Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

Whatever the history, it's good to know that the line has had a history of anomolies, contentious issues and financial troubles that have survived to the present day! 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Gosh - thanks, everyone!

In all honesty, when I posted my original question:

Please excuse me for being a bit of an amateur here, but if that curve is original (as in, built by IKB^▸ (Isambard Kingdom Brunel), I mean), would it have been designed then for broad gauge - and thus there is room for doubling now?

I didn't expect I would be opening up such a very interesting debate!

Thanks very much to all who have contributed!

Chris 

[Worcester_Passenger]

I can only echo Chris's comments : Gosh, thanks everyone!

[IndustryInsider]

Does anybody know why the proposed re-doubling scheme includes provision for a 1 mile section of double-track west of Evesham station? I can't see any benefit in having this, as trains will still have to wait at Evesham for the Norton Junction-Evesham section token to become available.

[willc]

Network Rail did computer model all the permutations to death, so it must be there for some reason.

Might you be allowed to issue a token for a Worcester-bound train to set out from Evesham, but with the starting signal at the end of the double line interlocked, so it could not be released to clear the train to proceed until an eastbound service had been checked out of the single line by an axle-counter? At least that way, you wouldn't have to wait for the token from Norton to be put into a machine at Evesham.

I would have thought an interlocking to do this would be relatively straightforward, though any time savings would be marginal.

On a related note, at present can a token for Norton to Evesham be issued at Shrub Hill when the Cotswold Line is occupied or does the train have to go to the junction and wait for the signaller to hand over a token once the line is clear? Any of the Worcester contributors know?

[IndustryInsider]

Network Rail did computer model all the permutations to death, so it must be there for some reason.

Might you be allowed to issue a token for a Worcester-bound train to set out from Evesham, but with the starting signal at the end of the double line interlocked, so it could not be released to clear the train to proceed until an eastbound service had been checked out of the single line by an axle-counter? At least that way, you wouldn't have to wait for the token from Norton to be put into a machine at Evesham.

I would have thought an interlocking to do this would be relatively straightforward, though any time savings would be marginal.

On a related note, at present can a token for Norton to Evesham be issued at Shrub Hill when the Cotswold Line is occupied or does the train have to go to the junction and wait for the signaller to hand over a token once the line is clear? Any of the Worcester contributors know?

As far as I'm aware there is no occasion when a token can be issued before another one has been returned to a suitable machine. That is how the 'total safety' of the section and train is maintained as only one token will ever be released ensuring that whoever has it knows that they are the only train in the section. In the event of a failure of the system a 'Pilotman' acts as the token. I agree that interlocking the signal to other equipment could in theory still maintain that safety level, but you run into all sorts of problems if, for example, the section signal failed and had to be passed at danger.

At Norton Junction the Signaller cannot issue a token until the previous one issued has been returned either to him/her directly or been returned to the auxiliary machine by the staff at Shrub Hill.

As the additional double track section is so short, then, as Will comments, the time saved would be marginal anyway. The only possible benefit I can see would be in times of service disruption, moving the section signal a mile west (and providing a token machine there) would allow a train to wait there, whilst also allowing a train running behind to arrive at the station rather than sit outside. You'd also save about a minute in terms of delay. Hardly enough to justify the expense in my opinion!

[Worcester_Passenger]

On a related note, at present can a token for Norton to Evesham be issued at Shrub Hill when the Cotswold Line is occupied or does the train have to go to the junction and wait for the signaller to hand over a token once the line is clear? Any of the Worcester contributors know?

If the incoming train from Evesham to Worcester is running late, then the outgoing one goes to Norton and waits (at a signal well before the signalbox). The incoming train stops and hands over the token at the box. Then the outgoing one can move up to the box and collect its token.

Does the improvement scheme involve a new single-track signalling system? Wolvercot to Ascott doesn't have tokens (even if the axle counters aren't as reliable as they ought to be).

[IndustryInsider]

Does the improvement scheme involve a new single-track signalling system? Wolvercot to Ascott doesn't have tokens (even if the axle counters aren't as reliable as they ought to be).

That's what I initially wondered, but I can see no mention of anything regarding that in the specifications. With one token section definitely going if it is double-tracked, it would make some sense to get rid of the other one too.

[Btline]

I don't want to labour the point but I am not making things up. The account I gave of the broad gauge test train was published in The Times on April 17, 1854.

The OWW^▸ (Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton) was authorised as a broad gauge line in 1845, but in the following period, after fallings-out with the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) (which had agreed in 1844 to lease the OWW for 999 years), the directors began to favour standard gauge.

The GWR eventually went to court and the outcome was a ruling in 1852 that the line should be "formed of such a gauge... as will admit of the same being worked continuously with the said Great Western Railway" but added that this did not prevent the OWW laying other rails of a different gauge.

When the southern end of the line was finished in 1853, there was a single, mixed-gauge track throughout from Evesham to Wolvercot, over which a broad gauge GWR inspection train made a return trip from Oxford on June 2, 1853, carrying Board of Trade inspector Captain Sir Douglas Strutt Galton. When the OWW laid a second track between Evesham and Honeybourne, to standard gauge only, the Board of Trade got a court injunction forbidding its use from March 1854 until March 1855, when the OWW backed down and made the second track mixed gauge as well.

The inspection train and the train to Wolverhampton and back at Easter 1854 are thought to be the only broad gauge trains that ever ran on the route. The OWW never owned any broad gauge stock itself and the railway and the GWR came to an agreement in 1858 that the broad gauge rails could be removed. An Act of Parliament in 1859 removed clauses from the 1845 authorising Act about broad gauge.

That there is little evidence north of Worcester today isn't surprising, as the GWR rebuilt many of its stations in the late 19th century and did move platforms, eg at Evesham, but Boynton's book includes pictures from the 1960s of Brierley Hill, Priestfield and Tipton Five Ways stations, all with the same wide gap between tracks as at Moreton. North of Worcester was always intended to be mixed gauge, as the 1845 Act spelled out.

The precise situation at Aston Magna appears to be that it initially opened with a mixed-gauge single track and this area and the route throughout from Chipping Campden to Charlbury was doubled in 1858 as standard gauge only - but Brunel had engineered the entire trackbed to allow for broad gauge, double track, eg the clearances at the bridges, Campden tunnel - it was the OWW's finances which dictated that some parts were only given a single track initially.

At Worcester, the Hereford & Worcester line (Foregate St and Malvern) was built to standard gauge.

And don't trust Wikipedia too much - the only bit of OWW open in 1851 was the Worcester loop, actually opened in October 1850, which was being used by trains between Birmingham and Bristol. Worcester-Evesham opened in 1852, Evesham-Oxford 1853. And relations with the GWR remained fraught for some years. For example, through coaches to London went via Bicester and Bletchley to Euston from 1853 until 1861.

If you want to know more, buy John Boynton's book, which is a thorough and well-researched account of the line's first 150 years.

I don't want to labour the point either, but it does not add up.

The viaducts at Blakedown and Kidderminster, the tunnel at Worcester and all of the bridges are standard. There is no more room.

Are you suggesting that they rebuilt Kidderminster viaduct to make it narrower?
Are you suggesting that they rebuilt Worcester tunnel to eliminate a few feet of gap?

And I doubt that broad gauge would have fitted in at Hartlebury, as the platforms are narrow enough today, and that's with the removal of buildings and a footbridge.

[stebbo]

Reference the extra double track west of Evesham, I recall Worcester bound trains pulling out of Evesham only to stop at the signal box - I assumed for the purpose of collecting the token for the stretch to Norton Junction. Likewise I remember Oxford bound trains stopping at the box before moving on to the station, again I assume to handover the token.

Does this explain it?

[willc]

I don't want to labour the point either, but it does not add up.

The viaducts at Blakedown and Kidderminster, the tunnel at Worcester and all of the bridges are standard. There is no more room.

Are you suggesting that they rebuilt Kidderminster viaduct to make it narrower?
Are you suggesting that they rebuilt Worcester tunnel to eliminate a few feet of gap?

And I doubt that broad gauge would have fitted in at Hartlebury, as the platforms are narrow enough today, and that's with the removal of buildings and a footbridge.

Six original OWW^▸ (Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton) viaducts were largely made of timber - classic Brunel - but were replaced in the 1870s and 1880s - though one was buried in an embankment and another near Round Oak was encased in brick. John Boynton's book has pictures of the timber viaduct at Stambermill in Stourbridge in the 1860s and work under way at Kidderminster on the brick viaduct, alongside the timber one, in the early 1880s. Loads of original timber bridges, 70-plus, were also replaced around this time.

I don't know what the clearances are like in the tunnel at Worcester, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could get broad gauge through it - the stone bridges on the Cotswold section are a bit wider than normal, but not exactly gaping chasms.

Hartlebury's platforms are certainly of later vintage. As I said, Evesham has standard gauge clearances today, but again, John Boynton has unearthed a photo of the station in about 1880, pre-rebuilding, with a main building just like Charlbury's, and Brunel-style baulk track of the kind used for broad and mixed gauge on one line - and a big gap across to the other set of rails.

Boynton also mentions a derailment at Hartlebury in 1854, when a loco shed a tyre and derailed but was helped to stay upright, according to the OWW loco superintendent, by the longitudinal timbers of the baulk track, which ran under the rails. If there hadn't been broad or mixed gauge track in the area, it's highly unlikely anyone would ever have bothered with baulk track - it was hard to lay and to maintain.

And OS^▸ (Ordnance Survey) Nock, in his biography of Brunel, cites a letter from Brunel to Charles Saunders, secretary to the board of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), complaining about the lack of proper facilities for broad gauge trains on the OWW, meaning a loco would have to run backwards for 40 miles if making a return run on part of the route.

[Nottage_Halt]

I think it's likely that there will be changes to the signalling systems, and that token working will disappear, to be replaced by either tokenless block or acceptance levers.  There'll be no need for axle counters between Evesham and Norton if the signalboxes remain in-situ.  The signaller observes the each train has completely cleared the section by checking the tail-lamp on the last vehicle.

[willc]

I think it's likely that there will be changes to the signalling systems, and that token working will disappear, to be replaced by either tokenless block or acceptance levers.  There'll be no need for axle counters between Evesham and Norton if the signalboxes remain in-situ.  The signaller observes the each train has completely cleared the section by checking the tail-lamp on the last vehicle.

Not if the section ends in the copuntryside west of Evesham he won't. At least not if that extra mile or so of expensive new track is to be of any use. Something slightly more sophisticated than the human eye is required as a back-up, so axle counters would seem obvious.

[Btline]

Sorry, back to gauge again....

Ah!!! You have explained a mystery I have had with the viaduct for a while.

Take a look at it below.

I am now assuming that the orangey brickwork to the left of the current viaduct is where the broad gauge timber bridge used to go.

Ditto, but less clear on the other side.

Why did they replace the Brunel viaducts? Were they rotting?

Strang to think that broad trains ran through Kidderminster once. For how long did they run for?

[Btline]

Ok, urls don't work. Sorry.

Have replaced with a screenshot attachment from the url:

http://maps.live.com/#JndoZXJlMT1LaWRkZXJtaW5zdGVyJmJiPTU1LjI0MTU1MjAzNTY1MjUlN2U3LjY0NjQ4NDM3NDk5OTk5JTdlNDkuMzEwNzk4ODc5NjQ2MyU3ZS0xMS42MDE1NjI1

(which doesn't work!).

Ok.