Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 today - First Group Shareholder mtg
today - Leaflets at MKM Station
tomorrow - TransWilts Stakeholder Conf.
29/06/2019 - Melksham Carnival
29/06/2019 - Dawlish, last local NR meeting
30/06/2019 - Reading Buses OPen Day
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
June 25, 2019, 07:15:33 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[62] Bristol Temple Meads Station redevelopment
[56] Melksham Rail User Group - summer campaign about to launch
[53] 2019 - TransWilts cancellation and amendments log
[50] Adding doggy tails together
[49] Eurostar goes almost dry
[47] The rail replacement bus that did not operate
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
  Print  
Author Topic: Worcestershire Parkway Station project - ongoing discussion  (Read 34636 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25494



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #90 on: February 07, 2019, 09:49:07 pm »

It is being built currently and will open next year.

From  the Worceter News

Quote
TRAINS should be departing from Worcestershire Parkway station by December, the county council has revealed.

The finish line for the new multi-million pound railway station on the edge of the city has been the subject of speculation for months and a definitive answer on when it would open had not been given until now.

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25494



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #91 on: May 27, 2019, 11:09:42 am »

From elsewhere ... I see pictures of construction well under way.  Also a very interesting discussion that highlights "operational lead planning" and "passenger lead planning".

The operational lead folks are saying the site chosen on the Birmingham to Bristol line is a poor one because it's on a curve and that makes train dispatch hard(er) - the station should have been put somewhere that the track was straight.

The passenger lead folks are saying that the location is right because it allows passengers to travel in all (four) directions from the same point, and allows interchange between the lines.  If there was no-where straight close to where the lines cross, then needs must and it goes on the curve.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7270


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: May 27, 2019, 11:27:32 am »

Yep, if you can build it on a dead straight and perfectly level bit of track then that’s great, but it certainly shouldn’t have to be like that.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
Robin Summerhill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 187


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #93 on: May 27, 2019, 12:45:57 pm »

Quote from: grahame
... a very interesting discussion that highlights "operational lead planning" and "passenger lead planning".

The operational lead folks are saying the site chosen on the Birmingham to Bristol line is a poor one because it's on a curve and that makes train dispatch hard(er) - the station should have been put somewhere that the track was straight.

The passenger lead folks are saying that the location is right because it allows passengers to travel in all (four) directions from the same point, and allows interchange between the lines.  If there was no-where straight close to where the lines cross, then needs must and it goes on the curve.

It strikes me that the "operational lead" people are failing to address practical reality, and that is that it is being built at the point where the Oxford to Worcester line crosses over the Midland main line, making it the perfect location to build a new station. Not only does it allow potential passengers to park or come in by bus to use the station to travel in all four directions, it also enables passengers changing lines there to have a far more convenient place to do it than the existing points, which are in essence Cheltenham or Birmingham, with a double change if the intending passenger wants to go towards Evesham or Malvern. It is also rather conveniently approximately 1.5 miles from junction 7 of the M5.

Looking at the OS to find sections of reasonably straight track in the area, there is a section where Norton Halt used to be on the OXF to WOS line, and a bit near Wadborough on the Midland main line (coincidentally the site of another closed station). The trouble is, these "perfect" operational locations happen to be about 2.5 miles apart, which is about as much good as an interchange station as calling Paddington an interchange for London Bridge...

How I wonder would they propose to deal with this? Just not bother and leave the passengers to leg it (because they're only passengers after all - why should we take any notice of them)? Run a shuttle service perhaps with driverless trains (nobody tell ASLEF mind...) on the lines of the Gatwick North to South terminals shuttle? And where would you put the car park? Somewhere half way between the two for reasons of fairness? Search me...

When still working before retirement I used to say that the last thing you should do is let accountants run businesses. You should leave people who understand the business to run it, and tell the accountants to stick to their speciality of understanding the money.

I am starting to think, on the basis of this episode, that the last thing the railways should do is allow operational people anywhere near the customer-focused end of the railway business.

Logged
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1583


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: May 27, 2019, 04:11:43 pm »

... the site chosen on the Birmingham to Bristol line is a poor one because it's on a curve and that makes train dispatch hard(er) ....

What's changed !

A few years ago Devon CC wanted to open(re-open) a station on the Torbay line due to the increased housing developments where the new properties were being acquired by more of the senior people of this land to retire to. Authority decreed that any new station had to be on straight track which also had to be on a level gradient as well.

That location was Kingskerswell and the plan was scuppered by authority.

Its a similar situation with the Portishead line. the LA wanted the line to progress farther into the town which, to keep costs down, would have required a level crossing on Quays Road. Authority said NO.

Plans to extend the Tweedbank line onto Carlisle will involve a level crossing immediately south of the present Tweedbank terminus which is reported to be "of no problem at all". What's the difference, Tweedbank is Scotland, Portishead is England but why ?

Huh

Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4334


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: May 27, 2019, 09:54:56 pm »


Its a similar situation with the Portishead line. the LA wanted the line to progress farther into the town which, to keep costs down, would have required a level crossing on Quays Road. Authority said NO.

Plans to extend the Tweedbank line onto Carlisle will involve a level crossing immediately south of the present Tweedbank terminus which is reported to be "of no problem at all". What's the difference, Tweedbank is Scotland, Portishead is England but why ?

A few years ago, I thought that the crossing at Quays Avenue would not be a problem. Then, when it was refused, I railed against the decision. Then I read the reasons why, and realised that the ORR know better than me when it comes to level crossings on housing estates built after the railway was closed, and within a very short distance of a main road. So I shut up.

Tweedbank is in Scotland, Portishead is England, but why? Possibly a question for King James I (James VI of Scotland) to answer. He didn't know much about railways, to be fair.
Logged

Now, please!
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3966


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: May 27, 2019, 11:15:45 pm »


Its a similar situation with the Portishead line. the LA wanted the line to progress farther into the town which, to keep costs down, would have required a level crossing on Quays Road. Authority said NO.

Plans to extend the Tweedbank line onto Carlisle will involve a level crossing immediately south of the present Tweedbank terminus which is reported to be "of no problem at all". What's the difference, Tweedbank is Scotland, Portishead is England but why ?

A few years ago, I thought that the crossing at Quays Avenue would not be a problem. Then, when it was refused, I railed against the decision. Then I read the reasons why, and realised that the ORR know better than me when it comes to level crossings on housing estates built after the railway was closed, and within a very short distance of a main road. So I shut up.

Tweedbank is in Scotland, Portishead is England, but why? Possibly a question for King James I (James VI of Scotland) to answer. He didn't know much about railways, to be fair.

King James the renumbered wasn't that fussed about keeping the two kingdoms distinct - he just wanted the whole lot to be ... well, his, basically. But he never sold the idea widely enough, so that was left for Queen Anne.

While the ORR's performance monitoring of Highways England has no Scottish counterpart, it is safety regulator for railways for the whole of Great Britain (not a synonym for the UK, in this case). The main difference I can see between the two cases is that one has produced a concrete proposal and has been submitted to the ORR for an opinion, while the other is stil at the stage of talks about studies about further stuff.
Logged
CyclingSid
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 422


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: May 28, 2019, 07:25:20 am »

Single kingdom? Bit controversial at the present time?
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page