Ideas for improving the North Cotswold Line

[II]

I've spent a bit of time thinking about how further improvements could be made to the North Cotswold Line as we know the existing infrastructure is nearing capacity at certain times of the day. We have a number of forum users who have a vested interest in the line, and it would be interesting to hear your views of my ideas and any of your own.

The North Cotswold Line was partially redoubled in 2011 as part of a plan to improve train punctuality along the route. This also facilitated improvements to the number of trains that could operate and reduced journey times for some trains. However, the line is now operating close to its capacity. Having single track sections of almost ten miles each at either end really affects the number of trains that can be pathed, and, whilst much better than before 2011, it can still take a frustratingly long time to recover the service after there has been a delay. With the added factors of large levels of growth, especially at the eastern end, and a new station at Worcestershire Parkway opening next year which will further constrain available paths at the western end, there is now a need to think about further enhancements.

The attached document is intended to suggest ways of further improving the Cotswold Line route allowing for more trains to operate, speedier recovery from disruption and minor improvements to journey times over and above what might be possible by the new IET trains coming on stream.

It concentrates on keeping costs down as much as practically possible, by wherever possible using existing signalling and minimising the amount of new infrastructure required such as station platforms and footbridges.

The end result means the headway between trains as a result of the current signalling is roughly halved on key sections of the route, reducing signalling sections to allow headways of 8 minutes for the common station calling patterns of trains. This will allow more trains to be pathed (generally an extra train each hour in each direction could be accommodated), and reduce reactionary delays at times when no more trains than currently operate are required.

IT IS JUST A SUGGESTION, and will hopefully create a debate on the best way forward. You could argue that the whole line could be redoubled, all the signal boxed closed and transferred to the TVSC at Didcot or ROC at Rugby. That would have obvious cost implications such as the need to rebuild Finstock station and add another platform as well as adding a platform at Combe within a tricky engineering location. Another option would be to undertake the track layout changes I’ve suggested, but take the opportunity to re-signal the route at the same time – that would have implications on the cost, but would probably save money over time. Other more sensible signalling solutions may exist to the ones I suggest, indeed the ones I suggest might not be feasible.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Speculative Ideas I believe this belongs in.

 

[route:oxford]

It concentrates on keeping costs down as much as practically possible, by wherever possible using existing signalling and minimising the amount of new infrastructure required such as station platforms and footbridges.

Overall an interesting article, but don't little economies often result in big costs?

With all the planned building around the Wolvercote and Peartree areas, the ideal would be to have a new station there too also to have future provision for a route to Witney.

 

[squizzler]

I would avoid the twisty Cotswold line route and build a new railway direct from Oxford to Cheltenham more-or-less along the A40 alignment. The benefits would be a fast modern mainline offering good connections to Worcester, Gloucester and a diversionary route to South Wales. It would be the de-facto far western extension of East West Rail.

This route is considered by Mark Casson in his book "The World's First Railway System" as one of the main routes that should have been built but was never to be.

The existing Cotswold routes could then be relegated to local services.

 

[II]

Speculative Ideas I believe this belongs in.

You're quite right. Sorry, I hadn't noticed there was a specific board. If one of the mods could move it then that would be appreciated?

Overall an interesting article, but don't little economies often result in big costs?

With all the planned building around the Wolvercote and Peartree areas, the ideal would be to have a new station there too also to have future provision for a route to Witney.

I guess having a double lead junction and bi-di signalling would indeed offer future provision for a Witney route if that ever becomes more than just a pipe dream - the old route diverged about one mile after the junction, and so could be plugged into these plans fairly easily. Wolvercote and Peartree are reasonably well served by Oxford Parkway and I'm not sure a station there could be justified.

I would avoid the twisty Cotswold line route and build a new railway direct from Oxford to Cheltenham more-or-less along the A40 alignment. The benefits would be a fast modern mainline offering good connections to Worcester, Gloucester and a diversionary route to South Wales. It would be the de-facto far western extension of East West Rail.

This route is considered by Mark Casson in his book "The World's First Railway System" as one of the main routes that should have been built but was never to be.

The existing Cotswold routes could then be relegated to local services.

Perhaps if funding was not an problem. Sadly it is!

 

[jimm]

Speculative Ideas I believe this belongs in.

No, as a group called the Cotswold Line Taskforce - rail industry, local authorities, etc - has been looking at exactly this kind of thing for a couple of years and will publish a report before the end of this year on the how the route could be improved and what it might cost. So not really crayonista territory.


II, FYI Network Rail has now decreed that everything at Wolvercote should have an e on the end of the name. All the signs stuck on the local infrastructure in August use this spelling. Very 21st century...

At Hanborough, even if costly, I believe that putting track back on the former down loop to create a turnback with an island platform would be the best way to go if trains are to be extended out of Oxford. It would give somewhere to put 387s or whatever out of the way of trains going further along the line if there was any disruption. It appears Network Rail may have been looking at the disused platform recently, as the vegetation around it was all removed a few weeks ago.

If redoubling all the way to Charlbury was to happen, I think Combe and Finstock would be goners. There is no way to justify the costs that would be involved in giving them new platforms - and before anyone who doesn't know the area pipes up yet again, more trains calling would not produce a bonanza, given the distance from the villages they supposedly serve and things like the roughly hourly all-day bus service between the centre of Combe and Oxford.

But it's not just the station issues that stand in the way of redoubling on this section. The Cornbury Park overbridge just south of Charlbury has tight clearances and would probably have to be replaced to meet modern standards.

Intermediate block signals in the Kingham area and somewhere between Moreton-in-Marsh and Honeybourne are certainly a good idea.

The residents of Aston Magna would be very upset to be told they are at Blockley... and Blockley level crossing/former station is actually at Paxford.

Surely at Evesham west you could slew the paintwork and track - which would probably have to be done anyway - and insert another turnout to create a trailing crossover there, rather than have a facing one there and install a complete new trailing crossover closer to the station.

At Pershore, you have the existing platform on the wrong side - it is south of the single track on the town side of the line.

I believe the taskforce has already come to the conclusion that redoubling of Norton Junction is critical in addition to more double track between Evesham and Pershore, though quite how far east double track should stretch from Norton is not clear, as you say the question of Worcestershire Parkway's second high-level platform then rears its head.

The taskforce is also looking at what modernisation may be needed in the Worcester area generally, given the limitations of the existing infrastructure there.

I would avoid the twisty Cotswold line route and build a new railway direct from Oxford to Cheltenham more-or-less along the A40 alignment. The benefits would be a fast modern mainline offering good connections to Worcester, Gloucester and a diversionary route to South Wales. It would be the de-facto far western extension of East West Rail.

This route is considered by Mark Casson in his book "The World's First Railway System" as one of the main routes that should have been built but was never to be.

The existing Cotswold routes could then be relegated to local services.

Which pot of gold is going to pay for that?

A brand-new railway over difficult terrain to principally serve two cities and a town with a combined population less than that of the likes of Leeds or Sheffield or Manchester... dream on. Any westward extension of East West rail services will be going to the Bristol area, not Gloucester.

Gloucestershire County Council and the DfT have been haggling for longer than anyone can remember about how to get a dual carriageway off the top of the Cotswolds at Birdlip and down to the M5 and Gloucester.

Birdlip Hill is almost 1,000ft above sea level. Gloucester is a whole 78ft above sea level. So it's not an easy one to solve.

A railway would encounter just the same issue. Brunel wasn't afraid of tough terrain if there was no other option, but clearly decided the Stroud Valley was a more practical way and cost-effective way to get to Gloucester than going over the top of the Cotswolds then trying to get down to the Severn.

As for your residual 'local services', where do you suggest they should run to and from? There is plenty of commuter traffic from the eastern end of the Cotswold Line (and from Kemble on the Stroud route) through to Reading and London.

 

[II]

No, as a group called the Cotswold Line Taskforce - rail industry, local authorities, etc - has been looking at exactly this kind of thing for a couple of years and will publish a report before the end of this year on the how the route could be improved and what it might cost. So not really crayonista territory.

Thanks for your opinions, jimm and yes, I'm very much looking forward to seeing what they produce and how similar their conclusions are.

At Hanborough, even if costly, I believe that putting track back on the former down loop to create a turnback with an island platform would be the best way to go if trains are to be extended out of Oxford. It would give somewhere to put 387s or whatever out of the way of trains going further along the line if there was any disruption. It appears Network Rail may have been looking at the disused platform recently, as the vegetation around it was all removed a few weeks ago.

If redoubling all the way to Charlbury was to happen, I think Combe and Finstock would be goners. There is no way to justify the costs that would be involved in giving them new platforms - and before anyone who doesn't know the area pipes up yet again, more trains calling would not produce a bonanza, given the distance from the villages they supposedly serve and things like the roughly hourly all-day bus service between the centre of Combe and Oxford.

But it's not just the station issues that stand in the way of redoubling on this section. The Cornbury Park overbridge just south of Charlbury has tight clearances and would probably have to be replaced to meet modern standards.

Certainly an option at Hanborough. I personally don't think Combe and Finstock would survive either if fully redoubled. A new platform at Combe, a new platform at Finstock and the current one rebuilt, and, as you say, the troublesome bridge at Charlbury would add many millions. However, I am of the opinion that politics will intervene and nobody will have the balls to actually go through with their closure, so Hanborough to Charlbury will stay singled for the foreseeable future!

Surely at Evesham west you could slew the paintwork and track - which would probably have to be done anyway - and insert another turnout to create a trailing crossover there, rather than have a facing one there and install a complete new trailing crossover closer to the station.

At Pershore, you have the existing platform on the wrong side - it is south of the single track on the town side of the line.

I believe the taskforce has already come to the conclusion that redoubling of Norton Junction is critical in addition to more double track between Evesham and Pershore, though quite how far east double track should stretch from Norton is not clear, as you say the question of Worcestershire Parkway's second high-level platform then rears its head.

That would certainly be another option at Evesham. Pershore might be better off being rebuilt completely (perhaps a little further towards Evesham) to properly accommodate two modern platforms. Space on the northern side is very restricted and it might be too tight a squeeze under the existing bridge for two tracks to modern standards unless the existing track is slewed a couple of feet. Perhaps a rebuild could have a road connection to the A44 and finally a proper car park using space between the existing factory and Wychavon Council Depot on the north side of the tracks?

Worcestershire Parkway is indeed a thorn in the side of ambitions to redouble from the Norton Junction end, but perhaps a solution can be found, even if it's only a short section of extra track to just before the new station.

The taskforce is also looking at what modernisation may be needed in the Worcester area generally, given the limitations of the existing infrastructure there.

I think the answer there is that everything needs to be modernised!

 

[imagination]

Certainly an option at Hanborough. I personally don't think Combe and Finstock would survive either if fully redoubled. A new platform at Combe, a new platform at Finstock and the current one rebuilt, and, as you say, the troublesome bridge at Charlbury would add many millions. However, I am of the opinion that politics will intervene and nobody will have the balls to actually go through with their closure, so Hanborough to Charlbury will stay singled for the foreseeable future!

It isn't really an option at Combe, but would it not be possible to turn Finstock into an island platform? Yes, it isn't the historic alignment, but that shouldn't be a constraint on future options. You'd need to do a lot of work on the bridge, but in order to redouble the line chances are you'd be doing work on it anyway. In exchange you negate the cost of putting in a whole new platform. It probably wouldn't be worth it, especially as the continued issue with Combe would mean that it wouldn't silence the political objections. The only real alternative there would be to have the one train a day run down the "wrong" line.

 

[route:oxford]

Wolvercote and Peartree are reasonably well served by Oxford Parkway and I'm not sure a station there could be justified.

4,500 new jobs and 500 homes on the main line to Banbury and route to the Cotswolds and only a couple of hundred metres away...

Doesn't seem too outrageous.

 

[squizzler]

Which pot of gold is going to pay for that?

A brand-new railway over difficult terrain to principally serve two cities and a town with a combined population less than that of the likes of Leeds or Sheffield or Manchester... dream on. Any westward extension of East West rail services will be going to the Bristol area, not Gloucester.

Gloucestershire County Council and the DfT have been haggling for longer than anyone can remember about how to get a dual carriageway off the top of the Cotswolds at Birdlip and down to the M5 and Gloucester.

Birdlip Hill is almost 1,000ft above sea level. Gloucester is a whole 78ft above sea level. So it's not an easy one to solve.

A railway would encounter just the same issue. Brunel wasn't afraid of tough terrain if there was no other option, but clearly decided the Stroud Valley was a more practical way and cost-effective way to get to Gloucester than going over the top of the Cotswolds the trying to get down to the Severn.

I understand that the GWR got its parliamentary Act to build a line between Oxford and Cheltenham, but it was actually Gooch's call not to proceed as it would in his view have abstracted traffic off the (much humbler and less direct) line from Swindon through Stroud.

I disagree that the railway is over difficult terrain - apart from the section to the west of the Foss Way. The A40 from Cheltenham faces nothing like the extreme climb faced by the A417 at Birdlip. Yes, to would involve a bit of tunnelling and earthmoving, but dude, we have technology! Unfortunately I do not have the relevant OS land ranger sheet to hand for speculating on possible routes, maybe it is possible to view the original GWR act online?

As for your residual 'local services', where do you suggest they should run to and from? There is plenty of commuter traffic from the eastern end of the Cotswold Line (and from Kemble on the Stroud route) through to Reading and London.

With long distance through traffic to the likes of Hereford transferred to the new route, perhaps we could consider opening new stations on the line. Communities could also benefit from a clock face timetable serving all stations.

Edit: The local trains could also provide a park and ride into Worcester from Worcester Parkway!

 

[Pigeon]

I disagree that the railway is over difficult terrain - apart from the section to the west of the Foss Way. The A40 from Cheltenham faces nothing like the extreme climb faced by the A417 at Birdlip. Yes, to would involve a bit of tunnelling and earthmoving, but dude, we have technology!

That bit of the A40 intersects, and is in part built on, the track bed of the Banbury and Cheltenham line, so it unquestionably is possible to get a railway up there (follow the original route until Bourton on the Water, then along the Windrush valley to Witney and Oxford?) but equally unquestionably the terrain is difficult, and the original line was never exactly an express route.

As for Worcester Parkway (aka Worcester Council's masturbation fantasy) I am just hoping like mad that the plans fall apart and it doesn't happen. Particularly as it comes with the threat to close Shrub Hill. Heck, part of the reason we got Shrub Hill was that having a station in (nearly) the Parkway position instead sucked. Shrub Hill is necessary for any kind of decent service between Droitwich/Kidderminster/Stourbridge and Cheltenham/Bristol, and we should be taking measures to improve that possibility, not cripple it beyond recovery. Losing Shrub Hill would mean people from Ronkswood, Tolladine etc having twice as far to walk to catch a train (going past the closed Shrub Hill on the way, just to rub it in).

Unfortunately I do not have the relevant OS land ranger sheet to hand for speculating on possible routes, maybe it is possible to view the original GWR act online?

Streetmap dot co dot uk uses 1:50000 and 1:25000 OS maps at zoom levels 4 and 3, which is the main reason why I never use any other site for current mapping.

 

[4141]

I understand that the GWR got its parliamentary Act to build a line between Oxford and Cheltenham, but it was actually Gooch's call not to proceed as it would in his view have abstracted traffic off the (much humbler and less direct) line from Swindon through Stroud.

I disagree that the railway is over difficult terrain - apart from the section to the west of the Foss Way. The A40 from Cheltenham faces nothing like the extreme climb faced by the A417 at Birdlip. Yes, to would involve a bit of tunnelling and earthmoving, but dude, we have technology! Unfortunately I do not have the relevant OS land ranger sheet to hand for speculating on possible routes, maybe it is possible to view the original GWR act online?

Even - in the realms of fantasy - if you managed to get down off the Cotswold escarpment, where would you hope to end up in Cheltenham without an eye watering amount of compulsory purchase and demolition of existing property? Things were a lot different when the original idea was floated, the town was much smaller and there was more undeveloped land...

 

[moggie]

Interesting idea which I haven't given full thought to but i'd have thought the section which would benefit most by being doubled would be the section between Norton Jcn and East of the new Parkway station. Pershore is in all likelihood likely to lose custom due to it's close proximity to the new Parkway station and better parking provision. I believe the new Parkway station already makes passive provision for the second platform so the ability to provide a new platform at the required standard is a given. Not so at Pershore where the unused platform is quite narrow and hemmed in by the adjacent aggregate plant. Clearly the future trend will be stop all trains at Parkway which may not continue to be the case at Pershore, especially if custom drops hence maintaining the single section through Parkway where all trains will stop doesn't seem the best solution. Of course, the eventual aim will no doubt be to double the entire Norton - Evesham section. Of course what we don't know is what if any plans WMT may have in future to serve Parkway with the current Shrub Hill terminators where a second platform would also facilitate.
All idle speculation of course.

 

[squizzler]

That bit of the A40 intersects, and is in part built on, the track bed of the Banbury and Cheltenham line, so it unquestionably is possible to get a railway up there (follow the original route until Bourton on the Water, then along the Windrush valley to Witney and Oxford?) but equally unquestionably the terrain is difficult, and the original line was never exactly an express route.

The original line seems from Wikipedia to have been a local venture rather than a mainline and built to standards (single line, bendy, etc) that are more a reflection of the dearth of capital than the terrain itself. This is common to routes that were built late in the period of railway building when the trunk network was already determined. It also utilised pre-existing lines such as the current north cotswold for part of its route, which would further deviate the route from the straightest alignment.

Even - in the realms of fantasy - if you managed to get down off the Cotswold escarpment, where would you hope to end up in Cheltenham without an eye watering amount of compulsory purchase and demolition of existing property? Things were a lot different when the original idea was floated, the town was much smaller and there was more undeveloped land...

Would you want to go into Cheltenham Spa from the North or South? Northerly access would allow onward movement to Gloucester and South Wales, Southern approach means driving forward to Worcester. There are historic routes in both directions: the Banbury and Cheltenham skirting the South and what becomes the Gloucester Warickshire Railway in the North. Much of both routes are built up but, hey, a viaduct over the house roofs would not only solve that problem but also help the railway gain height before reaching the lofty Cotswolds!

As for Worcester Parkway (aka Worcester Council's masturbation fantasy) I am just hoping like mad that the plans fall apart and it doesn't happen. Particularly as it comes with the threat to close Shrub Hill. Heck, part of the reason we got Shrub Hill was that having a station in (nearly) the Parkway position instead sucked. Shrub Hill is necessary for any kind of decent service between Droitwich/Kidderminster/Stourbridge and Cheltenham/Bristol, and we should be taking measures to improve that possibility, not cripple it beyond recovery. Losing Shrub Hill would mean people from Ronkswood, Tolladine etc having twice as far to walk to catch a train (going past the closed Shrub Hill on the way, just to rub it in).

I agree that the loss of Shrub Hill would be a shame, and if the town centre could be brought closer to that station it would allow the cramped Foregate Street to close instead. Maybe you are familiar with my proposal for a cablecar linking Shrub Hill to Worcester!
From what you say, you must like my proposed mainline across the cotswolds joining the Cross Country line at Cheltenham because services to Hereford would have to take the chord between the cross-country and cotswolds routes to go into Worcester and would therefore not be able to call at the Parkway station!

Streetmap dot co dot uk uses 1:50000 and 1:25000 OS maps at zoom levels 4 and 3, which is the main reason why I never use any other site for current mapping.

I agree Streetmap is excellent for the reason you give. But the limiting nature of a computer screen means a frustrating business of scrolling about when it comes to trying to follow a route through the landscape. Far better to spread the relevant Landranger sheet across the table and get the bigger picture.

 

[jimm]

I understand that the GWR got its parliamentary Act to build a line between Oxford and Cheltenham, but it was actually Gooch's call not to proceed as it would in his view have abstracted traffic off the (much humbler and less direct) line from Swindon through Stroud.

I disagree that the railway is over difficult terrain - apart from the section to the west of the Foss Way. The A40 from Cheltenham faces nothing like the extreme climb faced by the A417 at Birdlip. Yes, to would involve a bit of tunnelling and earthmoving, but dude, we have technology! Unfortunately I do not have the relevant OS land ranger sheet to hand for speculating on possible routes, maybe it is possible to view the original GWR act online?

You can have all the technology you like, dude, but given that no one built a line between Oxford and Cheltenham during the Railway Mania, we won't be doing it now.

THE GWR did get an Act through Parliament but that was nothing much more than a defensive move to thwart a rival proposal for a line from the LNWR at Tring to Oxford and then on to Cheltenham, according to LTC Rolt's biography of Brunel. The GWR did precisely nothing about constructing an actual railway.

The thread is supposed to be about what can be done to improve an existing working railway in the shape of the Cotswold Line - perhaps we could stick to that subject matter here from now on.

If you want to talk fantasies, Worcester cablecars included, 4-SUB 4732 has already pointed out where to take them.

Interesting idea which I haven't given full thought to but i'd have thought the section which would benefit most by being doubled would be the section between Norton Jcn and East of the new Parkway station. Pershore is in all likelihood likely to lose custom due to it's close proximity to the new Parkway station and better parking provision. I believe the new Parkway station already makes passive provision for the second platform so the ability to provide a new platform at the required standard is a given. Not so at Pershore where the unused platform is quite narrow and hemmed in by the adjacent aggregate plant. Clearly the future trend will be stop all trains at Parkway which may not continue to be the case at Pershore, especially if custom drops hence maintaining the single section through Parkway where all trains will stop doesn't seem the best solution. Of course, the eventual aim will no doubt be to double the entire Norton - Evesham section. Of course what we don't know is what if any plans WMT may have in future to serve Parkway with the current Shrub Hill terminators where a second platform would also facilitate.
All idle speculation of course.

II did say the aim of what is being suggested above was to make improvements while keeping costs in check and given the way the bills for Worcestershire Parkway have grown and grown, adding another platform there would probably not come cheap and would need to be balanced against the performance benefits there would be from Evesham to Pershore redoubling, especially if any funding that can be found is limited. Which would give more benefit overall?

The taskforce report should be looking at options for things like extending Worcester terminators but people I know in the Vale think that WMR should be going all the way to Evesham, to give it and Pershore a direct link to Birmingham, rather than just stopping at the big car park outside town. Which is a fact on the ground and will be opening next year, whatever anyone thinks about it.

 

[II]

4,500 new jobs and 500 homes on the main line to Banbury and route to the Cotswolds and only a couple of hundred metres away...
Doesn't seem too outrageous.

It certainly isn't outrageous, but where would you site such a station? If on the main line to Banbury there is no suitable train service that could stop there (the Banbury locals are too infrequent and CrossCountry would not be interested), if on the branch itself then you are in a flood zone and would need to provide connecting road infrastructure, and if on the main line before the junction you would likely need four platforms and face serious problems from environmentalists given the proximity to Port Meadow.

 

[takno]

As for Worcester Parkway (aka Worcester Council's masturbation fantasy) I am just hoping like mad that the plans fall apart and it doesn't happen. Particularly as it comes with the threat to close Shrub Hill. Heck, part of the reason we got Shrub Hill was that having a station in (nearly) the Parkway position instead sucked. Shrub Hill is necessary for any kind of decent service between Droitwich/Kidderminster/Stourbridge and Cheltenham/Bristol, and we should be taking measures to improve that possibility, not cripple it beyond recovery. Losing Shrub Hill would mean people from Ronkswood, Tolladine etc having twice as far to walk to catch a train (going past the closed Shrub Hill on the way, just to rub it in).

Worcestershire Parkway is being driven by Worcestershire Council, largely for the benefit of residents from outside Worcester to get to Birmingham and London. I don't think Worcester Council care much either way.

Much as I agree that it's a waste of time, I can't see much chance of it not happening at this point. It was half-built last time I went past.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Certainly an option at Hanborough. I personally don't think Combe and Finstock would survive either if fully redoubled. A new platform at Combe, a new platform at Finstock and the current one rebuilt, and, as you say, the troublesome bridge at Charlbury would add many millions. However, I am of the opinion that politics will intervene and nobody will have the balls to actually go through with their closure, so Hanborough to Charlbury will stay singled for the foreseeable future!

David Cameron said that Douglas Hurd (the previous local MP, discounting the Shaun Woodward interregnum) had warned him that "the people of Charlbury are a disputatious lot" and that he'd found that to be true. Finstock is perhaps a bit more pliant but not much!

But... my reading of local politics is that you could perhaps get away with closing Finstock and Combe if a package were put together with transport alternatives for those affected. A 10-year commitment to fund bus services, new/upgraded cycleways, reduced rate parking for Finstock residents at Charlbury station, that sort of thing.

 

[squizzler]

The thread is supposed to be about what can be done to improve an existing working railway in the shape of the Cotswold Line - perhaps we could stick to that subject matter here from now on.

If you want to talk fantasies, Worcester cablecars included, 4-SUB 4732 has already pointed out where to take them

The thread seems to have already gone to that place taking us with it! In all seriousness I certainly feel my opinion that a new route would be a better way of improving connectivity than the OP's proposed modifications to an existing line is valid to the discussion.

My own experience with considering travel from Hereford to London is that the fastest route by rail is to go to Birmingham New Street and catch a Pendolino to Euston than taking the direct GWR service over the Cotswold Line. A bit of further redoubling will not materially increase journey times due to the tortuous route it takes. So travel times are uncompetitive and will hold back growth of intercity traffic whatever they do to increase capacity.

Is there a business case for a fast modern route across the Cotswolds to replace both the Golden Valley and the Cotswolds lines for intercity traffic? Such a development would have the benefit of allowing two older routes to be downgraded to local line (maybe even light rail) standard of upkeep and increasing intercity traffic due to greater line speed. This represents double benefits of lower maintenance costs and greater fare-box revenues, exactly the same benefits as with rolling stock replacement.

 

[The Planner]

In a word, no.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

My own experience with considering travel from Hereford to London is that the fastest route by rail is to go to Birmingham New Street and catch a Pendolino to Euston than taking the direct GWR service over the Cotswold Line. A bit of further redoubling will not materially increase journey times due to the tortuous route it takes. So travel times are uncompetitive and will hold back growth of intercity traffic whatever they do to increase capacity.

Through services to Hereford, Worcester, or Three Cocks Junction are not the sole or even the biggest raison d'etre of the north Cotswold line. Nor will demand from any of those places to London ever be big enough to merit HS4. As it happens, for the 20 people a day who want to travel from Hereford to London, GW electrification to Newport will probably be the clincher for route selection anyway.

A bit of further redoubling will not materially increase journey times due to the tortuous route it takes.

The route from Oxford to Worcester isn't remotely tortuous. It's pretty close to a crow-flies line, apart from the Evenlode valley's curve through the Wychwood villages. What slows the Cotswold service down is that people want to get on and off at the intermediate stations, damn their cheek.

You could perhaps describe it as tortuous if you were heading for Hereford, but then your proposed route to Cheltenham would be even more of a tortuous way of getting to Hereford - unless you're also proposing a new cut-off to Ledbury, in which case I'm afraid this has economically crossed the line from "nuts" to "Boris".

 

[Pigeon]

I agree that the loss of Shrub Hill would be a shame, and if the town centre could be brought closer to that station it would allow the cramped Foregate Street to close instead. Maybe you are familiar with my proposal for a cablecar linking Shrub Hill to Worcester!

Laugh! I've had vaguely similar ideas myself... but while they may be fun to think of, but living here, I have no illusions that they're not also really bad ideas, for all the reasons people have given in that thread.

Closing Foregate Street under any circumstances would be disastrous. It is very popular because of its superb location. I wouldn't really call it "cramped", either; perhaps in the sense that it's completely unexpandable, but not in terms of how it feels to catch trains from.

Worcester is always going to be a bit tricky because it is at a triangular junction of three routes, and as is the case with any such junction (unless you can put a station actually on the triangle, which you can't here) it must have stations on at least two of the three legs in order that trains from any leg can get to one. And it does, so that's OK. What it does need by way of improvement is the reversion of the 1973 track irrationalisation, with reinstatement of Rainbow Hill Junction and double track on all three sides of the triangle (but retaining the bidirectional capability).

There is also a large area of sidings behind Shrub Hill which has been growing steadily more derelict over the years and is barely used these days. Much of that could be turned into a car park, with access from Sherriff Street, and a footbridge to platform 2 - augmenting the rather limited parking space Shrub Hill has at present, and providing easier access from the estates east of the railway, which are quite extensive. It's also high time the flipping Kays office block was knocked down - it's got bits falling off as it is - which would provide more parking space on the front side of the station.

On the west side of the river, there would be advantage in reopening either Henwick or Rushwick - Henwick being better for St Johns and the "university", Rushwick for access from the bypass. St Johns is kind of cut off from the main part of the city by the town bridge being chocka, and the bypass is perenially chocka too; I can't think where they're all going to - or where they've come from - but there must surely be a fair bit of latent desire to cut the cackle and go there by train instead if there was a station to do it from.

My own experience with considering travel from Hereford to London is that the fastest route by rail is to go to Birmingham New Street and catch a Pendolino to Euston than taking the direct GWR service over the Cotswold Line. A bit of further redoubling will not materially increase journey times due to the tortuous route it takes. So travel times are uncompetitive and will hold back growth of intercity traffic whatever they do to increase capacity.

Uh? It's not the case from Worcester and therefore not from anywhere beyond Worcester either. In the best cases it may work out to no longer actually sitting on trains, but there's still the time spent changing. If you look up trains from Worcester to London on a website it often sticks a few via-Birmingham options in among the direct ones and they always stand out by being so slow. (It also costs twice as much because the fares are set by Slut.)

You can have all the technology you like, dude, but given that no one built a line between Oxford and Cheltenham during the Railway Mania, we won't be doing it now.

Er... as I said, they pretty much did - at least, Kingham to Cheltenham, and only the eastern half of the route would be different if you started from Oxford instead; the Cheltenham end would be the same.

THE GWR did get an Act through Parliament but that was nothing much more than a defensive move to thwart a rival proposal for a line from the LNWR at Tring to Oxford and then on to Cheltenham, according to LTC Rolt's biography of Brunel. The GWR did precisely nothing about constructing an actual railway.

Brunel built the OWW, which was in part a blocking move against an LNWR proposal from Tring...

...route to Cheltenham would be even more of a tortuous way of getting to Hereford - unless you're also proposing a new cut-off to Ledbury

Ledbury to Gloucester reopening! This is sounding more and more like the alternate history I'm gradually plotting out to possibly build a model of some time

 

[jimm]

Most of which has nothing to do with, as the thread title says, Improving the Cotswold Line, and nothing to do with squizzler's fantasies.

What the moderators consider to be 'speculative' - is, as I said above, a real live prospect, with serious work to develop proposals being done by the rail industry and interested parties.

Here is some actual on-the-ground evidence of this:

The survey of the platform was linked to work being carried out by the Cotswold Line Task Force, chaired by the CLPG's president Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to draw up detailed proposals for the future development of the route.

http://clpg.org.uk/blog/hanborough-disused-platform-assessed/

 

[VT 390]

Would it be possible to redouble the whole Cotswold line to allow a half hourly service to operate without the risk of causing delays due to the single track sections.
I travel on this route regularly and it is often busy and overcrowded at peak times.
Also with Worcestershire Parkway opening soon a more frequent service stopping here would mean better connections to the XC route could be made.
Is it actually possible for the Cotswold line to be redoubled?

 

[The Planner]

Of course it is, it hasnt because of money and no requirement yet for a service increase.

 

[VT 390]

Of course it is, it hasnt because of money and no requirement yet for a service increase.

I thought that GWR were planning 2 trains per hour on the Cotswolds line (1 stopping and 1 semi-fast), if this did happen then at least one end would have to be redoubled in order to operate a reliable service.

 

[Esker-pades]

Surely it's impossible to get 4tph on the single track section between Charlbury and Oxford?

 

[VT 390]

Surely it's impossible to get 4tph on the single track section between Charlbury and Oxford?

Most journeys take about 17-20 minutes (Oxford to Charlbury), if all services could run at 17 minutes then it would be possible to get 4tph as the single line section is only from Charlbury East junction to Wolvercot Junction, however services would have to be exactly on time with no delays at all so would not be a very reliable service
Perhaps either a passing loop or partial double tracking would allow a service to operate at 2tph each way

 

[cactustwirly]

Most journeys take about 17-20 minutes (Oxford to Charlbury), if all services could run at 17 minutes then it would be possible to get 4tph as the single line section is only from Charlbury East junction to Wolvercot Junction, however services would have to be exactly on time with no delays at all so would not be a very reliable service
Perhaps either a passing loop or partial double tracking would allow a service to operate at 2tph each way

There's a de-facto 2tph in the peaks, as some of the Oxford terminators are extended to Moreton-in-Marsh.

 

[VT 390]

There's a de-facto 2tph in the peaks, as some of the Oxford terminators are extended to Moreton-in-Marsh.

Could this not happen all day as the line south of Moreton-in-Marsh always seams to be busy, especially when 5 carriage class 800's operate the services