Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[willc]

Actual physical tokens, carried by the drivers in their cab, will disappear from the Cotswold Line as of August next year. Only the train staff for the Long Marston branch will remain.

I think it's somewhere back up the thread, but the future arrangement will be as follows:

Wolvercot junction to Ascott-under-Wychwood: track circuit block, as now
Ascott to Moreton-in-Marsh: absolute block, as now
Moreton-in-Marsh to Honeybourne: absolute block, with axle counters.
Honeybourne to Evesham: track circuit block
Evesham to Norton junction: token block, but using a direction lever system interlocked at the two signal boxes, so that only one train is permitted on the single-line section at a time and the drivers do not need to collect a lump of metal.

[paul7575]

Evesham to Norton junction: token block, but using a direction lever system interlocked at the two signal boxes, so that only one train is permitted on the single-line section at a time and the drivers do not need to collect a lump of metal.

That sounds rather similar to what they do on the Salisbury to Exeter singled sections, but there it's called 'tokenless block'... 

Paul

[Weston-Sub-Edge]

So access to Long Marston from the Worcester direction will be controlled from Evesham remotely by way of a colour light and feather/motorised points and from Oxford by a "GPL^▸ (Ground Position Light)" for a shunt from down to up to branch? Which box will control the "phantom" Campden Tunnel crossover? Is this a ground frame, GPL or a fictional piece of point work?

Sorry to keep banging on about this subject. There still seems to be some conjecture?

The ^200k p/a maintenance costs, quoted earlier, per set of remote points seems a liitle on the high side from a lay man's perspective. How much does a ground frame cost in comparison (inc the hut and associated paraphanalia)? The basic tarck work is the same surely?

[willc]

Evesham to Norton junction: token block, but using a direction lever system interlocked at the two signal boxes, so that only one train is permitted on the single-line section at a time and the drivers do not need to collect a lump of metal.

That sounds rather similar to what they do on the Salisbury to Exeter singled sections, bit there it's called 'tokenless block'... 

Paul

Sorry, tokens still lodged in my brain...

[willc]

So access to Long Marston from the Worcester direction will be controlled from Evesham remotely by way of a colour light and feather/motorised points and from Oxford by a "GPL^▸ (Ground Position Light)" for a shunt from down to up to branch? Which box will control the "phantom" Campden Tunnel crossover? Is this a ground frame, GPL or a fictional piece of point work?

Sorry to keep banging on about this subject. There still seems to be some conjecture?

As I said, Honeybourne's main line signals and points will be an all-electric installation worked by Evesham, so yes, logically, it should have a feather for the sidings/branch for trains from Evesham as it would be a diverging line. As for a crossover at Campden, it's never been mentioned anywhere else than that one article and I can't see what possible purpose one would serve there anyway. Only thing I'm aware of in the Chipping Campden area, other than new track and a new level crossing is that they will make passive provision for platforms for a new station, one either side of the level crossing, though this now looks a very distant prospect, as it doesn't even get a vague mention in the new Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan.

[Adrian the Rock]

...I think it's somewhere back up the thread, but the future arrangement will be as follows:

Wolvercot junction to Ascott-under-Wychwood: track circuit block, as now
Ascott to Moreton-in-Marsh: absolute block, as now
Moreton-in-Marsh to Honeybourne: absolute block, with axle counters...

Axle counters are only needed in the Down direction.  On the Up, the signaller at Moreton-in-Marsh can observe the tail lamp of arriving trains to give Train Out of Section in the normal way.  (This is obviously not possible for the Evesham signaller when Down trains reach Honeybourne, hence the need for axle counters.)

...Honeybourne to Evesham: track circuit block...

Yes, though perhaps more analogous to Intermediate Block (IB) sections.

...Evesham to Norton junction: token block, but using a direction lever system interlocked at the two signal boxes, so that only one train is permitted on the single-line section at a time and the drivers do not need to collect a lump of metal.

That sounds rather similar to what they do on the Salisbury to Exeter singled sections, but there it's called 'tokenless block'... 

This will not be the Salsibury-Exeter (and Ledbury-Shelwick Jn) tokenless block system.  It is TCB^▸ (Track Circuit Block) with an acceptance lever at Norton Jn.  Similar to the Ascott-Wolvercot and Droitwich-Stoke Works Jn sections except that axle counters will be used instead of actual track circuits.

...As I said, Honeybourne's main line signals and points will be an all-electric installation worked by Evesham, so yes, logically, it should have a feather for the sidings/branch for trains from Evesham as it would be a diverging line.

If my memory serves, the signal leading from the Up Cotswolds to the Long Marston branch will also be a position-light aspect ('cats eyes') rather than a feather, as the branch is not a passenger class line.

[willc]

No wonder they wanted to renew the lot and move signalling control to Didcot. You can only wonder if this will prove any cheaper, especially if it only lasts six years or so.

New Charlbury footbridge story here http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8620928.Charlbury_rail_station_revamp_agreed/

[Adrian the Rock]

No wonder they wanted to renew the lot and move signalling control to Didcot. You can only wonder if this will prove any cheaper, especially if it only lasts six years or so...

The main savings would be in only having to make selective changes to Moreton-in-Marsh and Ascott-under-Wychwood, rather than resignalling those completely.

Controlling it all from Didcot would undoubtedly have reduced the running costs, but that's academic if you can't afford the capital expenditure involved in achieving it.

Where did the six years come from?

[Moreton134]

I've heard in six years time Network rail plan to install ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) (currently being trialled on the Cambrian route) to the western region, so I guess that would make signals obsolete.

On a slightly different topic but does anybody know if DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) Schenker or Freightliner plan to utilise the upgraded route for the occasional or diverted through Freight?

[Weston-Sub-Edge]

Thanks Aidrian re: Honeybourne signalling specification. I had no idea a branch had to carry pax before a feather could be warranted. I'm not a fan of cats eyes signals as they are so hard to see and easily vandalised. But i'm sure they are cheaper than a full upright colour light.
Will there be any intermediate signals between Evesham and Moreton other than those protecting the crossings at Littleton and Blockley?

[willc]

Where did the six years come from?

Oxford area resignalling falls due early in the next Network Rail control period (2014-19). Worcester is also due for renewal in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) (there may be more on their thinking on Worcester in the new West Midlands and Chilterns RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy), due out in draft consultation form some time this month). They're not going to leave 50 miles of rag-tag signalling in between the two areas, whatever technology is chosen to re-equip them and the intention is still to move control to Didcot at some point, Oxford resignalling being the obvious moment. It was only with deep reluctance that they dropped full resignalling and moving to Didcot this time round. Having visited the signalling centre and seen it in action, I can understand why they wanted to make the switch. Light years away from lever frames, bells and semaphores.

On the freight side, Network Rail are keen to see more freight trains on the line, though in the short term that is likely to be increased movements in and out of Long Marston, which are effectively capped today by the limited paths available. Motorail, who operate Long Marston, are certainly keen to exploit the site's potential.

There may be the odd freight diversion but the line's loading gauge is W6, so not container train-friendly as things stand.

DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) Schenker and EWS^▸ (English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, now known as DB Schenker Rail (UK^▸ (United Kingdom))) before them have made noises about creating a freight depot in the Vale of Evesham, presumably with an eye on the amount of fruit and veg moving in and out of the area by road (especially, I imagine, the imports from the Continent for onward distribution) but nothing concrete has come of it yet.

If it was to come to fruition (sorry!) then I would have thought they might have their eye on the former Honeybourne airfield, adjacent to the old Stratford-Cheltenham line, which is nice and flat with room available and with longstanding use as business parks, with a couple of food distributors based there already. This site was suggested as a possibility in a recent letter to Modern Railways. And, of course, the bridge over the bit of line you would need to reopen to reach the site from Honeybourne station has just been renewed for the redoubling. Main problem with this site is the poor roads around it, though the same could be said for many routes used now by the local hauliers to get to and from their depots.

[stebbo]

To reach Honeybourne airfield you'd need to sort out the old level crossing just beyond the curent sidings and remove the building that's helpfully been built on the old through lines. Not saying it couldn't - or indeed shouldn't - be done. Then opens up the line back to Stratford, which I would guess could become important again.

But why did BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) let people build on trackbeds? Same problem at Cheltenham where there's a car repairer on the trackbed of the old GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) line just before the former junction with the current track, down the bottom of the station car park.

[eightf48544]

But why did BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) let people build on trackbeds? Same problem at Cheltenham where there's a car repairer on the trackbed of the old GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) line just before the former junction with the current track, down the bottom of the station car park.

I agree with you about building on old railway land, but it probably depends on who owns the land.

If the plot has been sold off and the new owner has built onit then you will need  compulsary purchase order (or modern equivalent) to recover it. If the land is still in railway ownership then the occupier will have a lease which hopefully has a break clause requiring him to give it up when required.

[IndustryInsider]

Since Tuesday, rails have been dropped either side of Blockley level crossing and on to Chipping Campden, also at Honeybourne and at least as far west as Clayfield level crossing. There did seem to be a bit of gap east of Honeybourne, but as there is no public access near the line most of the way towards Mickleton I don't know how far it goes.

There's rail been dropped on all of the route set to be re-doubled now apart from Ascott eastwards for 1.75miles and from Evesham as far as Clayfield L/C.  There are small gaps elsewhere, but to compensate there is extra rail a few metres further along - sometimes equipment in the 4 foot gets in the way.  There are overnight possessions booked for this Wednesday and Thursday specifically to drop more rail off in the Evesham to Clayfield gap.

Also, there are now three separate gangs working on the cable troughing.  Two in the Evesham-Moreton section and the other in the Ascott-Charlbury section, so I expect they could manage a couple of miles a week between them which should see the job more or less done by the time the rails start being laid in earnest.

[IndustryInsider]

Thanks Aidrian re: Honeybourne signalling specification. I had no idea a branch had to carry pax before a feather could be warranted.

You can have signals onto freight routes with the feathers or with ground position lights/cats eyes (just depends on the location, frequency of use, whether it's permissive working and so on), but you can't have passenger trains just going on GP signals without an associated main signal under normal running.