Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 07:15 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
06:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
07:00 Bedwyn to Newbury
07:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
07:49 Bedwyn to Newbury
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:23 Hereford to London Paddington
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:48 Exeter St Davids to Exmouth
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
07:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance
07:40 Bristol Temple Meads to Westbury
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Delayed
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 07:26:42 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[82] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[76] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[74] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[67] Return of the BRUTE?
[57] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[46] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
  Print  
Author Topic: Worcester Parkway project  (Read 89649 times)
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2012, 20:16:39 »

From Worcester News:

Quote
There needs to be a dramatically improved service between Worcestershire and London as part of a shake-up of which rail firm will run services, says a county MP (Member of Parliament).

Harriett Baldwin has also urged the Government to take a look at proposals for a Worcester Parkway station at Norton again.

The Government is asking passengers what they want from the new Great Western rail franchise, which will govern train services between Hereford and London.

The consultation, which runs until March, will help form the contract offered to rail operators who want to bid to run the franchise.

It is currently run by First Great Western.

Mrs Baldwin has posted her response to the consultation online as well as sending a copy to Transport Minister Theresa Villiers.

The West Worcestershire MP said: ^An improved train connection with London is vital to the future prosperity of the county.

^I have also asked the department to look again at the proposals for Worcester Parkway, which has now been under discussion for more than two decades without any clear progress.

^With our motorways full beyond capacity it is vital that our trains offer a viable alternative to the car.

^I am also keen to reduce the number of people from the county who have to drive to Birmingham, Warwick or even Newport to get on a fast train to London by offering them a speedy reliable local alternative.

^I will continue to press the case at the department and in the House of Commons for a long-overdue 21st Century train service for Worcestershire people.^
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) 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.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2012, 14:10:39 »

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

She's not very clued-up is Mrs Baldwin.
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #62 on: January 15, 2012, 14:31:57 »

From Worcester News:

Quote
MPs (Member of Parliament) unite on rail line

A shake-up of which firm will run the Cotswold Line is a chance to deliver ^a true hourly service^ to the capital, say MPs.

The Government is asking passengers what they want from the new Great Western rail franchise covering the route between London and Hereford.

The consultation, which runs until March, will help form the contract offered to rail operators who want to bid to run the franchise.

It is currently run by First Great Western, and covers Pershore, Evesham, Honeybourne, Moreton and Kingham stations.

Evesham^s MP Peter Luff is challenging the consultation^s assertion that the current weekday off-peak service pattern is ^broadly hourly^.

^There is emphatically not an hourly service,^ he said. ^Moving to a true hourly service in both directions, with something much closer to the same minutes past each hour for departures, would greatly enhance passenger confidence in and use of the service.

^The full potential of the Cotswold Line is not being achieved because of long journey times, irregular service pattern and inadequate car parking.^

Pershore^s MP Harriett Baldwin has written to the Department for Transport asking how it plans to make services more frequent for commuters.

^I will be working with my Westminster colleagues to push for a better franchise promise from the local line operators and more investment in line improvements to Oxford.^

The consultation document includes several aspirations, including getting one train per hour between London and Worcester by 2018. It also records how busy stations are, listing Evesham as generating 200,000 journeys, Pershore 58,000 and Honeybourne 35,000 annually. To have your say on the consutation, e-mail GWconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk

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.
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) 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.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #63 on: January 15, 2012, 15:52:38 »

From Worcester News:

Quote
The consultation document includes several aspirations, including getting one train per hour between London and Worcester by 2018. It also records how busy stations are, listing Evesham as generating 200,000 journeys, Pershore 58,000 and Honeybourne 35,000 annually.

Are trhese numbers reasonable for an hourly service?
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #64 on: January 15, 2012, 16:26:11 »

From Worcester News:

Quote
The consultation document includes several aspirations, including getting one train per hour between London and Worcester by 2018. It also records how busy stations are, listing Evesham as generating 200,000 journeys, Pershore 58,000 and Honeybourne 35,000 annually.

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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #65 on: January 15, 2012, 16:41:49 »

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.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #66 on: January 15, 2012, 17:40:08 »

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.....?



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:
Quote
Provide appropriate capacity for passenger services which is affordable, and delivers value for money for the taxpayer within defined infrastructure and rolling stock constraints on the Great Western network
and
Quote
Ensure the overall passenger experience improves throughout the life of the franchise.
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.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: January 15, 2012, 19:58:05 »

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 (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) services stop. Just put in more parking into Shrub Hill.
Logged
Andrew1939 from West Oxon
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 535


View Profile Email
« Reply #68 on: February 15, 2012, 14:52:18 »

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 (Member of Parliament) keep pointing out the need for more car parking but who is to provide it? The recent Greater Western RUS (Route Utilisation Strategy) 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.
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #69 on: January 12, 2013, 18:28:20 »

From Worcester News:

Quote
Calls for bosses to back bid for station

Calls are being made for train operator bosses to throw their weight behind a new railway station in Worcestershire.

Mid-Worcestershire MP (Member of Parliament) Peter Luff says Network Rail must believe in the Norton Parkway project for it to get off the ground.

This week the company announced ^550 million of improvements to West Midlands railways, including new tracks and electrification to cope with soaring demand. But the package included no mention of Norton Parkway, despite the facility being the best chance of the county getting access to more long-distance trains currently bypassing the area.

Mr Luff is writing to the chairman of Network Rail, Richard Parry-Jones, in the hope it will be on the group^s radar. He said: ^The county council is very supportive of this, the Government is supportive, Wychavon District Council is backing it, so momentum is gathering. Network Rail is yet to be convinced, so this really is something we need to pursue as it needs their support.^

He said the likeliest solution at this stage would be some form of commercial development on the land, such as office space, which would include a station facility. But even if such a scheme is brought forward with private sector money it would still require Network Rail backing to become viable.

It is also likely to require some public sector funding, although both Worcestershire County Council and the Department for Transport are backing it. Worcester MP Robin Walker said: ^Network Rail is the right place to go to get the lines laid, and they need to take the lead on this, so it is sensible to engage them on it. There is no doubt that a new Worcestershire parkway would be great for the county.^

Network Rail announced a ^37.5 billion national rail expansion this week, allowing trains to take an extra 225 million passengers a year between 2014 and 2019. Of that investment ^550m will improve West Midlands services, but Worcestershire will stay the same.

A Network Rail spokesman said the investment would improve ^key bottleneck routes^ and ^dramatically improve rail travel^ across the country.
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) 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.
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #70 on: January 13, 2013, 11:12:42 »

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
Logged
martvw
Full Member
***
Posts: 55


View Profile Email
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2013, 22:33:14 »

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 ??
Logged
Andrew1939 from West Oxon
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 535


View Profile Email
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2013, 16:05:14 »

It is not just Worcester Parkway that has been left out of last week's NR» (Network Rail - home page) announcements. In the NR Western RUS (Route Utilisation Strategy) 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.
Logged
stebbo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 445


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2013, 17:14:36 »

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......
Logged
Not from Brighton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 108


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2013, 23:17:48 »

I'm sure "Worcester Area Re-signalling" was in CP5 (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) a while ago, now it's vaguely in CP6 (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024), give it a couple more years and it will be in CP7 and so on...
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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
  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 customers 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 to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page