Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[willc]

Interesting about the timetable. I flagged up the Evesham problem when the plans were released. I was shouted down. Looks as if I've been proven right!

It's not an "Evesham problem", it is the result of Cotswold Line services having to fit in with the regular interval timetable pattern between Oxford and London (which isn't going to change any time soon because of Reading, electrification, etc) and the limited capacity of the lines through Worcester (and from Malvern Wells to Hereford). All of which means there will still be less than ideal aspects to the Cotswold timetable for some time, whether we like it or not, but having already seen delayed trains make simultaneous arrivals and departures at Honeybourne, rather than one of them being stuck at Evesham or Moreton-in-Marsh waiting for the other, I'll take that useful improvement to be going on with.

[Btline]

Yes, but they weren't timed to go through Honeybourne. If they'd redoubled Pershore to Honeybourne as I said, then your scenario could still happen whilst trains wouldn't get stuck at Evesham.

But I agree - it's good to be getting on with until later projects.

[Buckham]

Went running along Clayfield Road in Bretforton this afternoon. Crossing is still closed and there was a crew working on new foundations for lineside equipment. This must have been in the plan, as the signs say the road is closed until 19th September. I was impressed with how the second track had gone in by the old keeper's cottage, as in one of Will's earlier photographs it looked a pretty tight fit.

[willc]

Yes, but they weren't timed to go through Honeybourne. If they'd redoubled Pershore to Honeybourne as I said, then your scenario could still happen whilst trains wouldn't get stuck at Evesham.

But I agree - it's good to be getting on with until later projects.

No, they weren't timed to meet at Honeybourne, but they were able to set off from Evesham and Moreton without the signallers needing to worry where they would pass.

However, had they redoubled Pershore to Honeybourne - instead of Evesham to Moreton-in-Marsh - which you and others advocated, trains would get stuck due to still having 10 miles of single track between Moreton and Honeybourne.

In similar cases to the one I saw, hurried calculations would have been needed to work out whether both trains would get to Honeybourne at roughly the same time or whether, erring on the side of caution, one would get held to clear the single line for the other, instantly adding 10 or more minutes' delay to one train. The more bits of single track there are, the more risk of the timetable falling apart over an extended period when there is disruption.

I know which set-up is preferred by the people whose trains home to Honeybourne and Evesham now make an immediate departure from Moreton-in-Marsh every day.

[IndustryInsider]

It would have been a bonus if the money could have been found to double a little further west, i.e. up to a point just east of Pershore station.  That looks like it would have been a fairly simple stretch to do, and with an extra signal section added on the down and up lines, and you would have been able to virtually eliminate the waits in the down direction.

Without any changes to the core departure/arrival times at Paddington then most hours - with trains running to time - you have both of the single line sections being utilised badly, i.e. trains due to pass pretty much at Wolvercote Junction and Evesham which won't be as good for punctuality as if they were spread out better.  Perhaps a few tweaks here and there are still possible without doing that though - swapping a few of the services through to the Cotwolds from the xx:21 to xx:51 departure from Paddington might help in certain cases, but the operational inflexibility between Worcester Shrub Hill and Hereford makes that more difficult than you'd imagine.

[Btline]

I agree with II. It was madness not to redouble further West if the TT was to stay similar. Operational inflexability around Worcester will make timing changes any different.

You look where trains are booked to pass and redouble either side of that - it's called creating "dynamic loops" - this has been done elsewhere. That's why the Ascott to Charlury bit is good. However, the other end of the big loop is to close to where trains are booked to pass. A short stretch between Honeybourne and M-I-M would be less of a problem (if no trains pass there then it is pointless being double apart from major disruption) than the larger Evesham to Worcester section where you then enter the inflexible track/signalling section, augmenting any delays.

Hopefully they'll have done some long term planning, and that in a few years trains will be passing at Honeybourne.

[bleeder4]

I believe the Worcester News this Saturday will have a supplement on the Cotswold Line to mark the completion of the project (perhaps willc could confirm?).

I'll be up in Scotland unfortunately so won't be able to pick up a copy on the day.

[willc]

A short stretch between Honeybourne and M-I-M would be less of a problem (if no trains pass there then it is pointless being double apart from major disruption)

Since when have 10 miles of a 50-mile route been a "short stretch"? It's almost as long as the old double-track Moreton-Ascott section, which wasn't in the least bit a "dynamic" loop, since trains were booked to meet at either end of it for many years. The sheer length of the Moreton-Evesham single-track section was a major cause of major disruption in the past the instant any train missed a booked meet at either end. Lopping five miles off wouldn't have changed that fundamental problem.

Just because the timetable says such and such should happen, with trains meeting at point x, is irrelevant once there is disruption and you are trying to recover from it but are hobbled by single track. And if someone wants the timetable rewritten in the future, requiring trains to pass at, say, Chipping Campden tunnel, what would you do then, in the absence of double track under the btline masterplan?

But then I was forgetting that you have always known far better than the people at Network Rail who tested all the scenarios, drew up the redoubling plan and implemented it.

Bleeder4, I suspect that answering your question would get into the tricky area about promotion of commercial products.

[Andy W]

A short stretch between Honeybourne and M-I-M would be less of a problem (if no trains pass there then it is pointless being double apart from major disruption)

Since when have 10 miles of a 50-mile route been a "short stretch"? It's almost as long as the old double-track Moreton-Ascott section, which wasn't in the least bit a "dynamic" loop, since trains were booked to meet at either end of it for many years. The sheer length of the Moreton-Evesham single-track section was a major cause of major disruption in the past the instant any train missed a booked meet at either end. Lopping five miles off wouldn't have changed that fundamental problem.

Just because the timetable says such and such should happen, with trains meeting at point x, is irrelevant once there is disruption and you are trying to recover from it but are hobbled by single track. And if someone wants the timetable rewritten in the future, requiring trains to pass at, say, Chipping Campden tunnel, what would you do then, in the absence of double track under the btline masterplan?

But then I was forgetting that you have always known far better than the people at Network Rail who tested all the scenarios, drew up the redoubling plan and implemented it.

Bleeder4, I suspect that answering your question would get into the tricky area about promotion of commercial products.

The problem with the re-doubling is that it has left 2 frequently used stations on single lines, Pershore & Hanborough. This significantly adds to the time the single line sections are occupied.

A train leaving Norton will occupy the line for a longer time, because of the stop at Pershore, than on the Honeyborne - MiM section.

Similarly one of the benefits of the re-doubling is on the Eastern section adding MiM - Oxford workings, so re-doubling through to Handborough would aid scheduling on that section.

Looking at the length of the line but ignoring the time the line is occupied does not make any sense, nor does it properly take advantage of the monies spent, as with more thought the Evesham - West and MiM - East schedules could be further developed.

[IndustryInsider]

A train leaving Norton will occupy the line for a longer time, because of the stop at Pershore, than on the Honeyborne - MiM section.

Hence my comment about it being nice if they'd found the cash to do as far as Pershore - though not incurring the extra expense of another rebuilt platform.  I think it was right to do the sections they have done though.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Before any further redoubling can be contemplated in the east, which surely would be at least a decade off even given a very favourable economic wind and continued rise in number of Cotswold Line passengers, I suspect people are going to have to bite the bullet and accept the closure of Finstock and Combe.

[willc]

Ah, Templecombe revisited. Always a joy sitting just outside the station on the double track from Yeovil waiting for a late-running train from Gillingham to turn up, then stop in the station before you can go anywhere. Cheap, but deeply unpopular with passengers who want to get off there.

The problem with the re-doubling is that it has left 2 frequently used stations on single lines, Pershore & Hanborough. This significantly adds to the time the single line sections are occupied.

Well, we all know the answer to that one, don't we, since they are both small, insignificant 'village' stations...

If they were actually trying to ram four trains an hour through the single-line sections, it might be significant, but they aren't.

[Btline]

Before any further redoubling can be contemplated in the east, which surely would be at least a decade off even given a very favourable economic wind and continued rise in number of Cotswold Line passengers, I suspect people are going to have to bite the bullet and accept the closure of Finstock and Combe.

Indeed. Why they wasted money putting an extra platform in at Ascott for one PARLIAMENTARY train a day. Shipton is nearby. NO rail lines in this country have stations that close unless you're in a city! It should have been AXED years ago. In fact it's probably the worst but of transport spending ever! At least Finstock will be axed in a few decades, as they'll have to bulldoze the platform to get the second track in. Hopefully, one day the Oxford terminators will be extended to Charlbury/Hanborough and then some village calls on Worcester trains can be axed.

[Andy W]

If they were actually trying to ram four trains an hour through the single-line sections, it might be significant, but they aren't.

On the current timetable there are trains scheduled at 7.30, 7.37, 8.14 and 8.30 at Kingham. To the best of my knowledge they will be using the single line. So 'ramming' four trains per hour on the single line doesn't seem too far stretched.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Oh gawd, have I awoken the old "chop all the stops for the benefit of Worcester residents" chestnut again...