Great Western Coffee Shop

I believe talks of a Worcester or Norton Parkway have being on the boards since the 70s. Seeing that First Great Western would probably operate the station, I think it could be discussed.

What do people on this forum think? Should it happen? Where on the Cotswold Line should it be exactly- so trains on the XC route can also call, or so trains From Worcs to Bristol can also call?

The latter would basically mean reopening Norton Junction.

Some sources say that Shrub Hill would have to close to justify this! That would be a shame, but then again, Shrub Hill is hardly convenient.

Any thoughts?  ;)

With few exceptions, the rail infrastructure in this country is Victorian, and takes very little account of how the country has developed over the last 100 years.

To successfully integrate rail  with other forms of transport, more Parkway stations are needed.

With reference to Worcester, I have always thought it odd the XC trains go from Bristol->Cheltenham->Birmingham and miss out Worcester. Why?

New Parkway stations at Worcestor and Gloucester/Cheltenham could link XC+FGW services with local transport systems. This has got to be beneficial to everyone in the area.

Not brilliant with the track up there but I thought XC avoided Worcester and went via Bromsgrove?

The obvious location is at the intersection of the Cotswold line with the XC mainline from Birmingham to the South West. This is within a mile of M5 J6 so is ideal to capture Bromsgrove / Droitwich / Tewkesbury people as well as Worcester. Warwick Parkway has a similar advantage on the Chiltern line.

Advantages would be many, in terms of Worcester as neither station has good car parking, nil at Foregate Street, very limited at Shrub Hill. Worcester access to the XC South West ^ Birmingham & points north would be a great benefit, plus the Cotswold & Hereford lines could have connections to this route.

The Cotswold line could capture customers from Tewkesbury, Bromsgrove, Droitwich (all on the M5), this would be an alternative to Birmingham International / Warwick Parkway for the latter two towns. However it is pointless driving greater demand on the Cotswold line without upgrading it and if not doubling it all the way then at least through to Evesham and maybe Hanborough to Wolvercote. This would get the required bandwidth for at least hourly services in either direction.

However Shrub Hill may still be required as using this location at Norton would be slightly too far from the South West ^ Worcester line junction and trains through to Kidderminster / Stourbridge would not have a Worcester connection (without reversal at Foregate Street).
 
I only found this forum yesterday & was surprised at the thread regarding doubling the Wolvercote ^ Norton section in its entirety. When these topics are discussed freight is frequently ignored (no mention at all as far as I can tell), nor are the proposed housing developments at both Long Marston & Throckmorton considered. The latter also has a huge waste disposal area which may benefit from a rail connection. I think this should to be regarded more holistically than just a remedy for the current service on this line.

Arriva's XC services don't stop at Worcester, but for diversion reasons the Train Crew know the routes via Worcester SH and then back to Bromsgrove, or via Kidderminster to Birmingham New St.

Stupid that none of XC services call at Worcester SH!

Which explains my twilight zone morning when the PAD train was diveerted via cheltenham and I saw a XC service going through shrub

Welcome to the forum, Andy W.

While I accept that freight is sometimes not mentioned in topics where it could be relevant, you can rest assured that we do take freight issues seriously, and have discussed them at length, both on this forum, and our sister forum Save The Train.

You will also find several topics on both forums that consider housing developments relevant to rail issues.

I am glad I have started a good discussion (!).

I would be happy for the station to open, but have two problems:

*I can't see XC wanting to stop many trains- the XC route needs speeding up as it is, and making additional call will not help this. It may also make the overcrowding worse (as B'ham commuters forget the 2 car 170 at Shrub Hill, and head for the 4 car voyager/8 car HST at Parkway!). And as for sending XC trains via Shrub Hill!!!!!!!!

*I cannot see the demand for another station. Currently, Shrub Hill is the "park and ride" station for commuters, but the majority of these customers live in the East of Worcester/near to the bypass/near to the M5; cannot get a space anyway, and hate the Inner City traffic, so would forget Shrub Hill altogether.

I definatley believe that the station should be on the intersection. It is a shame, however, that Worc to Bristol trains won't be able to stop!

One benefit is that the station WOULD catalyse the redoubling of the Cotswold line- starting with Norton Junction to Parkway (only a few chains, I know), and then continuing to Evesham soon after!

Hmmmmmm- would Tewksbury Parkway sorry Ashchurch for Tewkesbury see a reduction if all Cardiff-Nottingham trains called here? Ie, would Cross Country rob Peter to give to Paul (I can also see Tiverton losing out- anything to make up the time!)?

Yeah- Worcester parkway looks good on electronic paper, but what would the consequences be?

XC call at WSH in the "early" morning...

Btline poses a good question, and you could argue that the process of reducing Ashchurch XC services has already started (link below.)
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1342.msg7434#msg7434

Not the reading virgin train!

Just back from Liverpool this afternoon - Manchester to Pymouth train from Stafford to Bristol Parkway.  On time at Stafford, at for quarter of an hour at New Street long after everyone had got on and off, save Tewkesbury Abbey in the distance as we passed through Ashchurch non-stop. Long station stop at Cheltenham.  And we were in our car and driving away from Parkway before the train actually carried on ...

Hmmmm- there is a heck of a lot of slack in the XC timetable- I suppose that's one good thing! It might not be too bad for journey times.

Which trains do you think would call? Would the peak B'ham trains use xxxxu and xxxxs, to stop overcrowding? What about the Cotswold Line?

I also read somewhere that Central Train services (ie London Midland) would extend some of there services down (mainly, I suspect, to encourage less people to use Shrub Hill).

I suppose XC could make some time savings by building "Gloucestershire Parkway" and axing some Cheltenham and Gloucester stops!

No- this Worcester Parkway topic is tricky- no wonder they've got nowhere in the last 30 years!

VT dropped gloucester for exactly the same reasons they dont serve worcester.

I can't see them changing it.

Personally, I think that there is a case for all Cardiff-Nottingham trains to call at Ashchurch, and I would like to think that the recent petition demonstrated that there is plenty of support for that aim.

It has also been said that Worcester Parkway would be ideal to capture the Bromsgrove folks. If that is the case, it is interesting that Network Rail put aside up to ^10m to fund building a relocated station there (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6525533.stm

Lee, thanks for the reply.

Btline, if the station / car park was built in the triangle bounded by the Cotswold line, the XC line and the Abbots Wood Loop, platforms could be built on the Abbots Wood loop catering for Worcester - Bristol traffic.

Would XC trains stop? I'm sure they would given the catchment area and potential incremental business.

As for Ashchurch, they are already suffering. I can't see trains stopping very often at both but an either / or with Worcester getting the lions share.

Commuters from Worcester to Birmingham would by & large choose the fast line, but pricing could control demand to an extent.

It is interesting to note that Worcester Parkway was mentioned in the Cross Country Franchise Consultation Document :


Here is its write-up in the SRA Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/strategy/greatwesternmainlinerouteuti3510


The Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy is due to be updated by Network Rail, and their assessment will undoubtably be key to the schemes' chances of success.


Our campaign for more Ashchurch services continues, and we will give it our best shot.

Definitely- these trains are only semi-fast anyway so I do not understand the justification for XC to cut stops. As for Ashchurch, re-naming it "Tewkesbury Parkway" would be good, as some timetables/announcements to not acknowledge the proximity to a large town that is present (Lee, also note that the "summary booklet" for XC does not include Ashchurch despite "including all XC statins from x to y and z to Bristol!).

FGW should also extend some of its HSTs to Worcester Shrub Hill (calling at Ashchurch). Really, they bother reversing at Gloucester only for the train to terminate at Cheltenham!

This would facilitate more convenient commuting from Gloucestershire to Worcester- a link that is not exploited as well as it could be IMO.

1. Ok- that would be a big station site!

2. Yes- my concern is the journey times and the fact that services will be packed already!

3. Commuters don't like pricing control (thumbs up).

See Stage Three of my West Fleet plan (link below.)
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1407.msg8181#msg8181

As I've said before I don't agree with the Gloucester / Cheltenham parkway idea at all, because it does nothing but cater for the car. I wouldn't want to have to get the bus from there to Cheltenham, I want to get a train to Cheltenham itself...and by pulling away the XC services it will have a negative impact on the town as a whole.

I do agree with the Worcester parkway idea though as Worcester's centre would still be served well by Foregate street. And I would like FGW's London HST services to go to Worcester as to provide a decent service to there and Ashchurch.

Not sure about extensions to Foregate Street. Yes- it is more central. No- it has a short platform and No- there is not enough capacity with the current infrastructure,which is abysmal! Now Cotswold services which are 180- yes, they can fit on (and yes I suppose yes to Thames Turbos!)!

I also don't like the PPMs (totally off subject!). It just seems to me that you have given up on a line when you take off the trains and bonk down buses on rails (even more bus like than the Sprinters and Pacers). Closure seems imminent! Then again, with Stourbridge, it will free up a 153 which can strengthen Snow Hill services (or they could even transfer it to TransWilts- LM don't really NEED it (although it could be useful!))

Wo! Quite a wide topiced (sorry, new verb!) post!

Quite agree! But the Gloucs Parkway would speed up services.

Thanks for the reply Btline, you're right it would be a large site, however with a good size car park a significant proportion of the traingle would be occupied.

Regarding packed trains, it is about time many trains were strengthened. Virgin were notorious replacing older stock with far lower capacity sets, i.e. on cross country replacing HSTs with Voyagers (4 or 5 car sets) and on the WCML the old push-pull MK3 sets with Pendilinos (which they are now refusing to upgrade without a franchise extension). Sorry -a bit off topic.

Lee, the business case is interesting 'The business case is currently poor due to low forecast levels of patronage' , I wonder which comes first in the civil service, the statistics to support a decision or a decision to support the statistics!!!

It wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference to journey times.

only 1 long distance XC train serves gloucester each day. For the exact same reason that Worcester doesnt get any XC services.

Regarding Foregate Street, the plan does contain a general disclaimer that not everything in it may be possible exactly as I describe it. Also, Stage Three is the period starting from the end of the current FGW franchise, so, in this section, I have allowed the vision to widen somewhat (within reason.) After all, who knows what infrastructure improvements (or not) may have been implemented by then? For example, I might have to factor in improved Cotswolds line services based on a completed double-tracking scheme....

Remember too that HST2 will (hopefully) be on the horizon by Stage Three.

I would have no problem with HST's terminating at Shrub Hill instead, if necessary. This is what the new hourly Class 158 Chippenham-Worcester services proposed in Stage Two do.

Severn Beach? This is a major issue that needs to be resolved, and what you see with the Stage Three proposals is a "best shot" at compromise. Feedback received is divided roughly 50/50 between those who want to see hourly to Severn Beach/hourly via Henbury,  and those who want to see half hourly via Henbury.

Here is a link regarding the PPM proposal, which (as with any proposal to significantly improve services to Severn Beach) is likely to require signalling alterations in the Avonmouth area, in order that freight and passenger trains can co-exist.
http://www.fosbr.org.uk/Topic.htm

Worcester Does have XC Servcies..

Monday to Friday

0540 XC Service to Cardiff Central, Starts at Worcester Shrub Hill..
0617 XC Service to Cardiff Central, starts at Birmingham New Street at 0530

Saturday

0540 XC Service to Cardiff Central, Starts at Worcester Shrub Hill..
0617 XC Service to Cardiff Central, starts at Birmingham New Street at 0530

Sunday

0935 XC Service to Cardiff Central, Starts at Worcester Shrub Hill
1224 XC Service to Gloucester, Starts from Birmingham New Street at 1130


Return Journey


Monday to Friday

2241 XC Service Terminates from Gloucester, Forms First Service the Follwing Morning

Saturday

2154 XC Service that Terminates from Gloucester and Forms First Service on Sunday's.
2222 XC Service to Birmingham New Street, orginates from Cardiff at 2050.

Sunday

2140 XC Service that Terminates from Cardiff, and Forms First Service on Monday to Friday


So theyre you go, any one that says no XC Services call At Worcester, they acutualy do, also i have seen a 2-Car XC 170 Stabled overnight, at WOS Depot..


Many Thanks...

Unfortunately, these services are to be AXED soon.  >:(

Worcester Parkway would see their return.  ;D

Dreaming a bit what about platforms where the Midland Line crosses the Cotswold line a la Galton Bridge and platforms on the Bristol loop as well. Then everything could stop.

Too ambitious probably, bring back IKB.

Support for the Worcester Parkway project is increasing with local councils, MP's and rail bodies showing a marked interest. Show your support by logging on to http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/WorcesterParkway/

Hi, freebo125, and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  :)

As long as it doesn't have semaphore signalling :D

I take it that you are happy for Shrub Hill station to close?

It is a shame that Worcester - Bristol trains would never get a chance to stop.

I would hope the station would be built in co-ordination with redoubling and resignalling works between Worcester and Evesham.

Hi

It would make sense for two parkway stations to be added

Gloucester/Cheltenham
Worcester

and for all trains from Bristol to Birmingham to stop at

Bristol TM
Bristol PW
Gloucester PW
Ashchurch
Worcester
Birmingham NS

I know the two extra stops would add time to this route, but it would add justifciation for increasing frequency and train sizes for Cross Country.

That is three extra stops. There are no Cross Country Voyagers that call at Ashchurch and I can see absolutely no way its going to happen!

Perhaps a fleet of class 172s could be ordered and run every half hour calling:
Bristol Temple Meads
Filton Abbey Wood
Bristol Parkway
Yate (Peak)
Cam & D (Peak)
Gloucester
Cheltenham Spa
Aschurch
Worcester FGS
Bromsgrove
Barnt Green (peak)
University
Birmingham New Street

This then removes the need for current FGW units to serve north of Bristol Parkway. Any Open Access operators out there??

Good idea, DM.

Although I am not sure about "Worcester FGS!" :o

It would have to be Shrub Hill. ;)

But why bother building a Gloucester Parkway? Why not call this train at both Cheltenham and Gloucester?

Is it worth spending billions to shave a few minutes of this local train?

Oh - and London Midland should run it.

Er, never too sure with the Worcester stations. Shameful  :-[

I'd say an open access TOC would provide better value for Money :P

Whilst I listed three extra stops, I dropped the current Cheltenham stop.

In recent years, significant office and residential development has occurred near the M5 between Gloucester and Cheltenham. The local infrastructure in place means that these customers have no reasonable access to local and national train services, and to cap it all parking in Gloucester and Cheltenham is a nightmare.

Creating a new Gloucester Parkway station near the M5 would be beneficial to many people in that area.

I have always been surprised that Cross Country do not call at Worcester, and again a Parkway station would be beneficial.

Whilst I accept that Ashchurch does not need a 30 minute service north and south, it does need more trains than it gets now, again the recent office and residential development near the station is an opportunity to persuade people to commute by train, not car!

 

But people need to get into Cheltenham City Centre as well!

for what its worth i just signed it

Probably worth taking a look at some of the arguments here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2976.0

 ;D Thank you relex 109 for signing the petition @ number10. Worcester has had to endure second rate rail services particularly to the south west for years. Even the present timetable on weekdays leaves a gaping hole between 0645 and 0905 when national rail enquiries advise passengers from Worcester to change at University for an arrival in Cheltenham of 0845 (a commuters nightmare).
I will always remain fond of Shrub Hill station but it has outlived its usefulness and now stands as a victorian dinosaur. Turn off the mainline at Abbotswood Junction and you enter a 19th Century world of semaphores and tokens...a working museum if you like, which has no place in a modern 21st Century railway.

You are right that Shrub Hill is not that useful.

But there is the problem of the extra trains at Foregate Street (at least 1-2 per hour), that would result from the closure of Shrub Hill.

Some sort of bay platform would need to be built at WOF - and due to recent "short sighted" developments, there is no space. :'(

I would also expect more trains from Parkway (or maybe Evesham) into Worcester would be needed as well.

And the track layout would need sorting at Worcester as well.

So - quite costly!

Worcester is due to be resignalled soon (at last ::) ). Down with the semaphores! ;D

WOS resignalled soon??? Where did you hear that?  I thought it was generally agreed that it will be at least another 15 years. Tell all! ;D

I am sure that on one of the "redoubling" threads mentions this.

And NR's report also indicates it is on the cards.

TBH they should do it tomorrow - Worcester is a bottleneck and it delays trains.

I suspect you're thinking of the topic at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3425.0 regarding resignalling at Worcester.  ;)

ASHCHURCH STATION
A preliminary meeting is being organised on Tuesday, 12 January at 7.00 at Northway Parish Council Offices, Ray Shill Building, Lee Walk, Northway for anyone interested in helping to set up a 'Friends of Ashchurch Railway Station' organisation. The organisation will be concerned with promoting Ashchurch Station, encouraging rail companies to stop more often at the station etc.

This is an open meeting and further information can be obtained from Alistair Cameron on 01242 584081 or 07901 564616.

Whats this got to do with Worcester Parkway?? Nothing - can it be removed to keep this thread relevant?

There's an awful lot of Ashchurh talk upthread  ;)

Seriously - it's the next station and extra stops at Worcseter Parkway might have a negative impact on Aschurch for Tewkesbury, so you could argue that it is relevant; I am inclined to leave the post here.   You will note that there's a very similar thread at
          http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6077.0
and that's already got comment from me welcoming the new poster, but suggesting that (s)he not crosspost too much, and I expect this duplication won't recur.

This thread hasn't wandered half as far as some others ... lets' continue to discuss appropriate services to the various stations around Worcstershire and on into Gloucestershire in the various threads.

AXC have stated they will never stop additionally on this route. They consider themselves a long distance service, not one that regularly stops every 20 minutes....

So you need to lobby your MPs / DfT to get these stops added to the next franchise.

That's odd. They average a stop every 15 mins between Bournemouth and Manchester.  So that supposed rule must depend on the way the wind is blowing or something...

Paul

Try that argument on AXC, not me.....I'm only repeating their reasoning to me....

Look, XC are a long distance operator. They WON'T stop their Voyagers at Ashchurch, and shouldn't either!

I would even support them if they refused to call at Worcester (Norton) Parkway (if it ever opens). Yes - that's coming from someone who would use the station! Some TOCs keep adding extra stops here and there, slowing down the service. Hats off to TOCs like VT, CH and XC that cut stops!

Bravo chaps, lets inconvenience some of our customers!

And inconveniencing even more that are already flying straight past on a fast, long distance operator if you add extra stops.....I'm with BTLIne on this.

I'm with him as well - up to a point. It's all a little pie in the sky anyway as any Worcester Parkway station is several years off if it ever does happen, but I would have thought that the size of the city would warrant a 2tph service in each direction? I doubt it would be worth building the station if the only trains stopping there were the hourly Nottingham to Cardiff XC service (not Voyager operated).

Of the 2tph in each direction that are Voyager operated I would suggest XC might find it worthwhile stopping one of them, logically the shorter distance Bristol-Manchester service, although as the timetable is currently configured the Plymouth to Edinburgh (and its variants) would offer a slightly better spread set of departure times.

I'm with him up the point with regard to adding extra stops. However as has happened on VWC established stops on services have vanishes making it impossible to travel from various parts of the Midlands to the north as stops have been removed and thus people are moved onto local service and then have to change. People are far more inclined to take a direct trains and I suspect many passengers who were forced to make changes will be back in their cars.

These people are still in a minority. Most people are going to/from London. However, stops at Nuneaton* and Tamworth* should be included with the second Liverpool train, and any other Glasgow/Blackpool trains of the future.

I agree that stopping the Cardiff - Nottingham service would be a good idea. Stopping XC trains that terminate at Bristol would be ok (less impact on long distance journey times) but would offer fewer direct destinations to Worcestershire passengers.

*Most people would be going to and from London with these stops as well!

You'd be surprised how many people still use SH if they are being dropped off/collected by car/taxi.  Far handier for that than FS.


The sensible option - with or without resignalling - would be to run the trains on to Great Malvern and turn them round there.


Probably the 'minimalist' solution would just be to double the track from Norton Jct to Parkway, with the up line bi-directional.  This would allow the Snow Hill line trains that currently terminate at SH to terminate there without preventing a down Cotswold line train being in section from Evesham at the same time.


BOO!    ::)

The biggest issue for Worcester Parkway would be the A4440 road between the nearby A44 and Powick.  This should have always been a dual carriageway with a flyover at the A38 junction, but the silly NIMBY council didn't want to over-encourage road traffic.  Parkway would attract traffic from west of the river this making this stretch an even bigger snarl than it already is.

The Parkway plan has got strong backing in the new South Worcestershire Development Plan http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9102529.MPs_back_new_transport_plans/

I note this vote of confidence for the station scheme in the South Worcestershire Development Plan Preferred Options Document (http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=7600)

From Worcester News (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9471394.MP_calls_for_London_train_shake_up/):

Might be worth posting her submission from her website here too.

She's not very clued-up is Mrs Baldwin.

From Worcester News (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/archive/2012/01/14/001_news_latest_evesham/9467861.MPs_unite_on_rail_line/):


And, as suggested by ChrisB, the consultation submission made by Harriett Baldwin MP is available on her website, at http://www.harriettbaldwin.com/content/mp-sets-out-case-improved-london-train-service.

Are trhese numbers reasonable for an hourly service?

It rather depends on where else the service goes / what the numbers are like for Worcester and Hereford, Moreton-in-Marsh, Kingham and the rest, doesn't it?

35,000 journeys annually works out at 100 journeys per day, and spread over an hourly service running for 15 hours per day, I make that an average of 2 people getting off and two people getting on each train that calls at Honeybourne.    Pershore's figures look better, and Evesham better still.  But with various strong growth forecasts for train travel it will make a huge difference if those are current figures, 2014 estimates or 2028 guesses.

If traffic continues to grow as it has done (just over 10% per annum) until the end of the next franchise, 200,000 journeys this year would rise to around a million by the end of the franchise - with 45 people getting off and 45 people getting on the 'average' train at Evesham if served hourly.

But which comes first - the proverbial egg or chicken?

Of course it would be nice to get an hourly service - but I think in the straightened times, evidence of at least a latent demand needs to be shown in any submission like this.....?

Personally speaking - and I've said it before - I justy don't believe that making it an hourly service from Worcester/Evesham would generate very much more traffic to London. Unless this second train became (very) limited stop and could achieve sub-two hours (maybe 15 minutes longer than that?) on a regular basis.

Otherwise pax will *still* drive to railheads that provide a faster service end-to-end.

OK ... I'm not a Cotswolds expert and can't talk to specific forecasts. But your chicken and egg analogy is a good one.

"You can't have an improvement in the train service until you provide PROOF that it will work" seems to be a well banged (almost worn out) drum.  And - yes, I have shouted "proof".  Provide an industrial-strength consultants report giving a benefit to cost ratio of 2.74, surveys organised by the Chambers of Commerce showing 600 regular commuters and 360 additional journeys per day at the weekend, and you get the response "that's all very well in theory, but it's not proof".   Sponsor an extra train on Summer Sundays mornings, and end up with people standing for hours routinely every weekend, even though you have reduced advertising to a level far lower than you intended, and it's still "that doesn't prove it for the rest of the week ...".  What's needed to break the cycle?  Fifty people standing on the platform every day waiting for a train that's not scheduled and never shows?

It used to be said "no-one ever got fired for specifying IBM".  Perhaps in the decision making process of rail management, with such contorted systems that no-one finds it easy to make changes, there's a feeling of "no-one every got fired for maintaining the status quo"?  With a notable exception that at the very top - ministerial - level, some big and bold decisions are made - looking after the pounds, but not really bothering with the pennies, if you like.   And indeed in the consultation document, among the six objectives to be discussed are:
and
neither of which are exactly suggesting moves to encourage more passengers - if anything, it gives the flavour of the opposite where the rolling stock constraints are worthy of a mention, whereas passenger numbers are not.

I am not a "conspiracy threory" type person, but it doesn't half look at times as if the system is being run to make it as hard as possible to ever add services that will bring in new passengers, because there's a fear of there not being enough rolling stock to cope with rising demand all over.  Perhaps we've made too good a case for the TransWilts. Perhaps there's someone looking at Yate (population 21,000, reopened station with a decent service and 247k journeys per year) and fearing the effect on stock allocation if an appropriate service was run in Wiltshire. What's feared? Melksham, population around 24,000 ... and with our estimates that for each Melksham journey there 2 more journeys from north of there to south of there. So that's 750,000 journeys a year. Or 125 people on average per train at 10 each way per day - that's a nearly-full 150!

Sorry folks - I've moved off the Cotswold / Hourly service here, but the comparison and analogy are a good one, and perhaps there are lessons for us to learn across.   I'll clone a copy of this off into the TransWilts if it takes off in that direction.

There's also the Evesham/Pershore to Worcester/Malvern market that is untapped. A reliable hourly/half hour'y service would be well used by day trippers, commuters, shoppers and theatre goers.

Worcestershire Parkway should not be a priority unless XC services stop. Just put in more parking into Shrub Hill.

Yes, of course a regular hourly service would encourage more people to use the trains. However on a line such as the Cotswold Line the catchment areas of each station is very wide with little or no bus services to get people to the station of choice. That means that adequate car parking at stations is an essential item to go with an improved rail service if those extra patrons are going to be able to use those extra trains. Users and MPs keep pointing out the need for more car parking but who is to provide it? The recent Greater Western RUS makes little or no mention of investment in car parking facilities. At Hanborough there are now as many cars parked outside the station on the public highway as the official station car park can hold but a bid for an additional car park in the ^100M station income generating capital fund failed. As a result anyone arriving after 07.30 will find all car parking, official or unofficial gone. As a result the off-peak use of trains, except on a Saturday when the commuters are still at home in bed, has shown little change and people in West Oxon use the mostly excellent local bus services to get to Oxford (from Witney & Carterton) where they can catch an express coach departing every 5 minutes to London. This often takes more than twice the time of the train but that is the most viable option.

From Worcester News (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/10157518.Calls_for_bosses_to_back_bid_for_station/):

The other thing that may affect the Cotswold line is the Parkway station on the Oxford Marylebone service. It could well abstract passengers from  Hanborough and possibly  Moreton and maybe Eversham.

But then, if under our crazy system, rail has to compete with rail then by logic you should have hourly services  on both the Cotswolds and Oxford Parkway

No news for the Worcester area again in the next round of network rail plans, its like living in a time warp. Did I mention about the time on a Sunday a year or two back when I was up at Shrub Hill Station for a look around? There were no trains in the station at the time. A smartly dressed gentleman came over and spoke to me with a strong American accent and looking at the old semafore signals at the north end of the station he asked if this was part of the Severn Valley Railway!! I had to explain that 'no this was in fact one of Worcester's state of the art rail stations'. So do visitors tend to think of our worcester rail stations as a heritage railway ??

It is not just Worcester Parkway that has been left out of last week's NR announcements. In the NR Western RUS publication it was stated that NR had an "aspiration" to complete the Cotswold Line redoubling from Charlbury to Oxford (when the Oxford area resignalling project has been completed, this being the current stumbling block). There was no mention of this aspiration last week. I suspect that many other aspirations have been dropped due to the many infrastructure works necessary for the electrification project.

An earlier post here referred to the need to improve journey times - so we come back to the old chestnut of having some services not stop at Pershore, Honeybourne, Hanborough, Reading etc......

I'm sure "Worcester Area Re-signalling" was in CP5 a while ago, now it's vaguely in CP6, give it a couple more years and it will be in CP7 and so on...

Worcester resignalling is listed in a internal Network Rail document dated 14/01/2013, as going into Saltley in 2020 which is CP6.  The Cotswold line boxes going to Didcot a year before.

The document states on the cover, time-scales may change subject to money being available.

For Charlbury to Wolvercote see my post in new topic Stratford - Honeybourne

This was never a real stumbling block other than Wolvercote / Norton junctions would need to be kept as is. Otherwise the redoubling should have been at the ends (where new business can be generated) not the middle which should be more lightly used.
Worcester Parkway is more about north / south opportunities than the Cotswold line.Spot on - unless there is an Express service (peak hours) Warwick Parkway / B'Ham International are not only speedy but also frequent. Remember you are already driving to the station by & large so driving further, although not ideal, is a price worth paying.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-21508915?):

I wonder whether this scheme is quite as 'shovel ready' as others, for example Kenilworth?

Not some much 'shovel read' as 'wet dream' sadly

Worcestershire County Council has, I hear, engaged consultants to try and push the Parkway project forward.

Like the consultants engaged to dream up the Stratford to Honeybourne re-opening? How much money do councils spend on consultants?

Speaking as a Worcestershire ratepayer, I'm glad to hear that they're employing consultants. I'd be complaining if they were using their own staff - this is specialised work and I would not expect the County Council (indeed, any County Council) to have the necessary skills.

The fact that they've gone out to consultants does mean that the scheme isn't 'shovel-ready', for which you would already have the necessary report identifying exactly what needed to be done by way of building, car parking and road access.

From the Malvern Gazette (http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/10246313._/?):

From Worcester News (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/10250828.Cash_for_new_railway_station_under_threat/):


Some savings could of course be achieved by using narrow gauge, as the picture illustrating that particular Worcester News article seems to infer ...  ::)

Anyone could have seen from the detailed guidance available online that Worcester Parkway could not possibly have met the requirements of the recent offer of ^20m for 'new stations'.  They had to be ready to go and buildable by the end of CP4, ie end of next March.

No real point at all in applying if a project was not ready to go 'by next week', IMHO...

Paul

Spot on Paul - even this thread has been running over 5 years and nothing other than endless talking has been done.

AFAIK there are no definitive plans, I don't believe there has been any planning application put in - the concept that it is a ready to run project is a pretty much a joke.

Oh and the last time I looked ^7m wasn't less than ^5m but it indicates how inept Councils can be.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Worcester Parkway doesn't look like it's about to make the final approved list of stations from the government's new stations fund.  Surprisingly, perhaps, nor does Kenilworth, with the three probably candidates being Ilkeston (Derbyshire), Pye Corner (Newport West) and Lea Bridge in Walthamstow.  Hopefully this scheme will be extended in future years to allow the likes of Worcester Parkway and Kenilworth to open sooner rather than later.

Not a bad idea. It would encourage local authorities to have well-worked plans ready to go, rather than the usual piecemeal approach to such projects.

They do like to drip-feed these things... I still think it's likely that the Avonmouth Park and Ride will get its 5/-.

Administrator note:

Subsequent post on this topic, relating specifically to the possibility of a new station at Kenilworth, have been split off and moved to a new topic of their own, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12495.0  :)

From the Malvern Gazette (http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/11222240.New_parkway_rail_station_is_now__closer_than_ever_/?ref=ar):

(My emboldening)
Sounds like we might have an NHS story as well as a railway one here.

Frankly, Worcestershire aren't particularly using the existing direct services to London....it's not more they want (yet), but faster current ones....if the demand is actually there.

Matthew Golton (of FGW) reported to CLPG AGM last Saturday that Cotswold Line annual usage had increased from 3.? users in 2010 to 5.? users in 2013 - that is around a 60% increase but much of that will have been at the Oxon end of the line and much of that increased use being commuting to London as lots of outer London and Bucks and Berks people have been relocating to West Oxon (and other localities further away from London). As a Hanborough resident I do not know much about Worcestershire rail use increases but at Hanborough the business is growing rapidly with the new car park opened less than a year ago now b eing used to about 80% of capacity.

Indeed, my belief is that 80+% of the CL increase is Oxfordshire & Gloucestershire (Moreton-in-Marsh & surrounds) based....every journey I've made west of M-I-M has seen very few on the HSTs...

Historically, from my observations over nearly 25 years travelling from Hereford, Evesham and latterly Kingham, there always was a pretty decent usage as far as Kingham.

Of course, from the Hereford/Worcester travellers' point of view things used to be better still before more stops were introduced. (Thought I'd lob that as I know it excites some readers............)

Please don't encourage / provoke him ...  ;) :D ;D

Steady, now!

Valid topic of discussion though........

FGW will introduce more stops if it thinks ihe net consequences would be to increase revenue. Over the years additional stops have been put in that does have an impact on timings but so often the factor influencing this is that they don't want the trains arriving off the CL when the connecting line is busy. Removing many current stops to speed up services could be achieved in some cases but if FGW loses revenue from those stops removed in excess of any additional revenue that could be generated from a faster service, it will not want to remove such stops. It is just straight business economics coming into play.

Agreed, also do they really think stopping on the single line with all that may inherently introduce by way of delays & extra minutes taken to travel the single section in an idea conducive to extra stops? I don't

Could someone tell me what the passenger figures for Pershore and Honeybourne are? Pershore is out of town and has little parking. Honeybourne is not exactly a metropolis and has limited car parking.

I'd agree Hanborough has been a real success and badly needs a longer platform - or two...................... 

From the Evesham Journal (http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/11325715.At_last___Worcestershire_Parkway_part_of___53m_cash_injection_for_county/):

The subject line ought to be retitled Worcestershire Parkway.....seems as the project has been widened to try and emulate Warwick Parkway, which it'll never do.

This pointless station will either become a white elephant, or will extract users from existing stations to the extent they are closed.

(a) It's miles away from most of the population of Worcester, and people will have to hack along the clogged up Southern bypass to access the station. Are there that many conveniently placed villages that will use it? It's not like it has the location/road links of Warwick Parkway!

(b) It adds YET ANOTER >:( stop for Hereford and Malvern commuters, already tortured to extinction by stops at Hanborough etc.

(c) The Cotswold line does not offer a frequent enough service to act as a good connecting service, so there will be little new traffic on the Cotswold line. And foolish commuters who do change here will be left stranded in the middle of nowhere, probably with just a bus shelter for company...

(d) CrossCountry will not want to slow down the already pitifully slow service from the South West into Birmingham. No doubt the stops will be slapped on the Cardiff to Nottinghams, causing outrage due to extended journey times (and capacity once the train reaches Bromsgrove.)

(e) If will be urban sprawl in open countryside and - no doubt - acres of fields will be bulldozed by greedy developers for new homes.

A better solution, just needing some extra stock:

*Extend a Snow Hill line service to Gloucester every hour (calling at Tewksbury)
*Add a second hourly New Street to Worcester service (with calls at Bromsgrove/ Barnt Green) and extend to Pershore and Evesham (redoubling required).
*Improve car parking at Shrub Hill to encourage use of the Bham service.

This provides better links across Worcestershire - including the much desired link to Cheltenham for XC connections south.
It also stops the extraction of passengers at Shrub Hill that will occur, and the crush loading of XC services into Birmingham.

Indeed, Warwick Parkway is a trifling three miles from the M40, whereas this new station will be an unthinkable, er, 1.5 miles from the M5.


Though if they're extinct, they won't really mind, given that they don't exist any more.

(Personally I doubt I'll use it much, but only because the fares will presumably be set by CrossCountry and therefore on the high side - if I wanted to go north and was willing to pay CrossCountry fares, I'd travel via Oxford. I'm not, so I go via Worcester.)

(a) Warwick Parkway's main pull is the A46 which gets commuters from Coventry, Kennilworth, Stratford, Evesham etc. The M40 also attracts Redditch, Bromsgrove and Kidderminster people.

(b) Well, an extra stop is hardly going to attract them back!

2012-2013 financial year data from the ORR

Honeybourne had 47,788 entries and exits
Pershore had 89,546 entries and exits

Interesting, so Pershore has more users than Hanborough. I'm genuinely surprised at this - although my journeys on the line for the last 3 years or so have been from Kingham to London so I've no personal experience of what's going on at the western end of the line these days.

I think that you mean Honeybourne. Hanborough had 172684 in 2012/3 and has now overtaken Kingham (169496). 

Apologies, my mistake.

Interesting photo on the BBC website where there is a reference to Worcester Parkway getting the go-ahead with a picture of a station and third rail electrification.................. Apparently the local MP is ecstatic about journeys from Worcester to London in under 2 hours.

So your argument is that either it won't have any users or it will have so many that surrounding stations will close?  I don't quite see how you can argue for both those scenarios.

Noting later you suggest that stopping the Cardiff - Nottingham services there will result in capacity problems, I think you effectively discount the white elephant option yourself.

Are you seriously suggesting that any of the surrounding stations would close. Which ones do you have in mind?

Shrub Hill - confirmed by Worcester Councillors in the past - will most likely close. The main purpose of Shrub Hill is for Park and Ride passengers to Brum and Worcester. I can't find a source but it's been reported in the papers before.

Malvern Link could also close: people in the Powick region will drive to Parkway for a faster service to Brum. This is my opinion.

Your posts on this forum are always interesting, Btline, and I do read all of them.  ;)

However, and at the risk of labouring the point: you aren't actually able to provide any credible evidence to support either of your most recent assertions?  :-X

 Great news a Worcester Parkway Station at last "what a good idea". As for Shrub Hill Station if it were to close which I would doubt ! Who would pay for the maintenance on the buildings that I think are listed, but with no trains calling!! The Park Way Station at Norton is just what the Worcester railway layout needs to bring it in to this century (a good kick up the rear). Both Worcester City Stations need to be updated to act as feeder Stations to the new Parkway Station. Perhaps London Midland trains could start calling at the Parkway Station, running to Evesham and back as has been suggested, and as passengers start to use Worcester Parkway Station this will help reduce the pressure at Birmingham New Street station a little for passengers traveling further north and south.  I don't think Malvern Link Station would close ! the passenger numbers are on the up and its just had a rebuild (very smart).

Unless something drastic is also done to Shrub Hill infrastructure, pushing more trains through there (your suggestion of LM trains to Evesham) would be a disaster in terms of operational performance...which comes first....?

Hasn't Malvern Link just had a facelift and a load of money spent on it?

I see many London Midland services come in to Worcester Shrub Hill from Birmingham and go out of service (they park on the centre track or behind platform no2) . Some of these could run out to Evesham and back in the gaps in between the FGW services calling at the parkway station. The infrastructure does need sorting out perhaps at the same time as the signalling ! This is on the cards to be done. Yes Malvern Link station has a new ticket office and waiting rooms.

And when do you suggest the drivers take their breaks? Yup, after they've parked up. Going out to Evesham would require further stock, extra driver hours....additional costs. I doubt it would be cost effective for LM.


Errr, not quite. Been put back into Control Period 6 and likely to be CP7 before it gets high enough up the list to be done.

Sorry Chris, the problem with local news articles is that don't archive all articles. ;D
The "source" from Wikipedia, for example is now dead.

However, I can categorically state that it was reported that Shrub Hill would close.

Think about it - there is very little place for Shrub Hill as it is; it only exists due to the track layout restricting use of Foregate Street.
To be honest, re-doing the track layout and signalling would be a better use of the money!

As for Malvern Link - this is my opinon, but I know a lot of South Worcester people drive there (as the traffic in Worcs is a nightmare) and they would switch to Parkway. Can Malvern support 2 stations on its own?

There is, however, a massive plan that will redevelop the area to the east of the station which could mean that it is economically viable to keep SH. Caveat: I have no idea the current state of the plan - this link is from a couple of years back:

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9732026.City_s_biggest_ever_revamp/

Update: http://www.ggassociates.co.uk/articles.php?artid=29&l=1#

Notice that there is a plan for a footbridge ....

http://www.ggassociates.co.uk/gallery/gallery.php?imageid=70

Thanks for posting, Unixman, and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum.  :)

I think as a medium to long term plan, the opening of Worcester(shire?) Parkway and redoubling of the line from Norton Junction to Evesham West Junction, together with resignalling in the Worcester area, will pave the way for services to be extended through to Evesham to provide a half-hourly service throughout the day.  It probably wouldn't be cost effective for LM, as ChrisB says, but that's where subsidies from the local bodies may come in and any staffing and stock costs would not be too astronomic.

Certainly that's for well in the future though when the new station is well established, and the infrastructure have been improved.  Possibly nearer in the future you might be able to squeeze the odd extra train in the peak hours to improve the commuting service from Evesham and Pershore - and Worcester Parkway may well be the added factor that allows that to reach the tipping point in favour.  A LM extension would be the obvious choice.

 At last some positive talk about the Worcester Parkway Station. I for one think that the Worcester Parkway Station will be a good boost for Worcester. Close to the M5 and the southern link road (the council know this road is a pain, but it is to be sorted). The railway infrastructure does need to be sorted out two tracks on the Cotswold line would be better (it will come). As for the two stations at Malvern its had two stations for well over a century both are well used and the town keeps growing so no need to close one. Worcester Parkway will be as popular as the Warwick Parkway station , but will be here on our door step. Lets take things one step at a time! its coming.

There is NO way the this station will ever reach the popularity of Warwick Parkway!

Even with a tad of latent demand appearing, where are all the current pax accessing the railway currently? And why would most of them get in their cars now & drive to this Parkway rather than stay accessing where they do currently?

I agree that it would not be a similar station to Warwich Parkway, but it does have some striking parallels to Stratford Upon Avon Parkway, and even Tiverton Parkway.

People who work in Worcester, but are fed up of the high traffic volumes that build up on the approaches to the town centre might use is.  People who live in the surrounding villages and east side of Worcester might use it (though many might be existing passengers using it instead of Shrub Hill or Pershore).  Finally, it may well be useful as an interchange station for people travelling from/to Gloucester/Cheltenham and the Cotswolds/Oxford as it will likely reduce journey times on any other option available currently.

Certainly it doesn't make my 'top 10 list of things which have to be built ASAP', but I think it will prove successful, even if on a more modest level than the likes of Warwick Parkway.

Agreed, and should hopefully see something better at Shrub Hill eventually.

I suspect it's in for the long haul, as it'll requite a 'request' from the DfT in the XC invitation to tender to 'persuade' them to stop....

It needn't be a request.

Service Level Commitments can be written in to the tender as compulsory.

That's what I meant, hence request in quotes....

I doubt they'll want to slow the Bristol to Bham XC service.

It already takes 90 minutes for just 90m!

The trains are also packed and they won't want Pershore/ Shrub Hill / Malvern Link commuters swamping the trains just for a quicker journey to Birmingham.

(it will be about 30 mins to New Street instead of 40 mins - plus no traffic near Shrub Hill to battle through)

Like many others I dont believe Shrub Hill will close as it is always well used. The only thing letting it down is the service frequency during the day compared to Worcester Foregate Street. I drive the Henwick Park - City Centre - Worcester Royal Hospital bus very regulary so I regulary go past shrub Hill station and there is always a lot of people going there.

The redevelopment plans for Shrub Hill station is slightl delayed according to reports in teh local newspaper a week or two ago.

One concern I do have is whether or not the council will actively promote Worcester Parkway as a park and ride site as they have failed to actively promote th park and ride facilities in Worcester now resulting in less people using them. so much so the council are pulling the plug and Worcester is going to be hell to drive in come September.

I can also see the council diverting services 550/551 Worcester - Pershore - Evesham to serve this station as well

"Like many others I dont believe Shrub Hill will close as it is always well used."
"Is" is the question mark. If Worcester Parkway is built, what will be the Shrub Hill use then? I suspect that Parkway would take a lot of the current Shrub Hill use.
Re the failure of Worcester City/County councils to promote Park and Ride, they need to do something like Oxford. Put up the city centre parking charges so that the inconvenience of using P & R gives it a financial attraction. Make the city centre all day parking charge ^25, as in Oxford, and more people would use P & R & Parkway instead and reduce city centre traffic congestion. There would be a lot squeals from existing city centre car park users and from city shops. To get a real change you have to bite that bullet.   

Perhaps the opening of this new station would give them the confidence to bite this particular bullet!?

I can't really see the point of building Worcester Parkway if the fast Bristol Birmingham's don't stop there.

Also I would sugegst it would be politically very difficult to shut Shrub Hill even if Parkway took a lot of it's traffic. If they can't shut Denton with one train a week in one direction then Shrub hill becomes impossible.

There are precedents for a station to be closed where it is replaced by an alternative facility ... a couple I can think of since I got involved in rail stuff are North Woolwich (replaced by King George V) and Abercynon North (replaced by combined station at Abercynon South / renamed Abercynon).

One which I can recall is Smethwick West, which was replaced by Smethwick Galton Bridge, a few hundred yards away.  Galton Bridge has similarities with Worcester Parkway, in that it has platforms on two levels (Wolverhampton to Birmingham New Street and Stourbridge Junction to Birmingham Snow Hill/Moor Street) where the lines cross one another.  However, I do not know how reliable any connections there may be.

Another, slightly further into the recent past, would be Tiverton Junction. Closed in 1986 in favour of Tiverton Parkway.

...or Filton, closed in favour of Filton Abbey Wood 250m to the south.

Or Portishead in 1954 to be replaced by a modern futuristic station nearer the town centre that sadly was to close only 10 years later ! Now the site is occupied by the towns only fuel outlet !

Since when it has gone from 1 train each way daily to several dozen.

And passenger numbers have risen (from what - probably under 10,000 per annum) to over three quarters of a million.

Just shows what you can do by building an office costing a mere ^750 million.

Not to forget the billions of pounds worth of stuff designed to kill people that is procured through that office complex.

Steady now! My daughter started her career there, and is no warmonger. I'm ex-military and no warmonger either. Defence of the realm is the first responsibility of any government.

And it has laid the foundations for decent local rail travel.

I'd agree with those sentiments. At the risk of taking this thread completely off topic, recent events in the Ukraine, as well as in Iraq, have shown that when thinking about defence, one needs to take an extremely long term view as to what might happen. One of the reasons why I thought axing our carrier capability on the basis that the new one will (may?) be ready in 10 years time was somewhat foolish.

Whilst what I said was intended as a little tongue in cheek there's surely no denying that military materiel, if used, is designed to destroy either person or property, even in defence.

Military spending does provide jobs and help sustain our economy. It also aids scientific, medical and other research, and I'm not denying that a responsible government must ensure the defence of its citizens. There are, however, recent wider geo-political issues where the use of our military has, in my opinion, been less than responsible.

No accusations of warmongering to those who work in defence procurement, have served, or who are serving, were intended, but apologies for any offence caused.

So it is not having it that is the issue but how it is used.

Getting this back onto the original topic, I wonder whether any plans have been produced showing the layout of the proposed station and its car park and the access to it.

Except when used to drop aid to refugees, as an example...


No offence taken, although it's your round next time.

The following link gives quite a lot of detail.  No plans, but proposed platform lengths, car park sizes, passenger projections and construction costs, etc.

http://www.business-central.co.uk/cms/pdf/2.%20Parkway%20WLTB%20Bid.pdf (http://www.business-central.co.uk/cms/pdf/2.%20Parkway%20WLTB%20Bid.pdf)

It describes a single platform on the Cotswold line, and I didn't see any reference to provision, passive or otherwise, for future re-doubling. Presumably the design wouldn't involve anything that would make future doubling more difficult or expensive? Other than increasing the number of stations needing an additional platform...

There seems to be very little appetite for that section to be redoubled.  At least the single platform at 256m should be (just) long enough to accommodate a 10-Car Bi-Mode IEP train allowing all doors to be opened.

Persuading FGW to stop will be difficult.

Not likely to be redoubled until the Worcester resignalling takes place. That's again been put back well into the 2020s...

What makes you say that?

FGW.

They don't want to stop twice on that single line.

Then there's no point building the station as they'd be the only possible operator that would be able to stop there in Phase 1.  Anyway, I'd have thought it would be Network Rail that would be more concerned with stopping twice on a single line section than FGW?

I suspect they will be persuaded - maybe not every train - but may not need too much persuasion anyway should the projected passenger numbers be correct.  I guess, as always, time till tell!

The above document gives some estimates of people and car numbers using the station, 93,000 bp.a. made up of 49,000 rail users, 37,000 car users & 7,000 generated people users. 7,000 out of 93,000 seems a very small proportion of generated, presumably new users. Am I correct in thinking that 86,000 will be users (of both rail and car) abstracted from other stations and that therefore other stations will suffer a distinct loss of business? The remaining financial parts of the document show how the total income that would be generated, presumably from car park charges and rail fares is sufficient to give a generous BCR of 3.54. There seems to be no account taken in the document of the income that would be lost from other stations. There are lot of mystery figures shown but it seems to me they are rather optimistic, unless I am showing my natural pessimism. To me it looks very much like a document made to support a political decision already made in principle, that probably shows my natural cynicism.

'Generated' refers to travel that didn't previously take place, but has been created by the opportunity provided by the new station.  The 'rail' and 'car' lines refer to modes used by users of the new station who have transferred existing journeys there, so while the 'rail' line is existing users abstracted from other stations, cars' refers to those who have switched mode to rail. Therefore, the total for new rail users is 'cars' + 'generated', ie. 44,000 for Phase 1.

This station isn't the answer. Improve the service to Cheltenham and Birmingham New Street by providing 2tph to each.

Add extra car parking at Shrub Hill.

Provide cross Worcestershire links from Kidderminster and Bromsgrove in the North to Evesham and Twesksbury in the South.

This new parkway will just

1) abstract from existing stations (Malvern Link, Shrub Hill and perhaps Droitwich and Pershore
2) slow down and overcrowd existing XC services to Birmingham

If XC don't stop to prevent this, the station becomes pointless!!!

Franchise specifications decide stopping patterns, not operators.

If it's written into a franchise the operator must comply.

But if its not, franchisee can choose to...

It's not necessarily quite as cut and dried as that, either way, is it? It depends on what's written into the franchise - usually a "service level commitment" which may (for example) say there must be a service from before [early time] to after [late time] with a maximum inter service gap of 3 hours with one extension to 3.5 hours allowed, or perhaps that there must be at least two trains from "A" to "B" during the day, not necessarily giving a time.   The franchise operator can then choose to run more services / stop more, but only if the stock is available to him for the trains, and that the line capacity is such that the stops can be accommodated.

Some CGI images of the new station, as proposed, are contained within this article:

http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/11504760._/ (http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/11504760._/)

Dipping down to the comments at the end of the article, mostly moaning as usual, but Roger5's comment caught my eye and it wouldn't surprise me if his prediction came to fruition.

http://www.ludlowadvertiser.co.uk/news/regional/11673636._/?