|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: GWRUS submission - Melksham railway Development Group (Read 1112 times)
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Many thanks to the Melksham Railway Development Group http://www.mrdg.org.uk for submitting a good repsonse to the GWRUS in support of the TransWilts case - copy here with their permission: Sirs The GW RUS document invites comments on this document, and we welcome the chance to do so. This response is on behalf of the Melksham Railway Development Group (MRDG) which promotes improvements to the infrastructure and services on the line between Chippenham and Trowbridge, with a view to reinstate a viable rail service at Melksham. Our comments therefore reflect issues raised in 6.9.10.2 and 6.9.10.4. Chippenham bay We certainly welcome any of the potential hourly service options through Melksham (Swindon/ Westbury, Chippenham/Salisbury or Chippenham/Westbury). The two last options, combined with a potential Bristol to Chippenham local service, would call for a bay at Chippenham. We suggest that greater value could be achieved if the additional bay were implemented as a passenger loop. This would also improve reliability on both the Swindon to Bath route, (if freight capacity were provided) and also the potential Swindon - Westbury option. The Chippenham to Trowbridge corridor makes most sense if Swindon were the termination point rather than Chippenham. Put simply, we support a bay at Chippenham but believe a long loop may offer additional benefits Signalling between Thingly Junction and Bradford We believe consideration should be given, whilst resignalling for other reasons (such as mainline electrification), for changes to allow more than 1 train to be in the Thingley to Bradford section when travelling in the same direction. With a section time of 20 minutes, the single train constraint limits capacity, including for freight, at 3 tph which may be restrictive in the future. Reinstatement of the Bradford North Curve The link to the North at Bradford was removed in the 80s. Reinstatement would provide a more effective standby route for FGW trains bypassing Box tunnel, and at the same time allow options of Bristol to Chippenham via Melksham. Has this been considered? Regards John Hamley, PhD Melksham Railway Development Group
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
 |