We are just discussing the possibilities of Worcestershire Parkway becoming an interchange station in addition to being a Parkway station and that could mean extending CrossCity from Bromsgrove that means performance of electric trains between both points to make interchange worthwhile for stations onwards to Brum.Perhaps we could stick to Worcestershire Parkway station here, not the performance of electric trains.
We are just discussing the possibilities of Worcestershire Parkway becoming an interchange station in addition to being a Parkway station and that could mean extending CrossCity from Bromsgrove that means performance of electric trains between both points to make interchange worthwhile for stations onwards to Brum.
Surprised no one has mentioned the vast housing development taking place around M5 Jcn 7 and the proximity of this and Pershore to the new station? Plenty of potential new custom in those areas alone, particularly if using car to get to the existing stations which are all constrained for parking spaces. But surely the obvious new custom will be for Worcester to Cardiff and the Southwest (one same platform change at Cheltenham) where the whole area including Droitwich is poorly served at present. I'm under no illusion that it will take time for the new custom to develop as the TOC's develop an adequate timetable frequency of calls. But the custom is waiting. It just needs the TOC's to step up and make those calls with trains one can actually get on to places they need to travel - WMT take note!.
But you are still not addressing those living east and southeast of the city who commute by car into Brum because of inadequate parking at Shrub Hill and Foregate St. and trying to get there. They might be tempted to use train for their commute if CrossCity was extended to Parkway.If electrification is extended beyond Bromsgrove, I can assure you that the place people will want West Midlands services to go is into the city of Worcester and hopefully at least as far as Great Malvern as well. The number of passengers from Worcester(shire) wanting the intermediate stations on the way into Birmingham is limited. Bromsgrove and University (station for the QE Hospital complex) are already served by the Hereford-Worcester-New Street services anyway and an easy connection with Cross-City trains is now available at Bromsgrove, should someone want to reach Longbridge etc.
As currently arranged, Worcestershire Parkway has no ability to act as a turnback location, which would come with a hefty price tag for the extra platforms(s) needed, along with points and signals. People in Worcester would rather that any funding that is available is spent on desperately needed modernisation work on the railway lines in the city.
Provision of adequate capacity on the north-south axis is rather more in the gift of the Department for Transport than anyone else, as it requires CrossCountry to get new or extra rolling stock fleet that can handle existing custom and allow for more from places like Worcestershire Parkway. PS: GWR, Wychavon district and Worcestershire county councils are working to get a scheme for a large new car park on the north side of the line at Pershore.
XC services will call, and those that will, already have a 'shadow' call at Worcestershire Parkway in the May timetable. It's just that it will only be the Cardiff/Nottingham ones calling, not the other 2tph in each direction, and of the CDF/NOTs it will be 1tph from Birmingham and 1tp2h to Birmingham (with exceptions at the start and end of service each day), so a bit of a rubbish and uneven service.Worcestershire Parkway 's Wiki page uses the term Regional Interchange and says there are plans for a Phase 2 with platforms on the XC line to Bristol after the initial opening on the Cotswold Line only. Is hoping for XC trains to call realistic?
But you are still not addressing those living east and southeast of the city who commute by car into Brum because of inadequate parking at Shrub Hill and Foregate St. and trying to get there. They might be tempted to use train for their commute if CrossCity was extended to Parkway.
Cardiff-Nottinghams do not want to stop at Parkway and Bromsgrove as this extends journey time.
XC services will call, and those that will, already have a 'shadow' call at Worcestershire Parkway in the May timetable. It's just that it will only be the Cardiff/Nottingham ones calling, not the other 2tph in each direction, and of the CDF/NOTs it will be 1tph from Birmingham and 1tp2h to Birmingham (with exceptions at the start and end of service each day), so a bit of a rubbish and uneven service.
Ironically, the Cross City extension to Bromsgrove causes the problems.Is there a reason why they will stop more frequently in one direction to the other?
I think you'd have to ask @The Planner to be sure, but it'll effectively be to do with the amount of slack in the timetable so as to allow for the train to present itself to key junctions at the right time - i.e. how the calls can be built into the timetable without rewriting everything else (bearing in mind that a lot of things are very intertwined, e.g. CrossCountry's Voyager services can't be moved around substantially as then they might lose their path north of Birmingham or south of Bristol, and so on). The CrossCity line from Barnt Green northwards is itself very busy, at 10tph with 6tph all-stops, so that doesn't exactly help. This all bunches up north of King's Norton, where it becomes two-track.Is there a reason why they will stop more frequently in one direction to the other?
Surprised no one has mentioned the vast housing development taking place around M5 Jcn 7 and the proximity of this and Pershore to the new station? Plenty of potential new custom in those areas alone, particularly if using car to get to the existing stations which are all constrained for parking spaces.
Cardiff-Nottinghams do not want to stop at Parkway and Bromsgrove as this extends journey time.
Well we all know CrossCity can't get beyond Bromsgrove at the moment. It was speculating what could happen if there was sufficient traffic in commuters.HOW is CrossCity going to get to Parkway?
Cross Country route or Cotswold Line?
It will be a lot lot lot lot lot cheaper to deal with parking (& other issues) at Shrub Hill than to get CrossCity to Parkway, whichever route you take.
The Cardiff-Nottinghams already stop at University & New Street, so already connect with the CrossCity.
What stopping at both stations in the new timetable?Not to mention the dualling of the Worcester SLR which will mean a much easier journey from the south than fighting your way into the city.
Except they are - its already in the new timetable. And who exactly doesn’t want them to stop? XC, passengers, NR, other TOCs/FOCs? This sentence doesn’t make sense.
Well we all know CrossCity can't get beyond Bromsgrove at the moment. It was speculating what could happen if there was sufficient traffic in commuters.
What stopping at both stations in the new timetable?
The TOCs are not thrilled otherwise more trains would be stopping. As a passenger from Cardiff to Derby or Gloucester to Nottingham, I wouldn't want my train stopping at so many blades of grass.
What stopping at both stations in the new timetable?
The TOCs are not thrilled otherwise more trains would be stopping. As a passenger from Cardiff to Derby or Gloucester to Nottingham, I wouldn't want my train stopping at so many blades of grass.
As mentioned elsewhere, RTT has the May timetable for Worcestershire Parkway:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/WOP/2019/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
Well we all know CrossCity can't get beyond Bromsgrove at the moment. It was speculating what could happen if there was sufficient traffic in commuters.
It would be an advantage to be able to stop regional and Intercity trains at Parkway to interchange with Cotswold trains for Worcester and stations to Hereford or Stourbridge, Parkway and stations to Oxford and an extended Crosscity and stations to Brum.
Yes, electrification would need extending and a turnback platform added at Parkway but just think of the connections that could be made that can't at the moment. Why would a third line be needed south of Bromsgrove for such a short distance of around a dozen miles and one or two additional trains per hour with 90/100mph electric stock?
We are just discussing the possibilities of Worcestershire Parkway becoming an interchange station in addition to being a Parkway station and that could mean extending CrossCity from Bromsgrove ...
They might be tempted to use train for their commute if CrossCity was extended to Parkway.
Well at the other end there are proposals to extend from Lichfield to Burton with new bay platforms there or even Derby and that means electrification. Much further than Parkway. Who would have thought that?You're the one speculating about extending the CrossCity south of Bromsgrove, so how would you do it?
Thats still fag packet territory and it doesnt confirm electrifcation to Burton or Derby either, you assume that a diesel or even bi-mode by that point wouldnt run it. An all station stopper to Burton wouldnt be attractive either, people would still use XC.Well at the other end there are proposals to extend from Lichfield to Burton with new bay platforms there or even Derby and that means electrification. Much further than Parkway. Who would have thought that?
Well at the other end there are proposals to extend from Lichfield to Burton with new bay platforms there or even Derby and that means electrification. Much further than Parkway. Who would have thought that?
What is the passive provision for a later Westbound platform? Will it have to go up and down over the public footpath (did the planners forget it - it’s footbridge looks a clumsy inconsistent design afterthought ??) then under the spare bridge span then up to a new platform?
Seems a bit convoluted.
2tph in each direction would mean a line occupation of 50 minutes. You ain't doing 2tph on a section of that length with that.A quick look at the timetables suggests that 12 1/2 mins are allocated for trains to travel between Norton Jct and Evesham. That would imply that 2tph in each direction is possible at a push, leaving little margin for delay however and no room for any freight paths etc.
Closing the level crossings is what will allow you to increase the speed. They are what caused the problems with the original line speed scheme. Pretty sure its on a 4 minute headway anyway so a resignalling is unlikely to drop that to 3 as it isn't required.I’m not sure why you keep referring to triple-tracking of the low level XC route. There is unlikely to ever be demand for more than two tracks on that stretch of line. The line speed is mainly 90mph (some 100) between Abbotswood Jct and Stoke Works Jct so it’s not like there’s a significant speed differential and frequency that would require a third track to accommodate more trains. I would expect future impreovements to look at signalling headways and closure of the multiple level crossings. Besides, the line via Worcester itself could feasibly take more services following a remodelling of the area, which is sorely needed as it currently acts as an operational tourniquet for services.
Yes, I expected as much – what’s the maximum occupation period percentage that is normally accepted for single track lines; is it influenced by the section length?2tph in each direction would mean a line occupation of 50 minutes. You ain't doing 2tph on a section of that length with that.
People get twitchy if its over 75-80% but it depends on a number of factors, such as length of section, signalling etc.. normally it is 3 minutes for single line reoccupation margin so Evesham to Norton can't work anyway as you don't have enough minutes.Yes, I expected as much – what’s the maximum occupation period percentage that is normally accepted for single track lines; is it influenced by the section length?
If I recall the Worcestershire Council long term plan has an aspirational 2tph, so it’d be interesting to see what ideas are suggested to resolve the current limitation.
A quick look at the timetables suggests that 12 1/2 mins are allocated for trains to travel between Norton Jct and Evesham. That would imply that 2tph in each direction is possible at a push, leaving little margin for delay however and no room for any freight paths etc.
I’m not sure why you keep referring to triple-tracking of the low level XC route. There is unlikely to ever be demand for more than two tracks on that stretch of line. The line speed is mainly 90mph (some 100) between Abbotswood Jct and Stoke Works Jct so it’s not like there’s a significant speed differential and frequency that would require a third track to accommodate more trains. I would expect future impreovements to look at signalling headways and closure of the multiple level crossings. Besides, the line via Worcester itself could feasibly take more services following a remodelling of the area, which is sorely needed as it currently acts as an operational tourniquet for services.
Yes, I expected as much – what’s the maximum occupation period percentage that is normally accepted for single track lines; is it influenced by the section length?
If I recall the Worcestershire Council long term plan has an aspirational 2tph, so it’d be interesting to see what ideas are suggested to resolve the current limitation.
I’m not sure why you keep referring to triple-tracking of the low level XC route. There is unlikely to ever be demand for more than two tracks on that stretch of line. The line speed is mainly 90mph (some 100) between Abbotswood Jct and Stoke Works Jct so it’s not like there’s a significant speed differential and frequency that would require a third track to accommodate more trains. I would expect future impreovements to look at signalling headways and closure of the multiple level crossings. Besides, the line via Worcester itself could feasibly take more services following a remodelling of the area, which is sorely needed as it currently acts as an operational tourniquet for services.
West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study said:Barnt Green to Kings Norton capability
Indicative service level analysis of the section between Barnt Green and Kings Norton has shown that the 2043 reduced specification is not sustainable on the current infrastructure. The key finding of the analysis is that, in order to accommodate this level of service, separation of flows will be required. There are a number of potential solutions proposed (see Figure 3.5),
Proposed Interventions; 1. Third track between Bromsgrove and Barnt Green.