Proposals for three new West Midlands railway stations to be developed

[G_for_Gnome]

I live in Wolverhampton and for the life of me cannot see why the idea of a Tettenhall station keeps cropping up. There's a very frequent and generally reliable bus service between Tettenhall and Wolverhampton, where you can get a train anyway. Or, the erstwhile residents of Tetttenhall "Village" can drive their Range Rover Evoques to Wolverhampton station (where there is ample parking) even quicker! Introducing another stop literally outside Wolverhampton seems entirely unnecessary.

The name “Tettenhall” is a bit of a misnomer for any station that could be built between Wolverhampton and Bilbrook, as the railway goes nowhere near Tettenhall Village itself. Something like Aldersley or Pendeford might be more appropriate. Less frequent bus service from this area (assuming you were referring to the number 1, Tettenhall Wood - Wolverhampton- Dudley).

I’ll leave any sweeping comment on the relative levels of “erstwhile”-ness of the two areas to you.

In fairness there has been some confusion locally, I’ve heard people think the original Tettenhall station and track along what is now the Smestow Valley Nature Reserve is being reinstated. Some think that the station will be in the village itself making the parking more difficult, this isn’t possible but not everyone has an in depth knowledge of local railway alignments.

Regardless of the merits of the proposed Station, I’ve always thought Tettenhall wasn’t an appropriate name, and it would just cause confusion.

And there may be ample parking at Wolves station but it is expensive. The cheaper car parks close by are often at capacity.

 

[Snow1964]

There has been update, (not read it yet), £6.1bn of investment in Transport in West Midlands

£6.1 billion investment is delivering a green transport revolution to regenerate the West Midlands

Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) is investing a total of £6.1 billion to deliver a green transport revolution across the region, expanding Metro, bus, rail, cycling and walking networks to better connect people to job and leisure opportunities.

www.wmca.org.uk

 

[Class172]

4 aspect over a short distance will increase the headways.

Sorry, are you able to elaborate on why 4-aspect signalling increases headways in these conditions (perhaps specifically in this context)? I'm genuinely interested to know as the signalling I'm much more familiar with is 2-aspect and less concerned with headways!

 

[The Planner]

Sorry, are you able to elaborate on why 4-aspect signalling increases headways in these conditions (perhaps specifically in this context)? I'm genuinely interested to know as the signalling I'm much more familiar with is 2-aspect and less concerned with headways!

If the signals don't move position on the ground, having 4 aspect increases the planning headways, as we plan on greens (as far as its possible to), so R Y YY G is worse over the same distance than R Y G G

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If the signals don't move position on the ground, having 4 aspect increases the planning headways, as we plan on greens (as far as its possible to), so R Y YY G is worse over the same distance than R Y G G

So out of interest - and if it's not too far off topic - why put 4-aspect signals in in the first place in that location? Presumably they have some other advantage, which it's being judged OK to lose on that route?

 

[Class 170101]

It is not impossible that some of the additional trains between Birmingham and Leicester are the same ones as the additional trains planned between Birmingham and Nottingham. Assuming you could sort out the operator and that the additional Birmingham - Leicesters aren't planned to go on to Peterborough,

You could have both. The existing service terminating at Leicester could extend onto Peterborough and into East Anglia.

The new services would be separate and could do Birmingham to Nottingham via Leicester, however see below,

it would presumably be more efficient at Leicester to combine them with the Nottingham stoppers than to have two terminating services - as well as opening up new through journey opportunities. Probably not attractive as through services from Birmingham to Nottingham - but who cares when it looks good as a headline.

Perhaps a good headline but in both cases is there actually the track capacity for these extra services? £123m doesn't provide a lot on the railways these days.

 

[The Planner]

So out of interest - and if it's not too far off topic - why put 4-aspect signals in in the first place in that location? Presumably they have some other advantage, which it's being judged OK to lose on that route?

Different time with a different level of service. No one had even thought of the Bordesley Chords and putting in three new platforms at Moor St when it was last re-signaled.

 

[Class172]

If the signals don't move position on the ground, having 4 aspect increases the planning headways, as we plan on greens (as far as its possible to), so R Y YY G is worse over the same distance than R Y G G

Thanks for the explanation, that makes a lot of sense now. I suppose were one to stick with a 4-aspect system the way to compensate for this in theory would be to shorten the length of the sections, but eventually overlaps and practical considerations will clearly become a problem, so in light of the updated plans for Moor St 3-aspect signalling seems reasonable.

 

[The exile]

You could have both. The existing service terminating at Leicester could extend onto Peterborough and into East Anglia.

The new services would be separate and could do Birmingham to Nottingham via Leicester, however see below,


Perhaps a good headline but in both cases is there actually the track capacity for these extra services? £123m doesn't provide a lot on the railways these days.

Since they’ve announced them, there is presumably the capacity (at least in theory). The point I was making was that there may not be as many extra services as implied as some of them could be the same ones - either “spun” or misinterpreted as different - ie “X tph extra To Leicester and Xtph extra to Nottingham” doesn’t have to be 2x tph from Birmingham.

 

[Class 170101]

Calls for Improved Rail Links Between Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham | Rail Technology Magazine

A major new report by Midlands Connect highlights the significant advantages a direct rail link between

www.railtechnologymagazine.com

Calls for Improved Rail Links Between Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham

A major new report by Midlands Connect highlights the significant advantages a direct rail link between Coventry, Leicester, and Nottingham could bring to the region's universities. Academics believe this improved connectivity would foster collaboration and support university growth.​

​

But I don't see how they could fit this in as well as well as the above and freight which I don't think we have mentioned, (several) someone(s) wants too much I would have thought.

 

[The Planner]

Calls for Improved Rail Links Between Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham | Rail Technology Magazine

A major new report by Midlands Connect highlights the significant advantages a direct rail link between

www.railtechnologymagazine.com

​

​

But I don't see how they could fit this in as well as well as the above and freight which I don't think we have mentioned, (several) someone(s) wants too much I would have thought.

It needs the diveunder at Nuneaton, as well as the resignalling and freight loops that Midlands Rail Hub is meant to deliver between Nuneaton and Wigston.

 

[Class 170101]

It needs the diveunder at Nuneaton, as well as the resignalling and freight loops that Midlands Rail Hub is meant to deliver between Nuneaton and Wigston.

But unless I'm mistaken the one that was there many many many years ago means Nuneaton isn't actually served.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But unless I'm mistaken the one that was there many many many years ago means Nuneaton isn't actually served.

Yeah, I don't think you'd want to avoid Nuneaton. Looking at Google maps, it does look like it should be possible in principle to build a diveunder that allows Coventry-Leicester trains to call and reverse at Nuneaton without crossing the WCML on the level, but I'm not sure the high cost of doing that would be worth it compared to, doing whatever upgrades are needed to provide faster/more frequent trains between Coventry and Nuneaton, and between Birmingham and Leicester, so you get better services all round plus good connections at Nuneaton for Coventry-Leicester passengers.

 

[stevieinselby]

So out of interest - and if it's not too far off topic - why put 4-aspect signals in in the first place in that location? Presumably they have some other advantage, which it's being judged OK to lose on that route?

4-aspect signalling allows higher capacity and/or higher speeds if the signals are spaced appropriately.

If you simply replace 3-aspect signals with 4-aspect signals one-for-one then the signalling will allow you to run trains faster because they now have 50% more distance to stop in from the first restrictive aspect, but that assumes that the permanent way, gauging, vehicle type and timetabling would enable a higher speed so it isn't a given.

Alternatively, you re-signal a line from 3-aspect to 4-aspect by repositioning the signals so that the distance between them is reduced by one-third (roughly), so that the stopping distance from the first restrictive aspect remains the same, but the extra granularity in the signalling means that trains can run closer together more reliably. You may not necessarily be able to path many more trains, if that relies on pathing them on green only, but the service should be a lot more robust as trains won't need to slow down as much.