• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Worcestershire Parkway station progress

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shrewbly

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2017
Messages
112
Ask WMT or GWR to provide a Kidderminster/Malvern - Parkway - Evesham ‘local service’

...or (continuing with hypotheticals) maybe Bromsgrove, Shrub Hill, Parkway might work?** Links Parkway to the Cross-City and Droitwich improving connection options, as well as giving extra links into Worcester city. Platform 1 at Bromsgrove could be used (it's currently under utilised, being mostly used as a goods loop), and it could probably be a single diagram. Takes a little pressure off Worcester Foregate St too!


** OK, I'll admit to some self-interest with this proposal!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
Reading this forum on Worcester Parkway, the general consensus seems to be that the station isn’t going to be utilised to its potential. Whilst electrification and extension of the Cross-City line into a new bay platform at Parkway sounds like a great solution in theory, finances and timetabling are simply always going to be a massive problem.

The goal of the station is to provide 'Cross-Country services' for Worcester, so more services into Birmingham (that Cross-City would provide) isn't the only goal - rather the ability to travel the whole country without needing to change trains is the purpose of the station. The Voyagers will provide this when they call there eventually. The fact that the Turbostars are calling at the station is already an improvement for Worcester, and yes diverting them to call at Shrub Hill would have been ‘easier’ but I’m sure CrossCountry have a valid reason for not doing this…as the 2008 withdrawal of these services showed. It’s going to improve in phases, you can’t just expect instant results. In terms of greater service pattern, this will be improved once the Cotswold Line is eventually doubled and the Voyagers begin to call at the station. Understandable that the people of Worcester want them now, and it’s easy to feel like the city is forgotten about when we have modern Japanese high-speed trains running on track with wooden sleepers and semaphores still being the main signalling system. However, these things cost a ton of money to improve and will…hopefully…eventually change.

If we’re talking hypothetical solutions, past and future:
Electrify and extend the Cross-City line to Parkway into a bay platform. Lay double track into a second platform at Parkway High Level on the London-end and run a non-stop Paddington-Parkway high speed service calling at Oxford and Reading. Ask WMT or GWR to provide a Kidderminster/Malvern - Parkway - Evesham ‘local service’. Extend Transport for Wales’ Maesteg-Cheltenham to Shrub Hill or Parkway to provide more services south and review the New Street - Worcester services with the Shrub Hill terminators instead finishing at Parkway to provide more services north. Recent proposals to split the Turbostar services with regional operators (GWR/TfW Cardiff-Birmingham calling at the usual stations plus Parkway, then EMT Birmingham-Nottingham) could also be an answer.

All these are great ideas, but they just won’t happen in the near future as it means money money money. A logical solution that I can think of off the top of my head, is that the Shrub Hill terminators should be extended to Parkway High Level as this will provide an extra few services around Worcester. Additionally, West Midlands Trains currently operate a Friday-only Birmingham-Gloucester service via Shrub Hill at the dead of night (1V30/2G30) - this type of service could be an easy solution if the stock becomes available by running a New Street - Parkway LL - Cheltenham - Gloucester service. However, once again, the main goal is for the station to be added to the Cross-Country network as a ‘big station’ for a city.

I do like what Parkway is bringing to the city of Worcester, I just feel that the way it has been hyped by the County Council and local newspapers are the main problems that has made Parkway look unsuccessful before it’s even opened.
I would have said the consensus is that the station has very little potential, and will probably just get in the way of any actual improvements. I admire your optimism in believing that voyagers will eventually stop there, but there's really very little reason to believe that will ever happen
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The Birmingham-Worcester-Gloucester-Bristol (and S Wales) corridor suffers from being on the boundary of three countries/regions and four TOCs, with a particular defect being the poor service southwards from Worcester. Ideally the Cardiff trains should be equal in speed and status to those serving Bristol and beyond, with some smartly-worked semi-fasts to pick up the likes of University and Ashchurch - but not Cam & Dursley nor Yate which should be part of a Metro type network around Bristol. However in that situation the semi-fasts would serve Droitwich and Shrub Hill so would pass within sight of the Parkway but couldn't stop there.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
I would have said the consensus is that the station has very little potential, and will probably just get in the way of any actual improvements. I admire your optimism in believing that voyagers will eventually stop there, but there's really very little reason to believe that will ever happen

A post to look back on 1, 5, 10 and 50 years
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
The Birmingham-Worcester-Gloucester-Bristol (and S Wales) corridor suffers from being on the boundary of three countries/regions and four TOCs, with a particular defect being the poor service southwards from Worcester. Ideally the Cardiff trains should be equal in speed and status to those serving Bristol and beyond, with some smartly-worked semi-fasts to pick up the likes of University and Ashchurch - but not Cam & Dursley nor Yate which should be part of a Metro type network around Bristol. However in that situation the semi-fasts would serve Droitwich and Shrub Hill so would pass within sight of the Parkway but couldn't stop there.

Apart from the fact Cardiff trains are unlikely to stop at Yate and C & D, more of an issue for Worcs-Bristol trains is stopping at Filton Abbey Wood, Lawrence Hill AND Stapleton Road!!
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
If we’re talking hypothetical solutions, past and future:
Lay double track into a second platform at Parkway High Level on the London-end and run a non-stop Paddington-Parkway high speed service calling at Oxford and Reading. Ask WMT or GWR to provide a Kidderminster/Malvern - Parkway - Evesham ‘local service’. Extend Transport for Wales’ Maesteg-Cheltenham to Shrub Hill or Parkway to provide more services south and review the New Street - Worcester services with the Shrub Hill terminators instead finishing at Parkway to provide more services north. Recent proposals to split the Turbostar services with regional operators (GWR/TfW Cardiff-Birmingham calling at the usual stations plus Parkway, then EMT Birmingham-Nottingham) could also be an answer.

All these are great ideas, but they just won’t happen in the near future as it means money money money. A logical solution that I can think of off the top of my head, is that the Shrub Hill terminators should be extended to Parkway High Level as this will provide an extra few services around Worcester. Additionally, West Midlands Trains currently operate a Friday-only Birmingham-Gloucester service via Shrub Hill at the dead of night (1V30/2G30) - this type of service could be an easy solution if the stock becomes available by running a New Street - Parkway LL - Cheltenham - Gloucester service. However, once again, the main goal is for the station to be added to the Cross-Country network as a ‘big station’ for a city.

I do like what Parkway is bringing to the city of Worcester, I just feel that the way it has been hyped by the County Council and local newspapers are the main problems that has made Parkway look unsuccessful before it’s even opened.

How exactly do you think a service that only calls at Reading and Oxford between London and Worcester is ever going to pay for itself? The money that pays for even the current level of London services that Worcester gets is earned at the eastern end of the Cotswold Line, not at Worcester. The city simply doesn't generate the revenue on the London route needed to pay for this kind of fantasy service, no matter how many times people propose something of the sort.

Tonight is the last night that the Friday WMR service to Gloucester is running. It disappears with the new timetable and WMR have no interest in running anything past Worcester in future.

And there are already far too many services running for long distances within England under the control of TfW to start adding yet more of them.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
If you can look back in 50 years and tell me I was wrong (or right for that matter), then I'll be fairly chuffed to be honest!

In 50 years time the station will be surrounded by housing and more industrial units. That’s my prediction!!!
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
In 50 years time the station will be surrounded by housing and more industrial units. That’s my prediction!!!
I think that's probably a long shot, but it depends on a fairly wide range of factors so isn't that predictable. What we can be certain of is that approach from the west will still be controlled from Norton Junction box, and that the national infrastructure provider will still have a 30 year plan to eliminate absolute block signalling in the Worcester area
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,839
I think that's probably a long shot, but it depends on a fairly wide range of factors so isn't that predictable. What we can be certain of is that approach from the west will still be controlled from Norton Junction box, and that the national infrastructure provider will still have a 30 year plan to eliminate absolute block signalling in the Worcester area
As much as you should have put [cynic][/cynic] there, Worcester won't last that long, someone will have to bite the bullet in CP7 and its why it gets transferred to the LNW route soon (or Central and North as its now called)
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
More like 10 years .....

Given that the current adopted Local Plan for South Worcestershire, running until 2030, shows no sign of any major development east of the M5 and lots of land slated for development at Norton Barracks/Broomhall, I think you might still see the odd bit of greenery around the station in 2029.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
Given that the current adopted Local Plan for South Worcestershire, running until 2030, shows no sign of any major development east of the M5 and lots of land slated for development at Norton Barracks/Broomhall, I think you might still see the odd bit of greenery around the station in 2029.

Yes but the government now requires councils to update them every five years and there has already been a ‘call for sites’ consultation with landowners for the 2021 review:https://www.worcester.gov.uk/swdp
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
How many new houses do you think Worcester needs? The Norton Barracks/Broomhall land alone can take almost 2,500 and the Local Plan lists lots of other pockets of housing land in and around the city, never mind anything that might get built in the surrounding towns, which should be enough to be going on with for a decade, if not longer.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
How many new houses do you think Worcester needs? The Norton Barracks/Broomhall land alone can take almost 2,500 and the Local Plan lists lots of other pockets of housing land in and around the city, never mind anything that might get built in the surrounding towns, which should be enough to be going on with for a decade, if not longer.
We have a huge backlog of new housebuilding to get done in the UK to get back to the provision per person we had 30 years ago, but that's basically covered in the plan. The ongoing rise in population in the UK is small and may disappear completely in the next 20 years. Places like Worcester, much of which is reluctant overspill from Birmingham, may even their populations shrinking. Why would you want to move there when the train service is lousy :lol:
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
How many new houses do you think Worcester needs? The Norton Barracks/Broomhall land alone can take almost 2,500 and the Local Plan lists lots of other pockets of housing land in and around the city, never mind anything that might get built in the surrounding towns, which should be enough to be going on with for a decade, if not longer.

To Quote the South Worcestershire Development Plan:

3. SWDP 3 plans for growth of about 28,400 dwellings in South Worcestershire for the plan period 2006 to 2030. This policy target is in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the Inspector for the SWDP Examination. The rounded South Worcestershire housing provision target of about 28,400 reflects the overall housing need of 28,370 dwellings established through the OAHN.

And:

a. Worcester City’s built up area is tightly constrained inside its administrative boundary. There is insufficient available, suitable land in the City to meet all its development needs, especially housing. The target for the City of 6,800 dwellings is based on the forecast supply of housing including future deliverable and developable sites in the City to 2030. At 6,800 the policy requirement target for Wider Worcester Area (Worcester City) is below the need for 9,830 dwellings in Worcester City identified in the OAHN.

https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Adopted-SWDP-February-2016.pdf (Page 60)

Most of the 2500 at Broomhall is to make up the gap between the 6800 available in within Worcester itself and the 9830 required. There’s still the need for another 20,000 homes in South Worcestershire on top of Worcester. And this is a plan which was written prior to the Parkway station getting funding, is already widely out of date, is under review (due 2021), not to mention they’ve built (and paid for) a large roundabout at the entrance to the station....
 
Last edited:

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
To Quote the South Worcestershire Development Plan:

3. SWDP 3 plans for growth of about 28,400 dwellings in South Worcestershire for the plan period 2006 to 2030. This policy target is in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the Inspector for the SWDP Examination. The rounded South Worcestershire housing provision target of about 28,400 reflects the overall housing need of 28,370 dwellings established through the OAHN.

And:

a. Worcester City’s built up area is tightly constrained inside its administrative boundary. There is insufficient available, suitable land in the City to meet all its development needs, especially housing. The target for the City of 6,800 dwellings is based on the forecast supply of housing including future deliverable and developable sites in the City to 2030. At 6,800 the policy requirement target for Wider Worcester Area (Worcester City) is below the need for 9,830 dwellings in Worcester City identified in the OAHN.

https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Adopted-SWDP-February-2016.pdf (Page 60)

Most of the 2500 at Broomhall is to make up the gap between the 6800 available in within Worcester itself and the 9830 required. There’s still the need for another 20,000 homes in South Worcestershire on top of Worcester. And this is a plan which was written prior to the Parkway station getting funding, is already widely out of date, is under review (due 2021), not to mention they’ve built (and paid for) a large roundabout at the entrance to the station....

Taking the figure the Office for National Statistics seems to use of an average of 2.4 people per UK household, a target of 30,000 new homes would suggest the population of Worcester is going to increase by more than 70,000 people, so three new Eveshams... forgive me for having my doubts about that happening any time soon.

So there's a big roundabout at the entrance to Parkway. So what? There's a big roundabout at the western end of the Wyre Piddle bypass and I haven't noticed a great metropolis appearing in the vicinity since it was built 17 years ago. About the only thing that might get built there any time soon is a new car park for Pershore station.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
Taking the figure the Office for National Statistics seems to use of an average of 2.4 people per UK household, a target of 30,000 new homes would suggest the population of Worcester is going to increase by more than 70,000 people, so three new Eveshams... forgive me for having my doubts about that happening any time soon.

No, you’ve not read my post.

It’s 9830 homes (pop 22,609 according to the ONS figure of 2.3*) for Worcester City (inc the Broomhall development). Circa 20000 homes for the rest of South Worcestershire. This is not only local policy but has been reviewed and approved by the national government planning inspectorate.

As Worcestershire Parkway has ‘good’ rail (and road) links to most of the south Worcestershire cities and towns (ie Worcester, Great Malvern, Bromsgrove, Pershore, Evesham), already has large industrial units on one side (NW) and, apart from the Benedictine community at Mucknell Abbey to the E, virtually no one lives within eyesight of the station why not stick a couple of thousand houses there? You’re not going to have spats with locals (and more importantly their councillors) over swamping their roads and doctors surgeries, ruining their views or conservation areas or the other umpteen arguments that delay proposals.

*https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...seholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21

So there's a big roundabout at the entrance to Parkway. So what? There's a big roundabout at the western end of the Wyre Piddle bypass and I haven't noticed a great metropolis appearing in the vicinity since it was built 17 years ago. About the only thing that might get built there any time soon is a new car park for Pershore station.

The latest google satellite maps show archaeological trial trenches immediately east of the roundabout so I’d expect more industrial units or housing there imminently (see image below). Looking on the planning portal would tell us which.
 

Attachments

  • 8983936E-5ACE-43DA-A725-F512DEBEC624.png
    8983936E-5ACE-43DA-A725-F512DEBEC624.png
    2.9 MB · Views: 29
Last edited:

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
No, you’ve not read my post.

It’s 9830 homes (pop 22,609 according to the ONS figure of 2.3*) for Worcester City (inc the Broomhall development). Circa 20000 homes for the rest of South Worcestershire. This is not only local policy but has been reviewed and approved by the national government planning inspectorate.

As Worcestershire Parkway has ‘good’ rail (and road) links to most of the south Worcestershire cities and towns (ie Worcester, Great Malvern, Bromsgrove, Pershore, Evesham), already has large industrial units on one side (NW) and, apart from the Benedictine community at Mucknell Abbey to the E, virtually no one lives within eyesight of the station why not stick a couple of thousand houses there? You’re not going to have spats with locals (and more importantly their councillors) over swamping their roads and doctors surgeries, ruining their views or conservation areas or the other umpteen arguments that delay proposals.

*https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...seholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21

The latest google satellite maps show archaeological trial trenches immediately east of the roundabout so I’d expect more industrial units or housing there imminently (see image below). Looking on the planning portal would tell us which.

My apologies, I wrote Worcester instead of South Worcestershire - but my point stands. Do you seriously think that the population of that area is going to swell by 70,000 people in the next decade?

As I say, that is three new Eveshams, or to put it another way, 70 per cent of Worcester - a city where the population has grown by about 8,000 people in the past 20 years or so, so the Norton Barracks site and all the other identified locations in Worcester should perfectly well be able to handle growth for a long time to come.

I'm well aware of how the Local Plan and regional planning processes work, thanks.

That the industrial units are there is down to them having being built on a previously-used brownfield site, not their proximity to the station site.

And if you think that people in Norton, Littleworth and Stoulton - and their councillors - won't have anything to say if someone proposes plonking down a small town on their doorsteps, dream on.

The area around the station may well get built on eventually but the idea it is all going to happen in the next five minutes is laughable.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,880
Location
Lancashire
As much as you should have put [cynic][/cynic] there, Worcester won't last that long, someone will have to bite the bullet in CP7 and its why it gets transferred to the LNW route soon (or Central and North as its now called)
North West and Central Region doesn’t come into being until June 24th
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
My apologies, I wrote Worcester instead of South Worcestershire - but my point stands. Do you seriously think that the population of that area is going to swell by 70,000 people in the next decade?

As I say, that is three new Eveshams, or to put it another way, 70 per cent of Worcester - a city where the population has grown by about 8,000 people in the past 20 years or so, so the Norton Barracks site and all the other identified locations in Worcester should perfectly well be able to handle growth for a long time to come.

I'm well aware of how the Local Plan and regional planning processes work, thanks.

That the industrial units are there is down to them having being built on a previously-used brownfield site, not their proximity to the station site.

And if you think that people in Norton, Littleworth and Stoulton - and their councillors - won't have anything to say if someone proposes plonking down a small town on their doorsteps, dream on.

Yes, I do think it almost certain that we see 30000 homes get approved in the period 2016-2029. I also think it likely that in the 2021 and/or 2026 reviews site(s) immediately around Parkway are suggested and sites elsewhere currently in the plan are removed.

I also think it extremely likely the councillors in Norton, Littleworth, Stoulton, and any other village in South Worcestershire would MUCH rather see houses built adjacent to the Parkway site, rather than adjacent to their, or their voters, back yards...

The area around the station may well get built on eventually but the idea it is all going to happen in the next five minutes is laughable.

If you look at my original post I actually said 50 years (although I do think it’ll be sooner than that) rather than 5 minutes which you seem to be accusing me of saying. So please don’t.
 
Last edited:

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,839
North West and Central Region doesn’t come into being until June 24th
For the sake of 4 weeks and more than likely a load of emails tomorrow telling us what we have to change until Mr Shoveller turns up it might as well be.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
For the sake of 4 weeks and more than likely a load of emails tomorrow telling us what we have to change until Mr Shoveller turns up it might as well be.

Although maybe off topic, is the individual referred to being Tim Shoveller, who was the gaffer of Stagecoach East Midlands around the time the former Central Trains franchise was carved up?
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,880
Location
Lancashire
Although maybe off topic, is the individual referred to being Tim Shoveller, who was the gaffer of Stagecoach East Midlands around the time the former Central Trains franchise was carved up?
Yes the same as well as his time at South West Trains
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
Cardiff - Nottinghams do not want to stop at Parkway and Bromsgrove as this extends journey time.
Not to mention Ashchurch (for Tewkesbury), where the local user group has been campaigning for some time for a decent service to Birmingham (which they had when the station opened in 1997).

What would be useful is a Bristol TM - Birmingham International semi-fast service, calling at all stations between Gloucester and Bromsgrove, but there is no spare stock for such a service, probable difficulty in finding paths over the whole route and certainly at the Birmingham end, and who would want to operate it?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
Anyone running a Bristol to Birmingham semi fast is not going to want to skip Central Worcester and Droitwich are they?
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Yes, I do think it almost certain that we see 30000 homes get approved in the period 2016-2029. I also think it likely that in the 2021 and/or 2026 reviews site(s) immediately around Parkway are suggested and sites elsewhere currently in the plan are removed.

I also think it extremely likely the councillors in Norton, Littleworth, Stoulton, and any other village in South Worcestershire would MUCH rather see houses built adjacent to the Parkway site, rather than adjacent to their, or their voters, back yards...

If you look at my original post I actually said 50 years (although I do think it’ll be sooner than that) rather than 5 minutes which you seem to be accusing me of saying. So please don’t.

Those three villages are all within a mile or so of the Parkway site, so I will stick to my view that it is very adjacent to them.

I wasn't accusing you of saying five minutes. I was exaggerating, but your proportion seems to be that at the review stage the area will suddenly find itself designated to be covered in housing - which I doubt, given the number of existing allocated sites and the low level of actual population growth in the city of Worcester so far this century that I pointed out. I see no reason whatever for that growth to suddenly accelerate off the scale and require the allocation of lots of new housing sites for the late 2020s at Parkway or anywhere else.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
Those three villages are all within a mile or so of the Parkway site, so I will stick to my view that it is very adjacent to them.

I wasn't accusing you of saying five minutes. I was exaggerating, but your proportion seems to be that at the review stage the area will suddenly find itself designated to be covered in housing - which I doubt, given the number of existing allocated sites and the low level of actual population growth in the city of Worcester so far this century that I pointed out. I see no reason whatever for that growth to suddenly accelerate off the scale and require the allocation of lots of new housing sites for the late 2020s at Parkway or anywhere else.

Have you considered that the ‘low’ level of population growth (5.65% between 2001-11) might be due to growth being constrained by the restricted availability of housing in Worcester City and the surrounding area? Which is highlighted in the development plan and I’ve quoted above (Post 436). Hence why the three councils (and national government agrees) require the additional housing stock.

Furthermore you’re applying a direct link between housing building and population growth. While the two are clearly linked, it’s not absolute. Just because you build a thousand houses doesn’t mean the population will automatically rise by 2300. There are many other factors at play including the types of housing stock being built, changing demographics, the steady decline in population per household, removal or conversion of old housing stock from the market, the need to reduce house price inflation, not to mention to provide employment opportunities and drive economic growth.

Anyway really getting off topic now
 
Last edited:

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
Have they potentially put the Parkway station in the wrong corner?

Would it have been better if it had been in the south-west corner, with platforms on the Norton curve?
That way, it would also serve trains doing Shrub Hill <> south west.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Have they potentially put the Parkway station in the wrong corner?

Would it have been better if it had been in the south-west corner, with platforms on the Norton curve?
That way, it would also serve trains doing Shrub Hill <> south west.
It would have seemed logical to me to add a platform on the Norton Curve at least - à la Earlestown/Shipley. I suppose cost-benefit analysis probably doesn't permit it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top