Which junctions would you grade-separate?

[DynamicSpirit]

Paths into London is a far, far bigger issue than Colwich.

Although if Colwich wasn't an issue, you could work round that by running a 2nd hourly train as something like Northampton->Trent Valley all stops->Crewe, which would at least provide a good half-hourly service within the Trent Valley towns as well as - if Avanti connections at Rugby were reasonable, an effective half-hourly service to London by changing at Rugby for the 2nd train (albeit without the benefit of the cheap LNWR tickets).

 

[cjw714]

If money's no object I'd do Dore by restoring the four tracks down to Sheffield (compulsory purchase of a fairly small portion of Tesco) and clearing out the dive-under there to get the non-conflict.

And then add to that sort Manchester out, though that's far more than just a simple flyover that's needed.

And replace the GWR horror at Westerleigh with a sweeping curve and down-line flyover towards Parkway.

I know this is not a very objective way to decide these things but in the days when I used travel regularly between Birmingham and Exeter it felt like I lost hours of my life waiting for the track to clear at Westerleigh.

 

[Bald Rick]

The other thing with Colwich is that the LNWR London-Crewe trains are (in my experience) very heavily used these days, and really could do with becoming half-hourly. I would imagine Colwich is one the biggest barriers to that happening (although capacity nearer London is also an issue).

That’s much more easily solved than spending a hundreds of million or so on a flyover!

 

[Zomboid]

Paths into London is a far, far bigger issue than Colwich.

Once HS2 comes along, paths into Euston should become less of an issue.
Whether Colwich would present an issue then is another question, but AIUI HS2 in the current cut-down form will increase traffic north of Handsacre, but relieve it south of there.

 

[zwk500]

Once HS2 comes along, paths into Euston should become less of an issue.
Whether Colwich would present an issue then is another question, but AIUI HS2 in the current cut-down form will increase traffic north of Handsacre, but relieve it south of there.

I expect that it won't take too long before a 'definitely-not-HS2-guv' emerges to bypass Colwich and Stafford once the southern section is open, because as you say that will release paths into London.

I know this is not a very objective way to decide these things but in the days when I used travel regularly between Birmingham and Exeter it felt like I lost hours of my life waiting for the track to clear at Westerleigh.

Westerleigh I'd grade separate to speed it up, it certainly feels damned slow for the diverging route. I'm pretty sure it is on a couple of shopping lists but no idea where it falls on the priority ranking.

 

[Zomboid]

Would there be any stations where services terminate where grade-separation of the terminating services would release any paths?

That was exactly my thought process, and I couldn’t think of any that would be helpful.

I think the issue with that is that it really impacts 4 track routes which are paired by direction. And there's not that many of those - the ECML and SWML are the major ones, and we've already discussed Woking and Basingstoke, whilst the ECML doesn't have anywhere relevant.

No doubt there are other sections around, but when lines are paired by use reversals are easy without flyovers. Fast to slow and vv moves are more problematic though.

 

[Helvellyn]

...when lines are paired by use reversals are easy without flyovers. Fast to slow and vv moves are more problematic though.

See the Southern end of the Midland Mainline for an example where you not only have Thameslink services that need to cross Fast to Slow (and vice versa) to use the Core but EMR ECS moves to/from Cricklewood Depot have to do the same as well.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think it says more about cost escalation in recent decades.

When a dive under costs £200m or so (see Werrington), the number of plausible candidates is quite small.

Good argument for making more effort to get costs down as well.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That’s much more easily solved than spending a hundreds of million or so on a flyover!

How would you solve it? (I'm assuming by 'it' you mean, enabling a half-hourly Trent Valley stopper)

(And would a flyover really be £a hundred million or so? If I recall correctly, that would be like 0.5% of the entire cost of building the Elizabeth line" - just for one flyover in an area with ample open countryside to give space to build it in)

 

[zwk500]

How would you solve it? (I'm assuming by 'it' you mean, enabling a half-hourly Trent Valley stopper)

(And would a flyover really be £a hundred million or so? If I recall correctly, that would be like 0.5% of the entire cost of building the Elizabeth line" - just for one flyover)

If the cost for Werrington of £200m given upthread is accurate, then yes.

 

[Kingston Dan]

My suggestion for the grade separation at Newark: Reroute the Nottingham-Lincoln line to run via new stations at Farndon and Newark South then a flyover over the ECML to run into Newark Northgate on the East side of the WCML tracks, from where trains would carry on towards Lincoln. Newark Castle station could then be closed, and people would instead have direct interchange between the two lines at Northgate. Picture shows a map of this.


View attachment 178496

I've just done a very similar map too - but with a dive under on the ECML onto the old roue to Melton Mowbray (which is currently a cycle way). Mainly as there are a few overbridges in the way.

 

[Bald Rick]

but EMR ECS moves to/from Cricklewood Depot have to do the same as well.

I suspect most of those will go when the new trains come along.

How would you solve it? (I'm assuming by 'it' you mean, enabling a half-hourly Trent Valley stopper)

Remove LNR specific fares; you won’t need a half hourly service then.

And would a flyover really be £a hundred million or so? If I recall correctly, that would be like 0.5% of the entire cost of building the Elizabeth line" - just for one flyover in an area with ample open countryside to give space to build it in)

Easily. Hitchin flyiver - which was as easy as it gets (single line, simple country, one point on one point off, minimal interference with existing) was about £50m out turn cost nearly 15 years ago. RPI has near doubled since then, Construction inflation much more so.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Remove LNR specific fares; you won’t need a half hourly service then.

Yes, pricing people off the railways is definitely one way to avoid infrastructure spending. Not sure it's quiiiite the kind of solution I was hoping for though....

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, pricing people off the railways is definitely one way to avoid infrastructure spending. Not sure it's quiiiite the kind of solution I was hoping for though....

I didn’t say they would be priced off…

 

[HSTEd]

I didn’t say they would be priced off…

Is this one of those situations where ICWC/Avanti trains run half empty whilst everyone crowds onto stoppers instead?

(As is commonly claimed about ICWC/Avanti peak services)

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this one of those situations where ICWC/Avanti trains run half empty whilst everyone crowds onto stoppers instead?

(As is commonly claimed about ICWC/Avanti peak services)

There will certainly be some spare seats on most (but not all) Avanti trains, yes. And they will be running more trains along the Trent Valley later this year.

 

[MarkyT]

Westerleigh I'd grade separate to speed it up, it certainly feels damned slow for the diverging route. I'm pretty sure it is on a couple of shopping lists but no idea where it falls on the priority ranking.

My suggestion is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fantasy-bristol-parkway-grade-separation.278099/post-7216185

 

[zwk500]

My suggestion is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fantasy-bristol-parkway-grade-separation.278099/post-7216185

Yes that's basically what I'd do. Get as close to the viaduct as you can and build through smoothest curve possible.
If possible taking advantage to put the freight connection in the middle and including a single track chord towards Chipping Sodbury would be very much nice to haves.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

No one’s mentioned Lewisham and Park’s Bridge Junction yet. Stunningly expensive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No one’s mentioned Lewisham and Park’s Bridge Junction yet. Stunningly expensive.

Good call on Lewisham. That really needs doing - not least because the current infrastructure situation prevents quite a few of the metro trains from even calling at this major destination/interchange. Unfortunately doing something is not just likely to be stunningly expensive, but but also not at all clear how you can do anything, particularly now that so many tower blocks have been built around the station, preventing any re-routing of the tracks and giving no space for new flyovers. I suspect we're at the point where the only workable solution would be a new Lewisham station built underground (which at least has the benefit that you could perhaps build it where the shopping centre is)

Where on Earth is Parks Bridge Junction? (<-- side note: It would in general be so helpful if when people name junctions out of context, they could given an indication of what they are talking about - for the benefit of those of us who don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of railway junction names).

 

[BrianW]

My suggestion is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fantasy-bristol-parkway-grade-separation.278099/post-7216185

Presumably Swindon- bound trains can be held at platform at Bristol Parkway, while a train from Gloucester direction wends its way across to 'arrive into' Bristol Parkway. Is that so very disruptive as to merit expenditure on a flyover?

 

[MarkyT]

Yes that's basically what I'd do. Get as close to the viaduct as you can and build through smoothest curve possible.
If possible taking advantage to put the freight connection in the middle and including a single track chord towards Chipping Sodbury would be very much nice to

Something like this perhaps:

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Where on Earth is Parks Bridge Junction? (<-- side note: It would in general be so helpful if when people name junctions out of context, they could given an indication of what they are talking about - for the benefit of those of us who don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of railway junction names).

It’s the flat junction where the connection to the Hayes line diverges and is also a slow to fast connection on the Lewisham avoiding lines. It’s part of the wider Lewisham complex, hence being included in the original post without extra geographical clarification.

 

[BrianW]

Good call on Lewisham. That really needs doing - not least because the current infrastructure situation prevents quite a few of the metro trains from even calling at this major destination/interchange. Unfortunately doing something is not just likely to be stunningly expensive, but but also not at all clear how you can do anything, particularly now that so many tower blocks have been built around the station, preventing any re-routing of the tracks and giving no space for new flyovers. I suspect we're at the point where the only workable solution would be a new Lewisham station built underground (which at least has the benefit that you could perhaps build it where the shopping centre is)

Where on Earth is Parks Bridge Junction? (<-- side note: It would in general be so helpful if when people name junctions out of context, they could given an indication of what they are talking about - for the benefit of those of us who don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of railway junction names).

How many passengers and potential pasengers are being inconvenienced, and how massively, by being unable to interchange at Lewisham? Where are they, or would they be, travelling or intending from and to? I think it unlikely that a part of the extensive network in a well-served part of the country will merit the cost of a flyover, let alone to eliminate the number of conflcting movements in SE London. Folk learn to live with limitations and organise their lives accordingly.

This thread demonstrates the paucity of 'candidates' for flyovers, and of their 'justification'. I am sure the railway authorities will be making such cases as are supportable. Much 'relief' could be provided by cutting down on additional peak hour trains by 'spreading the load', promoting Working From Home, and planning more clockface regularity, to my simple mind.

 

[Bald Rick]

Good call on Lewisham. That really needs doing - not least because the current infrastructure situation prevents quite a few of the metro trains from even calling at this major destination/interchange.

The thing is, Leiwsham does have a very good service, and I cant think of any station on the southeastern metro from any of the Darftford lines, Main line or Hayes line that doesn’t have a direct servuce there. So all grade separation would do is to potentially increase the frequency of Lewisham calls, which may not necessarily be a good thing (station capacity, journey times, etc).

Given that Cannon Street and Charing Cross are* at capacity in the peaks, grade separation at Lewisham wouldn’t enable any more trains.

*Well, they were pre Covid, with Lewisham in its current state.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The thing is, Leiwsham does have a very good service, and I cant think of any station on the southeastern metro from any of the Darftford lines, Main line or Hayes line that doesn’t have a direct servuce there. So all grade separation would do is to potentially increase the frequency of Lewisham calls, which may not necessarily be a good thing (station capacity, journey times, etc).

Yes Lewisham has a service to most of SouthEastern metro-land, but mostly at pretty low frequencies. Checking the May-Dec 2025 timetable, it looks like the only places with a remotely turn-up-and-go service (other than stations to London Bridge) are the stations along the Bexleyheath line (and even there there are regular 15 minute gaps). By the standards of most of London that doesn't seem to me at all good enough, bearing in mind that this is one of the biggest destinations in SE London, as well as an interchange for Canary Wharf and Greenwich. Having every metro train stop at Lewisham would go a long way to fixing that.

As far as station capacity is concerned: Since any grade separation would almost certainly involve rebuilding the station, I suspect that wouldn't be an issue. (Perhaps it would get rid of the horrendously curved platforms 1-2)

Given that Cannon Street and Charing Cross are* at capacity in the peaks, grade separation at Lewisham wouldn’t enable any more trains.

You do also have the potential of Thameslink as well as Victoria, though I don't know if they have any spare capacity.

 

[Zomboid]

To increase frequency at Lewisham there would need to be more places/ platforms for trains to go (London side) once they've called there. The Bakerloo line to Hayes proposal would help with that, and also remove some potential conflicting moves at the same time.
Slow line platforms between Thurston Road and the A20 ("Lewisham West", though I've just noticed where the end of St Johns is, so scrub that...) would probably be just as helpful as anything going that way would use the existing flying to avoid conflict with the Nunhead line. Probably no chance of there being space, but there's no space for anything round there no matter what we're using our crayons to draw.

 

[MarkyT]

As far as station capacity is concerned: Since any grade separation would almost certainly involve rebuilding the station, I suspect that wouldn't be an issue. (Perhaps it would get rid of the horrendously curved platforms 1-2)

I'm hoping Southeastern go for a level boarding solution for new metro stock. That comes with extending gap filler steps that could be a solution to the large horizontal gaps of severely curved platforms at Lewisham and elsewhere.

 

[Halifaxlad]

-Micklefield Jn with some track realignment (flyover) -

I wouldn't bother with Micklefield.

If the highspeed bypass is built as proposed by HS2 but connected to Crossgates instead as some would like, then it would be much more sensible to install a new chord to connect Micklefield to South Milford for the slow services and dispense with the junction at Micklefield altogether.

My pick for grade seperation would be Skelton Jct above York, if a flyover was constructed running parralel to the outer ring road then the Harrogate line could connect with the Scarborough line and avoid the need for services to and from Harrogate to use the ECML.

Although I am aware of plans to create a 3rd line, ECML & Harrogate services will still conflict. I would rather see them fully segregated.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Winchburgh.
Edinburgh Airport Curve (completely new).

Plus I'd give up on the existing plans for Winchburgh station, and build a new Winchburgh Parkway station adjacent to the newish m90 junction. I suspect it would be a very busy P&R option.