Worcestershire Parkway Station - Now Open

[melmerby]

13 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

XC trains to Gloucester start appearing on that date last time I looked.....

Quite true. I hadn't noticed that they remove the "unadvertised stop" from that date.

 

[iands]

Worcestershire Parkway station is now open.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2020-02-23/new-train-station-connects-worcester-to-london-cardiff-nottingham/

 

Had a hand in this project from an Ops Comms and Retail Comms perspective. Good to see it finally open and serving the good people of Worcestershire (and those travelling to Worcestershire of course).

[melmerby]

I notice that the location is not providing timing data to sites such as Real Time Trains and such.

[Bomag]

I use it today while travelling to Moreton in Marsh (saving 30 mins) on the trip from New Street. Architect obviously forgot where the prevailing weather come from as the exit onto the Cotswold line funnels the wind straight through the top level.

[96701]

On 24/02/2020 at 09:28, iands said:

Worcestershire Parkway station is now open.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2020-02-23/new-train-station-connects-worcester-to-london-cardiff-nottingham/

 

Had a hand in this project from an Ops Comms and Retail Comms perspective. Good to see it finally open and serving the good people of Worcestershire (and those travelling to Worcestershire of course).

Hooray. Well done to all involved.

[Dagworth]

I was on the first service train ever to stop Northbound on Sunday afternoon, a few photos taken on the day.

[caradoc]

It's a pity the Cotswold Line could not have been redoubled, at least from Norton Jc to the new station, although that would have increased the cost greatly of course. It does however look as if the platform was not built on the formation of the removed line, so there is still hope ! It looks a nice station too, thanks for the photos Dagworth (that ticket might be worth something on Ebay too !)

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

OK architecture. But why build in brick (and yellow at that)? Expensive, slow and very high energy content.

[Phil Bullock]

29 minutes ago, caradoc said:

It's a pity the Cotswold Line could not have been redoubled, at least from Norton Jc to the new station, although that would have increased the cost greatly of course. It does however look as if the platform was not built on the formation of the removed line, so there is still hope ! It looks a nice station too, thanks for the photos Dagworth (that ticket might be worth something on Ebay too !)

 

 

The position of the girders on the rail over rail bridge determined track alignment I guess.....there are plans to improve matters in the County although I suspect its a wish list as it stands,....

 

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/info/20055/strategies_plans_and_bids/1922/worcestershire_rail_investment_strategy - download the Worcestershire Rail investment strategy document.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Phil Bullock

[iands]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

It's a pity the Cotswold Line could not have been redoubled, at least from Norton Jc to the new station, although that would have increased the cost greatly of course. It does however look as if the platform was not built on the formation of the removed line, so there is still hope ! It looks a nice station too, thanks for the photos Dagworth (that ticket might be worth something on Ebay too !)

 

Correct. The new platform was purposely not built on the old formation to allow for re-doubling in the future, if/when deemed necessary.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

It's a pity the Cotswold Line could not have been redoubled, at least from Norton Jc to the new station, although that would have increased the cost greatly of course. It does however look as if the platform was not built on the formation of the removed line, so there is still hope ! It looks a nice station too, thanks for the photos Dagworth (that ticket might be worth something on Ebay too !)

 

That is more or less exactly what I proposed in the last (my third) study I did into the Worcester area (for the local council on that occasion).  The idea being that trains from the west/north which terminated or reversed at Shrub Hill would instead reverse at Parkway.  The subscript at that time was to assess the practicability of closing Shrub Hill as a passenger station although it wasn't really as simple as it sounded but it still made a lot of sense to make provision of a second line to Parkway from the Worcester direction and it could even have been operated as a dead end in order to save costs (although creating what was effectively double track with one reversible line from Norton Junction to a point some way on the Evesham side of the Parkway site (I forget the exact mileage) was undoubtedly the best answer.

 

But having two GW platforms at Parkway would have undoubtedly had a considerable effect, upwards, on the cost of the station and for that reason alone it was no doubt quickly forgotten by just about everybody as it would still not allow closure of Shrub Hill station..

[Andy Kirkham]

And for historical perspective, this is what it was like in 1973 (I think this is the spot)

 

APR 73 03. The 08:05 Paddington-Worcester train approaching Norton Junction, Worcester, March 1973 by Andy Kirkham, on Flickr

[Phil Bullock]

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

That is more or less exactly what I proposed in the last (my third) study I did into the Worcester area (for the local council on that occasion).  The idea being that trains from the west/north which terminated or reversed at Shrub Hill would instead reverse at Parkway.  The subscript at that time was to assess the practicability of closing Shrub Hill as a passenger station although it wasn't really as simple as it sounded but it still made a lot of sense to make provision of a second line to Parkway from the Worcester direction and it could even have been operated as a dead end in order to save costs (although creating what was effectively double track with one reversible line from Norton Junction to a point some way on the Evesham side of the Parkway site (I forget the exact mileage) was undoubtedly the best answer.

 

But having two GW platforms at Parkway would have undoubtedly had a considerable effect, upwards, on the cost of the station and for that reason alone it was no doubt quickly forgotten by just about everybody as it would still not allow closure of Shrub Hill station..

 

Passenger figures for Shrub Hill in the strategy document linked to above tend to reinforce your plan Mike. 

[John-Miles]

I travelled north yesterday on the 9.45 ex-Cardiff and south on the 15.30 Brum to Cardiff. The car park looked fairly full and there were plenty of passengers getting on and off. For a new station, it seems to be very well used. The most interesting question from my point of view is whether or not these are passengers who would have used another station but found this one more convenient or is the station generating new traffic. Hopefully we will get some statistics in the not too distant future.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Probably a mix of the two.

 

So long as the parking charges are not extortionate, it will certainly be a good option for me for some journeys that I might otherwise do 100% by car.

 

But that will depend on more XC services stopping there. Hopefully the early success of the station will encourage XC to do that.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Probably a mix of the two.

 

So long as the parking charges are not extortionate, it will certainly be a good option for me for some journeys that I might otherwise do 100% by car.

 

But that will depend on more XC services stopping there. Hopefully the early success of the station will encourage XC to do that.

I wonder whether there would be any more custom if the few LM services that start & finish at Shrub Hill were extended to there.

XC is typically one an hour with two other trains sailing through.

Edited February 26, 2020 by melmerby

[Joseph_Pestell]

44 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I wonder whether there would be any more custom if the few LM services that start & finish at Shrub Hill were extended to there.

XC is typically one an hour with two other trains sailing through.

 

I think it might be difficult to extend services to terminate there until there is a second high-level platform or a turnback siding. Evesham might be good though.

 

2XC services per hour each way from the low level platforms could be a game changer. 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I think it might be difficult to extend services to terminate there until there is a second high-level platform or a turnback siding. Evesham might be good though.

 

2XC services per hour each way from the low level platforms could be a game changer. 

I assume that the current station was only considered a viable option as there were no track, signalling or pathing changes required.

The trains were already passing the site on a regular basis, so just had to stop & start.

Putting an extra platform on the HL part would need remodelling of Norton Junction, which is only 39ch away.

Currently it is a single lead junction, an extra track there would require a change of layout & signalling.

[Phil Bullock]

Yes indeed - but the original space does not appear to have been encroached on...

 

http://www.miac.org.uk/norton.html

 

Was originally built to broad gauge so no shortage of room....

 

 

[stivesnick]

Appears to be a typical modern station - with no shelter on the platform!

 

Is there a shop of some sort to buy a coffee/paper? - Not obvious from the photos. 

 

Nick 

[iands]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

I assume that the current station was only considered a viable option as there were no track, signalling or pathing changes required.

The trains were already passing the site on a regular basis, so just had to stop & start.

Putting an extra platform on the HL part would need remodelling of Norton Junction, which is only 39ch away.

Currently it is a single lead junction, an extra track there would require a change of layout & signalling.

To accommodate the low level platforms (1 and 2) actually required the repositioning of one signal and one banner repeater, the construction of a new UTX and diversion of a lot of signal, telecoms and power cables, construction of not one but two new footbridges. 

[iands]

2 minutes ago, stivesnick said:

Appears to be a typical modern station - with no shelter on the platform!

 

Is there a shop of some sort to buy a coffee/paper? - Not obvious from the photos. 

 

Nick 

There is space for some retail outlets. 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

ml

 

 

Was originally built to broad gauge so no shortage of room....

 

 

It doesn't have the spacious look of the GWR's main BG routes, the six foot wasn't as wide as on those former BG lines. I suspect it was built to the minimum they could get away with.

It was originally devised as a route from the Grand Junction in Wolverhampton to Oxford (and on to Paddington) on the GWR to bypass the London & Birmingham.

The OWWR itself (as also the GJ) was only ever a standard gauge company but had to build it as a mixed gauge line for the GWR as part of the act authorising the line following their support, although only one BG train ever ran the full length (some sources claim even that never happened.)

Soon after it had opened the GWR reached Wolverhampton from Birmingham Snow Hill and the need for the broad gauge disappeared.

 

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, melmerby said:

I assume that the current station was only considered a viable option as there were no track, signalling or pathing changes required.

The trains were already passing the site on a regular basis, so just had to stop & start.

Putting an extra platform on the HL part would need remodelling of Norton Junction, which is only 39ch away.

Currently it is a single lead junction, an extra track there would require a change of layout & signalling.

It could be done without major remodelling of Norton Jcn simply by adding one additional turnout although that wouldn't allow parallel running through the junction on the Oxford route (does it need that anyway?) and assuming the traling crossover is still there.  That was an option I proposed as the most economical way of creating a simple reversal platform at Parkway in addition to a through platform.  It would also be quite economical, albeit restricting capacity, to make the Up Main bi-directional between Shrub Hill/Wyld's Lane and Norton Jcn. (although this isn't the first time I have suggested that in the past 35 years  ).

 

There are obviously several more sophisticated ways of rearranging Norton Jcn but they also happen to be much more expensive.  The biggest problem could be the shape of the timetable in respect of the Parkway terminators and this is where the simple option can run into capacity difficulties at/in the vicinity of Norton Jcn.  But you then start balancing that against savings from the closure of Shrub Hill however you also have to face the fact that there is still a city centre demand for a station which means more trains would need to serve Foregate Street (and in some cases reverse there).

 

In the end it will all depend on the pressure - economic and otherwise - to close Shrub Hill while still serving the city centre with as many trains as possible and whether or not the resolution of the various conflicting requirements can  be resolved for an acceptable nett cost.  I'm sure that thoughts about closing Shrub Hill will not go away but they have been around for 20 odd years already with it not happening although it's probably fair to say that it might happen one day - but not yet I think. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Phil Bullock]

A factor will be usage following the opening of Parkway Mike. Shrub Hill has parking - and Foregate Street doesnt, although the latter currently has twice the custom. Parkway could pull parking passengers from Shrub Hill....

 

Furthermore Shrub Hill has the capacity to manage terminating trains but that isnt easy at Foregate Street - if using the Henwick turn back facility then the level crossing is always an issue, and there is always the occupancy competition from LM services to Malvern and Hereford which dont visit Shrub Hill, compounded by Rainbow Hill to Henwick operating as two parallel single lines.

 

Unfortunately the City continues to pay the price for the lack of foresight and politics when the railways were built, compounded by removal of infrastructure when economies were sought in the  60s/70s. Recently any delayed service to Malvern or Hereford is likely to get caped at Worcester, which doesnt help with user confidence. 

 

It will be interesting to see how service patterns evolve in years to come - the Council wants to reinstate through trains to Paddington from Kidderminster, but without Shrub Hill they would not be able to make a Worcester City stop.