Congestion at New Street - can this issue be fixed?

[LNW-GW Joint]

New St is the victim of its own success really.
Time to review the 1970 decision to route all cross-country services that way.
Many people have to pass through Birmingham without wanting/needing to.
Electric spine could potentially take traffic away from New St, via Bedford/Milton Keynes/Oxford.
Meanwhile the Marches route is still in good shape for North West-Bristol services.

 

[edwin_m]

Creating some more bay platforms by Nottingham-style build-outs might be a possiblity in the future but would also require re-signalling.

 

[Geezertronic]

What are the services that terminate at New Street these days? Do the VT services hang around for any length of time before they go onwards to Scotland/Euston?

 

[the sniper]

Personally I think the only cheap/realistic way to alleviate the congestion at New Street would be to run less trains, particularly on the Cross City line. I can't see this happening but I don't think that reducing frequency while increasing some train lengths on the Cross City would hurt at all.

Other much more expensive solutions as others have said would be reopening/engineering the GWR route between Wolverhampton and Snow Hill for main line traffic, which is my personal favourite idea but getting rid of the Metro route is probably un-doable unless a new second route takes its fleet of trams. If I were in charge the change would happen, but I fear the opportunity for that route to be a main line again passed in the 90's...

The slightly more realistic but massively expensive scheme would be having the Cross City line tunnel under New Street, with it leaving the existing route at Vauxhall Junction (having used the old Slows from Aston), going under the city and rejoining the route at Five Ways, in the space left by the old route to the Central Goods Station. This has been officially proposed a few times in the past but I can't see it happening any time soon, no one seems to be suggesting it now.

 

[The Planner]

What are the services that terminate at New Street these days? Do the VT services hang around for any length of time before they go onwards to Scotland/Euston?

Stansteds, Herefords, Leicesters, LM Eustons and International locals, Liverpools (though they sit in 4C). XC tend to sit for a good while. Everything should sit for 3 minutes regardless IIRC.

 

[edwin_m]

Stansteds, Herefords, Leicesters, LM Eustons and International locals, Liverpools (though they sit in 4C). XC tend to sit for a good while. Everything should sit for 3 minutes regardless IIRC.

Not to mention the Pendolinos. And half the Nottinghams, which used to be through-routed with the Herefords. And the Leicesters used to through-route to Shrewsbury. Both split in the interests of ...er... operational simplification.

 

[HSTEd]

What about a loop tunnel so that all trains enter from say the east side of the station and leave from the west?
That simplifies things considerably I would think.

 

[the sniper]

What about a loop tunnel so that all trains enter from say the east side of the station and leave from the west?
That simplifies things considerably I would think.

Spending £0.5bn to £1bn to allow something to be done which is largely done already?

Your very expensive solution could be replaced with better planning in timetabling and franchise mapping...

 

[Kettledrum]

There's a plan (unfunded) to build new curves up to the Camp Hill line so that trains towards Tamworth and Longbridge can start from the unused bays at Moor Street, also providing a service to new stations on the Camp Hill line. Potentially some XC trains could also use it, but they probably won't because many passengers would need to change to/from other trains that are still at New Street.

There are 2 options which have been put on the table that remain realistic possibilities - subject to the funding. Neither of these will squeeze more trains into New Street, but they would squeeze more trains into central Birmingham:

option 1 - Build the 3 chords to allow some commuter trains into Moor Street and/or Snow Hill station instead. These could divert trains from SW Birmingham, Tamworth, and Walsall. If the traffic using these is mainly commuter traffic, then it would limit the disruption for people who need to change trains. However some of the existing services on these routes would still need to run into New Street for those people needing connections. Of course new connections are possible from Moor Street, so it's not all negative.

option 2 - Add additional platforms to the new Curzon Street station for trains to terminate short of New Street. Not quite the Grand Central Plan but it could help at the margins.

Perhaps not ideal solutions, but every Little helps as they say.

 

[LewFinnis]

There was a major scheme proposed about 10 years ago (when I was regularly using both the Cross-City line and Moor Street-Stourbridge) to put the Cross-City into an underground station which would also provide a link between New Street and Moor Street. It was a bit expensive......
Snow Hill would be a pinch point if more trains were diverted that way, unless the Chiltern services were to run through to (say) Kidderminster, replacing some of the London Midland services.

 

[rdeez]

In my experience - which is being lucky enough to use New Street station about 5 or 6 times per week - lack of platform space doesn't seem to be the main issue. Fair enough I only know what I see and I don't know the full details, but rarely (if ever?) have I seen every single platform occupied (either at the A or B end), though it is an issue when a train at one end is blocking the departure of a train at the other end if they're both travelling in the same direction, and in times of congestion when there's a stack of trains waiting to arrive.

The bigger issue to me seems to be the tunnel bottlenecks. I'm more often sat on a train that is waiting for the signal to clear so it can depart than I am stood waiting for a platform to become available. The volume / frequency of traffic and the fact that there are so few tracks out means a delay to one service can quickly snowball - which then in turn can lead to platform issues as queues begin to form outside the station.

As others have pointed out, the Cross City line, which I also use frequently from New Street, is difficult because of the peak frequency - 12tph combined - and the fact that the line also carries intercity services (which I think join the line at Barnt Green?). That's a whole lot of trains for very little track, adds significantly to the congestion at New Street, and means that barely a day goes by when I don't experience a delay of some degree on the line.

The station rebuild will certainly increase concourse capacity but isn't going to help the above issues much. I don't know enough about the track layouts around New Street to suggest a solution, though I am aware that it's nigh on impossible to expand the current tunnels out of the station. It does seem though that New Street is the victim of poor planning in the past, or at least a failure to anticipate future demand.

 

[fgwrich]

There are 2 options which have been put on the table that remain realistic possibilities - subject to the funding. Neither of these will squeeze more trains into New Street, but they would squeeze more trains into central Birmingham:

option 1 - Build the 3 chords to allow some commuter trains into Moor Street and/or Snow Hill station instead. These could divert trains from SW Birmingham, Tamworth, and Walsall. If the traffic using these is mainly commuter traffic, then it would limit the disruption for people who need to change trains. However some of the existing services on these routes would still need to run into New Street for those people needing connections. Of course new connections are possible from Moor Street, so it's not all negative.

option 2 - Add additional platforms to the new Curzon Street station for trains to terminate short of New Street. Not quite the Grand Central Plan but it could help at the margins.

Perhaps not ideal solutions, but every Little helps as they say.

I know it's only a handful of services per day, but apart from serving Five Ways / University etc... I did wonder why the London Midland services from New Street to Hereford weren't routed via Stourbridge and up that way into Snow Hill? Although with Snow hill only having 3 platforms at the moment it could start to cause congestion to Snow Hill - until the Metro is moved and the space for the former platform freed up again.

 

[the sniper]

I know it's only a handful of services per day, but apart from serving Five Ways / University etc... I did wonder why the London Midland services from New Street to Hereford weren't routed via Stourbridge and up that way into Snow Hill? Although with Snow hill only having 3 platforms at the moment it could start to cause congestion to Snow Hill - until the Metro is moved and the space for the former platform freed up again.

How much longer does it take to go around that way? Also aren't there capacity problems already between Snow Hill and Stourbridge Jct with all the stoppers, thus why LM/Chiltern services stop at all/most stops when there's actually a good case for some of them running semi-fast? I can't say I'm overly familiar with the Snow Hill lines, so I'd be interested to know the above.

 

[al green]

Of course didnt Railtrack do it's bit to not help several years back when they were offered some space for either an additional track, junction or platform? into the station before The Bull Ring redevelopment. Railtrack Declined, the space was incorporated I believe into the foundations for the Bull Ring.

Yes, this was a gross dereliction of duty by Railtrack to not insist on the extra tunnel under the Bullring when it was rebuilt. Birmingham council, as planning authority, should have insisted on it anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

Spending £0.5bn to £1bn to allow something to be done which is largely done already?

Your very expensive solution could be replaced with better planning in timetabling and franchise mapping...

So you can make trains to London leave towards the West?
The only way I can work out how to do that is possibly a giant diversion via Perry Barr, which is probably not the most practical of options.

A through 'one-way' station on a loop line would solve all these problems without requiring a horrendously complex, unpopular and expensive recasting of the entire national rail network which would be required to incorporate major changes at Birmingham.

 

[D6975]

So you can make trains to London leave towards the West?
The only way I can work out how to do that is possibly a giant diversion via Perry Barr, which is probably not the most practical of options.

A through 'one-way' station on a loop line would solve all these problems without requiring a horrendously complex, unpopular and expensive recasting of the entire national rail network which would be required to incorporate major changes at Birmingham.

Yes, the ability to send trains to Wolves or Coventry by departing New St in either direction used to be taken advantage of regularly back in loco hauled days (particularly on Sundays), but was more common Northbound, sending trains to Wolves via Duddeston and Bescot. Northbound the journey time to Wolves is (or was) roughly the same by both routes.

Taking away the need to put a loco on the back of a train that would otherwise reverse at New St was of particular usefulness.

 

[Geezertronic]

Couldn't some of the LM services that terminate at New Street be made through services instead? Maybe combine the Wolves-New Street services with the New Street-International/Coventry/Euston services? Maybe use International more to terminate instead of New Street?

 

[The Planner]

They used to be through services. Terminating more at International would be difficult too, you already have the local and ATW doing it. It is still required as a loop in the up more often than not so you don't want things hanging about in P5. I am still to be convinced of what benefit the third tunnel would have been, it still would have left you with a 6 and 4 combination.

 

[Geezertronic]

Surely if the local that terminates in P3 was a through service from Wolves to International, that resolves one terminating at New Street problem? Maybe sticking a loop track next to P5 for freight to hang around at would help as well? You'd still have a cross from P5 northwards for any services terminating there but surely that could be squeezed in somewhere?

 

[the sniper]

So you can make trains to London leave towards the West?
The only way I can work out how to do that is possibly a giant diversion via Perry Barr, which is probably not the most practical of options.

A through 'one-way' station on a loop line would solve all these problems without requiring a horrendously complex, unpopular and expensive recasting of the entire national rail network which would be required to incorporate major changes at Birmingham.

Or you could just run the London terminators though to somewhere else, so they pass through New Street anyway? That's the sort of timetable change I'm talking about. Or you could build your horrendously complex, unpopular and very, very expensive tunnel.

Anyway, what's the benefit of having a terminating service enter one end and leave the other? These aren't loco hauled services and changing ends isn't the problem. The problem with trains hanging around after terminating is because the TOCs try to put in as much padding as possible for service recovery, so if it comes in late the next service it forms won't go out late.

Couldn't some of the LM services that terminate at New Street be made through services instead? Maybe combine the Wolves-New Street services with the New Street-International/Coventry/Euston services? Maybe use International more to terminate instead of New Street?

The Wolves - New Street stopper is already a through service to Walsall. The Liverpools go into 4C so aren't really a problem. I'm not sure about the Shrewsburys but I think some of them go through to Walsall semi-fast or Rugeley. Most Rugeleys come in from the Soho direction but go back out to RGL via Proof House.