Welwyn Viaduct section doubling - How?

[philjo]

The original ELL extension plan was for it to terminate at Finsbury Park but unfortunately the project got scaled back to terminate at Highbury & Islington. I think it was partly due to the cost of creating a link from ELL to the Canonbury curve without blocking the NLL to existing services & freight.

 

[Fred26]

That would've been excellent.

 

[Wolfie]

The original ELL extension plan was for it to terminate at Finsbury Park but unfortunately the project got scaled back to terminate at Highbury & Islington. I think it was partly due to the cost of creating a link from ELL to the Canonbury curve without blocking the NLL to existing services & freight.

I have seen lots of proposals for this to take place and am aware that it was a planning option but have seen no evidence that it was ever the main plan. I would be interested indeed, given I live right next to Canonbury station, to see such evidence.

Incidentally I am not sure "scaled back" to H&I is wholly accurate. H&I was already a substantial interchange in its own right.

 

[mr_jrt]

I have seen lots of proposals for this to take place and am aware that it was a planning option but have seen no evidence that it was ever the main plan. I would be interested indeed, given I live right next to Canonbury station, to see such evidence.

Incidentally I am not sure "scaled back" to H&I is wholly accurate. H&I was already a substantial interchange in its own right.

This of relevance?

 

[Aictos]

The Hertford Loop is my local line.

Excuse me if this has come up before and I did not find it.

I see the discussion of loops at Gordon Hill. Would it help to add loops at Hertford North? The land to the south is already railway land. To the north it is floodplain, no housing, so with care could be built across.

On that basis, platform 3 could be extended into a loop. What would be platform 0, for the other loop, already exists, though never used. (It is visible through the current fence.)

Between Hertford North and Molewood Tunnel heading north, you have said floodplain on your right and allotments on your left plus there is a neutral section half way between the station and the tunnel so not sure how this would work with loops there especially if trains have to actually stop in the loops without getting gapped.

Before any work would be able to go ahead, the bridge at the north end of the station would have to be replaced and widen to enable even the platforms to be extended let allow Platform 3 to become the Down Loop and have a Up Loop use the disused platform on the other side of Platform 1.

The other thing as well is the fact that a lot of work would have to be done to make it even possible to consider using the disused platform face, I'm sure there's a much more important item to bring to the attention of these in power and that's to build a lift on Platform 1 so all three platforms offer step free access from street level to platforms.

Regards to Platform 1, it can be extended southbound without needing much in the way of engineering works other then a ready made platform solution to extend it only a few feet to enable it to take 8 car trains.

One alternative location to having loops is at Watton At Stone as it's the half way point in the section between Stevenage and Hertford North, it's also worth considering having loops there because of the very long signal sections between Stevenage and Hertford North which makes it less appealing to the TOCs/OACs/FOCs when they have to use the route.

Least this way, it would help break up the long signal sections and would enable more trains to get though the section.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

One alternative location to having loops is at Watton At Stone as it's the half way point in the section between Stevenage and Hertford North, it's also worth considering having loops there because of the very long signal sections between Stevenage and Hertford North which makes it less appealing to the TOCs/OACs/FOCs when they have to use the route.

An excellent idea, I think.

If implemented , it would certainly add a certain something to the chequered history of the station, which - if the works were finished by, say, the end of 2014 - would read:

2/6/1924-11/9/1939 station OPEN, with 2 platform faces in use (15 years)

12/9/1939-16/5/1982 station CLOSED, with 0 platforms in use (42+ years) :cry:

17/5/1982-31/12/2014 station OPEN, with 2 platform faces in use (32+ years)

1/1/2015 - ?/?/???? station OPEN, with 4 platform faces in use

 

[Aictos]

An excellent idea, I think.

If implemented , it would certainly add a certain something to the chequered history of the station, which - if the works were finished by, say, the end of 2014 - would read:

2/6/1924-11/9/1939 station OPEN, with 2 platform faces in use (15 years)

12/9/1939-16/5/1982 station CLOSED, with 0 platforms in use (42+ years) :cry:

17/5/1982-31/12/2014 station OPEN, with 2 platform faces in use (32+ years)

1/1/2015 - ?/?/???? station OPEN, with 4 platform faces in use

I don't mean having 4 platforms at Watton At Stone, simply have two loops just north of the station where the old crossover to the oil terminal used to be.

The only other alternative was Gordon Hill to have all 4 platforms again with Platforms 1 and 4 acting as loops.

 

[Tomnick]

What purpose would loops at, or north of, Watton-at-Stone serve? Anything going inside there could equally be overtaken beyond (or at, if future terminating services have a bay platform available!), and the long signal sections mentioned above would mean that anything being recessed would be there for a little while (increasing local journey times significantly, especially if they're also expected to go inside at Gordon Hill).

 

[jon0844]

If Gordon Hill is such a problem, could there be loops put in somewhere between Crews Hill and Cuffley? There's a lot of open land there isn't there? Not sure who owns it, but couldn't some of the land be purchased if necessary?

That would still seem like a reasonable position to allow faster trains to overtake.

 

[Aictos]

What purpose would loops at, or north of, Watton-at-Stone serve? Anything going inside there could equally be overtaken beyond (or at, if future terminating services have a bay platform available!), and the long signal sections mentioned above would mean that anything being recessed would be there for a little while (increasing local journey times significantly, especially if they're also expected to go inside at Gordon Hill).

Ideally the loops would only be available at Gordon Hill but I'm trying to think out of the box so to speak and come up with a alternative location to Gordon Hill.

The long signal sections really need sorting out especially as it offers the only alternative route that train crew still have the knowledge for between London and Stevenage plus onto Cambridge and Peterborough.

I've not looked at pathing as that's not my best point but I'm sure with the signalling upgrades, more services will be able to use the route maybe even divert all ECML freights via Hertford instead of via Welwyn seeing as the Hertford route is getting upgraded slowly to be able to take the longer and wider containers.

Add to that the ability to run a 15 minute frequency between Gordon Hill and Moorgate plus maybe a half hourly service north of Hertford by extending a existing terminating service though to Stevenage or Letchworth.

 

[Tomnick]

How about the possibility of splitting the service to provide one terminating at Gordon Hill, with another immediately in front going fast to Gordon Hill then all stations to Hertford/Stevenage/beyond, and finally the 'diverted' ECML train in front of that one? I'm not sure it's a practical suggestion in terms of stock and traincrew provision, but would avoid the need to put stoppers 'inside' for significant amounts of time and would reduce journey times from local stations north of Gordon Hill.

 

[jon0844]

I believe there is a plan is to form all of the 313s into permanent 6-car formation, allowing the middle cabs to be opened up and possibly even the inclusion of an accessible toilet.

If that doesn't happen, any new stock built would likely be fixed 6-cars too. Thus, no splitting would be possible.

For other services diverted, you'd be looking at splitting an 8-car set but do the platforms along the loop take 8-car trains? If not, you're stuck with 4 or 6-car and no way to split either.

 

[transmanche]

I believe there is a plan is to form all of the 313s into permanent 6-car formation, allowing the middle cabs to be opened up and possibly even the inclusion of an accessible toilet.

Back in the 80s; when 313s ran doubled-up, the middle cab vestibules were open to passengers (obviously the driver's cab itself was locked out of use). You can get a lot of people in that vestibule! (And I learned a lot about first aid for electric shock by reading the information & diagrams on the wall!)

Why are they not available for use nowadays?

 

[jon0844]

I don't know, although I did read on here that some people have found ways (i.e. probably bring keys) to let themselves in.

The space in there (excluding the locked out cab) is indeed huge. With the space at each end of a 3-car set, you've almost got the equivalent of a whole carriage on a 6-car set!

 

[A-driver]

They have locked middle cabs out of use now as there are controls, isolation cocks, emergancy equipment etc in there which they don't want the public from accessing. Things like that weren't such a worry years back. I believe it is also insurance with things like ladders hung in the ceiling, poorly maintained panels which do tend to fall off the walls etc.

 

[Ediswan]

... but do the platforms along the loop take 8-car trains? If not, you're stuck with 4 or 6-car and no way to split either.

The shortest platform on the loop is 122.3m at Gordon Hill. Hertford North is the most spacious; its shortest platform is 145.5m.

 

[Aictos]

The shortest platform on the loop is 122.3m at Gordon Hill. Hertford North is the most spacious; its shortest platform is 145.5m.

The only platform that can be extended at Hertford is Platform 1 which is the Up Hertford towards London and then only at the south end of the platform.

Platform 2 which is the Down Hertford and Platform 3 which is the bay cannot easily be extended because of the pointwork at the south end of the platforms and the road bridge at the north end of the platforms.

How about the possibility of splitting the service to provide one terminating at Gordon Hill, with another immediately in front going fast to Gordon Hill then all stations to Hertford/Stevenage/beyond, and finally the 'diverted' ECML train in front of that one? I'm not sure it's a practical suggestion in terms of stock and traincrew provision, but would avoid the need to put stoppers 'inside' for significant amounts of time and would reduce journey times from local stations north of Gordon Hill.

This is something I would like to see, I think you've worded it better then I ever could!

 

[Skimble19]

They have locked middle cabs out of use now as there are controls, isolation cocks, emergancy equipment etc in there which they don't want the public from accessing. Things like that weren't such a worry years back. I believe it is also insurance with things like ladders hung in the ceiling, poorly maintained panels which do tend to fall off the walls etc.

You've got ladders hanging off the ceiling on 317s in the section behind the cab, as well as a few "interesting" looking cupboards. When coupled together you'll often get passengers standing in there though. Interestingly, the buttons on the outside to open the door have been sealed over, so it's always amusing to watch people see passengers inside there and try to get in!

 

[Lee_Again]

I have put together a timetable (on Excel 2010) if somebody could tell me how to post on here. I could do a screen print but where can I host the pic?
Happy to email/PM if somebody could review it for errors.

It shows...



2 tph SLOW Moorgate > WGC
2 tph SEMI-SLOW Thameslink(TL) > WGC
2 tph SLOW Moorgate > Hertford North
2 tph SEMI-SLOW Moorgate > Hertford North > Royston
1 tph NON-STOP King's Cross > Cambridge
1 tph NON-STOP TL > Cambridge
1 tph SEMI-FAST King's Cross > Peterborough (stops Hertford North)
1 tph SEMI-FAST TL > Cambridge
1 tph SLOW King's Cross > Cambridge
1 tph SLOW TL > Peterborough
1 tph EC Edinburgh beyond
1 tph EC Newcastle beyond
3 tph EC Leeds +
2 tph OA ?

Assumptions

Passing loop at Gordon Hill (SLOW+SEMI SLOW stop for 3 mins to allow fasts to pass)
3 tph North of Hertford (2*Royston, 1*Peterborough)
4 tph around the loop (2*NON-STOPS,2*SEMI-FAST)
4 tph from TL (2 semi slow to WGC,1 NON-STOP Cambridge,1 SEMI FAST Cambridge)
5 tph East Coast
2 tph OA (one service 2*Cl180 hull,bradford splitting at ??, 1*any class sunderland)
9 tph trains across viaduct (2 stop Welwyn North)

 

[jon0844]

Interestingly, the buttons on the outside to open the door have been sealed over, so it's always amusing to watch people see passengers inside there and try to get in!

From what I've seen, people just slide the door open (there's a handle on it).

 

[Tomnick]

Headway is currently 3' south of Gordon Hill and 5' to the north, so anything going inside is going to be there for longer than three minutes - I'd say five would be optimistic!

 

[Lee_Again]

The timetable assumes that the loop would be upgraded with new signalling and speed increases plus the loops at Gordon Hill.

Remember, the cost is minimal compared to a new viaduct and tunnels.

3 mins should be enough.

Loops at another location would give increased flexibilty. Loops don't have to be opposite each other. If space allows for three tracks in two locations (assuming space for 4 doesn't exist) then that's fine. A loop in the Hertford area would be good. Space exists on the up side near Bayford (I think?). Not sure about down side. Maybe opposite the sidings at Hertford.

 

[Tomnick]

I doubt headway would be improved beyond three minutes - so that's the minimum time that'd need to be planned between the arrival of the stopper and the fast train passing. That's what I based my estimation of five minutes on.

 

[tbtc]

Would it help to replace the current four KX - Cambridge services an hour with a more even split, all running via the loop, all stopping at Finsbury Park, Hertford and Stevenage (with two/ hour stopping at Hitchin, Royston etc and the "local" stations at the Cambridge end getting the same hourly service as they get now)?

That'd leave the two Peterborough services each hour to pick up all of the "semi fast" stops at Potters Bar, Knebworth etc.

So you'd smooth things out on both sides, you'd give Cambridge four services an hour taking 60-65 minutes (rather than the lopsided timings you get now)

This would be a lot easier to slot between the "slows" through Gordon Hill etc

 

[Lee_Again]

Would it help to replace the current four KX - Cambridge services an hour with a more even split, all running via the loop, all stopping at Finsbury Park, Hertford and Stevenage (with two/ hour stopping at Hitchin, Royston etc and the "local" stations at the Cambridge end getting the same hourly service as they get now)?

That'd leave the two Peterborough services each hour to pick up all of the "semi fast" stops at Potters Bar, Knebworth etc.

So you'd smooth things out on both sides, you'd give Cambridge four services an hour taking 60-65 minutes (rather than the lopsided timings you get now)

This would be a lot easier to slot between the "slows" through Gordon Hill etc

I quite like the hourly split. I.e one fast and one semi-fast to each of Cambridge and Peterborough. Plus, of course, the 2 non stop services. Passengers at PB,HT,WGC,WN and KW would not like loosing there Cambridge trains, albeit hourly.

To be honest, you've got 4 fast trains to fit in the 4 slow stoppers. And trying to keep the wait at Gordon Hill to a minimum.

To compensate I have made 2 of the four stoppers run non-stop from there to Hertford to try and keep the journey time the same. These 2 semi-fast stoppers then continue to Royston. I considered using GH as the terminating station for the stoppers (2 tph) and make the semi-fast stoppers even faster. May be only 2 stops before Gordon Hill. The problem are the little stations between there and Hertford.

 

[Aictos]

The timetable assumes that the loop would be upgraded with new signalling and speed increases plus the loops at Gordon Hill.

Remember, the cost is minimal compared to a new viaduct and tunnels.

3 mins should be enough.

Loops at another location would give increased flexibilty. Loops don't have to be opposite each other. If space allows for three tracks in two locations (assuming space for 4 doesn't exist) then that's fine. A loop in the Hertford area would be good. Space exists on the up side near Bayford (I think?). Not sure about down side. Maybe opposite the sidings at Hertford.

On the Down Hertford approaching Hertford, you've got the viaducts then you've got the Down Siding which is only accessible from Platform 3.

So not ideal for a loop opposite the sidings,

I do have one question, what service will Watton at Stone have? It's a hourly service at the moment, what provisions have you got for serving the station?

 

[Tomnick]

Just one proposal for a repeating half-hourly pattern to fit 4tph 'through' trains over the Hertford Loop without resorting to long waits in loops. I think the running times are about right, but those for the fast trains might need some revision. Whether the significantly increased local service provision is justified is another question entirely!

				  SEMI 		       SEMI
		    SLOW   FAST   FAST   SLOW   FAST   FAST
		     ex	    ex     ex     ex     ex     ex
		   M'gate  K.X.  M'gate M'gate  K.X.  M'gate

Alexandra Palace   09:50  09/59  10:02  10:05  10/14  10:17
Bowes Park	   09:53    -      -    10:08	 -	-
Palmers Green	   09:55    -      -    10:10	 -	-
Winchmore Hill     09:57½   -      -    10:12½   -	-
Grange Park        09:59    -      -    10:14	 -	-
Enfield Chase      10:01    -      -    10:16	 -	-
GORDON HILL arr    10:03  10/06	 10:08  10:18  10/21  10:23

GORDON HILL dep		    -    10:09		 -    10:24
Crews Hill	     	    -    10:12		 -    10:27
Cuffley			    -    10:15           -    10:30
Bayford			    -    10:19½ 	 -    10:34½
HERTFORD NORTH arr	    -    10:23½	       10:30½ 10:38½

HERTFORD NORTH dep	  10/15	 10:24½	       10:31½
Watton-at-Stone	 	    -    10:29½		 -
Langley Junction	  10/23	 10/35½	       10/39½

 

[Aictos]

Just one proposal for a repeating half-hourly pattern to fit 4tph 'through' trains over the Hertford Loop without resorting to long waits in loops. I think the running times are about right, but those for the fast trains might need some revision. Whether the significantly increased local service provision is justified is another question entirely!

				  SEMI 		       SEMI
		    SLOW   FAST   FAST   SLOW   FAST   FAST
		     ex	    ex     ex     ex     ex     ex
		   M'gate  K.X.  M'gate M'gate  K.X.  M'gate

Alexandra Palace   09:50  09/59  10:02  10:05  10/14  10:17
Bowes Park	   09:53    -      -    10:08	 -	-
Palmers Green	   09:55    -      -    10:10	 -	-
Winchmore Hill     09:57½   -      -    10:12½   -	-
Grange Park        09:59    -      -    10:14	 -	-
Enfield Chase      10:01    -      -    10:16	 -	-
GORDON HILL arr    10:03  10/06	 10:08  10:18  10/21  10:23

GORDON HILL dep		    -    10:09		 -    10:24
Crews Hill	     	    -    10:12		 -    10:27
Cuffley			    -    10:15           -    10:30
Bayford			    -    10:19½ 	 -    10:34½
HERTFORD NORTH arr	    -    10:23½	       10:30½ 10:38½

HERTFORD NORTH dep	  10/15	 10:24½	       10:31½
Watton-at-Stone	 	    -    10:29½		 -
Langley Junction	  10/23	 10/35½	       10/39½

Looks good, my only fault is that I can't see the value of having two services to Stevenage depart so close together however if the proposed 10:31 was retimed to leave about 10:51 it would offer a better value of money/service.

 

[Tomnick]

What, and have the fast stand at Hertford North for 20 minutes to provide a 10:51 departure? I only included a Hertford call as otherwise it'd probably just catch the stopper up (but it does mean that Hertford's provided with a fast service to KX too). In any case, following the half-hourly pattern, the 'next' stopper would depart Hertford North at 10:54 anyway.

 

[tbtc]

I quite like the hourly split. I.e one fast and one semi-fast to each of Cambridge and Peterborough. Plus, of course, the 2 non stop services. Passengers at PB,HT,WGC,WN and KW would not like loosing there Cambridge trains, albeit hourly

Nobody likes losing a direct service from their local station, but it's a question of the best use of overall resources.

At the moment the spread of Cambridge services is like this (based on MF southbound)

• 50 minutes non-stop
• 54 minutes stopping only at Royston and Baldock
• 62 minutes with six stops
• 84 minutes with fifteen stops so gets overtaken by the next "fast" service

If you gave all of the Potters Bar/ WGC/ Knebworth (etc) stops to the "semi fast" Peterborough services then you could spread out the four Cambridge services much better to give one every fifteen minutes from London taking 60-65 minutes (with some running faster/ slower north of Hitchin, so slightly staggered arrivals at Cambridge), ensuring no Cambridge train gets overtaken.

Peterborough gets more than enough fast East Coast services, so slowing down its semi-fast services makes more sense.