Could Norton Bridge works unlock extra paths?

[The Planner]

According to the Atkins 2011 Report into the Stafford Area upgrade and Norton Bridge Junction replacement in particular, one of the positives is provision of 3 additional passenger and one freight train per hour each way. One of the additional trains quoted was Euston-Blackpool/Windermere splitting/joining at Preston. This could just have stopped at Carnforth if the mainline platforms had been there.

A lot has been played on this report saying that Norton Bridge allows a load of extra paths, it isn't specific on where they are going to and from and I really can't see where they are, especially south of Rugby.

 

[Class 170101]

A lot has been played on this report saying that Norton Bridge allows a load of extra paths, it isn't specific on where they are going to and from and I really can't see where they are, especially south of Rugby.

Off Peak I would have thought there is one at xx33 (similar looking to the 16:33).

If the 110mph LM paths become 125mph paths I would think paths would open at xx13 and xx16 plus xx57.

 

[The Planner]

But the xx.33 is there now, it isn't new and it is the one Alliance have their eyes on, I also really doubt that people will allow any others to be filled as the robustness and PPM will go down the pan.

 

[Class 170101]

But the xx.33 is there now, it isn't new and it is the one Alliance have their eyes on, I also really doubt that people will allow any others to be filled as the robustness and PPM will go down the pan.

Its only there currently at 16:33, 17:33 and 18:33. Like the xx57 at 16:57 and 17:57 ( and FO 18:57). I think these may be allowed to be filled in all hours.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes, but what I mean is that Norton Bridge doesnt unlock them, you can use them now.

Unless Norton Bridge makes it more reliable to do so than without it - so NR only 'unlock' the slots in the peaks for passenger carrying capacity reasons and protect performance at all other times.

 

[deltic08]

A lot has been played on this report saying that Norton Bridge allows a load of extra paths, it isn't specific on where they are going to and from and I really can't see where they are, especially south of Rugby.

Ref in chapter 5 I think. It even suggested that the service be run by LM, presumably using 110mph 350s, as extension of Euston-Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

Unless Norton Bridge makes it more reliable to do so than without it - so NR only 'unlock' the slots in the peaks for passenger carrying capacity reasons and protect performance at all other times.

Hmmm, still struggle to see how adding that many paths in makes it anymore reliable south of Rugby.

 

[deltic08]

Mods' note: split from Any possibility of Carnforth station West Coast Mainline platforms re-opening?

If the mainline platforms at Carnforth were to re-open I could only see them being used by TPE Manchester to Scotland services in terms of 'Intercity' services. Local services to Windermere may also use them but I don't see Windermere to Barrow as a major flow.

In so far as Virgin services are concerned I could only see it being used by 04:20 departure from Glasgow and possibly the 06:58 from Lancaster if that was to start back from Edinburgh (04:50 approximately).

Likewise on the return
17:57 from Euston extended from Lancaster to Edinburgh
19:30 from Euston to Glasgow - additional stop.

All pretty much in marginal time.

According to the Atkins 2011 Report into the Stafford Area upgrade and Norton Bridge Junction replacement in particular, one of the positives is provision of 3 additional passenger and one freight train per hour each way. One of the additional trains quoted was Euston-Blackpool/Windermere splitting/joining at Preston. This could just have stopped at Carnforth if the mainline platforms had been there.

What would have been better would be to alternate Barrow and Windermere every hour then Carnforth would have a service every two hours to London as would Barrow. I hope this new service will happen as both places need a through London service.

 

[DarloRich]

Hmmm, still struggle to see how adding that many paths in makes it anymore reliable south of Rugby.

does the bumpff not just say something like:

After completion increased capacity will enable more passenger trains to run between London and the north-west, between Manchester and Birmingham and provide for more freight services

rather than anything specific?

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rai's Environmental Statement (non technical summary) presented as part of the DCO application contains:

1.2.4. Once complete the Scheme would create additional capacity for the following train services:

Two extra fast trains per hour in each direction between London Euston and the North West;

One extra train per hour in each direction between Manchester (Stone) and Birmingham; and

One extra freight path per hour in each direction through Stafford via Trent Valley.

http://infrastructure.planninginspe...Norton Bridge Final DCO - ES Volume 1 NTS.pdf

 

[JonathanH]

Off Peak I would have thought there is one at xx33 (similar looking to the 16:33).

If the 110mph LM paths become 125mph paths I would think paths would open at xx13 and xx16 plus xx57.

But the xx13 crosses off the fast before Leighton Buzzard and stops there. The xx10 stops at Milton Keynes. Presumably, you would need the xx10 path to be fast to, say, Nuneaton, the xx13 to be fast to Milton Keynes and the xx16 to cross off for Leighton Buzzard at about the time the xx13 currently does.

Presumably it isn't as straightforward as that in the up direction.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Could the disused stations on the Stoke on Trent Wedgwood line reopen too?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Network Rai's Environmental Statement (non technical summary) presented as part of the DCO application contains:

That text also appears in NR's press briefings on the project.
DfT can ask for its money back if those benefits are not achieved.
In fact, they seem like small beer really.
The improvement in operation around Stafford should be substantial.
Then we move on to the next pinch-point.
New St-Wolverhampton North for me.

 

[The Planner]

Very little you can do with Wolves Birmingham. The reverse curves and bridge at Albion will always restrict you. New St re-signalling will lower the headways slightly from 4 to 3 but along there I would suggest capacity is better than speed.

 

[Class 170101]

But the xx13 crosses off the fast before Leighton Buzzard and stops there. The xx10 stops at Milton Keynes. Presumably, you would need the xx10 path to be fast to, say, Nuneaton, the xx13 to be fast to Milton Keynes and the xx16 to cross off for Leighton Buzzard at about the time the xx13 currently does.

Presumably it isn't as straightforward as that in the up direction.

No

xx10 call at MK as now on fast lines
xx13 calls at MK on Fast Lines then fast to Rugby then lets xx20 to Manchester pass and pull out behind.
xx16 pull over at Bourne End or Ledburn onto slow lines

Look at xx43, xx46 and xx49 to see a similar pattern

 

[JonathanH]

No

xx10 call at MK as now on fast lines
xx13 calls at MK on Fast Lines then fast to Rugby then lets xx20 to Manchester pass and pull out behind.
xx16 pull over at Bourne End or Ledburn onto slow lines

Look at xx43, xx46 and xx49 to see a similar pattern

Current xx43, xx46, xx49 works because a) xx46 is a 110mph path and not 125mph path and b) the next 125mph path normally used is xx00 and not xx53.

Would you really have xx10, xx13 and xx20 all call at Milton Keynes anyway? Surely the point of freeing up another path south of Rugby would be to have something run non-stop to a Trent Valley station, arguably Nuneaton.

 

[dk1]

Its only there currently at 16:33, 17:33 and 18:33. Like the xx57 at 16:57 and 17:57 ( and FO 18:57). I think these may be allowed to be filled in all hours.

18:57 Eus-Man also runs Thursday's.

 

[najaB]

Very little you can do with Wolves Birmingham. The reverse curves and bridge at Albion will always restrict you. New St re-signalling will lower the headways slightly from 4 to 3 but along there I would suggest capacity is better than speed.

Would resignalling to introduce shorter sections be on the cards? With the idea of increasing capacity rather than speeds.

 

[deltic08]

does the bumpff not just say something like:

After completion increased capacity will enable more passenger trains to run between London and the north-west, between Manchester and Birmingham and provide for more freight services

rather than anything specific?

No, it was specific. Two for Manchester, one for Liverpool and one Blackpool/Windermere each hour run as an extension of Euston-Crewe. I assumed it would be 2x350s splitting at Preston as LM was mentioned but it could be Blackpool/Windermere alternating each hour in which case Windermere platform would need extending. OR only run one unit north of Crewe.

Can't believe four trains an hour can be filled from Manchester to Euston.

 

[The Planner]

Would resignalling to introduce shorter sections be on the cards? With the idea of increasing capacity rather than speeds.

Wolves resig allowed a drop from 4 to 3 minute headways to around Dudley Port/Tipton, New St will allow 3 minutes all the way to Soho South where it is 3 minutes now IIRC

 

[Class 170101]

Current xx43, xx46, xx49 works because a) xx46 is a 110mph path and not 125mph path and b) the next 125mph path normally used is xx00 and not xx53.

Would you really have xx10, xx13 and xx20 all call at Milton Keynes anyway? Surely the point of freeing up another path south of Rugby would be to have something run non-stop to a Trent Valley station, arguably Nuneaton.

Don't stop the xx10 at MK then - put the people on the xx13 instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could the disused stations on the Stoke on Trent Wedgwood line reopen too?

Is there any reason to suppose that in 2016, there is more of a demand for rail services in those areas than there was when these stations were last open for passenger usage?

 

[furnessvale]

Is there any reason to suppose that in 2016, there is more of a demand for rail services in those areas than there was when these stations were last open for passenger usage?

You can ask that same question about any potential reopening, or indeed for any currently open station.

The answer in most cases seems to be yes.

 

[Minilad]

With regards to reopening the stations. Surely it depends on the type and frequency of the services that use the stations that will determine how well used they are. Not the reopenings themselves

 

[RichmondCommu]

Is there any reason to suppose that in 2016, there is more of a demand for rail services in those areas than there was when these stations were last open for passenger usage?

When did the stations close?

 

[The Planner]

As part of VHF in 2008 I think.

 

[deltic08]

as part of vhf in 2008 i think.

2004.

 

[6Gman]

That text also appears in NR's press briefings on the project.
DfT can ask for its money back if those benefits are not achieved.
In fact, they seem like small beer really.
The improvement in operation around Stafford should be substantial.
Then we move on to the next pinch-point.
New St-Wolverhampton North for me.

In my world the first part of HS2 to be built would be Birmingham - Wolverhampton.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With regards to reopening the stations. Surely it depends on the type and frequency of the services that use the stations that will determine how well used they are. Not the reopenings themselves

Barlaston might be worthwhile (but complicated potentially by the adjacent crossing); Norton Bridge is not exactly a populous area; Wedgwood would only make sense if people working at/ visiting the nearby factory suddenly started using public transport. Which seems unlikely. imho

 

[The Planner]

2004.

Blimey, didnt think it was quite so early, presumably Etruria went then too.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Blimey, didnt think it was quite so early, presumably Etruria went then too.

In which case what will have changed in 12 years that will make it worthwhile reopening the stations?