Coventry to Nuneaton stations go-ahead

[The Planner]

Pretty slim to be fair. I also very much doubt it will go 3tph too.

 

[edwin_m]

What is the likelihood of reinstating some form of access from the Coventry Line to the Leicester line which was removed in 2003 as part of the Nuneaton remodelling? The Coventry-Nuneaton trains could then be extended onto Leicester and/or Nottingham, as they were prior to 2003. This would probably assist in reducing overcrowding on the Leicester-Birmingham route.

I agree this would be very useful - even if just by reversal at the Abbey station site - but seems to be too difficult.

Could also prove a useful diversionary route for XC services between the North East and South Coast when Birmingham-Derby is closed for engineering works.

For closures between Water Orton and Derby they can go via Nuneaton and Leicester already. For closures between Proof House and Water Orton the diversion is via Lichfield. Using Coventry-Nuneaton would shorten the end-to-end journey compared to either of these, but I really can't see them wanting to miss out Birmingham.

 

[Martin_1981]

I agree this would be very useful - even if just by reversal at the Abbey station site - but seems to be too difficult.




For closures between Water Orton and Derby they can go via Nuneaton and Leicester already. For closures between Proof House and Water Orton the diversion is via Lichfield. Using Coventry-Nuneaton would shorten the end-to-end journey compared to either of these, but I really can't see them wanting to miss out Birmingham.

Reversing at Abbey station/junction would probably be quite time consuming as well as it would no doubt conflict too much with other trains. Also, some sort of a platform would have to be created to enable the driver to change ends safetly.

XC services between the North East and South Coast have been known to use the Cov-Nun route, although not since the early-mid 90's. I even remember a Sunday Leeds to Plymouth service for several weeks using this route and avoiding Birmingham. Think it went something like Sheffield-Derby-Leicester-Nuneaton-Coventry-Oxford-Bristol-Exeter and might have been when Derby-Brum and Brum-Cheltenham were both closed at the same time. It was in the Virgin XC days I think.

 

[edwin_m]

Reversing at Abbey station/junction would probably be quite time consuming as well as it would no doubt conflict too much with other trains. Also, some sort of a platform would have to be created to enable the driver to change ends safetly.

As I said, seems to be too difficult. Though with only 2TPH passenger and the occasional freight I would have thought it was possible if someone wanted it badly enough. If the signalling allows they could even use the new chord as a reversing siding.

A platform would not be necessary as the driver could walk through the train, as used to happen when Nottingham-Lincoln trains reversed into Newark Northgate. Very unlikely that more than one unit would be coupled on this service, and still less sp that one of them would have no end gangways.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Though with only 2TPH passenger and the occasional freight

3tph in the peaks (in one direction only) and a lot of freight.

 

[The Planner]

As I said, seems to be too difficult. Though with only 2TPH passenger and the occasional freight I would have thought it was possible if someone wanted it badly enough. If the signalling allows they could even use the new chord as a reversing siding.

As Mr Elliott says, there is a fair bit of freight knocking about down there and the North Chord is signalled in the down direction only. Even then Im not sure how you would use it as it diverges before Abbey Jn and goes over the Abbey chord not after it.

 

[edwin_m]

As Mr Elliott says, there is a fair bit of freight knocking about down there and the North Chord is signalled in the down direction only. Even then Im not sure how you would use it as it diverges before Abbey Jn and goes over the Abbey chord not after it.

OK, scrub that idea.

 

[LesF]

There's another way of getting trains across WCML at Nuneaton without conflicting with WCML traffic; reinstate the Cov-Leics (Nuneaton avoiding) tracks under WCML. The bridges under WCML are intact and the trackbed is still in rail ownership. The reversing that would be necessary to go in and out of Nuneaton station would occur on the Bedworth line or on a new headshunt adjacent. The route was originally for freight and could be used again for freight. As part of the Electric Spine, the work would be financed under that project then be available for passenger use. What do members think?

 

[Qwerty133]

There's another way of getting trains across WCML at Nuneaton without conflicting with WCML traffic; reinstate the Cov-Leics (Nuneaton avoiding) tracks under WCML. The bridges under WCML are intact and the trackbed is still in rail ownership. The reversing that would be necessary to go in and out of Nuneaton station would occur on the Bedworth line or on a new headshunt adjacent. The route was originally for freight and could be used again for freight. As part of the Electric Spine, the work would be financed under that project then be available for passenger use. What do members think?

There's a limit to the number of freight trains that would be seen as beneficial on the line between Nuneaton and Wigston South Junction, there is a level crossing next to the station at Narborough and on occasion queues get back to the B1141. If anymore trains went through the barriers would probably be down as much as they are up, and without any benefits to the local public (as would be the case with a Cov-Lei passenger (as long as it stopped), there would be protests as some local people are already unhappy with how often and for how long the barriers are down (admittedly them breaking and being stuck down quite frequently will not help with this).
Also with the positioning of local businesses, the station and the fact the road is on a bridge quite soon after the station, I can't see that the level crossing can feasibly closed, but if anyone knows otherwise or there's anything online about the crossing I'd be interested in reading it/ being corrected.

 

[The Planner]

Electric Spine is for getting onto the West Coast at Nuneaton, not to go across to Leicester, that is dealt with via E-W so that won't fund it. The SRA, as was, binned the southern dive under at Nuneaton as not cost effective and went for the North Chord instead. That may make reinstatement of the southern dive under a bit cheaper if it were ever to happen as you wouldn't require such a large gauge clearance. Doubt it would be high on the list unless it was third party funded.

 

[Senex]

Didn't the original West Coast plans for Nuneaton retain the diveunder south of the station and use it to provide a route from trains from Leicester into platform 1 (where they were to reverse for Coventry)? I can't remember if the idea was to keep a direct link towards Coventry too. Anyway, that was one of the things that went by the board when project costs spiralled out of control and some pretty savage de-speccing took place (and not just at Nuneaton).

With regard to the comment about Narborough LC, wouldn't that need one of the solutions to be seen quite often in Germany (where they have had quite large numbers of LCs to replace in the modernisation schemes of recent years), with either an underpass, where the road can be got under the railway whilst leaving shops etc by the pavements intact, or a deviation, which looks as if in this case it would need a section of new road on the south side of the railway some 600+ metres long and a new bridge?

 

[Philip Elliott]

Small problem of the River Soar...

The only possibility would be to get rid of Travis Perkins, demolish the offices and then build a bridge to the south of the crossing with steep approaches.

 

[LesF]

http://www.cwlep.com/userFiles/coventry_station_report_20.3.14_low_res.pdf is a rather large doc expanding on http://www.slcrail.co.uk/pdf/CRSRailInvestmentStrategy.pdf that was produced for Cov city council.
They both deal with the large increase in passengers at Coventry and the means of dealing with it.
Please have a look and comment. This may be worth a new thread!

 

[ivanhoe]

Its been such a while now since direct Leicester Coventry trains and passenger traffic between the two cities is now shared between bus and the more likely M69. As soon as PUG2 was respecified , Leicester Coventry trains were consigned to history.

 

[MK Tom]

Am I right to think two bus operators provide competing services on the Leicester to Coventry corridor? Stagecoach and DeCourcey? That implies to me that there's some significant demand for that journey that would switch to a faster rail service.

 

[Qwerty133]

Am I right to think two bus operators provide competing services on the Leicester to Coventry corridor? Stagecoach and DeCourcey? That implies to me that there's some significant demand for that journey that would switch to a faster rail service.

Stagecoach goes via here there and everywhere, but De Courcey is straight down the M69

 

[Cherry_Picker]

The M69 is also very fast. Anybody who says that the German Autobahn is the fastest motorway in the world has clearly never been on the M69!

 

[edwin_m]

The M69 is also very fast. Anybody who says that the German Autobahn is the fastest motorway in the world has clearly never been on the M69!

I hope you're not advocating breaking the law here...

 

[Class172]

The M69 is also very fast. Anybody who says that the German Autobahn is the fastest motorway in the world has clearly never been on the M69!

I hope you're not advocating breaking the law here...

...errm, we'll just say it's seems faster due to the illusion of space the motorway gives (it is a quiet motorway)...

 

[bnsf734]

There's another way of getting trains across WCML at Nuneaton without conflicting with WCML traffic; reinstate the Cov-Leics (Nuneaton avoiding) tracks under WCML. The bridges under WCML are intact and the trackbed is still in rail ownership. The reversing that would be necessary to go in and out of Nuneaton station would occur on the Bedworth line or on a new headshunt adjacent. The route was originally for freight and could be used again for freight. As part of the Electric Spine, the work would be financed under that project then be available for passenger use. What do members think?

A large amount of new electrical supply equipment has recently been installed at Nuneaton around the power signal box site and Cemetery sidings site. I am certain the bridge and trackbed have been used as an access route for these new cables to reach the main line therefore there is no chance of this bridge being used for anything else now without spending another large sum of money.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I hope you're not advocating breaking the law here...

Just passing on an observation squire.

 

[Senex]

A large amount of new electrical supply equipment has recently been installed at Nuneaton around the power signal box site and Cemetery sidings site. I am certain the bridge and trackbed have been used as an access route for these new cables to reach the main line therefore there is no chance of this bridge being used for anything else now without spending another large sum of money.

I wonder if that bridge could have been used "as is" in any case. Last time I saw it it looked as though clearances could be wholly inadequate for a modern electrified route.

Out of curiosity, if the existing bridge has been used as a cable route from the site of the old PSB, have they had to excavate a route under the Leicester line to get from that site to the bridge site?

 

[bnsf734]

Senex

I agree with you about the bridge I don't think it would be suitable either. I think it was only ever used as an access route to the steam depot. Given most of the area is within the flood plain of the River Anker, this would never be a viable option, despite what people on the forum might think!

I'm not sure how the cables get under the Leicester line. There are several new substations on the site with fat cables going into the ground so they must make use of conduits under the track. Using the bridge means they did not need more conduits thereby saving money.

 

[james60059]

Am I right to think two bus operators provide competing services on the Leicester to Coventry corridor? Stagecoach and DeCourcey? That implies to me that there's some significant demand for that journey that would switch to a faster rail service.

Stagecoach Route 48 (vehicles from Nuneaton Depot). Every 20 minutes frequency in daytime Monday - Saturday.

 

[LesF]

The 48 bus Cov-Leics via Nuneaton (not to be confused with other no. 48 services overlapping) is nearly as slow as the rail service for Cov-Leics. But the X6 Cov-Leics express bus uses M69 and only stops once between the two cities. It's much faster and the concessionary pass is valid. It would be difficult for any rail service to compete except for passengers already on the rail network from/to places beyond Cov or Leics. However, I do think it was a mistake for the bridges under WCML at Nuneaton to have been blocked by electrical equipment as reported by a member of this forum. Facilities like that will be needed if we are ever to have a proper national rail network.