Which junctions would you grade-separate?

[Zomboid]

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.

Since we've got the crayons out, how about resignalling the York - Northallerton line to be paired by use (fast lines to the east). The 3 track bridge at Skelton Jn would complicate it, but the platforms at Thirsk are in the right place at least, and it would match the 4 tracks south of York.

I don't know when ETCS is due up there, but that would be the ideal opportunity to start from a cleanish sheet of paper.

 

[dodecahedron67]

Since we've got the crayons out, how about resignalling the York - Northallerton line to be paired by use (fast lines to the east). The 3 track bridge at Skelton Jn would complicate it, but the platforms at Thirsk are in the right place at least, and it would match the 4 tracks south of York.

I don't know when ETCS is due up there, but that would be the ideal opportunity to start from a cleanish sheet of paper.

The current paired by direction works pretty well for that section. Means freight is out the way and can use the Longlands diveunder to get to and from Teeside without having to go through Northallerton station.

It also allows for the Teeside TPE & Grand Central services to run on the fasts York - Thirsk before swapping to the slows to call at Thirsk without blocking the whole ECML

 

[Legolash2o]

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.

That makes sense, thank you for the insight.

 

[fishwomp]

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

Not going to happen. If we keep believing we're waiting for HS2, powerhouse, etc then nothing will happen.

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.

Or, put the Harrogate on the avoider, freight line, and (re)build the third side of a triangle west between the station and the Holgate bridge. All without flyover and diveunders.

 

[duffield]

Going back to Newark flat crossing on the ECML, I've seen vague talk about removing it to increase capacity on the ECML, but what I'm not clear about is whether that translates into reality. That's to say, we have the soon-to-be four passenger service paths (two in each direction per hour) and the two freight paths (one in each direction per hour - I think, haven't checked). If all of those six crossings per hour were removed, would it actually create more usable capacity on this section of the ECML or would it not actually be usable due to constraints elsewhere?

I'm *guessing* that the answer is it probably doesn't create significant extra *usable* capacity, otherwise it would have been done by now, but maybe it is useful but the DfT/NR just blanch at the sheer cost.

I must say I was surprised when extending the Newark Castle terminator to Lincoln and beyond was given the go ahead, adding 2tph to the crossing.
I suppose that's maybe also an indicator that it's not a critical constraint by itself?

 

[MarkyT]

Going back to Newark flat crossing on the ECML, I've seen vague talk about removing it to increase capacity on the ECML, but what I'm not clear about is whether that translates into reality. That's to say, we have the soon-to-be four passenger service paths (two in each direction per hour) and the two freight paths (one in each direction per hour - I think, haven't checked). If all of those six crossings per hour were removed, would it actually create more usable capacity on this section of the ECML or would it not actually be usable due to constraints elsewhere?

I'm *guessing* that the answer is it probably doesn't create significant extra *usable* capacity, otherwise it would have been done by now, but maybe it is useful but the DfT/NR just blanch at the sheer cost.

What's the extra capacity/flexibilty for? To create new capacity or better manage that which exists today. I'd argue that at critical junctions like Newark the main line has absolute priority and the intersecting line must be managed accordingly. That means pathing time allowances and effective speed advisory systems to prevent heavy freights having to stop and slowly get underway again.

I must say I was surprised when extending the Newark Castle terminator to Lincoln and beyond was given the go ahead, adding 2tph to the crossing.
I suppose that's maybe also an indicator that it's not a critical constraint by itself?

A small local train can nip across the junction in a small margin of course.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Going back to Newark flat crossing on the ECML, I've seen vague talk about removing it to increase capacity on the ECML, but what I'm not clear about is whether that translates into reality. That's to say, we have the soon-to-be four passenger service paths (two in each direction per hour) and the two freight paths (one in each direction per hour - I think, haven't checked). If all of those six crossings per hour were removed, would it actually create more usable capacity on this section of the ECML or would it not actually be usable due to constraints elsewhere?

I'm *guessing* that the answer is it probably doesn't create significant extra *usable* capacity, otherwise it would have been done by now, but maybe it is useful but the DfT/NR just blanch at the sheer cost.

Perhaps it's a question of that junction being one (of several?) constraints that would need to be removed if we are to ever get many more trains on the ECML. But yes, my instinct is to agree with you. I'd imagine that, for example, the Welwyn viaduct must be just as significant a capacity constraint.

On the other hand, that flat crossing must be an utter nightmare for timetable planning and for reliability. I could imagine that alone being considered a good reason for grade-separation.

By the way, on a quick check of the Nottingham-Lincoln timetable, it looks to me like the trains are timed so that a train in each direction crosses the flat crossing at about the same time. If that's done with all the other paths, then even with the higher frequency you mention, you'd only have three times per hour that the crossing is blocked to the ECML, not 6 times.

 

[duffield]

Perhaps it's a question of that junction being one (of several?) constraints that would need to be removed if we are to ever get many more trains on the ECML. But yes, my instinct is to agree with you. I'd imagine that, for example, the Welwyn viaduct must be just as significant a capacity constraint.

On the other hand, that flat crossing must be an utter nightmare for timetable planning and for reliability. I could imagine that alone being considered a good reason for grade-separation.

By the way, on a quick check of the Nottingham-Lincoln timetable, it looks to me like the trains are timed so that a train in each direction crosses the flat crossing at about the same time. If that's done with all the other paths, then even with the higher frequency you mention, you'd only have three times per hour that the crossing is blocked to the ECML, not 6 times.

Yes, it hadn't occurred to me that the crossings were timed to be the same, because although I've been over the crossing many times and I always pay attention at the flat crossing, strangely I don't ever remember seeing a service passing in the other direction at that point!

Maybe I'm always on the wrong side of the train (I do tend to sit on the left on those services).

I suppose I'd guess each pair of passenger services would need a 2-3 minute slot and the freight maybe 3-4? So that would mean a total of somewhere between 7 and 10 minutes an hour when the ECML section was blocked?

 

[brad465]

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.


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.

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.

If it were possible I'd realign the link towards Cheltenham to diverge off the up main before it passes over the freight line, such that the link joins the freight line on as smooth a curve as possible, which is then upgraded to become the mainline. The link to the down line would then pass underneath the mainline on a different alignment (so it doesn't close for as long while being constructed), but with cant allowing higher linespeed through this link.

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

What I'd do here is try and realign the junction complex so any spur/crossover can be traversed faster, thus services don't block the area as long. For starters, if Bertrand St bridge was replaced with one that allowed a crossover to be on it, the crossover here could be elongated, allowing the 15mph linespeed to be increased, maybe to 30-40mph. The link to Ladywell maybe harder to increase as the alignment can't really change, which IIRC is currently 20mph, and the link from Hither Green to Lewisham I strongly doubt can be increased from 20mph either, otherwise they'd have probably done it by now.

 

[Falcon1200]

I suppose I'd guess each pair of passenger services would need a 2-3 minute slot and the freight maybe 3-4?

Does it not require more than that, to avoid non-stopping ECML trains receiving adverse aspects? And of course on both Up and Down lines at the same time.

 

[Zomboid]

Newark would probably not on itself create a huge amount more capacity on the ECML (though it probably would help with the Nottingham - Lincoln line), but it would remove a timetabling constraint on both lines and reduce the impact of disruption.

There's probably a few things that would be needed to enhance the ECML, and that would be one of them - and unless you take the first bite, that elephant isn't going to be eaten

 

[Bald Rick]

There's probably a few things that would be needed to enhance the ECML, and that would be one of them - and unless you take the first bite, that elephant isn't going to be eaten

Well, that has been the strategy for the past few decades, incremental improvements.

Just on the ECML proper in the last 20 years we have had the Allington Chord, two rounds of new platforms at Peterboro, Hitchin flyover, Shaftholme flyover, several rounds of power upgrades, Kings Cross Platform 0, the Thameslink connection, Kings Cross remodelling and resignalling, new platforms and uprating of the ‘outer’ slow lines south of Ally Pally, doubling of S Yorkshire junction, adding in an extra line at Holgate Junction, Werrington dive under, and the new platforms at Darlington on the way.

Added to that are various uogrades to branches and other lines which have helped the ECML (such as resignalling the GN/GE via Sleaford), and it is a significant long term investment.

 

[BrianW]

Well, that has been the strategy for the past few decades, incremental improvements.

Just on the ECML proper in the last 20 years we have had the Allington Chord, two rounds of new platforms at Peterboro, Hitchin flyover, Shaftholme flyover, several rounds of power upgrades, Kings Cross Platform 0, the Thameslink connection, Kings Cross remodelling and resignalling, new platforms and uprating of the ‘outer’ slow lines south of Ally Pally, doubling of S Yorkshire junction, adding in an extra line at Holgate Junction, Werrington dive under, and the new platforms at Darlington on the way.

Added to that are various uogrades to branches and other lines which have helped the ECML (such as resignalling the GN/GE via Sleaford), and it is a significant long term investment.

Bald Rick, that is a very useful reminder of the ECML incremental improvements, Thank you. I also note the Retford dive-under of the 1960s and the removal of Sheffield- KX trains with concentration onto St Pancras.
'Improvements' can take several forms of outcome of course- e.g. speed, Reliability, stopping patterns, etc. which can be considered and introduced consequently. I recognise the 'political' dimension of the recent proposed timetable changes.

What are the truly transforming changes that could be considered (with or without changes at Newark) to address the greatest pinch points- presumably such considerations are at the heart of bids to government. Bearing in mind the (as ever) straitened economy, I imagine focus must be on getting some hoped-for greater commitment to HS2 (the recent drone pictures of progress at Old Oak Common are encouraging), and getting 'buy in' to its incremental northward progression.

Any 'grade separtion' possibilities that will help maximise benefits of Northern Powerhouse rail? Or East-West rail? Together with HS2 probably the schemes with the biggest transformational opportunities and profile.

 

[Zomboid]

Welwyn viaduct is probably the single biggest constraint, especially with Welwyn North station eating capacity.

 

[Class15]

Welwyn viaduct is probably the single biggest constraint, especially with Welwyn North station eating capacity.

Is there a case for making Welwyn North station 4-track, to allow Intercity trains to overtake?

 

[Esker-pades]

If we're doing "money no object" stuff.....three that have not been mentioned:

Proof House Jn (Birmingham). Specifically thinking the Derby Lines, meaning a Lichfield > Bromsgrove/Redditch does not conflict with Birmingham > Derby.

Severn Tunnel Junction

Meadowhall

Is there a case for making Welwyn North station 4-track, to allow Intercity trains to overtake?

Not by itself, no. That would create a worse situation than now. Four track it all or nothing.

 

[Zomboid]

There's probably a stronger case for closing it tbh.
On that section there's the viaduct, the station and then the tunnel, the station is by far the simplest to get rid of, though politically unpalatable.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not by itself, no. That would create a worse situation than now. Four track it all or nothing.

How would 4-tracking Welwyn North make the situation worse? I can understand how it would make no difference (for example, not enough length of 4-track to actually allow anything to overtake without holding the stoppers for several minutes in the station) but I can't see how it would make it worse. Surely the worst possible result from 4-tracking would be, exactly the same timetable as today because nothing can take advantage of the new passing loops.

 

[Class15]

How would 4-tracking Welwyn North make the situation worse? I can understand how it would make no difference (for example, not enough length of 4-track to actually allow anything to overtake without holding the stoppers for several minutes in the station) but I can't see how it would make it worse. Surely the worst possible result from 4-tracking would be, exactly the same timetable as today because nothing can take advantage of the new passing loops.

That’s rather what I’m thinking, I can’t see how the situation would be any worse than it already is.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's probably a stronger case for closing it tbh.
On that section there's the viaduct, the station and then the tunnel, the station is by far the simplest to get rid of, though politically unpalatable.

Not just politically unpalatable but bad because Welwyn North station is actually quite well used (around 370K annual entrances/exits the last couple of years)

 

[Zomboid]

It'll be interesting to see what ETCS brings to the situation. You'd think that it ought to help squeeze a bit more through there.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not just politically unpalatable but bad because Welwyn North station is actually quite well used (around 370K annual entrances/exits the last couple of years)

I wouldn’t say that is “well used” in the context of other stations in the area. I know the area very well, and closing the station would simply cause most of the passengers to use WGC or Knebworth instead. Some passengers would, of course, switch to other modes.

As said though, it would be a very, very unpopular move, and politically impossible in the current environment.

It'll be interesting to see what ETCS brings to the situation. You'd think that it ought to help squeeze a bit more through there.

ETCS will siml,y enable the timetable to run tuthfully, rather than with the fiddles in place today to make it look like it works.

 

[Magdalia]

I wouldn’t say that is “well used” in the context of other stations in the area. I know the area very well, and closing the station would simply cause most of the passengers to use WGC or Knebworth instead. Some passengers would, of course, switch to other modes.

I also know the area very well.

It is hilly, hence a 100 feet high viaduct and 2 tunnels. The local roads are just country lanes with steep gradients not very suitable for buses, or walking and cycling.

Welwyn North survives because neither Welwyn Garden City or Knebworth are suitable alternatives. For Welwyn North users switching to Welwyn Garden City or Knebworth is not simple. Although Welwyn Garden City is less than 2 miles away, it is the other side of the 100 feet deep river valley and has no parking (apart from the shopping centre). Knebworth is 3 miles away, the other side of the 2 tunnels, and only has a very small car park. Closing Welwyn North station would make life very difficult for the people who live near the station and use the trains.

Is there a case for making Welwyn North station 4-track, to allow Intercity trains to overtake?

No. The opportunities to pass are either side of the 2 track section, at Digswell and Woolmer Green.

There isn't room to make the station 4 tracks because it is a very short distance between the viaduct and the tunnel. I doubt that turnouts faster than 20 mph could be fitted in, which would make the stopping trains even slower than they are now, and use up more line capacity.

And then there is the amount of disruption that would be required to achieve a negative result.

Anyway, the line was provided with 4 tracks a century ago when the Hertford loop was built. With only a 2 tph stopping passenger service and a few freight trains there is some spare capacity there.

There is also still spare capacity while paths are still being taken up by 5 car trains that could be twice as long.

Another important constraint to be borne in mind is platform capacity at Kings Cross. It is no use running more trains through Welwyn if there is nowhere to terminate them when they get to London.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

If we're talking truly 'money no object', I wonder if there'd be any merit in grade-separating Coventry.
Put the WCML Rugby-Birmingham traffic through new tunnelled platforms under the existing station, so they no longer conflict with trains heading south towards Leamington Spa or north towards Nuneaton.
You'd obviously need to do this in combination with doubling Leamington-Coverntry and ideally 4-tracking as much of Coventry-New Street as you could physically manage.

At the very least, this would help with the aspiration to have 2tph XC services running via Coventry/International, and a 2tph Leamington-Nuneaton local service.

 

[The Planner]

If we're talking truly 'money no object', I wonder if there'd be any merit in grade-separating Coventry.
Put the WCML Rugby-Birmingham traffic through new tunnelled platforms under the existing station, so they no longer conflict with trains heading south towards Leamington Spa or north towards Nuneaton.
You'd obviously need to do this in combination with doubling Leamington-Coverntry and ideally 4-tracking as much of Coventry-New Street as you could physically manage.

At the very least, this would help with the aspiration to have 2tph XC services running via Coventry/International, and a 2tph Leamington-Nuneaton local service.

That only needs Milverton to Gibbet Hill doing, and potentially not all of it.

 

[Zomboid]

How much of the conflicting traffic at Coventry is passenger? Would a line that avoided the city entirely (such as the old Kenilworth to Berkswell line) help much?

 

[Bald Rick]

How much of the conflicting traffic at Coventry is passenger? Would a line that avoided the city entirely (such as the old Kenilworth to Berkswell line) help much?

Kenilworth - Berkswell is in the process of being reinstated, with a little extension either end…

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If we're talking truly 'money no object', I wonder if there'd be any merit in grade-separating Coventry.

For this one, you could fairly easily remove a lot of the issues by splitting the Nuneaton-Leamington services at Coventry. I doubt there's a huge demand for through traffic, and if there was a lot of demand, you could time the Leamington-Coventry and Coventry-Nuneaton services to give reasonable connections. Yes I know that's not as ideal for passengers but it would save an awful lot of money.

I would also hazard a guess that the lack of 4-tracking between Birmingham and Coventry is a much bigger barrier to providing more services than the lack of grade separation at Coventry.

Agree with you that double-tracking Coventry-Leamington really ought to be a priority.

 

[The Ham]

I do wonder, given just how congested a lot of the key lines are, whether we'd be better building more lines to create more capacity.

However if we're talking £200 million per junction to gain 2tph with a total of 1,710 seats (using 12 coach 450 as a baseline) when a new line could deliver 16tph with a total of 22,800 seats (using a 20 coach 450) as whilst a new line would be significantly more expensive the extra capacity it would generate would mean for the same cost per seat you could spend £2.66bn.

Whilst that's going to mean a fairly short railway, that's potentially all you'd need to create a Birmingham Crossrail which would then potentially give you other capacity enhancements.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think we really need to look into why what ought to be, building a simple railway bridge plus approaching track, comes in at £200 million. That's like 4 000 person-years of a reasonable professional salary (£50k) and it really shouldn't be taking 4000 person-years of work to design, source the materials for and then construct a bridge. Or - another way of looking at it - a cost that would probably pay to build something like 1000 complete houses! Something feels to me very wrong and over-priced there.