Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

I may be playing 'devil's advocate'    here, willc, but the fact of the matter is, one of your fellow professional journalists, only a few days ago, wrote:

Network Rail said that planned work to redouble the line between Worcester and Oxford, which was due to take place next month, has been delayed.

That seems fairly unequivocal to me. 

However, as you say:

Sloppy writing, yes, and they really should have waited to get a Network Rail comment ...

My point about some people having some doubts about some things that appear in some of the press therefore stands. 

As an aside: do investigative journalists really base their articles on 'the odd post or two' they may have come across on this forum?? 

[inspector_blakey]

Whilst of course I am prepared to defer to anyone with more experience in the field of journalism than I have, I would be inclined to define "sloppy writing" as something along the lines of missing out apostrophes or typographical errors. I wouldn't define it as "making up stuff that isn't correct to support the journalist's assumption".

Discuss.

[Phil]

As a journalist and editor of some 25 years standing myself, I have to admit I agree wholeheartedly with you there, Blakey. Although, I would perhaps suggest that sloppy or non-existent editing is a more pernicious "crime" than sloppy writing these days. There was a time when it didn't actually matter too much how journalists presented their information so long as the facts were right - sub editors would make it presentable for them, and in the process query anything which didn't perhaps ring true. Now that people with genuine editing skills are as rare as matrons on a ward, journalists are expected to be a Jack-of-all-trades, an unsurprisingly perhaps the overall standard is sliding faster than a wok on the Cresta run.

[Andy W]

I've emailed the journalist on the Worcester Evening news asking where she got her information from. If I get an answer I'll let you know.

Regarding the item in the Cotswold Journal "Preliminary work was conducted last August when engineers repositioned nearly ten miles of track, constructed 21 miles of new surface concrete cable route, installed 30 miles of new cable and relocated 60 sets of signal equipment."

Can someone please explain why all of this work needed to be done? Why weren't the rails left in their original position (except into stations) to allow redoubling to be easily done. Ditto signal positions and cable runs.

Do journalists ask these questions?

[paul7575]

Most singling of double track used either the better condition of the two tracks seemingly at random and/or the better (from a civils point of view) side of the formation, so changing sides is common place, as is slewing to the middle where there are embankments or cuttings in poor condition. Easing curves may have taken place making use of the full width, Drainage may have been resited into the disused track bed, signalling may have been repositioned alongside the running track for better sighting etc etc.

You may recall the recent discussions about the Axminster redoubling, where the single line on both ends of the double section is on the RH side heading towards Axminster. Reinstatement there are also required cable troughs to be resited off the unused half of the track bed. Bridges and culverts may only have been replaced as single structures over the years, these will need duplicating or widening.

The bottom line is that when singling took place, they never expected redoubling, so any examples where they simply lifted the whole length of either the down or up line will be few and far between.

Paul

[Andy W]

Thanks Paul(dob or Pannier Tank?)

I've got this reply from the reporter

"If you go onto the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website, and look at the section about the line there is a little update box - it literally came from that. I don't know if this is any help?
Flora Drury
Reporter
Worcester News"

So it would appear her source was FGW, so maybe a little 'sloppy' however it is reasonable to assume her story was in essence correct. Perhaps mixed messages from Network Rail?

Will have you spoken to your Network Rail contacts yet?

[ChrisB]

No - that reporter should have saiod 'FGW^▸ (First Great Western) stated....' NOT 'Network Rail stated.....'

I suspect she doesn't know trhe difference!

[Andy W]

Chris,

Here is the source of her article:-

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=3501

The source of this will certainly be Network Rail, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would not make up such information.

Perhaps FGW should further consult with Network Rail and amend if necessary.

The fact is that the story published was well sourced and it is very reasonable to report delays to the project on the basis of the published information.

As for her 'not knowing the difference between FGW & Network Rail' - patronising is the word that springs to mind.

[ChrisB]

Hmmm - there certainly are reporters at my local paper (part of Johnson Press) who don't know the difference (i.e. weren't aware that TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are not responsible for track maintenance) - I remember explaining this to one hack not that long ago....

[IndustryInsider]

After all, it's the project completion date that's the only important one - not the postponement of possessions in February.

To repeat what I said above a week ago, the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) site makes no mention of any delay to the completion of the project.  Just that possessions scheduled for February have been postponed - presumably it felt obliged to publish that so people looking at timetables can disregard the possibility of buses replacing the late trains?

The only official NR^» (Network Rail - home page) quote so far is that the redoubling is on schedule, and so that's what we should believe until they say otherwise - but that's certainly something which I wouldn't bet against them doing!

On the FGW site they could perhaps make it clear that NR (through Mavis Choong) have confirmed the completion date is still on schedule.  However, to me, the NR quote in the Cotswold Journal article "by 2011" is a little vague (are we talking early 2011 or late?) and anyway, if taken literally should surely mean the last day of this year?

[gwr2006]

I have it on good authority that Network Rail is looking to reduce the cost of the project and it will no longer involve modernisation of the signalling system.

The transfer of signalling to the state-of-the-art Thames Valley Signalling Centre in Didcot is being shelved in favour of retaining the existing block signalling and signal boxes, albeit with some new intermediate signals to reduce headways.

However, because the project had been designed around transferring the signalling,  Network Rail now has to spend 3 months redesigning the signalling and getting that approved before further on-site work can continue ^ that what is meant by Network Rail saying ^we aim to complete design work by spring.^

It means the work proposed at Honeybourne and Evesham is delayed.  It shouldn^t affect the overall end date of 2011, although I^ve heard that final completion will be at the end of 2011 rather than in May 2011 but guess it will depend how they phase and commission the work as some could be introduced earlier.

It also led FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to make an announcement about work being postponed in February because replacement of late evening trains with buses is shown in the National Rail Timetable.  The changes didn^t make it into FGW^s timetable leaflets as they were printed later

[IndustryInsider]

So, that just about ties all the loose ends up then - apart from the fact the Cotswold Journal article states clearly that the move to Didcot is still going ahead - but the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) quote doesn't mention it!

One disadvantage of the retention of the Signalboxes is that an opportunity to much improve the accuracy of the information feeds to the CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) systems on the route will presumably be lost?

[Btline]

So the line will still have 19th century signalling - great!

[Oxman]

Will keep the signalling nerds happy, but Industry Insider is right. CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) will still be a nightmare.

[willc]

But for the umpteenth time, "possessions scheduled for February" were nothing of the sort.

In the 'Rdeoubling info page on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website' thread, gwr2006 (who hopefully won't get offended by me citing a post that's all of 13 months old) wrote "A further 2 week possession is planned for February 2010 to allow repairs to be made to the bridge at Honeybourne". For repairs, read reinstatement of a double-track bridge deck instead of the existing single-line structure.

Planned, yes, in the broad outline programme as it stood at the end of 2008. But confirmed in the end, no.

As a result, Network Rail did not make any announcement to the media, public or anyone else, because there was nothing to announce.

Someone at FGW took it upon themselves to put out this notice on the website and in posters at stations on the route, saying that something that had never been announced wasn't happening. Net result, on this forum and elsewhere, confusion!

The space on the website and the paper FGW used for the posters might have been more usefully employed giving people plenty of advance warning people about something that is happening in February - and March - the confirmed closures at weekends, with no trains between Oxford-Hanborough and Oxford-Banbury, due, I believe, to overhead work on the A34 road viaduct replacement at Wolvercote.

Work which was confirmed so far in advance that the current FGW timetable contains a full alternative Sunday service, with Oxford-Hanborough buses and Hanborough-Worcester shuttle trains.

Yes, I have spoken to Network Rail and I don't intend to discuss that conversation here. When there is something concrete to report, I will do that. I do not intend to add to the muddle.

It also led FGW to make an announcement about work being postponed in February because replacement of late evening trains with buses is shown in the National Rail Timetable.

We've been over what the FGW timetable does and does not say about these buses before and Cotswold Line timetable note A has wording that appears to have been deliberately designed to be vague and cover all eventualities from December to May.

- Rail improvement work may affect this train. You are strongly advised to check before travelling.

No hint whatever that anyone had a specific time period in mind. Those late trains can just as easily be cancelled for overnight track maintenance work (which in NR^» (Network Rail - home page)-speak seems to count as rail improvement work) at any time of the year - and are. And replacing bridges means no trains at any time of the day or night.