|
Andy W
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2008, 17:46:37 » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2008, 18:04:49 » |
|
Would XC▸ trains stop? I'm sure they would given the catchment area and potential incremental business.
It is interesting to note that Worcester Parkway was mentioned in the Cross Country Franchise Consultation Document : Worcester Parkway.
Worcestershire County Council has undertaken studies in 2002 and 2004 to assess the feasibility of a new park and ride station in Worcester to provide access to national long distance rail services. Further business case development work is required.
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/greatwesternmainlinerouteuti3510Worcester Parkway
Initial business case and pre-feasibility work has been undertaken by the SRA.
Current SRA view
The business case is currently poor due to low forecast levels of patronage and the effects of longer journey times on longer distance through passengers. Further analysis may be worthwhile, seeking ways to improve the business case. 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. 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. Our campaign for more Ashchurch services continues, and we will give it our best shot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2008, 18:13:46 » |
|
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.
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. 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.
2. Would XC trains stop? I'm sure they would given the catchment area and potential incremental business.
3.Commuters from Worcester to Birmingham would by & large choose the fast line, but pricing could control demand to an extent.
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). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2008, 18:29:18 » |
|
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▸ . See Stage Three of my West Fleet plan (link below.) http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1407.msg8181#msg8181 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graz
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2008, 18:49:33 » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2008, 18:54:26 » |
|
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▸ . See Stage Three of my West Fleet plan (link below.) http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1407.msg8181#msg8181Not 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! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2008, 18:55:27 » |
|
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.
Quite agree! But the Gloucs Parkway would speed up services. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andy W
|
|
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2008, 20:20:11 » |
|
1. 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.
2. Would XC trains stop? I'm sure they would given the catchment area and potential incremental business.
3.Commuters from Worcester to Birmingham would by & large choose the fast line, but pricing could control demand to an extent.
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). 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!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shazz
|
|
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2008, 20:33:11 » |
|
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.
Quite agree! But the Gloucs Parkway would speed up services. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2008, 21:29:43 » |
|
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▸ . See Stage Three of my West Fleet plan (link below.) http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1407.msg8181#msg8181Not 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! 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 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 10, 2008, 22:05:42 by Lee Fletcher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
supersonic
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2008, 13:53:50 » |
|
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.
Quite agree! But the Gloucs Parkway would speed up services. 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. 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... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2008, 17:45:42 » |
|
Unfortunately, these services are to be AXED soon.  Worcester Parkway would see their return.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2008, 10:59:45 » |
|
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▸ .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2008, 14:30:42 » |
|
Hi, freebo125, and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
