How many additional paths will the Werrington grade separation project create?

[markymark2000]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/werrington-grade-separation-approved.167526/

Do we have any ideas on the number of paths that this project will create on both the Stamford line and ECML?

Also do we have an estimated date for completion?

 

[59CosG95]

Do we have any ideas on the number of paths that this project will create on both the Stamford line and ECML?
Also do we have an estimated date for completion?

I don't know about local paths on the Stamfords & ECML, but the scheme is due to add an extra 2tph each way between London and Yorkshire/the North East/Scotland, when done in tandem with the Stevenage Turnback, King's Cross Remodelling, ECML PSU, and (potentially) Huntingdon - Woodwalton's 4th track being restored.

The big push has been pushed back 5 months from September 2020 to February 2021 (as discussed), so I'd expect the original date of March 2021 for completion to be pushed to August 2021 as an estimate.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't know about local paths on the Stamfords & ECML, but the scheme is due to add an extra 2tph each way between London and Yorkshire/the North East/Scotland, when done in tandem with the Stevenage Turnback, King's Cross Remodelling, ECML PSU, and (potentially) Huntingdon - Woodwalton's 4th track being restored.

The big push has been pushed back 5 months from September 2020 to February 2021 (as discussed), so I'd expect the original date of March 2021 for completion to be pushed to August 2021 as an estimate.

Just had a search through a stored copy of the TWA inspectors report, and it says nothing at all about additional paths on the Stamfords, everything is described in terms of the 2 additional long distance paths that you’ve already mentioned.

 

[markymark2000]

I don't know about local paths on the Stamfords & ECML, but the scheme is due to add an extra 2tph each way between London and Yorkshire/the North East/Scotland, when done in tandem with the Stevenage Turnback, King's Cross Remodelling, ECML PSU, and (potentially) Huntingdon - Woodwalton's 4th track being restored.

The big push has been pushed back 5 months from September 2020 to February 2021 (as discussed), so I'd expect the original date of March 2021 for completion to be pushed to August 2021 as an estimate.

Thank you for your help.

It's bonkers that all this work taking out so many conflicts and all that is freed up is 2 paths. Surely it would free up more paths north of Peterborough. Long distance paths depend on the capacity south and of course there are a lot more trains south of Peterborough compared to North.

 

[edwin_m]

It may be that the two paths is just what is directly created by removing conflicts at Werrington (and elsewhere as mentioned). If the change allows more slow freight to run via Lincoln then that might create more paths for faster trains via Grantham.

 

[jopsuk]

The project isn't just capacity, it is reliability as well.

 

[59CosG95]

Thank you for your help.

It's bonkers that all this work taking out so many conflicts and all that is freed up is 2 paths. Surely it would free up more paths north of Peterborough. Long distance paths depend on the capacity south and of course there are a lot more trains south of Peterborough compared to North.

Yes, the 2 paths freed up are either side of Peterborough.

 

[John R]

2 long distance paths is a fairly major increase when there are only 6(?) today. A third increase in capacity sounds somewhat better.

 

[hwl]

I don't know about local paths on the Stamfords & ECML, but the scheme is due to add an extra 2tph each way between London and Yorkshire/the North East/Scotland, when done in tandem with the Stevenage Turnback, King's Cross Remodelling, ECML PSU, and (potentially) Huntingdon - Woodwalton's 4th track being restored.

The big push has been pushed back 5 months from September 2020 to February 2021 (as discussed), so I'd expect the original date of March 2021 for completion to be pushed to August 2021 as an estimate.

Local paths including freight are very constrained currently. Freight wise Ely is the next big capacity limitation that needs addressing to get big increases through Peterborough.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you for your help.

It's bonkers that all this work taking out so many conflicts and all that is freed up is 2 paths. Surely it would free up more paths north of Peterborough. Long distance paths depend on the capacity south and of course there are a lot more trains south of Peterborough compared to North.

Put it another way. This work (and some other projects) is creating 2 long distance paths per hour from
London to the North for around a billion quid.

HS2 is creating 14-18 long distance paths to the north for about £60-80bn, depending on which estimate you place your faith in.

 

[markymark2000]

Put it another way. This work (and some other projects) is creating 2 long distance paths per hour from
London to the North for around a billion quid.

HS2 is creating 14-18 long distance paths to the north for about £60-80bn, depending on which estimate you place your faith in.

On that basis it is very good. I'm not saying it's bad value for money, I jut thought there would be more paths freed up north of Peterborough as a result of having almost no conflicting movements compared to now which I would have thought took up a good few paths.

 

[Ianno87]

On that basis it is very good. I'm not saying it's bad value for money, I jut thought there would be more paths freed up north of Peterborough as a result of having almost no conflicting movements compared to now which I would have thought took up a good few paths.

Capacity gets lost further north by the mix of trains stopping at Grantham/Newark/Retford, plus the various conflicts in the Doncaster area

 

[edwin_m]

Very approximately you'll gain one ECML path in each direction for each train that doesn't have to make the "right turn" across the ECML for the present flat junction. Without checking in detail, 2tPH for that sounds about right. There's also the issue of whether the empty paths created at Werrington line up with empty paths elsewhere on the route.

 

[30907]

Very approximately you'll gain one ECML path in each direction for each train that doesn't have to make the "right turn" across the ECML for the present flat junction. Without checking in detail, 2tPH for that sounds about right. There's also the issue of whether the empty paths created at Werrington line up with empty paths elsewhere on the route.

You are presumably also creating extra paths via the Joint Line - which means much more flexibility for freight pathing via March especially.

 

[markymark2000]

Very approximately you'll gain one ECML path in each direction for each train that doesn't have to make the "right turn" across the ECML for the present flat junction. Without checking in detail, 2tPH for that sounds about right. There's also the issue of whether the empty paths created at Werrington line up with empty paths elsewhere on the route.

I thought more trains crossed the ECML towards Spalding. Clearly not. Could the Stamford line get an extra path per hour freed up through perhaps as freight then won't be blocking the line as much waiting for it's slot and/or will have a higher turnout speed compared to snaking over the crossovers?

I know for an end to end journey, paths depend on being linked up but if you started a new Grantham to Peterborough shuttle (I know it's not happening but for this example), how many TPH would be able to run. In this instance, 2 tph and to go further at each end, you need the paths to link up.

 

[30907]

You are probably right about Stamford line capacity, though I doubt Werrington is the main constraint.
As for Grantham - on a back-of-envelope basis, for every ECML train that stops there you have a path following it (northbound) through Stoke Tunnel and into the loop there. So 2tph total would be about right, one of which is already used.
The same in reverse southbound, but you have to allow for the conflicting movement at Grantham.

 

[edwin_m]

I thought more trains crossed the ECML towards Spalding. Clearly not. Could the Stamford line get an extra path per hour freed up through perhaps as freight then won't be blocking the line as much waiting for it's slot and/or will have a higher turnout speed compared to snaking over the crossovers?

I know for an end to end journey, paths depend on being linked up but if you started a new Grantham to Peterborough shuttle (I know it's not happening but for this example), how many TPH would be able to run. In this instance, 2 tph and to go further at each end, you need the paths to link up.

I posted earlier that a lot more trains would be possible to/from Spalding. The limit would be set by capacity elsewhere on the route, possibly through Peterborough station.

A Grantham-Peterborough shuttle would have to cross the main lines on the flat at both ends. Unless those conflicts lined up to block the same path in different places, that would immediately take up the extra 2TPH of ECML capacity!

 

[43074]

I posted earlier that a lot more trains would be possible to/from Spalding. The limit would be set by capacity elsewhere on the route, possibly through Peterborough station.

A Grantham-Peterborough shuttle would have to cross the main lines on the flat at both ends. Unless those conflicts lined up to block the same path in different places, that would immediately take up the extra 2TPH of ECML capacity!

To be fair it's not just the conflicts at both ends but the two track section through Stoke Tunnel would very probably cost one of those paths in its own right.

A Grantham to Peterborough shuttle in its own right is very unlikely anyway, although could become relevant if anything comes of an aspiration for a direct Nottingham to Cambridge service.

 

[edwin_m]

To be fair it's not just the conflicts at both ends but the two track section through Stoke Tunnel would very probably cost one of those paths in its own right.

A Grantham to Peterborough shuttle in its own right is very unlikely anyway, although could become relevant if anything comes of an aspiration for a direct Nottingham to Cambridge service.

I presume Nottingham to Cambridge would run via Melton, so wouldn't touch the ECML Fast lines. The Norwich could take this route as well if necessary (and did for some time in the 1990s), though I think it's somewhat slower. HS2 would probably result in more ECML trains stopping at Grantham and Peterborough, so there would be no need for a shuttle.

 

[Class 170101]

The Joint Line capacity issue will be the Lincoln Level Crossing. I see the Werrington scheme makes no mention of extra capacity via the Joint Line.

 

[43074]

I presume Nottingham to Cambridge would run via Melton, so wouldn't touch the ECML Fast lines. The Norwich could take this route as well if necessary (and did for some time in the 1990s), though I think it's somewhat slower. HS2 would probably result in more ECML trains stopping at Grantham and Peterborough, so there would be no need for a shuttle.

I don't think it's any more than an idea on a few wishlists to be honest, although capacity via Loughborough and Melton is hardly plentiful anyway when you consider the freight via Melton and the number of other passenger trains between Nottingham and Syston.

It could probably be achieved by portion working on Nottingham to Norwich trains (but that's not part of EMR's bid so again would be something for the future), but I highly doubt that much capacity is actually needed between Nottingham and Peterborough having used the Norwich trains on that section!