[willc]

A new work base is being set up at Ascott-under-Wychwood in a field to the north of the line (ie far side from the village), just west of the level crossing. And some fresh vegetation clearance at Kingham. Not clear if this is just a bit of localised work or the start of another big effort this autumn and winter to rein in the trees more generally.

[Don]

A new work base is being set up at Ascott-under-Wychwood in a field to the north of the line (ie far side from the village), just west of the level crossing. And some fresh vegetation clearance at Kingham. Not clear if this is just a bit of localised work or the start of another big effort this autumn and winter to rein in the trees more generally.

There is some maintainance of the river bridge at Ascott, perhaps this work is for that, or to replace the relay cabinet opposite the signal box - it's in the way of the second track, and sometime during the next 12 months all the level crossings are due to be replaced, perhaps Ascott''s level crossing is happening soon?

[willc]

Certainly in the right place if they are working on the river bridge.

[Btline]

...and sometime during the next 12 months all the level crossings are due to be replaced...

Does that include the unmanned ones in the Vale of Evesham, where strikes have happened as people ignore the signs telling them to phone the signalman?

Edit: Changed post to remove reference to "common" as its use is inaccurate for this post. Sorry.

[willc]

No, it means all the automatic barrier crossings on proper roads where the existing set-ups all have barriers mounted in the trackbed which stand in the way of the second track.

And as for 'common' please explain. While most people are aware of the incident when people were killed in 2003 between Pershore and Evesham, 'common' would suggest it is happening all the time, which, mercifully, is not the case.

[Btline]

Ok - I'll remove the word common! Sorry...

[IndustryInsider]

Actual accidents, no, but abuse of them (i.e. vehicles crossing without phoning for permission) certainly is common though. Numerous 'near misses' are reported by driver each year over the entire route, with the ones west of Evesham being the main culprits. The crossing where the 2003 accident occurred has an underpass, but this floods regularly and also anything too wide or high has to cross the tracks.

NB, I should state that a 'near miss' doesn't necessarily mean there was only inches to spare before a collision, but that had the situation been slightly different then a collision could have occured, e.g. a vehicle crossed the track in sight of a driver and if it had stalled momentarily there would have been a collision.

[Don]

No, it means all the automatic barrier crossings on proper roads where the existing set-ups all have barriers mounted in the trackbed which stand in the way of the second track.

They are also life expired and break down frequently, and considered non-standard BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) Western equipment.

Incidentally, some of the other crossings perhaps including the one that had that minibus accident are to be fitted with small red/green safe for cars to cross lights so that users will be able to see when it is safe rather than have to phone for permission.