Great Malvern - the most amended service?

[whole diary]

[Mookiemoo]

glad I  working from home then!

[willc]

What is so bad about the layout at worcester?  Asking as a layman who has no idea why it causes a problem.  there seems to be plenty of sidings etc at WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) and throughput of trains doesnt seem high!

a. Not many people actually want to go to Shrub Hill, due to its poor location, that's why as many trains as possible continue to Foregate Street
b. The lines through Foregate Street are two single lines, between Shrub Hill and Tunnel junction at the east and Henwick a mile away over the river at the west, limiting the number of trains that can run and forcing situations like the 17.50 terminating at Shrub Hill, to keep the single line clear for the 18.22 to pass through Foregate Street, then the 17.50's HST^▸ (High Speed Train) runs empty into Foregate Street to work the 20.59 back to London.

The layout somehow copes with far more trains than it was presumably designed to back in the early 1970s but must be operating at the absolute limit now, as can be seen the minute something goes wrong, with knock-on problems piling up, such as trains meant to get out to Malvern being cut short.

[Deltic]

What do you think would be a reasonable layout for the Worcester area?  If the layout at Foregate Street was made fully flexible with trains able to operate from both platforms to all directions, would that suffice?  Is there room for / need for a turnback siding to the West of Foregate Street or should we retain the turnback facilities at Henwick?  Could improvements at Foregate Street allow Shrub Hill to be closed or replaced by a Parkway station on the Bristol - Birmingham main line?

[Mookiemoo]

Shrub hill could only be closed if a parkway was installed.

At foregate street it is impossible to park and almost impossible to pick anyone up - so its not just the parkers that need it.

The few times I've been picked up at foregate, my ride has had to drive the worcester loop until the train actually arrives as there is literally no waiting zone either.

Its fine if you want to shop or get a cab

[willc]

Almost anything would be better than the current layout at Worcester. If you want to see the situation now, there's a very good web page, including a diagram here http://www.roscalen.com/signals/Worcester/index.htm

Flexible operations around the triangle and at Foregate Street are far more important than where you have a turnback. Just being able to get a train past a service turning back in the other platform at Foregate Street would help enormously.

I've always been a bit dubious about the Parkway plan, because it would be a pain in the neck to reach for many people in the city - though perhaps not much more so than the existing options - and be a major generator of car traffic out in the countryside. Plus you would still have the serious limitations of Foregate Street to contend with were it to be left as the only central station, and there's little prospect of doing anything to improve matters there since Tesco stepped in and stuffed up any chance of using the old post office site to provide a far better station, including decent pick-up/set-down facilities.

You also have to persuade XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) that serving Worcester in any way shape or form is worth their while, even with the Cardiff-Birmingham 170s, never mind anything heading further afield. It's not that long ago that BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), then Central, operated Nottingham-Cardiff trains via Shrub Hill every couple of hours but looking at XC's network map now you could be forgiven for thinking that the area between Birmingham and Cheltenham was some barren, depopulated wasteland. They don't want anything to do with Bromsgrove or Ashchurch/Tewkesbury, even though these are on the main line anyway.

And unless/until Cotswold Line redoubling reaches Norton Junction, I don't think anyone is overly keen to add more stops on a single-line section.

[Mookiemoo]

Looked at the link

I'm not a railway bod or enthusiaast - doesnt explain to me why there are so many tracks at WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) never used or under used but nothing goes through

Look - WOS is MAYBE a 10 minute walk from foregate - I've done it myself many times and I'm not the fittest.

Maybe a shuttle bus service?  from WOS  to the bus station at the crown gate centre?
Has to be cheaper than a new parkway....that grotty office thing where there could be a nice multi story could revitalise WOS and there is so much land there that is not used - there has to be opportunity ......

Note - if WOS ever closed, I no longer commute - cant park at WOF

[willc]

I know there's lots of land and sidings at Shrub Hill, but the fact remains it is poorly positioned when it comes to serving the city centre and it's also pretty hard to get to or from by road during the rush hours, due to Worcester's less-than-wonderful road network.

That's why FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) want to get as many trains as they can into Foregate Street - so people trying to get to work or go shopping in the centre don't have to make that 10-minute trek down the hill - and that would probably be quicker than a bus at certain times of the day.

But pushing all those trains into Foregate Street brings you up against the problems on that track diagram - the single track connection from Shrub Hill and the lack of any connection between that line and the line from Tunnel junction until they reach Henwick. The inflexibility of that arrangement and the resulting need to get trains in and out of Foregate Street's platforms as quickly as possible, to allow other trains to pass through the bottleneck, partly accounts for the number of trains going on up the hill to Malvern, which is where we came in.

And if you turned back more Cotswold Line and Bristol/South Coast trains at Shrub Hill, then you would
a. Annoy people who wanted to get into the city centre
b. Have to run many more LM trains to and from Hereford and Malvern into Shrub Hill to make connections and reverse them there, which would chew up lots of platform capacity and extend the journey times.

[Mookiemoo]

Right - so rather than say WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) is a problem - the problem is WOF is effectively built on a bridge - and its a relatively long bridge - its elevated into WOS and out of WOS and then into WOF and then over the river - you are not going to change that - cost would be astronomical

Make WOS a proper parkway - use the spare land - build decent parking.  Put in a shuttle bus - EVEN in rush hour  a bus from WOS to (I don't know the road although I drive it all the time - out of the station, turn left, right at the lights, past pizza hut - to the roundabout across the first then - turn right then left at the lights) set the bus down there in the car park - its close as damnit to the shops and businesses.  YEs - queueing on that road to turn right onto foregate is a mare but not needed for the shopper or business users.

maybe give WOS something to make people want to go there - decent bar/foodery/eatery what ever........

[IndustryInsider]

Right - so rather than say WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) is a problem - the problem is WOF is effectively built on a bridge - and its a relatively long bridge - its elevated into WOS and out of WOS and then into WOF and then over the river - you are not going to change that - cost would be astronomical

The problem isn't so much the fact that Foregate Street is elevated, more that there are still three mechanical signalboxes within a one mile triangle of each other controlling a much rationed and restrictive track layout.

When (if!) they're finally retired and controlled from the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Signalling Centre at Saltley, modern track circuit colour light signalling and a few strategic track enhancements could provide for a huge increase in track capacity, especially if tied in with similar closures to Norton Junction, Newlands and Malvern Wells 'boxes too.  I posted a Blue Peter style diagram showing what could happen back in 2008 here: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4389059841_3f3e9e3d61_b_d.jpg

Note the reinstatement of Rainbow Hill Junction between Shrub Hill and Foregate Street, the flexibility of a turnround at Great Malvern station with one set of points added, and the bi-directional working on all lines between Henwick and Norton Junction.  Even if you didn't invest in the partial re-build of Shrub Hill as my map suggests, the modest amount of extra infrastructure required (a lot of signals and cables, but not much extra track) would provide a huge increase in track capacity - I've not done the sums, but I would guess the number of trains through Shrub Hill and Foregate Street could at least be doubled.

Coupled with parking improvements at Shrub Hill, you would have a situation that actually promotes Worcester rather than being considered a bit of a make-well-and-do embarrassment!

[Mookiemoo]

Could you plese put up a disclaimer for that link!

Thank god I'm at home and not in the office!

I see your blue peter diagram - and a few images of bondage, group fornication, and the most impressive member I ever seen.

Almost gives a girl the vapours.

Seems to be the free version of the software that does that!

[Deltic]

When (if!) they're finally retired and controlled from the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Signalling Centre at Saltley

Not Gloucester?

[IndustryInsider]

Could you plese put up a disclaimer for that link!

My apologies.  There were no such banners when I uploaded it - typical free image hosters!    I've uploaded it onto a different host and amended the link above!

When (if!) they're finally retired and controlled from the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Signalling Centre at Saltley

Not Gloucester?

I thought Worcester was coming under Saltley, but I might be wrong?

[willc]

Saltley is planned to take over eventually, there's a diagram of its full proposed area at the bottom of this pdf http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/west%20midlands%20and%20chilterns/west%20midlands%20and%20chilterns%20rus%20baseline%20information/16%20wm%20and%20c%20rus%20-%20challenges%20and%20opportunities.pdf

While Insider's diagram neatly illustrates how you solve the capacity problems which afflict services through Worcester at present, you are still stuck with the wider questions of providing better north-south long-distance services and Shrub Hill v Parkway. I've expressed my scepticism about the Parkway idea but I'm equally sceptical about saying Shrub Hill can fulfill that role - not without far better road links around the city, including another central river crossing, it can't, and there's no way that you can provide new high-capacity roads in Worcester without destroying great swathes of housing.

And even if you did, would XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) want to bring its trains into the city? Unless that requirement is written into the next franchise document, it just won't happen.

If only the surveyors of the Birmingham-Gloucester line in the 1840s had chosen a route through Worcester in the first place...

[IndustryInsider]

Thanks for the clarification, Will.

One point I've been wondering about, with all these large Signalling Centres starting to pop up at various places on the network (most pertinent to us being the ones at Didcot and Cardiff) what would happen if there was a fire in one of them?

An unlikely event I know, but in the days of manual Signalboxes and to an extent the Power Signalboxes mostly in use today, the area controlled is reasonably small and so disruption is on a localised basis.  If, when fully operational, Didcot was to burn to the ground, are there any contingencies in place to keep the trains running, or would the whole of the eastern end of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) network grind to a halt for weeks/months?