What Keeps Some Sections Of Track Open?

[Doomotron]

The Eurostar chord near Victoria as far as I know is not used by any frequent services, perhaps except for maintenance trains. I was under the impression that a train line, to be kept open, must have a regular service on it, as was the case with Newhaven Marine. However, with the most recent passengers services on the section of track being a single day Southeastern diversion I am not aware of what is keeping that chord open. Similarly, I am not certain if Fawkham Junction is technically open anymore but if it is, why? It was last used years ago and is pretty derelict now.

On a more minor level, what about small bits of track, like rarely used crossovers or empty sidings?

 

[Dr Hoo]

I was vaguely under the impression that the consequential 'withdrawal of passenger services' on the 'Eurostar-only bits' was 'taken care of' under the legislation for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link/HS1.

At the very least your examples are hardly 'ordinary' sections of route (unlike, say, the Brigg Line or Winchburgh-Dalmeny that seem to have 'just lost' services).

There are various internal industry documents and procedures such as the Sectional Appendix or Network Change that deal with individual track elements.

 

[zwk500]

This has come up from time to time, and I might be wrong but I believe there isn't a specific definition of what level of service is required, it's just that with the railway running to a weekly timetable it's singlets to run 1 train a week for most places.
The Eurostar chord to Waterloo has been used by charter services in between the SE diverts and today, although they are one offs. There is talk of removing it in the future to allow the Waterloo approach to go back to 8 tracks throughout.
Fawkham Jn is disconnected or blocked off, as the connection was used to store old class 373s before scrapping. AFAIK there are no plans to restore it.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Rarely used crossovers tend to continue to be maintained as it’s often cheaper than to plain line them, but once they break/come to end of life, there are teams who work out (often unscientifically by just asking signallers how and when they are used) whether it’s worth keeping them or not.
There’s no formal process required for point work or crossovers, it’s just a network rail choice and cost vs benefit, which for the rare ones tends to be keep them as long as possible but then don’t replace them.

Sidings are often privately owned so it’s the owners decision to keep them or close them, with Network rail normally keeping the points maintained until told otherwise. There are numerous sidings officially still open but with long term faults or signed out of use by maintenance - so technically they can’t be used but still ‘exist’ and then if required the owner can fix them up for their new freight route etc.

 

[zwk500]

Rarely used crossovers tend to continue to be maintained as it’s often cheaper than to plain line them, but once they break/come to end of life, there are teams who work out (often unscientifically by just asking signallers how and when they are used) whether it’s worth keeping them or not.
There’s no formal process required for point work or crossovers, it’s just a network rail choice and cost vs benefit, which for the rare ones tends to be keep them as long as possible but then don’t replace them.

I don't think the BIB is true - pointwork and crossovers have to go through the Network Change process and TOCs (and possibly other stakeholders) have the right to object to the change. NR cannot overrule an objection just because it feels like it, they have to provide evidence for the decision.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Thanks for the correction.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks for the correction.

No worries - I'm not 100% sure but I think essentially anything that would require changing in NESA needs to go through Network Change. It's probably the case that the vast majority sail through without objection, but I did get involved in a couple (Southwark Bridge Jn jumps to mind) where TOCs or other parts of NR had objected and the proposer had to demonstrate that the proposal was beneficial. Some of it was set criteria (can we still run the timetable/service level?) and some was more pros vs cons (maintenance savings/less access required vs less flexible during disruption).

 

[The Planner]

No worries - I'm not 100% sure but I think essentially anything that would require changing in NESA needs to go through Network Change. It's probably the case that the vast majority sail through without objection, but I did get involved in a couple (Southwark Bridge Jn jumps to mind) where TOCs or other parts of NR had objected and the proposer had to demonstrate that the proposal was beneficial. Some of it was set criteria (can we still run the timetable/service level?) and some was more pros vs cons (maintenance savings/less access required vs less flexible during disruption).

You are ok for the first 6 months, after that it has to be Network Changed, though it gets missed or avoided in countless cases. If you are trying to take something out then you are normally guarenteed a TOC/FOC rejection.

 

[Annetts key]

One of the old permanent way guys once told us that they used to tell the signallers that if a line, goods loop, relief line (this is Western where we don’t have ‘slow’ lines), or crossover still had rusty rails in a couple of weeks time, it would be programmed for removal.

Strangely enough, the signallers then often tried to find ways of running trains over said line/point…

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think the BIB is true - pointwork and crossovers have to go through the Network Change process and TOCs (and possibly other stakeholders) have the right to object to the change. NR cannot overrule an objection just because it feels like it, they have to provide evidence for the decision.

indeed, any track layout changes must go through the Network Change process. There are some provisions that enable NR to make changes first and seek approval later, but they are quite strict and used sparingly.

And, formally, NR can not override an Objection - it has to be resolved with the objectorm and if that can’t be done goes through a formal dispute process, ultimately to the ORR.

 

[The Planner]

indeed, any track layout changes must go through the Network Change process. There are some provisions that enable NR to make changes first and seek approval later, but they are quite strict and used sparingly.

And, formally, NR can not override an Objection - it has to be resolved with the objectorm and if that can’t be done goes through a formal dispute process, ultimately to the ORR.

It can, sort of. If the objection is flimsy at best and things aren't getting anywhere you can use the notice to implement. That forces the issue to either go to dispute or back down.

 

[Falcon1200]

If you are trying to take something out then you are normally guarenteed a TOC/FOC rejection.

I have a vague memory, cannot be sure of the location but it might be Dunbar, of an FOC objecting to the removal of a siding despite it having been replaced by another, better, facility elsewhere and therefore becoming disused.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have a vague memory, cannot be sure of the location but it might be Dunbar, of an FOC objecting to the removal of a siding despite it having been replaced by another, better, facility elsewhere and therefore becoming disused.

I have had FOCs objecting to the creation of new facilities that were being built specifically for them!

 

[The Planner]

I have had FOCs objecting to the creation of new facilities that were being built specifically for them!

Most of the time they are trying it on to see what else they can squueze out the project as they get scared of the rejection.