Welwyn Viaduct section doubling - How?

[Lee_Again]

Okay, but if you divert the half hourly semi fast Finsbury Park - Stevenage services non-stop via Hertford then you can't also "save" two paths over Welwyn an hour by tagging them on to the other half hourly Finsbury Park - Stevenage services (which stop at Potters Bar, Knebworth etc), so the seven paths an hour over Welwyn don't add up.

2 Cambridge + 2 semi fast - via loop (4 paths)
4 coach Peterborough + 8 coach Cambridge -(slows) join at Hitchin (saves one path)

so 5 paths (sorry - not 7)

Joining OA allows extra services for no additional paths (+1 'virtual' path)

Question - can a 15 coach 180 fit in King's Cross?

 

[tbtc]

2 Cambridge + 2 semi fast - via loop (4 paths)
4 coach Peterborough + 8 coach Cambridge -(slows) join at Hitchin (saves one path)

Okay, but you are then reducing the service to Knebworth etc to just one train an hour (combining two half hourly trains into one).

I like some of what you are suggesting, but there are no easy answers.

 

[MarkyT]

Well, indeed, I took the resignalling to be taken as read, as the way to pack the trains a bit closer together. I appreciate what you are saying about the general awkwardness of the locations along there - but I would have thought it's still peanuts compared with major civil engineering. But, as you also say, the Inter City operators probably wouldn't much like the idea - particularly since they wouldn't reap all of the benefits of the extra paths, even if the time penalty were worth it.

A cheeky way to do it might be to use existing spacing but convert from 4 to 3 aspect. That would mean minimum signal spacing of around 1300 metres would define a braking distance equating to a max. speed of around 75 to 80 MPH*

* from . . .

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...ng/Railway Group Standards/GKRT0075 Iss 2.pdf

 

[Bald Rick]

ETCS will give 24 tph across Welwyn viaduct and through the tunnels. On the minor condition that nothing stops at Welwyn North. Anything more than that and you start running out of platforms (of a decent length) at KX.

 

[Lee_Again]

ETCS will give 24 tph across Welwyn viaduct and through the tunnels. On the minor condition that nothing stops at Welwyn North. Anything more than that and you start running out of platforms (of a decent length) at KX.

Do you have a source for that? 24tph must be a theorectical maximum. How would the 1tph 75mph freight fit in to that?

Can anybody expand/prove this list?

Current requirement (off peak) ?
2tph Leeds
2 Newcastle/Edinburgh
2 fast Cambridge
2 semi fast Cambridge/Peterborough
2 slow Cambridge/Peterborough
1 Open Access
1 Newark/York
1 freight
1 ECS

14tph

Additional requirements???
1tph Leeds
1 open Access
2 extra FCC/TL

What is the real extra capacity requirement that would require at least £1bn on 2 tunnels and a viaduct? What problem are we solving? Is it just a few paths in the peak?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Okay, but you are then reducing the service to Knebworth etc to just one train an hour (combining two half hourly trains into one).

I like some of what you are suggesting, but there are no easy answers.

Hadn't considered the hourly service thing!! Having said that, Knebworth is a 5 min drive to Stevenage and Welwyn North just as close to WGC. May be 1tph is something to consider (in the off peak). Both stations are very little used outside the rush hour.

Very much agree that there are no easy answers.

 

[Jonny]

Do you have a source for that? 24tph must be a theorectical maximum. How would the 1tph 75mph freight fit in to that?

Probably through the Hertford Loop, especially given that (IIRC) the Welwyn route is the relatively tight W6a loading gauge (envelope for the train body for any non-railway bods) whereas the Hertford Loop is cleared for the slightly wider W9 loading gauge. Correct me on that one if I'm wrong though.

 

[MarkyT]

ETCS will give 24 tph across Welwyn viaduct and through the tunnels. On the minor condition that nothing stops at Welwyn North. Anything more than that and you start running out of platforms (of a decent length) at KX.

The existing signalling would give 20 TPH assuming 3 minutes headway, for fast trains only.

 

[Aictos]

Probably through the Hertford Loop, especially given that (IIRC) the Welwyn route is the relatively tight W6a loading gauge (envelope for the train body for any non-railway bods) whereas the Hertford Loop is cleared for the slightly wider W9 loading gauge. Correct me on that one if I'm wrong though.

Between Winchmore Hill and Grange Park, the line has been upgraded to
W10/W12 - see link

I'm sure Network Rail has plans to upgrade the rest of the line to W10/W12 soon to send more freight via Hertford then via Welwyn.

 

[TheGrew]

This will probably get laughed out for being ridiculous but how about closing Welwyn North and instead building a tram system following this sort of route:
Old Town>
Hertford Road>
Bessember Road>
Digswell Road>
Bridge Road>
Heronswood Road>
Howlands>
Hospital
I'm not a local and so don't know if that would be the best route I would imagine if you could shift people quickly enough to Welwyn's Main station that people wouldn't use North as much?
It is a completely off the wall idea but I wonder if it would still come out cheaper than quading (which would likely require a serious rebuild of Welwyn North.

 

[jon0844]

If you built a multistorey car park where the council run long stay car park is now in Welwyn Garden City, as used by commuters, you might be able to reduce the fees. If you also subsidise a bus to take people from Welwyn North (the station as it's not really north Welwyn) to WGC then both might compensate for the closure.

With a lower train ticket cost to London (slightly) I expect some locals already do this, as they get more trains along with the service to Moorgate.

The main issue is the fact the TOC/NR doesn't own or run the car park.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If the car park is in the way of building the loops, why not build the loops and then put the car park above them?

 

[jon0844]

If the car park is in the way of building the loops, why not build the loops and then put the car park above them?

The locals would consider that an eyesore (and it probably would be!) and ensure it never happened.

I am sure many would use WGC, which is a much better station, if they could park there or easily get there via public transport. There would obviously be many locals that can walk to Welwyn North that would be upset though.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Hadn't considered the hourly service thing!! Having said that, Knebworth is a 5 min drive to Stevenage and Welwyn North just as close to WGC. May be 1tph is something to consider (in the off peak). Both stations are very little used outside the rush hour.

Very much agree that there are no easy answers.

You seem to me to be making - by accident - a seriously strong case for closing both Welwyn North AND Knebworth, which would open the bottleneck up quite considerably !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think this is the way to sort out the viaduct problem. Just need to find some bricks matching the colour of the existing structure ...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AHc_OqThPso/UJ8u9zbODjI/AAAAAAAACso/2Z97_qD1zm0/s1600/KeikyuKamata3.jpg

 

[D365]

As well as scrape a few loose pennies together. I know that something will have to be done, but will Digswell Viaduct take another deck with 125mph+ trains shooting through? Will need some serious structural enhancement.

Little idea: Would keeping intercity trains on the current (lower) deck underneath a new (upper) level with some funny tunneling to the north improve aerodynamic efficiency significantly?

 

[Lee_Again]

Last two posts...

The combining of the 2 semi-fasts in to a single train does have the effect of reducing the service to 1tph, which I had missed and I noted above.

You will never get Welwyn North or Knebworth closed, even if the alternatives are relatively easy to access.

Moving on, it may be possible to build an 'upper deck', and for the sake of argument let's presume it's built (can't even imagine the cost and disruption but we'll move on), but you've still got the problem of the two tunnels

And to double deck those, or turn in to a cutting, or build 2 additional tunnels would cost astronomical amounts.

I'm not normally one for admitting defeat but I think in this instance we'll have to accept that there will never be 4 tacks across that valley.

And even less so because it would likely be cheaper to build a connection to a HS line, once that/they is/are built.

And, I did ask earlier, how many extra paths do we need? Does anybody have any evidence of a number?

 

[jon0844]

It does seem that HS2 will take away a lot of demand eventually, while increased services terminating at WGC will also reduce demand (and already have in the peaks in recent timetable changes).

Thus, all that work will only be relevant for a short(ish) time. At some stage, there will be talk of another high speed line to the east to take off even more demand. One day it might only be slow / semi fast trains serving these stations.

 

[LE Greys]

It does seem that HS2 will take away a lot of demand eventually, while increased services terminating at WGC will also reduce demand (and already have in the peaks in recent timetable changes).

Thus, all that work will only be relevant for a short(ish) time. At some stage, there will be talk of another high speed line to the east to take off even more demand. One day it might only be slow / semi fast trains serving these stations.

I know it's progress and all that, but a little bit of me will die that day.

 

[Lee_Again]

And the irony of all this is that once the viaduct is open and the signalling is improved around the loop, and is well in the world again, they'll be introducing the connection to the Thameslink just outside King's Cross.

The delays that will be caused because trains are stuck on the approach to that section will make any delays we suffer now seem like a breeze.

BTW - my solution that inevitable problem is this...

6 track from Canal Junction (I think that's what they're callilng it) to Finsbury Park with 2 (yes 2) grade seperated junctions, so similar to what is there already. And then run the Thameslink services around the loop using the newly upgrade goods lines between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace.

This has the effect of keeping the Thameslink trains (and all of its delays) off the ECML all the way to Hitchin.

 

[jopsuk]

I suppose to do what I think you're suggesting, thecurrent lines would have to be slewed over between the two tunnels, and the current flyover shifted as well (by the time you reach Finsbury Park you want all the tracks grouped by direction, whilst at the junction you want them paired by use)

 

[Lee_Again]

I suppose to do what I think you're suggesting, the current lines would have to be slewed over between the two tunnels, and the current flyover shifted as well (by the time you reach Finsbury Park you want all the tracks grouped by direction, whilst at the junction you want them paired by use)

Yes. Basically correct.

Keep the tunnels immediately north of King's Cross as they are now.

So configured like... Dn S, Up S, Dn F, Up F

After the tunnels, slew the tracks over and use the existing abandoned tunnel (and the middle tunnel like now). In the space between the tunnels put the up slow on a new viaduct over to the far east. The same as it is now except that the viaduct is between the two tunnels rather than after both of them.

At the entrance to the north tunnel the tracks would be configured like this...

Dn TL, Up TL, Dn S, Dn F, Up F, Up S (the ECML now configured as required)

The two tracks from Thameslink now use the spare west tunnel. After they exit the tunnel the up track uses the existing (but may be modified) viaduct to become the most easterly track (yes - crossing over all 4 ECML tracks)

So as we approach Finsbury Park the tracks are configured like this...

Dn TL, Dn S, Dn F, Up F, Up S, Up TL

This means the the two TL tracks have not crossed (on the flat) any of the traditional ECML tracks. The two lines from Moorgate would join between the slows and TL tracks on each side.

Connect the Dn TL and Up TL to the new upgraded goods lines between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace and then send the trains on the loop to Langley Junction, joining the Up and Dn slows.

 

[shinkansen1966]

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

What ever happened to Richard Branson's plans for a TGV style service on the East Coast Mainline ?

Remember these plans ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/667373.stm

 

[jon0844]

Delays in the core will see trains entering the ECML late and with nowhere to slot in without causing (big) delays. And if they aren't cleared to enter the ECML, what happens as St Pancras - do the trains sit there and block the whole line?

I am not looking forward to seeing how it all fits together, as there just won't be any recovery time in the peaks unless longer Thameslink trains will see a fall in the current FCC services we have now to create gaps.

 

[mr_jrt]

^^^ All that is precisely why a) St. Pancras TL should have been built with at least 3, if not 4 platforms, and b) the link to the ECML is questionable at best. Arguably, the discounted option for a new tunnel from the ECML to Bermondsey should have been progressed as with that you could easily run everything from the ECML bar the intercity services through to the Southern region, and would have either a lot more slack available on both sides, or indeed, just a lot more capacity to increase frequencies on those services.

 

[jon0844]

I expect the future emergency planning will simply see services due to call at stations from FPK to WGC made to run fast and skip most or all of them, to make up time and everyone for those stations will have to use the all station stopping trains on the slows.

It's going to be a mess for sure, unless ATO in the core prevents all delays!

 

[Lee_Again]

unless ATO in the core prevents all delays!

ATO will cause all the delays.

Jonmorris0844, I find your comments ammusing. I see you travel from Hatfield and you can see I travel from Stevenage (use to be WGC). Was it WAGN that decimated the Hatfield/Potters Bar services? I can't remember.

Those two stations really do suffer. I get the impression that if they could, all trains wouldn't stop until Stevenage just to have a constant flow over the viaduct to maximise paths. And Hatfield is getting bigger and bigger.

 

[Tomnick]

After the tunnels, slew the tracks over and use the existing abandoned tunnel (and the middle tunnel like now). In the space between the tunnels put the up slow on a new viaduct over to the far east. The same as it is now except that the viaduct is between the two tunnels rather than after both of them.

Very much doubt there's anything like sufficient space to get your proposed Up Slow from the same level as the Up Fast at the south end of Copenhagen Tunnel, over both fast lines and then back to the same level as the Down Slow by the north end of Gasworks Tunnel.

 

[ainsworth74]

ATO will cause all the delays.

Does ATO cause delays elsewhere? More than normal operations? Do you have any examples/sources for saying ATO will cause all the delays? I assume that the rest of the network/infrastructure around the new trains will be infallible?

 

[jon0844]

ATO will cause all the delays.

Jonmorris0844, I find your comments ammusing. I see you travel from Hatfield and you can see I travel from Stevenage (use to be WGC). Was it WAGN that decimated the Hatfield/Potters Bar services? I can't remember.

Those two stations really do suffer. I get the impression that if they could, all trains wouldn't stop until Stevenage just to have a constant flow over the viaduct to maximise paths. And Hatfield is getting bigger and bigger.

Hatfield has always suffered from having just one London bound platform. When FCC took over in 2006 and I met them, we went through the timetables and it was clear that some services didn't have time to transfer to the slow to pick up people, and return.. so we had gaps in service. It was me, the MD (Elaine Holt) and the timetable manager (can't remember his name) - and looking back it's quite amazing that both of these individuals gave up their time to do this.

However, after a few years of keeping an eye on things, they did manage to insert a new service (the 0902 from Hatfield, having come from Hitchin I believe) to fill a gap from 0844 (hence my username - this was the train I used to take every day!) to 0925. This ran fast from Hatfield to Finsbury Park and was also declassified for some time, so was my chosen service that for the first year or so was virtually empty!

But, for trains out of London, I think FCC has got things just right now, at least for trains to Hatfield (and terminating at WGC) so I can't comment on Stevenage - although I'd have hoped that by running those semi fast trains to WGC and then running trains to Stevenage fast until after WGC, you've seen an improvement too - or at least more chance of getting a seat now it isn't full of people who would be alighting before Stevenage?

I have a feeling that when things get all changed with the link to the TL side, it's going to see some major changes that might not be good for us. That's despite Hatfield being recently stated in the local press as the second busiest station in Hertfordshire (not sure what that's based on, or indeed if it is true).

FCC deserves credit for having really taken a lot of time (from what I could see when they took over) looking at the timetables. They might have made a few mistakes here and there, which meant retiming things at subsequent changes, but given they've got limited capacity I think they've balanced things very well. The average commuter can demand new trains, more trains, longer trains etc - but they probably aren't even aware of the bottleneck that is the Welwyn viaduct!

 

[Lee_Again]

FCC deserves credit for having really taken a lot of time (from what I could see when they took over) looking at the timetables. They might have made a few mistakes here and there, which meant retiming things at subsequent changes, but given they've got limited capacity I think they've balanced things very well. The average commuter can demand new trains, more trains, longer trains etc - but they probably aren't even aware of the bottleneck that is the Welwyn viaduct!

You make some interesting comments regarding FCC. I have to say that the service level from Stevenage has improved considerably in the 10 years I've been using it. The introductiuon of 12 coach trains and some timetable changes making a huge difference. I use to know (still do) Elaine's secretary and was told she'd often meet passengers privately, and that continued when she moved.

We also benefit, in the evenings, from a much improved EC service too. I tend to use these services the most especially considering the level of service in First. The free coffee/cold drinks and paper saves me £2.50 every day and makes the First fare a bit more affordable. There are not many commuters that get the luxury of this.

I was once trying to pursuade a colleague to buy a First season and by coincidence the day he tried it we caught one of the first Mallard sets home, complete with free Champagne and chocolates. He's not had a Standard ticket since. And also, in those days, you had the very genenrous GNER Time Club. Free tickets and food vouchers. They were the days!!

 

[Aictos]

And the irony of all this is that once the viaduct is open and the signalling is improved around the loop, and is well in the world again, they'll be introducing the connection to the Thameslink just outside King's Cross.

The delays that will be caused because trains are stuck on the approach to that section will make any delays we suffer now seem like a breeze.

BTW - my solution that inevitable problem is this...

6 track from Canal Junction (I think that's what they're callilng it) to Finsbury Park with 2 (yes 2) grade seperated junctions, so similar to what is there already. And then run the Thameslink services around the loop using the newly upgrade goods lines between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace.

This has the effect of keeping the Thameslink trains (and all of its delays) off the ECML all the way to Hitchin.

Yep and cause delays to the Hertfords instead :roll:

It's bad enough the line is only two tracked and has low speeds in certain areas but when the route via Welwyn is affected by disruption then the Hertford service is non existent.

So no thanks, you can keep these trains and the delays on the route via Welwyn!