Plan for new Worcester train station refused + reaction

The station was planned for Norton, near Worcester

The station was planned for Norton, near Worcester

First published in News
Last updated
Ledbury Reporter: Tom Edwards Exclusive by , Political Reporter

A £7 MILLION bid to build a new railway station in Worcestershire has been refused by the Government, it has emerged.

The county council’s bid for cash towards Worcestershire Parkway, in Norton, near Worcester, has been thrown out by the Department for Transport.

The rejection has been described as “a tragedy” by rail users in the county, but council bosses have vowed to hunt down fresh sources of funding towards the ambitious project.

They have refused to accept the DFT’s decision is a crushing blow for the scheme, and say they are still aiming to submit a planning application next year.

But it means the station, which would finally bring Worcestershire’s railway services into the 21st century, still needs a massive injection of funds before it can become reality.

The DFT had offered councils the chance to bid for money back in February from its £20m New Stations Fund, and awards have gone to new facilities in Cardiff, Devon, Nottingham and Tottenham.

Councillor Simon Geraghty, deputy leader and cabinet member for economy, skills and infrastructure, said: “This is still a vital project and there’s no way this work is being abandoned.

“The efforts made to put together the bid will continue and next year, we hope to put in a planning application for it.

“In terms of Worcestershire’s future, getting this railway station is vital, it’s a long term plan and aim for us.”

The money would have paid towards a railway station, 500 parking spaces, booking office, toilets, cycle spaces and a bus ‘drop and collect’ service.

It would have been topped up by around £5m of County Hall cash in a £12m development which has been 30 years in the making.

The DFT bid was the first time the council has gone cap-in-hand to the Government to ask for funding towards it.

Politicians say the issue has taken on even greater importance now developers want to build a new 2,200 homes village on land south of Worcester, in north Kempsey.

Mid-Worcestershire MP Peter Luff said: “We’ve put down a marker with the DFT on Worcestershire Parkway and got it on their radar.

“I am optimistic about the future for this scheme, despite not getting the money.”

Peter Blake, head of integrated transport at County Hall, said he would “pursue all relevant funding streams” for it.

The new station would allow the county to access many long distance trains currently bypassing Worcestershire, including Bristol and Birmingham inner city ones.

It would also provide a platform on the Cotswold line.

RAIL USERS ARE IN DESPAIR........

RAYMOND Lander, 84, of Pershore, says the rejection is “a tragedy” for regular train users like him.

Mr Lander, a retired production engineer at the Longbridge factory in Birmingham, says services are so poor in Worcestershire has has stopped using them.

He visits major northern cites and regular haunts down south with wife Norma via the railways.

“I go to Manchester, Plymouth and Torquay but the railways are so bad here, I no longer use train services in Worcester or Pershore to go long distance,” he said.

“If I want to go to Manchester, I’d end up getting a train from Pershore to Worcester, then have to go to Birmingham, wait half an hour or longer, then go to Manchester.

“Now, I go straight to Cheltenham or Birmingham where you can get direct trains.

“There’s 15 of us who live around here and we all take it in turns to drive. “If I was a businessman, I would not have it based in Worcester or Wychavon, I’d go to Birmingham or Cheltenham.

“We need this parkway station, it’s a tragedy that Worcestershire hasn’t got it, it really is.”

Colin Goodman, aged 41, of Worcester, also uses the trains regularly to get to family in Yorkshire.

He said: "It's not a bad service at the moment, but if you need to get somewhere quickly it can be a pain changing stations.

"I find if you need to get to London it's decent, but going to the north it's awful - I think politicians need to tell the truth on that.

"Worcestershire would really benefit from this station, so I'd urge them to carry on looking for the cash, or even better fund it themselves."

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13

mauro balbino says...

Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?
And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it.
The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.
Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it? And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it. The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers. mauro balbino
  • Score: 0

11:20am Mon 8 Jul 13

longpete says...

mauro balbino wrote:
Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?
And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it.
The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.
mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13)
"Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?"

Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses.

And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.
[quote][p][bold]mauro balbino[/bold] wrote: Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it? And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it. The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.[/p][/quote]mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13) "Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?" Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses. And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend. longpete
  • Score: 0

11:58am Mon 8 Jul 13

brooksider says...

longpete wrote:
mauro balbino wrote:
Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?
And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it.
The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.
mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13)
"Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?"

Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses.

And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.
The land for the proposed station is owned by a property developer.

Its another example of the County Council boosting the profits of developers whilst cutting back on help the the disabled and elderly.

A lot of commercial companies, including the train, bus, taxi and car park operators,stand to benefit financially therefore it is right they should contribute to the cost.

Was the bid ever realistic?

Did Simon Geraghty believe the government were ever going to allocate a third of the fund to one station?
Especially when the criteria included ‘ready to go’ project having been pre-planned by local authorities and other stakeholders and can be delivered quickly providing long-term benefits to passengers and the economy.
[quote][p][bold]longpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mauro balbino[/bold] wrote: Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it? And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it. The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.[/p][/quote]mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13) "Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?" Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses. And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.[/p][/quote]The land for the proposed station is owned by a property developer. Its another example of the County Council boosting the profits of developers whilst cutting back on help the the disabled and elderly. A lot of commercial companies, including the train, bus, taxi and car park operators,stand to benefit financially therefore it is right they should contribute to the cost. Was the bid ever realistic? Did Simon Geraghty believe the government were ever going to allocate a third of the fund to one station? Especially when the criteria included ‘ready to go’ project having been pre-planned by local authorities and other stakeholders and can be delivered quickly providing long-term benefits to passengers and the economy. brooksider
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Mon 8 Jul 13

the real che guevara says...

great while we are here gettign the developer to pay for Worcester wish list of projects,

id also like them to pay for new decking in my back garden its rather worn now :-)
great while we are here gettign the developer to pay for Worcester wish list of projects, id also like them to pay for new decking in my back garden its rather worn now :-) the real che guevara
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Mon 8 Jul 13

Laurie Ward says...

brooksider wrote:
longpete wrote:
mauro balbino wrote:
Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?
And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it.
The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.
mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13)
"Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?"

Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses.

And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.
The land for the proposed station is owned by a property developer.

Its another example of the County Council boosting the profits of developers whilst cutting back on help the the disabled and elderly.

A lot of commercial companies, including the train, bus, taxi and car park operators,stand to benefit financially therefore it is right they should contribute to the cost.

Was the bid ever realistic?

Did Simon Geraghty believe the government were ever going to allocate a third of the fund to one station?
Especially when the criteria included ‘ready to go’ project having been pre-planned by local authorities and other stakeholders and can be delivered quickly providing long-term benefits to passengers and the economy.
It appears that an evil property developer is depriving the elderly and disabled of their bread. I think you should reveal more about this wickedness brooksider.
[quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]longpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mauro balbino[/bold] wrote: Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it? And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it. The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.[/p][/quote]mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13) "Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?" Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses. And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.[/p][/quote]The land for the proposed station is owned by a property developer. Its another example of the County Council boosting the profits of developers whilst cutting back on help the the disabled and elderly. A lot of commercial companies, including the train, bus, taxi and car park operators,stand to benefit financially therefore it is right they should contribute to the cost. Was the bid ever realistic? Did Simon Geraghty believe the government were ever going to allocate a third of the fund to one station? Especially when the criteria included ‘ready to go’ project having been pre-planned by local authorities and other stakeholders and can be delivered quickly providing long-term benefits to passengers and the economy.[/p][/quote]It appears that an evil property developer is depriving the elderly and disabled of their bread. I think you should reveal more about this wickedness brooksider. Laurie Ward
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 8 Jul 13

uptonX says...

Another example where the headline bears no relation to the truth and Worcester News have simply printed the council PR. Worcester really does need a station there, plans haven't been refused, simply the council made an unrealistic bid to Government for funding as explained in a comment above.
Given the amount of money the council continue to waste (especially Highways) then this should be easily fundable. £7M might sound a lot but it's only 5 times what they wasted on the Whittington Roundabout.
Another example where the headline bears no relation to the truth and Worcester News have simply printed the council PR. Worcester really does need a station there, plans haven't been refused, simply the council made an unrealistic bid to Government for funding as explained in a comment above. Given the amount of money the council continue to waste (especially Highways) then this should be easily fundable. £7M might sound a lot but it's only 5 times what they wasted on the Whittington Roundabout. uptonX
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Mon 8 Jul 13

brooksider says...

Laurie Ward wrote:
brooksider wrote:
longpete wrote:
mauro balbino wrote:
Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?
And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it.
The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.
mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13)
"Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?"

Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses.

And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.
The land for the proposed station is owned by a property developer.

Its another example of the County Council boosting the profits of developers whilst cutting back on help the the disabled and elderly.

A lot of commercial companies, including the train, bus, taxi and car park operators,stand to benefit financially therefore it is right they should contribute to the cost.

Was the bid ever realistic?

Did Simon Geraghty believe the government were ever going to allocate a third of the fund to one station?
Especially when the criteria included ‘ready to go’ project having been pre-planned by local authorities and other stakeholders and can be delivered quickly providing long-term benefits to passengers and the economy.
It appears that an evil property developer is depriving the elderly and disabled of their bread. I think you should reveal more about this wickedness brooksider.
Hardly 'evil property developer', they are in business to make money, more like another poor performance by Worcestershire County Council.
[quote][p][bold]Laurie Ward[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]longpete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mauro balbino[/bold] wrote: Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it? And, since it is taking out some of the pressure, the Driveways department could also contribute with part of it. The part they ill spend paving with the wrong stuff and the costs the disruption caused incurred to everybody else, drivers to shop-keepers, residents to shoppers.[/p][/quote]mauro balbino said (11:01am Mon 8 Jul 13) "Why not ask developers wanting to build a new 2,200-home village on land south of Worcester to put some money on it or even the whole of it?" Excellent idea, only the council should not ask, it should build a large payment towards the building of the Parkway into the conditions for being allowed to build the houses. And the developers should not get a dividend or rent from the station for this. The houses they build will sell for much more if they advertise the ease of access to the new station. That will be their dividend.[/p][/quote]The land for the proposed station is owned by a property developer. Its another example of the County Council boosting the profits of developers whilst cutting back on help the the disabled and elderly. A lot of commercial companies, including the train, bus, taxi and car park operators,stand to benefit financially therefore it is right they should contribute to the cost. Was the bid ever realistic? Did Simon Geraghty believe the government were ever going to allocate a third of the fund to one station? Especially when the criteria included ‘ready to go’ project having been pre-planned by local authorities and other stakeholders and can be delivered quickly providing long-term benefits to passengers and the economy.[/p][/quote]It appears that an evil property developer is depriving the elderly and disabled of their bread. I think you should reveal more about this wickedness brooksider.[/p][/quote]Hardly 'evil property developer', they are in business to make money, more like another poor performance by Worcestershire County Council. brooksider
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Mon 8 Jul 13

tashmore2579 says...

When you see the amount of rail works being done around Gatwick Airport and south London stations it makes you wonder why provincial stations and new developments are not allowed outside this area.
When you see the amount of rail works being done around Gatwick Airport and south London stations it makes you wonder why provincial stations and new developments are not allowed outside this area. tashmore2579
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Mon 8 Jul 13

longpete says...

I was under the impression that Network Rail was supposed to own the rail infrastructure (inherited from the days when BR was the country's second biggest land owner).

So NR should buy the land from the developer who owns it (under compulsory purchase if necessary), build the station and recoup the cost by charging the rail operators.

But that's not privatised enough nowadays, is it? What's required now is a PPP so that the taxpayer can fork out for the next 50 years ensuring that as many snouts as possible can feed as deeply as possible in this new trough.
I was under the impression that Network Rail was supposed to own the rail infrastructure (inherited from the days when BR was the country's second biggest land owner). So NR should buy the land from the developer who owns it (under compulsory purchase if necessary), build the station and recoup the cost by charging the rail operators. But that's not privatised enough nowadays, is it? What's required now is a PPP so that the taxpayer can fork out for the next 50 years ensuring that as many snouts as possible can feed as deeply as possible in this new trough. longpete
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Mon 8 Jul 13

Landy44 says...

Worcester(shire) doesn't NEED this station, but it WOULD be a significant advantage to have it, and the accompanying parking spaces.

Was it realistic of the council to expect to get the funding? Of course not - just as it isn't realistic of them to find the balance from elsewhere. Frankly, the council are just displaying their ususal lack of commercial accumen, whilst wasting hard earned tax payers money (whether it's source is direct from Worcestershire, or via central government - when will these meddling people understand the people paying for their whims are getting tired of their waste).

Is there a commercial advantage to having this station - yes, if it helps attract more businesses to the area.

Should the developers building the largely unwanted and unneeded housing at Norton be encourage to contribute to the funding of the station - absolutely, with the balance coming from the rail line operator(s).

Looking at this in the cold light of day though: Having this station AND attracting more business to the area, and similar regional schemes elsewhere will do more for the county and the country as a whole than the white elephant that is HS2.

Sadly, and as usual, it is being mismanaged.
Worcester(shire) doesn't NEED this station, but it WOULD be a significant advantage to have it, and the accompanying parking spaces. Was it realistic of the council to expect to get the funding? Of course not - just as it isn't realistic of them to find the balance from elsewhere. Frankly, the council are just displaying their ususal lack of commercial accumen, whilst wasting hard earned tax payers money (whether it's source is direct from Worcestershire, or via central government - when will these meddling people understand the people paying for their whims are getting tired of their waste). Is there a commercial advantage to having this station - yes, if it helps attract more businesses to the area. Should the developers building the largely unwanted and unneeded housing at Norton be encourage to contribute to the funding of the station - absolutely, with the balance coming from the rail line operator(s). Looking at this in the cold light of day though: Having this station AND attracting more business to the area, and similar regional schemes elsewhere will do more for the county and the country as a whole than the white elephant that is HS2. Sadly, and as usual, it is being mismanaged. Landy44
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Mon 8 Jul 13

i-cycle says...

Not ideal I know, but the advantage of the two existing stations is that its easy enough for most of Worcester residents to walk, cycle, or catch a bus to get to them.

With the station planned for Norton it would only clog up the roads in the area with yet more cars, add to congestion and either bring economic disbenefits or require yet more funding for roads.

As with High Speed 2 the economic advantages are grossly over estimated.

There's certainly more worthwhile things to invest the increasingly limited public funding on.
Not ideal I know, but the advantage of the two existing stations is that its easy enough for most of Worcester residents to walk, cycle, or catch a bus to get to them. With the station planned for Norton it would only clog up the roads in the area with yet more cars, add to congestion and either bring economic disbenefits or require yet more funding for roads. As with High Speed 2 the economic advantages are grossly over estimated. There's certainly more worthwhile things to invest the increasingly limited public funding on. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Mon 8 Jul 13

Piccolo says...

Sooner the better; but what's a "train station"?
Sooner the better; but what's a "train station"? Piccolo
  • Score: 1

11:07am Tue 9 Jul 13

mr_wilson15 says...

Can't we just spend £7m on Shrub Hill and 'Elgar House'? It's the most sadly underused station in the entire country, with so much unrealised potential regarding Ronskwood, Newtown Road, Tolladine, and access to the City Centre. £7m will go MUCH further in that regard....
Can't we just spend £7m on Shrub Hill and 'Elgar House'? It's the most sadly underused station in the entire country, with so much unrealised potential regarding Ronskwood, Newtown Road, Tolladine, and access to the City Centre. £7m will go MUCH further in that regard.... mr_wilson15
  • Score: 1

11:49am Tue 9 Jul 13

daned says...

Piccolo wrote:
Sooner the better; but what's a "train station"?
You beat me to it. For the uninitiated it should have said "railway station".
[quote][p][bold]Piccolo[/bold] wrote: Sooner the better; but what's a "train station"?[/p][/quote]You beat me to it. For the uninitiated it should have said "railway station". daned
  • Score: 1

12:51pm Tue 9 Jul 13

howjoh says...

"Train station" annoys me too, but it really doesn't matter! Don't we say "bus station?
"Train station" annoys me too, but it really doesn't matter! Don't we say "bus station? howjoh
  • Score: 1

1:10pm Tue 9 Jul 13

daned says...

howjoh wrote:
"Train station" annoys me too, but it really doesn't matter! Don't we say "bus station?
But we used to say "bus station" to differentiate it from the station (the railway station. Station was automatically the railway station. Did you ever see a road called Railway Station Road :-)
[quote][p][bold]howjoh[/bold] wrote: "Train station" annoys me too, but it really doesn't matter! Don't we say "bus station?[/p][/quote]But we used to say "bus station" to differentiate it from the station (the railway station. Station was automatically the railway station. Did you ever see a road called Railway Station Road :-) daned
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Malaky says...

Another positive advantage of a new station at Norton?

We could have a lot more taxi's!!!
Another positive advantage of a new station at Norton? We could have a lot more taxi's!!! Malaky
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Tue 9 Jul 13

i-cycle says...

Malaky wrote:
Another positive advantage of a new station at Norton?

We could have a lot more taxi's!!!
Same difference. They'd still clog up the roads.

I'm still at a loss as to why we can't spend less upgrading Shrub Hill which is far more accessible for the majority.

I appreciate there may be sound reasons for looking at Norton, but would welcome a rational economic, social and environmental case for Norton as opposed to improving what we've got and especially as the area surrounding Shrub Hill station is ripe for regeneration and may be able to make a financial contribution.

Perhaps someone at the County Council could enlighten us?
[quote][p][bold]Malaky[/bold] wrote: Another positive advantage of a new station at Norton? We could have a lot more taxi's!!![/p][/quote]Same difference. They'd still clog up the roads. I'm still at a loss as to why we can't spend less upgrading Shrub Hill which is far more accessible for the majority. I appreciate there may be sound reasons for looking at Norton, but would welcome a rational economic, social and environmental case for Norton as opposed to improving what we've got and especially as the area surrounding Shrub Hill station is ripe for regeneration and may be able to make a financial contribution. Perhaps someone at the County Council could enlighten us? i-cycle
  • Score: 1

8:19am Wed 10 Jul 13

longpete says...

The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid.

Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added.

Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.
The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid. Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added. Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester. longpete
  • Score: 0

9:26am Wed 10 Jul 13

i-cycle says...

longpete wrote:
The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid.

Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added.

Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.
Thanks for enlightening me longpete.

I now understand why Norton makes sense.

Can I assume that it will be possible to catch a connecting train to Norton for those in the City who don't have cars or prefer not to get stuck in traffic and add to congestion at peak commuter times?
[quote][p][bold]longpete[/bold] wrote: The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid. Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added. Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.[/p][/quote]Thanks for enlightening me longpete. I now understand why Norton makes sense. Can I assume that it will be possible to catch a connecting train to Norton for those in the City who don't have cars or prefer not to get stuck in traffic and add to congestion at peak commuter times? i-cycle
  • Score: 0

9:45am Wed 10 Jul 13

MJI says...

Bristol Birmingham trains

Always stop at Cheltenham and Bristol Parkway that is it.

SOME stop at Gloucester as they have to change direction.

Fewer visit Worcester and Droitwich, most just carry on past.
Bristol Birmingham trains Always stop at Cheltenham and Bristol Parkway that is it. SOME stop at Gloucester as they have to change direction. Fewer visit Worcester and Droitwich, most just carry on past. MJI
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Wed 10 Jul 13

mr_wilson15 says...

i-cycle wrote:
longpete wrote:
The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid.

Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added.

Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.
Thanks for enlightening me longpete.

I now understand why Norton makes sense.

Can I assume that it will be possible to catch a connecting train to Norton for those in the City who don't have cars or prefer not to get stuck in traffic and add to congestion at peak commuter times?
I still don't understand. Birmingham - Bristol trains can just 'turn off' at Norton and pop into Shrub Hill, then back out again to Bristol. I'm not a believer in building stations where no-one lives. Seems daft. Once you're in the car you may as well drive to Bristol ....
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]longpete[/bold] wrote: The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid. Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added. Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.[/p][/quote]Thanks for enlightening me longpete. I now understand why Norton makes sense. Can I assume that it will be possible to catch a connecting train to Norton for those in the City who don't have cars or prefer not to get stuck in traffic and add to congestion at peak commuter times?[/p][/quote]I still don't understand. Birmingham - Bristol trains can just 'turn off' at Norton and pop into Shrub Hill, then back out again to Bristol. I'm not a believer in building stations where no-one lives. Seems daft. Once you're in the car you may as well drive to Bristol .... mr_wilson15
  • Score: 1

8:13am Thu 11 Jul 13

worcswolf says...

The reality is that Virgin will not stop at Norton has for one reason changing at Birmingham or Cheltenham is seen has acceptable. we may have a 100000 populus but only a few hundred use the train. Redeveloping Shrub hill would be a better option, knock down elgar house and build a multi storey car park and redevelop all the units around it for employment surely a better way to spend 7 million. before any new station is planned we need to know that train operating companies will use it.
The reality is that Virgin will not stop at Norton has for one reason changing at Birmingham or Cheltenham is seen has acceptable. we may have a 100000 populus but only a few hundred use the train. Redeveloping Shrub hill would be a better option, knock down elgar house and build a multi storey car park and redevelop all the units around it for employment surely a better way to spend 7 million. before any new station is planned we need to know that train operating companies will use it. worcswolf
  • Score: 1

11:28am Thu 11 Jul 13

longpete says...

mr_wilson15 wrote:
i-cycle wrote:
longpete wrote:
The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid.

Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added.

Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.
Thanks for enlightening me longpete.

I now understand why Norton makes sense.

Can I assume that it will be possible to catch a connecting train to Norton for those in the City who don't have cars or prefer not to get stuck in traffic and add to congestion at peak commuter times?
I still don't understand. Birmingham - Bristol trains can just 'turn off' at Norton and pop into Shrub Hill, then back out again to Bristol. I'm not a believer in building stations where no-one lives. Seems daft. Once you're in the car you may as well drive to Bristol ....
As MJI says, only some trains stop at Gloucester because of the extra time involved (including the driver's changing ends). A trip that involves an in-out to Gloucester and Worcester would probably add half an hour to the Bristol-B'ham journey time compared with ignoring them both. Stopping at Parkway would add five or six minutes.

Trains via SH can continue round the back, but that adds a fair amount of time too.

The important thing is that if the Parkway doesn't get built soon, someone will build houses on the site and then Worcester will never get a decent service.

As worcswolf says: "Only a few hundred use the train" to go to B'ham at the moment. However, many thousands drive there every day. If the Parkway were built, there'd be a nice way of avoiding the traffic jams by just making a quick trip around the ring-road (when it finally gets built!)
[quote][p][bold]mr_wilson15[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]longpete[/bold] wrote: The main reason for Norton is the improved service. It's at the crossroads of the London-Hereford line and the Bristol-Birmingham line. Very few trains on this latter line deviate through Shrub Hill and round the back. Most bypass Worcester completely without stopping at a 100,000 person city it passes a couple of miles from. Completely stupid. Upgrading SH wouldn't help this since the deviation would still add a considerable amount of time to the Bristol-Birmingham journey that the operators don't want to have added. Closing SH to passengers and building Parkway (and keeping Foregate Street open, of course) is by far the best option for Worcester.[/p][/quote]Thanks for enlightening me longpete. I now understand why Norton makes sense. Can I assume that it will be possible to catch a connecting train to Norton for those in the City who don't have cars or prefer not to get stuck in traffic and add to congestion at peak commuter times?[/p][/quote]I still don't understand. Birmingham - Bristol trains can just 'turn off' at Norton and pop into Shrub Hill, then back out again to Bristol. I'm not a believer in building stations where no-one lives. Seems daft. Once you're in the car you may as well drive to Bristol ....[/p][/quote]As MJI says, only some trains stop at Gloucester because of the extra time involved (including the driver's changing ends). A trip that involves an in-out to Gloucester and Worcester would probably add half an hour to the Bristol-B'ham journey time compared with ignoring them both. Stopping at Parkway would add five or six minutes. Trains via SH can continue round the back, but that adds a fair amount of time too. The important thing is that if the Parkway doesn't get built soon, someone will build houses on the site and then Worcester will never get a decent service. As worcswolf says: "Only a few hundred use the train" to go to B'ham at the moment. However, many thousands drive there every day. If the Parkway were built, there'd be a nice way of avoiding the traffic jams by just making a quick trip around the ring-road (when it finally gets built!) longpete
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree