Ideas to replace the Newark Flat Crossing!

[Ploughman]

How often has this crossing been replaced?
I can think of at least 3 since the 1980's.
Is it just because of the weight of traffic over it that it does not seem to last beyond a 20 year average?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Currently there may be spare paths across Newark Flat Crossing but from December 2021 the ECML services will increase to 8 paths each hour to/from Kings Cross.

(7.5 paths an hour each way across with the flat crossing and the remaining 0.5 path being the Lincoln-Kings Cross which doesn't actually use the flat crossing)

Thank you, but has it yet been established by how much that will reduce the east-west paths?

 

[The Planner]

Thank you, but has it yet been established by how much that will reduce the east-west paths?

It depends as the junction margins vary by direction and how close up and down trains are at the crossing., but if the first move is a E-W or W-E train then you cannot pass on the ECML until 4½ minutes after. If an Up train is first then its a 3 minute margin before a crossing move. Conceivably, if there are two opposing ECML moves within a short time then it eats up capacity.
eg: East to West xx.00, South to North xx.04½, North to South xx.08, West to East xx.12½

 

[Chris NS]

My guess is that when Newark Grade Separation happens will be decided by ambitions for ECML upgrades rather than any aspirations for Nottingham-Lincoln. Upgrades that would seem a fortune for a relatively minor regional line are small change to the money being thrown at North-South upgrades and new lines.

I had assumed that after Werrington Grade Separation and Kings Cross remodelling, Newark flat crossing would surely be next on the list. However, I then had a look at the 2013 list of HS2 alternatives. That's firmly in the hypothetical list now, but it did give some clues on what improvements on the table for capacity enhancement. There were three packages, A, B and C. C was the lowest, and for the ECML this meant doing nothing other than the improvements already committed at that time. Newark is on the B list, but it's there with 15 other schemes, and only a few of them (e.g. Kings Uncrossed) are committed. Even if we discount the ones that would cost a fortune (I can't, for example, see much enthusiasm for Welwyn four-tacking), that still leave Newark up against a lot of competing schemes.

I would say it would come down to what gets the best BCR, but BCR as we know it is pretty close to getting binned. So, in short: no idea.

 

[tbtc]

Given that post No.10 informs us that there are at least two spare paths an hour, I'd have thought a good opening theory would have been one train an hour from Lincoln all stops to Matlock and one fast train stopping only at Newark Castle, Nottingham, Leicester, Birmingham New Street and continuing south-west to somewhere like Gloucester.

On the one hand I'm not sure where the path for a Nottingham - Leicester - Birmingham - Gloucester (and beyond) service is going to come from, with or without the complications of Newark...

...but, on the other hand, if there are at least two spare paths per hour then there's no need for any of the complicated/ expensive "solutions" being suggested here.

Either way, it'd be much easier to stick a couple of extra carriages on the existing services currently run by Sprinters over the flat crossing.

On a constrained railway, it is unreasonable to keep insisting on prioritising minority flows to the detriment of the majority.

^^ THIS ^^

 

[Bald Rick]

I would say it would come down to what gets the best BCR, but BCR as we know it is pretty close to getting binned.

BCRs aren’t going to be binned. Not sure where you got that idea from.

 

[Starmill]

A BCR is just a number anyway. It comes out at the end of your modelling. The critical part is the actual methodology, which is based on the the relevant Transport Analysis Guidance, and the quality of your inputs. That will probably require very significant revision. At some point further down the line, coordination of the transport appraisal response to Covid-19 will surface. It will be very interesting.

 

[Chris NS]

What Starmill said.

 

[Ianno87]

A BCR is just a number anyway. It comes out at the end of your modelling. The critical part is the actual methodology, which is based on the the relevant Transport Analysis Guidance, and the quality of your inputs. That will probably require very significant revision. At some point further down the line, coordination of the transport appraisal response to Covid-19 will surface. It will be very interesting.

Correct. Just a way of numerating whether the idea has some fundamental sense behind it, whether benefits are in any kind of sensible proportion to costs, and it is never a fixed number, just part of the overall story.

 

[Starmill]

I would add that a fast half-hourly service Lincoln <> Newark <> Nottingham would almost certainly be commercially viable within the context of the EMR franchise if appropriate track capacity were available today. A third service turning back at Newark Castle could fill in the local stations as today. I can't imagine there is any way to rebuild the available infrastructure in an economical way that would deliver that, however.

 

[Chris NS]

I had a look at the thoughts of Midlands Connect (that's a soft-of equivalent to TfN, albeit lower-key and much less grand ambitions). Nottingham-Lincoln is on their wish list, and they want to go up to 2tph. The flat crossing is noted as the key obstacle, but their ideas for what to do aren't any more specific than asking Network Rail for possible solutions.

However, the most discouraging note is that they don't seem interested in doing this until HS2 is up and running. It is not clear whether this is because they think they need HS2 to raise the demand or because they're hoping this lead to a reduction in traffic on the ECML. I'm sceptical about both. Anyway, it looks like we're going to have to count on an ongoing ECML upgrade for any hope of getting grade separation off the "later" pile in the next decade.

 

[najaB]

A bridge should have been built at the same time as the A46 Newark By-Pass

I recall reading somewhere that it was proposed, but BR (RailTrack?) didn't have the money.

 

[Bald Rick]

I had a look at the thoughts of Midlands Connect (that's a soft-of equivalent to TfN, albeit lower-key and much less grand ambitions). Nottingham-Lincoln is on their wish list, and they want to go up to 2tph. The flat crossing is noted as the key obstacle, but their ideas for what to do aren't any more specific than asking Network Rail for possible solutions.

However, the most discouraging note is that they don't seem interested in doing this until HS2 is up and running. It is not clear whether this is because they think they need HS2 to raise the demand or because they're hoping this lead to a reduction in traffic on the ECML. I'm sceptical about both. Anyway, it looks like we're going to have to count on an ongoing ECML upgrade for any hope of getting grade separation off the "later" pile in the next decade.

When you say next decade, I assume you mean the 2030s. You’d be hard pushed to get a flyover open before 2029 if the Government asked the industry to start investigating it tomorrow.

 

[Chris NS]

By getting off the "later" pile, I mean getting started, never mind actual completion. Midlands Connect is seems to be pushing far more heavily with its "Midland Hubs" scheme with details of what they want to achieve, how they intend to achieve it, and estimates of cost and timescale. Compared to the vague aspirations for Lincoln-Nottingham, there doesn't seem to be much doubt where their interest is.

 

[class26]

By getting off the "later" pile, I mean getting started, never mind actual completion. Midlands Connect is seems to be pushing far more heavily with its "Midland Hubs" scheme with details of what they want to achieve, how they intend to achieve it, and estimates of cost and timescale. Compared to the vague aspirations for Lincoln-Nottingham, there doesn't seem to be much doubt where their interest is.

Exactly.
I wrote to them complaining as a resident of Lincolnshire that we ought to feature a little more as part of the Midlands. Boston, the second town of Lincs doesn`t even feature on their maps ! That`s how important Lincolnshire is to them. Destined to be left out yet again I fear.

 

[MarkyT]

[CRAYON]Here's my scheme.
1. Rebuild the old Bottesford line, mostly unobstructed former double track formation, no intermediate stations, heading south from Newark (yellow). Create a new higher-speed curve and junction to join Nottingham - Grantham line (magenta).

2. New layout at Newark North Gate with diamond removed and catering for Nottingham - Lincoln trains between the fasts. so each crossing movement passes over only one fast line at a time. Also caters for direct London - Lincoln, and potential new North East - Nottingham axis.

3. Remains of Newark Castle line largely singled and diverted via new connection built into North Gate station via new river bridge and tight 150m radius chord (cyan). Possibly one intermediate passing loop somewhere between Newark and Nottingham for 30 minute interval all stations service terminating at Newark. All Lincoln trains to run via North Gate.



[/CRAYON]

 

[HSTEd]

[CRAYON]Here's my scheme.
[/CRAYON]

Given the existance of relatively high performance bi-modes, what advantage does such a new route hold over a flying junction using the existing underbridge where the Skegness line crosses the ECML?
You could remove at least half the crossing moves compared to a flat junction at Newark, and you should be able to acquire units with ECML compatible electric performance at reasonable-ish cost.

It's twice the distance, but a substantail fraction of the running length can be (and indeed must be for timetable reasons) well above 100mph.

 

[30907]

[CRAYON]Here's my scheme.
1. Rebuild the old Bottesford line, mostly unobstructed former double track formation, no intermediate stations, heading south from Newark (yellow). Create a new higher-speed curve and junction to join Nottingham - Grantham line (magenta).
View attachment 77154
2. New layout at Newark North Gate with diamond removed and catering for Nottingham - Lincoln trains between the fasts. so each crossing movement passes over only one fast line at a time. Also caters for direct London - Lincoln, and potential new North East - Nottingham axis.
View attachment 77155
3. Remains of Newark Castle line largely singled and diverted via new connection built into North Gate station via new river bridge and tight 150m radius chord (cyan). Possibly one intermediate passing loop somewhere between Newark and Nottingham for 30 minute interval all stations service terminating at Newark. All Lincoln trains to run via North Gate.
View attachment 77156


[/CRAYON]

ISTR the Bottesford option was being discussed back in the 80s

 

[Meerkat]

[CRAYON]Here's my scheme.
1. Rebuild the old Bottesford line, mostly unobstructed former double track formation, no intermediate stations, heading south from Newark (yellow). Create a new higher-speed curve and junction to join Nottingham - Grantham line (magenta).
View attachment 77154
2. New layout at Newark North Gate with diamond removed and catering for Nottingham - Lincoln trains between the fasts. so each crossing movement passes over only one fast line at a time. Also caters for direct London - Lincoln, and potential new North East - Nottingham axis.
View attachment 77155
3. Remains of Newark Castle line largely singled and diverted via new connection built into North Gate station via new river bridge and tight 150m radius chord (cyan). Possibly one intermediate passing loop somewhere between Newark and Nottingham for 30 minute interval all stations service terminating at Newark. All Lincoln trains to run via North Gate.
View attachment 77156


[/CRAYON]

If you are going to build all that you may as well take it over the ECML rather than bend it round!

 

[Bald Rick]

That would look all be more than a flyover at Newark, and considerably less beneficial.

 

[billio]

I would recommend a flyover south of Newark Northgate and then following the old track towards Bottesford then swinging west south of Newark, crossing the Trent and joining up with the line to Nottingham at Fiskerton station as shown on this map.

New Newark Railway

I would have a new station near Balderton.

 

[Merthyr Imp]

ISTR the Bottesford option was being discussed back in the 80s

That's correct. Under that scheme Nottingham - Newark services would have terminated at Newark Castle. Nottingham - Lincoln trains would have run via the junction at Bottesford.

The only drawback would have been for any passengers wanting to travel from places like Fiskerton and Rolleston to Lincoln - but I don't suppose there were/are many in that category.

 

[MarkyT]

That's correct. Under that scheme Nottingham - Newark services would have terminated at Newark Castle. Nottingham - Lincoln trains would have run via the junction at Bottesford.

The only drawback would have been for any passengers wanting to travel from places like Fiskerton and Rolleston to Lincoln - but I don't suppose there were/are many in that category.

So my scheme is very similar, improving the speed of the curve and junction at the southern end of the reinstated line, and adding the new chord for the Fiskerton line to reach North Gate station for Lincoln and ECML connections. A grade separation south of Newark would be possible, but clearly very expensive, and would probably have to be the Bottesford line diving under the ECML to avoid the road overbridges nearby. Note there's only room for three tracks through the A46 bridge, so a segregated Lincoln line would have to be single for a short distance, although pointwork might be simplified considerably compared to my previous station layout. Something like this perhaps:

 

[Chris NS]

Okay, I found this in page 32 of this document:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/East-Coast-Main-Line-Route-Study.pdf

It's talking about linespeed on the ECML central section in general:

"By upgrading the infrastructure between Peterborough and York, linespeeds can be improved and journey times reduced by 4.5 minutes between Peterborough and York.​

​

The improvements would see a step-change in the reliability of overhead line electrification equipment, where the equivalent of thousands of working days in delay could be avoided each year. Providing 140mph running would require the removal of the at-grade crossing at Newark. Replacing this with a fly-over would unlock capacity for additional hourly services linking Lincoln to Nottingham and the Midlands.​

​

This package would rely on the introduction of digital signalling technology which would also bring improvements in headways (safe space between trains) and junction margins (amount of time between trains using a junction), making the operation of trains at Doncaster and York stations more efficient"​

This seems to reveal the following about Network Rail's thinking:

1. Removing the Newark flat crossing would be needed for 140 mph running.
2. A flyover is the only way of achieving this. (This contrasts with Midlands Connect which acknowledges the flat crossing as an issue but stops short of specifying a flyover as the solution.)
3. They don't seem particularly interested in grade separation at Doncaster, which I'd have rated at the Newark flyover's main competitor.
4. They expect the flyover to be difficult and expensive.

So I guess it comes down to how serious Network Rail / the Government are about making 140 mph line speed happen.

 

[MarkyT]

Okay, I found this in page 32 of this document:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/East-Coast-Main-Line-Route-Study.pdf

It's talking about linespeed on the ECML central section in general:

"By upgrading the infrastructure between Peterborough and York, linespeeds can be improved and journey times reduced by 4.5 minutes between Peterborough and York.​

​

The improvements would see a step-change in the reliability of overhead line electrification equipment, where the equivalent of thousands of working days in delay could be avoided each year. Providing 140mph running would require the removal of the at-grade crossing at Newark. Replacing this with a fly-over would unlock capacity for additional hourly services linking Lincoln to Nottingham and the Midlands.​

​

This package would rely on the introduction of digital signalling technology which would also bring improvements in headways (safe space between trains) and junction margins (amount of time between trains using a junction), making the operation of trains at Doncaster and York stations more efficient"​

This seems to reveal the following about Network Rail's thinking:

1. Removing the Newark flat crossing would be needed for 140 mph running.
2. A flyover is the only way of achieving this. (This contrasts with Midlands Connect which acknowledges the flat crossing as an issue but stops short of specifying a flyover as the solution.)
3. They don't seem particularly interested in grade separation at Doncaster, which I'd have rated at the Newark flyover's main competitor.
4. They expect the flyover to be difficult and expensive.

So I guess it comes down to how serious Network Rail / the Government are about making 140 mph line speed happen.

Perhaps the emphasis on Newark is because the high speed is feasible locally there for other reasons and it's in the middle of a long section of prolonged running at that speed so there would be a useful impact on journey time. Maybe grade separation would also be useful at Doncaster for other reasons rather than speed. Through speed at Donny might not be possible to raise generally and usefully for other reasons, especially for non-stop Leeds trains which will continue to have to slow down for the junctions, and maybe generally, the limitation of the long curve to the south of the station might be a constraint. There are so many junctions around Donny too. Which one(s) to address?

At Newark could there be another way to remove the diamonds? I present for you the 'Queensland solution':

South of Rockhampton, the QR line is electrified and higher speeds are permitted than further north. In order to increase track speeds for the "tilt trains", this drawbridge arrangement was devised so there is no break in the running rails for QR. All signals are color light.

 

[Chris NS]

I think we can safely assume that, as it stands, grade separation at Doncaster would benefit capacity first and speed a long way second. However, it's worth noting the document I used for a list of prospective ECML improvements was the alternatives to HS2 document (from 2013). Had this gone ahead, it's likely there would have been quite a lot of non-stop services through Doncaster as opposed to the 1 tph there is now (I think), which would have considerably have increased the value of the scheme. This may explain why NR is less interested in this now that HS2 is on again.

There again, the Leamside-ECML chord isn't in the 2017 document and that's back on the table for NPR, so I guess we shouldn't rule this out as a competitor to the Newark Cross just yet.

(Footnote: the document didn't say what grade separation they were thinking of, but I assume they meant the Leeds turnoff.)

 

[Bald Rick]

At Newark could there be another way to remove the diamonds? I present for you the 'Queensland solution':

Good grief! The safety boys and girls would have a fit at that!

 

[najaB]

Good grief! The safety boys and girls would have a fit at that!

Assuming that it would be the Lincoln line going over the ECML, while it would be unusual, it wouldn't be conceptually any different to any other swing or drawbridge. The same signalling would need to be applied and it would need to be held in the closed position and fail to open.

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming that it would be the Lincoln line going over the ECML, while it would be unusual, it wouldn't be conceptually any different to any other swing or drawbridge. The same signalling would need to be applied and it would need to be held in the closed position and fail to open.

Someone will no doubt correct me, but I can’t think of any swing or drawbridge that has a linespeed of more than 75mph. And I know that 140mph wouldn’t be permitted where there are ‘permitted’ obstructions on the line even if they are proved clear (like level crossings).

 

[MarkyT]

Someone will no doubt correct me, but I can’t think of any swing or drawbridge that has a linespeed of more than 75mph. And I know that 140mph wouldn’t be permitted where there are ‘permitted’ obstructions on the line even if they are proved clear (like level crossings).

That may be becasue the moving infrastructure itself is crossed by the train in question, unlike this example. You could deploy obstacle detection technology (radar/lidar) as well as conventional limit-switch detection of the mechanism and even supplemental Mk1 human eyeball 'crossing clear' checking via CCTV! I'm not recommending it though you must understand! I don't think there was ever an upper speed limit on MCB crossings.