Please ridicule my silly idea

[whole diary]

[Not from Brighton]

I am bracing myself for the latest attempt to improve public transport in Worcester. The council are planning on building another bus-lane on one of the city's most clogged up roads. The announcement led me to wonder why it is that the council wants to ram more vehicles down an already clogged up road when there is a perfectly good and rather under-utilised bit of railway line running pretty much the same route.

I wondered if the same objectives might be met much more effectively through the use of some sort of tram like thing sharing the tracks into the city.

And then my mind led me to a strange place, I thought, "Worcester could never afford trams, could the buses share the route of the railway?".

I can think of lots of reasons why this would be difficult to implement and one or two that might make it impossible, but in principle is there any way that this sort of arrangement could be made to work? Does anyone know of any precedents for this sort of thing?

The trouble is that Worcester has only one road bridge in the centre of the city. Every morning the bridge is clogged with cars and buses and the like and the railway bridge sits there rather peacefully not doing very much. In particular the northern track that serves platform 2 at Foregate Street sees less than 2 trains per hour. This seems like a tragic waste of a rather nice bridge.

[Mookiemoo]

Surely what would be needed is some form of parking facility  and a train "layby" at the mcdonalds end of the bridge - round about where the level crossing is....... problem is there is no land.....which means moving it further out- maybe half way to malvern where it crosses the by-pass roads etc.

If you had a short section you could trundle a tram back and forth between "new station" and foregate - parking it in the layby when a proper train comes through.

any further out- around by the by passes aforementioned - and you would be struggling to have time clearance for the proper trains - of course im no expert so  I may be completely wrong!

Actually the problem is not worcester but the severn itself - between Bridgenorth and Worcester you only have bridges at:

bridgenorth
bewdley
Stourport
Holt Fleet
Worcester

Even between thee and the estuary there are only:

The worcester by pass
Upton in Severn
The M50
A random B road
The A4/417

For the longest river in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) it is a major geogrphical barrier for west-east traffic.  I remember when they closed holt fleet a good few years ago - took me forever to get to birmingham!

[Btline]

And the Holt bridge could be closing soon!

It is in a dire state of repair, recently an emergency weight limit was applied, and scaffolding is up.

If it closes it will cause dire traffic problems in Stourport, esp on the Gilgal and the bridge.

As for Worcester, it needs another road bridge. They need to complete the bypass from Rushwick to Claines (going via Hallow). This would take a lot of South-west/North traffic out of Worcester city centre, and the bridge. Or a few more signs telling people to drive the long way round the east of the city.

Stourport also needs a second bridge. Hopefully Tesco will build it when they build their superstore.

Rail improvements? Platform 2 at WOF would be used a lot more if the track layout were to be corrected. This in turn would allow for more trains to take traffic off the roads. Perhaps a parkway at Rushwick. But then you open the can of worms about which trains stop. Both FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) New Street trains would not want to stop, to prevent lengthening the already long journey times. You could extend the Lm Snow Hill services which terminate at either WOF or WSH to Rushwick (and beyond to Malvern), as there is little "through" traffic across Worcester.

There is no way a bus could use the rail bridge (!) as there is nowhere in the centre for the buses to leave - Worcester's railways are elevated. Any bus would need to get to the bus station.

Worcester is a nightmare, with traffic around the racecourse common at 1pm on weekdays. (continuing thus until the evening rush hour ends at 7) Someone needs to get a map, get a biro and start planning a new strategy! There are no long term integrated plans.

[willc]

Despite the idea of building a station as part of the redevelopment of the Kay's site getting knocked on the head, the county council hasn't given up on the idea of a west Worcester station, using planning gain money (section 106 money in the report linked below) from the firms building houses on the Kay's land http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/search/4507299.Back_to_the_future___Rail_travel_could_return_to_west_side/ and there is a turnback facility at Henwick, so in theory, it's possible - but would of course need a bit of imagination too and perhaps a Parry People Mover or two.

Something similar to what you advocate did actually happen in March 1947, when the Severn was so swollen by melting snow after the very bad winter (water level 17ft above normal) that the rail bridge was the only safe way across the river. The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) put one of its diesel railcars on an emergency shuttle, running Henwick-Foregate St every 15 minutes during the day for four days until the road bridge and its approaches were declared safe again.

[Mookiemoo]

And the Holt bridge could be closing soon!

It is in a dire state of repair, recently an emergency weight limit was applied, and scaffolding is up.

If it closes it will cause dire traffic problems in Stourport, esp on the Gilgal and the bridge.

And I saluted when the weight limit was introduced. 

What would solve the bridge problem and the need to constantly resurface stretches of the B4202/A443 would be to stop the Clee Hill Quarry trucks using it as a short cut to the M5. (of course i'm local to clee hill and this is a local issue but they flout all the speed limits, using hills to coast/pick up speed and generally clog the roads - another reason to loathe clee hill other than it being full of inbreds and weirdos)

Send em through chavvy kidderminster (sorry BTline - hate the place - sainsbury/Morrisons is about all I ever use there and that is at a push).

Not even sure HGV's should be using B roads unless for access.........

[Btline]

And I saluted when the weight limit was introduced. 

What would solve the bridge problem and the need to constantly resurface stretches of the B4202/A443 would be to stop the Clee Hill Quarry trucks using it as a short cut to the M5.

Send em through chavvy kidderminster (sorry BTline - hate the place - sainsbury/Morrisons is about all I ever use there and that is at a push).

Not even sure HGV's should be using B roads unless for access.........

No need to apologise, I agree! And I too only go there for Sainsbury's and other shops! It's a dump where there's nowhere to park.

But when they finish re-doing the bridge, I expect the weight limit will be lifted!

[Mookiemoo]

And I saluted when the weight limit was introduced. 

What would solve the bridge problem and the need to constantly resurface stretches of the B4202/A443 would be to stop the Clee Hill Quarry trucks using it as a short cut to the M5.

Send em through chavvy kidderminster (sorry BTline - hate the place - sainsbury/Morrisons is about all I ever use there and that is at a push).

Not even sure HGV's should be using B roads unless for access.........

The Morrisons is pretty good - to be honest I dont really go to sainsbury anymore unless its after morrison closing time. 

Waitrose is my shop of choice but droitwich is a hike (especialy if holt fleet bridge is closed!)

No need to apologise, I agree! And I too only go there for Sainsbury's and other shops! It's a dump where there's nowhere to park.

But when they finish re-doing the bridge, I expect the weight limit will be lifted!

[Tim]

Not ridicule just my thoughts...

Worcester area capacity is very tight at the moment because of poor signallying and track layout. 

Your tram idea would require expensive resignalling to increase capacity, but this work probably needs doing anyway for the sake of the train service.

A station on the St John's side of the river makes sense to me even if the tram idea doesn't.  Extra stations are not always a good idea if tehy end up slowing down the main line but in Worcester I think that a new station woudl make sense. 

My inlaws are in Worcester (St Johns) and I am in Bath, the Bristol- Worcester services (which are limited) are used by us and I would prefer my train to/from  Shrubhill to be extended across the river. 

(as an aside, by Fatherinlaw can remember walking to work over the railway bridge in the 60s and 70s when the road bridge was inpassable due to flood water (when asked about the risk of being hit by a train he seems to recall that the arrangement was condoned by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) or at the very least they were aware of it). 

[Not from Brighton]

Some observations I have made:

There is possibly room to separate trams/buses between Henwick Level Crossing and the former Kays site as there is quite a bit of room each side of the track to put in extra infrastructure. In particular the Comer Road Bridge has room for four tracks. In fact just laying a single lane bus-lane alongside the railway tracks would at least allow buses to by-pass the centre of St John's on their way into town.

There is a possibility for buses/trams to descend from the elevated section into the bus station. The old quay branch line had its own bit of viaduct that descends from Foregate Street towards the river. This viaduct still exists. Part of this could be rebuilt to descend the other way, as the land slopes up away from the river a shorter ramp would be required than for the original quay branch; plus it could be assumed that trams/buses would have a vastly superior hill-climbing performance to the trains that once used the quay branch.

In terms of a rail only solution, a shuttle running from a "west" park-and-ride across Worcester to a "Norton" park-and-ride could be accommodated by the railway given a major upgrade of track (turnbacks) and signalling (which is needed anyway). Surely a few old Pacers could be found to provide such a service. I agree that getting long-distance operators to stop at such a station would be an uphill struggle. I am concerned that a service that is pretty much just a park-and-ride with no other benefits would be difficult to justify.

I'm intrigued by the stories of the railway bridge being used in cases of flood. I wonder - how much work would be required to permit emergency vehicles to use the bridge on such occasions?

[Btline]

Once during a huge flood on Worcester (back in either the 40s, 50s or 60s) BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) ran a 15 minute service from Henwick to WOF to keep the city moving!

A Worcester Metro: Rushwick - Worcester Central (a renamed Foregate Street) - Worcester Parkway (a renamed Shrub Hill) - Norton would be a good idea! Or some trains could go north to Fernhill Heath (where the proposed "Worcester (North) Parkway" is planned).

Re-building that ramp, would cause problems in the car parks and the roads, not to mention the fact that the new University building are going up adjacent to the viaduct!

The Morrisons is ok, but I prefer Sainsbury's - its bigger, there more/better parking, and it's my (Bewdley bypass) side of town, as in I can drive to Sainsburys without going round the ring road or going anywhere near the centre! Luckily, I'm several miles away from that godforsaken place! You're even luckier! PS: I also prefer the aisle layout at Sainsbury's!

I've never shopped at Waitrose - but there used to be one in Kiddy town centre (Swan Centre). But it was shut as there was nowhere to park.

[Nostalgic]

These exchanges re Worcester prompt me to ask why it is that both platforms at Foregate Street could not be fully utilised? Like everyone else who has spent time at Shrub Hill or west of the river bridge waiting for a train to come off the single line in order that "our service" can proceed into Foregate Street, I wonder why it is that a set of points could not be installed at the Shrub Hill end of FS so that London-bound trains could use the Birmingham platform.  I am sure that the experts will tell me that there is a very good reason why this could not be done, but at the moment it eludes me! 

[Richard Fairhurst]

As for Worcester, it needs another road bridge.

No, it doesn't. This is 2009, we're past the time when the way to deal with road congestion was to facilitate more of it.

Worcester does need another bridge, but fortunately, it's getting one: http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=151

[Btline]

It could be done, but signalling would have to be upheaved. They'd need to wait for the Worcester resignalling, which could be years to come.

Every year a new Network Rail document lists the resignalling project. Problem is, the "estimated completion date" goes back a year each time!

[Btline]

As for Worcester, it needs another road bridge.

No, it doesn't. This is 2009, we're past the time when the way to deal with road congestion was to facilitate more of it.

Worcester does need another bridge, but fortunately, it's getting one: http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=151

Completing the ring road around Worcester would not facilitate more congestion. It would take a huge amount of traffic out of the City Centre streets, making the city greener for all! Any extra traffic generated could be accommodated on the relatively quiet A449 roads to the North of Worcester.

I'm no fan of road projects over rail, but bypasses are an absolute necessity in this day and age. The Bewdley Bypass is one example of a road that has really helped, without causing new traffic bottlenecks.

The bridge at Worcester is overloaded. Holt bridge also gets queues in the evening peak, and is vulnerable and of limited use. A new bridge to the North of Worcester is required NOW. Traffic in Worcester is dire (e.g. queues from 1pm - 7pm) - we need to get the remaining through traffic OUT onto a ring road!

[Don]

I gather that the next river bridge to be built in Worcester is a footpath one at Diglis.  The County Council have further plans for road bridges at the end of Hylton Road (at McDonald's) and for the northern bypass, both of which seem an excellent idea, but neither of which has any money.  The Southern bypass road and river Severn bridge were designed to be a dual carriageway, but lack of money meant that the bridge could not be afforded and so much of the dual carriageway was not built, the land required, at least, has been protected for possible future dualing if money can ever be found for (what will have to be) a replacement bridge.  The people responsible in the County Council continue to be very angry that money from central government was refused for this much needed scheme.

As for walking across the railway bridge at Worcester, there is/was a walkway below the railway level accessible by steps inside two of the bridge supports but closed off in the late 1950s - early 1960s.  The Sabrina footpath bridge was a late replacement.

Worcester needs a major railway plan and a lot of money to fund it. but this is not likely to happen before 2020+ when the signaling system is said to be replaced.  There is however an idea gaining momentum with London Midland to re-instate a set of points etc. east of Foregate Street so that both platforms can be more fully utilised as this will allow some increase in the frequency of trains that can run between Malvern and Foregate Street, this being, currently, the most pressing bottleneck and thorn in the side when trains arrive late at Worcester and have to be signaled into or through Foregate Street.