It's tight, but as long as that end of the platform was quite thin, I think it wouldn't be in the way - though they might have to lose a bit of their garden!

Yes, that looks like the favoured layout at the moment.  Space constraints mean that it'll be a very tight squeeze, especially (and assuming) given that platform lengths will need to be at least 270 metres to be able to accommodate 10-Car Bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s.  Currently platforms 1 and 2 are 275 metres long, so are just about OK, but it's clear to see why the Botley Road bridge will need widening in order to give room for the new track.

Buildings wise it works quite well given how tight the space is.  Just south of Botley Road is railway land and buildings (the former Railway Club and also some Permanent Way accommodation), which can easily be demolished to allow the track for the new platform to fit in, and with the panel box building becoming redundant in a couple of years, some offices and buildings on platform 2 will need to go, but can easily be built elsewhere.  Crucially there should still be just about be enough room to squeeze in Roger Dudman Way, the access road to the ever growing housing and student accommodation on the site of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Locomotive Yard.

I'll have first bash:

5. Worcester Foregate Street

The new (temporary) Whitehouse Junction is being installed over this and next Sunday.  Whitehouse Junction is at the very western end of the new depot and will (from Easter) mean that the main lines close, the relief lines become the 'new' main lines and the goods line become the 'new' relief lines.  The map on page #55 of this thread explains that much better than I just have!

As a result both this and next Sunday passenger trains are using the goods loops - thought I'd mention that just in case there's any track bashers out there!

Further details on Network Rail's (NR^» (Network Rail - home page))'s CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) plans from the East-West Rail perspective:

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/network-rail-announce-plans-to-construct-western-section-of-east-west-rail/

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

Two comments on that web page:

1) Up to 15 minutes extra - that's an extraordinary amount of time to allow for that walk, even if you are at the top of the multi-storey and want to board a train at the extreme end of Platform 4! Hopefully the actual difference in practice will be less than 5 minutes. 
2) It seems to hint that only part of the transfer deck will be opening after Easter with access to Platforms 1-7 still via the subway.  Or am I reading that incorrectly?

Hence my comment on snagging works.

Yes, those would have been Turbos as the 1421ex PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) is the diagram that wasn't covered yesterday, and the DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains)-GMV service was one of the 180s trapped at Paddington lunch time.  That being said, there was no real reason why the 17:18 PAD-OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) and 19:31 OXF-PAD couldn't have been the original Class 180 yesterday - perhaps the 'might as well keep a Turbo on it as it's easier' mentality was adopted?  Mind you, signalling problems at Oxford in the evening led to the 19:31 OXF-PAD being cancelled and the set trapped in the Carriage Sidings, so perhaps that wasn't a bad thing!  Another day of disruption!

I'm keeping a daily log of Class 180 usage by the way, so we'll get a clear picture of what the actual situation is this year.  Today we're back up to 100% with all four diagrams covered.

Sets 102 and 104 were due to work the 11:20 and 12:20 departures from Paddington, but Turbo units were used as the trains instead started from Oxford - though since I posted that originally, the 11:20 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-GMV looks as if it has been cancelled throughout.  The 12:20 from PAD started at Oxford on time though, using 166219.

That's the first diagram that hasn't been covered so far this week to be fair.  Though major signalling problems will now cause further Turbo replacements on some trains today - that's no fault of the 180s in this case.

I'm with Paul on this one.  An extended Xmas break for the workers suggests all is well within hand.  I'm sure there'll be the odd snagging works to do here and there after opening, but Easter is still a fair way away - eleven weeks should be plenty of time.

Though according to that construction of the south facing bay platform started last October.   

And the full CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) Strategic Business Plan can be downloaded and viewed from here:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/strategic-business-plan-for-cp5/

A lot of graphs to wade through, but some more flesh on the bones in terms of details of what's going to happen and when during this most exciting time for the railway industry.

I think it's fair to sum it up as follows:

1)  It would be a lot of effort for the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to set up.  You would need lots of staff who currently have agreements that mean they are guaranteed Boxing Day off of work, and those agreements would need altering.
2)  It would cost the TOCs money to do.  The number of people travelling, whilst potentially quite high, would not be enough to make it profitable on the vast majority of routes, given that you would be paying inflated staff costs and not be running as many trains as on a 'normal' day.
3)  The engineering work situation would make it difficult on some routes - especially here on the Great Western where it is very likely that most Christmas periods from now until the end of the decade will involve quite extensive work with Crossrail/Reading/Electrification.

As I've said before, as a member of staff who might be affected, I can't see any reason why a Boxing Day service shouldn't be at least trialled, but there are an awful lot of staff that don't have the same opinion!  The only way I can see it happening on a widespread level is if it is written into the terms of franchise agreements when they are let.  That way it would be costed and losses could be justified under a 'social need' basis like other aspects of the franchise agreement are based.  My submission to the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) franchise said as much - although I said that it should probably wait until the upgrade of the GWML is finished to give plenty of time to get staff agreements altered and increase the likelihood that large numbers of buses wouldn't be needed.  Doesn't seem that anyone wanted to take that idea on board though!

They would be fast approaching their 40th birthday if they were to start work on the Valley Lines.