Welwyn Viaduct section doubling - How?

[AlanFry1]

As far as I'm aware the land surrounding it is very tight and would require a massive re-build of Welwyn North station and extra tunnel boring costing hundreds of millions and with the preservation of the viaduct preventing doubling in 1901 would there be any hope of doubling today?

Your thoughts?

 

[D365]

Double decking, a parallel replica viaduct (which would cause massive headaches as listed property and new tunnels needed) or rerouting are the only viable ways to get around, I believe. Could Hertford Loop be quadrupled? Would diverting certain services over to MML and EWR to Sandy be feasable?

The only thing we can agree on is that this bottleneck is difficult!

 

[yorkie]

Could Hertford Loop be quadrupled?

Not feasible nor necessary.

They are improving headways in the Hertford-Stevenage section, but whether the improvements are sufficient I do not know.

There have been power supply issues but I understand it has been, or is being, upgraded.

Also re-instating the Down platform at Gordon Hill and making all platforms through lines would enable trains to overtake there (which would probably not be timetabled normally but could be useful at times of disruption), but I am not aware of any plans to do that.

An extra platform at Stevenage dedicated to Hertford Loop terminators would be a huge help with capacity too.

 

[Lee_Again]

I've lived in both Welwyn and Stevenage (still do) and there is lots of local thoughts on this subject.

In my opinion I would do the following;
1 - make all platforms at Gordon Hill through platforms
2 - change the service frequency on the loop to every 1/4 hour
3 - put the non-stop Cambridge services and semi fast Cambridge/Peterborough services on the loop; over taking the slows at Gordon Hill (this adds about 5 mins to journey times but gives 4 new paths across the viaduct)
4 - force the open access operators to join their trains together. I'd have two services run as a pair to Doncaster (or where ever) where they would split. This frees another path and/or allows more services to use a single path.

The upgrade to the loop, most of which is already happening with improved power supply and line speed improvements, coupled with the new loops at Gordon Hill, would be significantly cheaper than a new route/viaduct/tunnels.

Here's hoping.

 

[Fred26]

Not feasible nor necessary.

They are improving headways in the Hertford-Stevenage section, but whether the improvements are sufficient I do not know.

There have been power supply issues but I understand it has been, or is being, upgraded.

Also re-instating the Down platform at Gordon Hill and making all platforms through lines would enable trains to overtake there (which would probably not be timetabled normally but could be useful at times of disruption), but I am not aware of any plans to do that.

An extra platform at Stevenage dedicated to Hertford Loop terminators would be a huge help with capacity too.

I don't know why people are so keen on terminating at Stevenage. I think all Hertford trains that currently terminate at SVG should run through to Letchworth. Terminating at SVG and running back round the loop via the downside is inconveniant for passengers coming from the north, especially with luggage. Once the Hitchin flyover is complete there shouldn't be a need to terminate at SVG - if there is, open the extra platform at Letchworth, it'd probably take less work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd reopen the Welwyn-Hertford line as double track, with a flyover at the Welwyn end and tracks running either side of the viaduct at Hertford, meaning there'd be no conflicting moves.
I'd reopen Coles Green station and serve it by extending one train per hour from WGC to LET via HFN and SVG.

During peak times the branch could be used to run fast trains onto the mainline, avoiding the bottleneck. This option would probably be more cost effective than quadrupling the whole loop.

 

[AlanFry1]

Double decking, a parallel replica viaduct (which would cause massive headaches as listed property and new tunnels needed) or rerouting are the only viable ways to get around, I believe. Could Hertford Loop be quadrupled? Would diverting certain services over to MML and EWR to Sandy be feasable?

The only thing we can agree on is that this bottleneck is difficult!

If chords were built at Bedford and Sandy maybe but with the capacity on the MML there it will be very difficult to implement.

And if there were a plan to double the Hertford Loop it would be best to build separate 2 tracks for high speed use on but i'm not sure how it would be pulled of in Greater London.

 

[johnnychips]

The idea of Open Access trains splitting at Donny is interesting, but at the moment Hull trains stop at intermediate stations, Grand Central to Bradford's first stop is Doncaster (I think), while their services further up north don't stop till York.

But it is an intriguing idea. However, the platforms at Donny do seem very busy, and any delay could really muck things up. I remember when spare Eurostar stock used and overhung platform 1; any delay blocked platform 3 and really caused problems.

 

[Searle]

I don't know why people are so keen on terminating at Stevenage.

well on Saturdays, the Hertford Loop trains have 10 minutes to turn around, obviously an unfeasible time to get to Letchworth and reverse. If all trains ran to Letchworth then some major reshuffling would have to be done, it might not fit very well into the schedule (ie. trains having to wait 30+ minutes to turn around for a path back down).

I also think a chord between the Hertford Loop and the ECML is unnecessary; Hertfordshire isn't exactly rural, and it'd be a major pain implementing it IMO

 

[jopsuk]

If Coppermill Junction- Broxbourne on the West Anglia does get quadrupled, what sort of time could a Cambridge-Liverpool Street non-stop realistically achieve? That would create two fast paths per hour...

 

[Fred26]

well on Saturdays, the Hertford Loop trains have 10 minutes to turn around, obviously an unfeasible time to get to Letchworth and reverse. If all trains ran to Letchworth then some major reshuffling would have to be done, it might not fit very well into the schedule (ie. trains having to wait 30+ minutes to turn around for a path back down).

So change the timetable.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be the same unit going down as the one coming back up.

 

[philjo]

The trains terminating at Letchworth go into the sidings to reverse anyway so they don't block the platform while waiting to do the return journey - which is the present situation in platform 4 at Stevenage. Once the Hitchin flyover is open next year running on to Letchworth would also have no impact on the ECML fast lines. If it left Letchworth around xx:20 it would give a connection at hitchin/Stevenage into the Fast train from Peterborough effectively giving LET 2 fast trains an hour to Kings cross.

I personally think the long term solution to Welwyn will be a new Eastern High Speed Line running via Stansted & skirting Cambridge to rejoin ECML north of Peterborough. This would take most Cambridge/Kings Lynn passengers off the ECML south of Hitchin.


Regarding the OA operators - perhaps the trains could couple/divide at Retford instead of Doncaster? The platforms at Retford are in a loop off the ECML so other trains can pass and Hull trains stop there anyway.

 

[joeykins82]

I think I read somewhere (either here or the RUS) that Stevenage was due to get a bay platform so that the Hertford North services could all run there.

Given that the Thameslink route map doesn't include the Hertford loop services I have a theory that the Moorgate services will pass to London Overground when the new super-Thameslink franchise comes in to force; Finsbury Park to Moorgate could run all the time and will provide a useful route to Crossrail at Moorgate for North London types.

 

[ainsworth74]

Regarding the OA operators - perhaps the trains could couple/divide at Retford instead of Doncaster? The platforms at Retford are in a loop off the ECML so other trains can pass and Hull trains stop there anyway.

Hull Trains do but Grand Central don't. So either they'd need to get permission for their trains to call there or they'd have to leave the doors closed on their train which means delaying their passengers onward journeys with the only benefit being to the rest of the railway and nothing for them.

 

[jon0844]

Given that the Thameslink route map doesn't include the Hertford loop services I have a theory that the Moorgate services will pass to London Overground when the new super-Thameslink franchise comes in to force

It's the logical move, even if nothing official has ever been uncovered to suggest it is going to. Despite plenty of people talking about it in the industry, it could still all stem from a rumour/aspiration that has spread to become 'true' because so many people repeated it.

However, there's no other sensible move in my opinion. Making it part of the ICEC franchise is just plain dumb and if LO is to expand all over London, this is one of the obvious ones - given the important and very busy line into Moorgate.

Certainly the line to Hertford should go over to LO, which will be totally separate from the ECML (technically) when the new lines are opened. WGC might be a issue, but one I am sure can be solved.

An earlier poster suggested the semi-fast trains to London from Peterborough and Cambridge could go via the Hertford Loop, but given these call at WGC, Hatfield and Potters Bar, I am not sure that could work - although the timetables are going to be totally overhauled when the GN/TL lines join - so I guess that's the time to look at ideas like this.

Perhaps more trains can run semi-fast to WGC and turn, as they do in the peaks, although I'm not sure I want to suddenly find my 21-25 minute journey to KGX is slowed right down because of new stops at New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate etc.

 

[Aictos]

It's the logical move, even if nothing official has ever been uncovered to suggest it is going to. Despite plenty of people talking about it in the industry, it could still all stem from a rumour/aspiration that has spread to become 'true' because so many people repeated it.

However, there's no other sensible move in my opinion. Making it part of the ICEC franchise is just plain dumb and if LO is to expand all over London, this is one of the obvious ones - given the important and very busy line into Moorgate.

Certainly the line to Hertford should go over to LO, which will be totally separate from the ECML (technically) when the new lines are opened. WGC might be a issue, but one I am sure can be solved.

An earlier poster suggested the semi-fast trains to London from Peterborough and Cambridge could go via the Hertford Loop, but given these call at WGC, Hatfield and Potters Bar, I am not sure that could work - although the timetables are going to be totally overhauled when the GN/TL lines join - so I guess that's the time to look at ideas like this.

Perhaps more trains can run semi-fast to WGC and turn, as they do in the peaks, although I'm not sure I want to suddenly find my 21-25 minute journey to KGX is slowed right down because of new stops at New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate etc.

Hatfield, Potters Bar and WGC have the luxury of semi fast services plus stopping services unlike Hertford or Gordon Hill which doesn't have this luxury.

Ideally the semi fast services should alternate between the Hertford route and the Welwyn route giving Gordon Hill, Cuffley and Hertford direct links to stations on both the Peterborough and Cambridge routes with journeys such as Hertford to Royston or Cuffley to St Neots.

Giving Potters Bar, Cuffley, Hertford, Hatfield, WGC and Gordon Hill equal direct services to stations on both the Cambridge and Peterborough,

 

[jon0844]

I'm all for faster services via the loop, but not at the expense of faster trains on my line.

As long as the Hertford Loop is only two lines, it's always going to be hard to fit in fast trains without a huge drop in capacity.

Doesn't Gordon Hill get some sort of semi-fast service in the evening peak? There's a Hertford train, a WGC train, then a Gordon Hill train, which has fewer stops.

I guess there aren't that many, especially not during the day, but that's presumably down to the fact that neither Hertford or WGC trains in the day are that busy.

 

[philjo]

An earlier poster suggested the semi-fast trains to London from Peterborough and Cambridge could go via the Hertford Loop, but given these call at WGC, Hatfield and Potters Bar, I am not sure that could work - although the timetables are going to be totally overhauled when the GN/TL lines join - so I guess that's the time to look at ideas like this.

Perhaps more trains can run semi-fast to WGC and turn, as they do in the peaks, although I'm not sure I want to suddenly find my 21-25 minute journey to KGX is slowed right down because of new stops at New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate etc.

I read this as being the xx:53 KX-Cambridge services that are Finsbury Park & fast to Stevenage then main stations to Cambridge (my "fast" train) that could be diverted via Hertford as opposed to the xx:06 KX-Cambridge services which call at Finsbury Park, potters Bar, Hatfield and all stations to Cambridge - which would remain on the existing route as part of Thameslink service (I refer to this as the slow train).
same for the equivalent Peterborough services.
It would help if the xx:15 non-stop to Cambridge services all stopped at Letchworth & Royston (we get them during the peaks Mon-Fri) to maintain a fast service so diverting the other one via Hertford wouldn't have as much impact on overall journey times.

 

[HSTEd]

Phase 1 of a Great Northern Shinkansen would solve this problem..... London to Peterborough or similar.....


But otherwise, only thing I can see working is fitting loops on the stations on the Hertford Loop so trains can pass at every station.

 

[jon0844]

I read this as being the xx:53 KX-Cambridge services that are Finsbury Park & fast to Stevenage then main stations to Cambridge (my "fast" train) that could be diverted via Hertford as opposed to the xx:06 KX-Cambridge services which call at Finsbury Park, potters Bar, Hatfield and all stations to Cambridge - which would remain on the existing route as part of Thameslink service (I refer to this as the slow train).
same for the equivalent Peterborough services.

Ah, yes, possibly then. There are also some Cambridge services in the peak that are FPK and HAT, running along the down fast and then on to the slow at Potters Bar for Hatfield (skipping Potters Bar) presumably to let other trains through.

It's all (IMO) pretty well organised, but all due to change and that's when it could become a nightmare - especially when trains are delayed through the TL core and totally destroy the tightly controlled ECML.

 

[LE Greys]

Well, the ultimate is the double-bypass. Firstly, sending all Anglo-Scottish trains down HS2. Secondly, sending the remaining expresses down a new line that cuts accross the Fens to Cambridge, then Stansted and following the M11 and Central Line to Stratford International. The first part is likely, although it would require a bit of unusual common sense in diverting HSNE via York to allow connections there. Just running to Leeds and Newcastle would not be enough without causing major problems at the southern end of the line. The second is highly unlikely, purely because of costs (which did not stop Greengauge 21 proposing it, though).

With a pure-Welwyn solution, the ideal would be to separate the fast lines at Welwyn GC and Woolmer Green with a 140 mph bridge and twin-bore tunnels. However, that's highly unlikely, and the most likely version would involve slewing the line over and putting in a second viaduct, probably made to look similar to the existing one. Reopening the loops at Welwyn North would be a good start (although that means goodbye to the car park) followed by new single bores to the tunnels.

 

[jon0844]

The car park isn't that big at Welwyn North anyway is it? There was also the problem of parking on the nearby roads, often in very dangerous places and I'm not sure if they solved this by introducing permits, double yellows etc (not been there in years). I wonder how many people find it easier to drive and park at WGC (possibly with the added benefit of having a slightly cheaper ticket price)?

An ideal scenario would be to rebuild the station with reinstated loops, above an underground car park that would increase capacity. But, imagine the disruption to the ECML (and the cost).. so one for the 'nice idea but totally stupid and impossible' box.

 

[Jonny]

I personally think the long term solution to Welwyn will be a new Eastern High Speed Line running via Stansted & skirting Cambridge to rejoin ECML north of Peterborough. This would take most Cambridge/Kings Lynn passengers off the ECML south of Hitchin.

As in HS3 (vs the currently proposed HS2 and recently built HS1)?

That would be a good idea, running to the east of the current ECML and maybe joining eventually at about Morpeth or further north as a super-fast line to Scotland; with branches off to Norwich, Cambridge, Hull, York/Harrogate and Newcastle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Back on the original point though, either four tracks across the Welwyn Viaduct or improvements on the Hertford Loop so that a "virtual four track" set-up is achieved (IIRC freight that doesn't fit W6a has to use the Hertford loop anyway) are good short term measures, long term though Welwyn is just another viaduct. Within 50-100 miles of London as well as within major metropolitan areas we can't afford to be as sentimental as elsewhere.

 

[philjo]

Put the fast lines in a tunnel from somewhere just south of WGC to Woolmer Green.

A starting point to reduce delays/disruption due to engineering works/breakdowns would be to have bi-di signalling on all lines between WGC & Stevenage so trains can use the other line if the other line is blocked.
The other line can be open in the peak flow direction & traffic going the other way can mainly go via Hertford. (i.e. 2 lines open in peak direction, 1 of which is via Hertford, most traffic via Hertford in the opposite direction)
Got stuck once for about an hour because a GNER train had broken down on the viaduct. We had to eventually reverse to Stevenage then get another train round the loop.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely you could rebuild Welywn North with a carpark over the tracks if you have to use the ground currently occupied by it?

One of those relatively lightweight prefab jobs.

 

[jon0844]

I am sure the local residents would put in so many objections, such a design wouldn't be approved and built until about 3012.

We could probably built 20 more high-speed lines and put 50 runways at Heathrow and Stansted easier than that.

 

[ess]

Regarding Welwyn North, there are arches and banking that make it look like there was quad track closer to the north of the viaduct in the past. Is there any evidence to prove that's correct?

 

[Waverley125]

getting rid of the Cambridge fasts would be one way of freeing up capacity. Work on the WAML could allow for 90s + mk3s to run long-form Cambridge services into Liverpool St, providing better passenger accommodation than the 365s and improved onboard services. With the hopeful wiring of Ely-Norwich, 1tph to Norwich via Ely & 1tph Kings Lynn (fast), with Stansted Express services running all stops north of the Airport to Kings Lynn

 

[Bald Rick]

By far the best business case, in terms of net revenue gain for cost, is to close Welwyn North station.

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

If Coppermill Junction- Broxbourne on the West Anglia does get quadrupled, what sort of time could a Cambridge-Liverpool Street non-stop realistically achieve? That would create two fast paths per hour...

Approx 1 min quicker than today with current stops, non stop maybe 52 mins at a stretch.

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

Given that the Thameslink route map doesn't include the Hertford loop services I have a theory that the Moorgate services will pass to London Overground when the new super-Thameslink franchise comes in to force; Finsbury Park to Moorgate could run all the time and will provide a useful route to Crossrail at Moorgate for North London types.

This has not been proposed or even discussed (seriously) as part of the refranchising process, and the bidders for the new TSGN process were expecting to include the loop. If that changes following the Brown review we will see.

However I would say there is a VERY good chance of the Moorgate line being open later than today in the week and all day Saturday post 2018 if not before.

 

[tbtc]

Before coming up with any grand plans, as far as I remember the current service level is

Six "fast" services to Peterborough Doncaster/ beyond (East Coast, GC and HT)
Two "fast" services to Cambridge (FCC)
Two "semi fast" services to Cambridge (FCC)
Two "semi fast" services to Peterborough (FCC)

...so twelve passenger trains an hour?

(correct me if I'm wrong here)

 

[RichmondCommu]

It seems almost criminal that loops etc have been removed in the last 40 years when you consider how close the locations are to London.