Line pairings on a 4 track railway

[jfollows]

PicVic proposed a flyover here (as also at Edgeley No. 2), but we all know what happened to those plans.

As for those later curious plans for Slade Lane to Adswood Road, I never quite understood what the benefits were if not coupled with a completion of the quadding between Adswood Road and Cheadle Hulme to make the Stoke lines completely independent of the Crewe lines (given that IIRC there wasn't the regular M/c-Euston via Crewe service while all that was being planned).

Yes, and the conversion of Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme is a bonkers bit of spending (it needs a viaduct) which is out of proportion to the benefit, putting aside the silly pairing by use anyway. I mean that, in comparison, the remodelling of the junction at Cheadle Hulme to allow an overlap on a red signal was of significant benefit at relatively little cost, and now allows down trains from Macclesfield to be allowed into Cheadle Hulme station rather than being stopped at the previous signal adjacent to Ravenoak Road bridge which was what used to happen to me all the time on the way to school. That small piece of work alone probably saved thousands of delay minutes a month, and is the sort of sensible work that should be done rather than the grandiose schemes which don't offer much more but with vast cost.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant and getting off-topic I know!

 

[The Planner]

Yes, and the conversion of Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme is a bonkers bit of spending (it needs a viaduct) which is out of proportion to the benefit, putting aside the silly pairing by use anyway. I mean that, in comparison, the remodelling of the junction at Cheadle Hulme to allow an overlap on a red signal was of significant benefit at relatively little cost, and now allows down trains from Macclesfield to be allowed into Cheadle Hulme station rather than being stopped at the previous signal adjacent to Ravenoak Road bridge which was what used to happen to me all the time on the way to school. That small piece of work alone probably saved thousands of delay minutes a month, and is the sort of sensible work that should be done rather than the grandiose schemes which don't offer much more but with vast cost.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant and getting off-topic I know!

If it was timetabled to account for that, then no delay minutes would occur of course.

 

[Magdalia]

Plus it was generally easier to quadruple track on one side or other of the existing lines. The GNR through the Northern Heights was an exception, and so has twin islands (plus some LNER-era examples further north), but the longest section I can think of is Shortlands to Swanley (5 stations, but one is 1939 and one 1959 - and that changed from paired by use to paired by direction anyway!).

The usual GN 4 track arrangement is up and down island platforms.

Most of the exceptions are at locations widened in the BR era: Hadley Wood, Arlesey, Sandy and Huntingdon. Welham Green was new in the BR era.

The exceptions from the GNR/LNER era are Hatfield and Hitchin.

 

[jfollows]

If it was timetabled to account for that, then no delay minutes would occur of course.

My 1972 WTT has a column note for the 07:25 EMU Stoke-on-Trent to Piccadilly - (1) Bramhall and Cheadle Hulme - so even then it was timetabled to account for it!

 

[Class 170101]

I noticed the other day that whilst the 4 track sections of the WCML, GWML, MML, and most of the GEML are separated into fast and slow (i.e. DS, US, DF, UF), the ECML is paired by direction (DS, DF, UF, US). Why is this? And what are the pros and cons of this?

Like the GW uses Mains and Reliefs, the GE also has to be different with Mains and Electrics.

 

[Bald Rick]

Good point.
The lines into London Euston are paired by use until Camden Junction, where a flyover took the up fast over the rest of the formation and switched to paired by direction with the fast lines on the outside and the slow lines in the middle. Up fast trains then arrived alongside the up side carriage shed and signals EN65 (Up fast) and EN64 (Up slow) were the last signals before the platforms. In order to arrive in a high-numbered platform (12 or higher) there were then a number of flat crossings which tended to fail, and caused major problems. The area was significantly resignalled just before the turn of the century (from memory [EDIT work completed in October 2000 I believe after a little research] ) allowing up trains to high-numbered platforms to remain on the down side (west) of the formation, and the single points of failure were significantly eliminated.

EDIT "Then" and "now" diagrams attached, the former from my personal collection & the latter from "Railway Track Diagrams 4, Midlands & North West", 5th. edition TRACKmaps 2022 just recently published. Line "D" allows up trains to keep to the right of the formation now.

Indeed, and IIRC the number of point ends was halved, and almost all of them became ‘standard’ - ie off the shelf components. The old layout had lots of bespoke crossings etc, if one of those broke (and they frequently did) it was a long wait to get one fabricated.

 

[Taunton]

But it isn’t always laid out as two islands? There are numerous instances where there are two side platforms and a central island.

From times previously when the railway handled much parcels, mail and news traffic at passenger stations, the two middle islands approach was a right nuisance, everything having to be transhipped between road vans and the train, via lifts or heaved up inclines.

 

[Huntergreed]

The WCML changes.

Euston - Hanslope Jn is grouped by purpose:

DF
UF
DS
US

Nuneaton - Stafford is grouped by direction:

DS
DF
UF
US

And then Stafford - Crewe and Leyland - Preston are also grouped by purpose, but the opposite way around:

DS
US
DF
UF

This actually works well for the WCML but to be fair the junction at Primrose Hill allows easy access to both low and high sides of Euston so it doesn’t really matter too much!

Ideal layout for me is grouped by direction with island platforms to allow cross-platform connections, but this certainly doesn’t seem that common!

 

[Tester]

Ideal layout for me is grouped by direction with island platforms to allow cross-platform connections, but this certainly doesn’t seem that common!

Japan has this down to perfection - a joy to watch!

Off topic, but they also have three train cross-platform connections, with a single centre line between two islands with doors open both sides and passengers walking through - highly impressive.

 

[D6975]

The GWML also swaps from paired by direction to paired by use at Llanwern flyover.

 

[59CosG95]

The WCML changes.

Euston - Hanslope Jn is grouped by purpose:

DF
UF
DS
US

Nuneaton - Stafford is grouped by direction:

DS
DF
UF
US

And then Stafford - Crewe and Leyland - Preston are also grouped by purpose, but the opposite way around:

DS
US
DF
UF

This actually works well for the WCML but to be fair the junction at Primrose Hill allows easy access to both low and high sides of Euston so it doesn’t really matter too much!

Ideal layout for me is grouped by direction with island platforms to allow cross-platform connections, but this certainly doesn’t seem that common!

Then you have the bonkers arrangement from Long Lawford (Rugby) to Brinklow:

DF
DS
UF
US

The Down lines then merge into the DM between Brinklow & Nuneaton (Attleboro' Jn IIRC) and then we get the Nuneaton - Colwich pairing you mentioned above.
Back to 2 tracks again through Shugboro' before going to 4 tracks again east of Stafford.

 

[swt_passenger]

Then you have the bonkers arrangement from Long Lawford (Rugby) to Brinklow:

DF
DS
UF
US

The Down lines then merge into the DM between Brinklow & Nuneaton (Attleboro' Jn IIRC) and then we get the Nuneaton - Colwich pairing you mentioned above.
Back to 2 tracks again through Shugboro' before going to 4 tracks again east of Stafford.

But this isn’t actually “bonkers” until such time as they need to join the four track sections together with an extra track between Brinklow and Nuneaton.

Until that is ever needed the layout is optimised for the down platform usage at Rugby, where the down fast trains can pass between two separate slow line platforms with no conflicts, one dedicated platform for each route.

It seems to me that if Brinklow four tracking is not needed today, (is it ever a real problem?), then with post HS2 service patterns it becomes even less likely to be done.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

The old layout had lots of bespoke crossings etc, if one of those broke (and they frequently did) it was a long wait to get one fabricated.

Not sure if Waterloo has been touched on above, but the same scenario applied/applies, and even with the 2017 remodelling of the Main Sub 1-7 throat there are still a number of platforms that in each (group) case, will become unusable if just one point end fails. Westminster Bridge and the associated curvature of the throat may well still render 'off the shelf' components unviable, in a number of specific locations?

 

[swt_passenger]

Not sure if Waterloo has been touched on above, but the same scenario applied/applies, and even with the 2017 remodelling of the Main Sub 1-7 throat there are still a number of platforms that in each (group) case, will become unusable if just one point end fails. Westminster Bridge and the associated curvature of the throat may well still render 'off the shelf' components unviable, in a number of specific locations?

AIUI in the last alterations they significantly lengthened the throat to use more standard components, but with increased re-occupation times. I think it came up in a forum discussion later, explaining that the new layout has bidirectional running on the up and down main suburban tracks extending further from the station, as opposed to crossovers right at the platform ends.

 

[snowball]

Between Crewe and Wigan there are some short 4-track sections not listed in #38, with several changes of track order.

 

[Taunton]

Not sure if Waterloo has been touched on above, but the same scenario applied/applies, and even with the 2017 remodelling of the Main Sub 1-7 throat there are still a number of platforms that in each (group) case, will become unusable if just one point end fails. Westminster Bridge and the associated curvature of the throat may well still render 'off the shelf' components unviable, in a number of specific locations?

Possibly a reflection of a too limited set of 'standard' components. In any event, if you have a non-standard item that is on the critical path, do you not have your own spare for it standing by nearby? There's so much odd rail left lying around trackside that it can't be a huge cost to have some potential spares in the yard.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2023 ==

Between Crewe and Wigan there are some short 4-track sections not listed in #38, with several changes of track order.

A bizarre one there was from north of Warrington, slow lines branching off on the west side to Earlestown, crossing on the Liverpool & Manchester bridge, then back from Newton-le-Willows to the WCML on the east side, and crossing over straight away to start slow lines on the west side. This was all electrified in 1973, there was no other way for electric trains to go, and was regarded as the "slow" lines.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Probably something to do with the former flying junctions at Northallerton where the Ripon line came in, part of which provided grade separation for trains diverging towards Tees-side (if they didn't stop at the station). However the flat transition between down-up-down-up and down-down-up-up at Skelton Bridge (where only three tracks cross the river) is a notable bottleneck, and there have been discussions about grade separating this as well. The whole section could be made paired by use, with the slows to the west linking to the existing diveunder at Northallerton, but would involve re-building Thirsk and probably cause issues because there's quite a bit of switching between fasts and slows to handle the mix of fast trains, stopping trains and freights.

The baffling thing about York to Darlington is that it used to have extensive loops at places like Cowton and Castle Hills Northallerton but these have long been abolished. I understand the argument that reinstating them would mean introducing more facing pointwork but still.. If the former low level station at Northallerton was reinstated it would remove all Eaglescliffe bound services from the main line station.

 

[Bald Rick]

In any event, if you have a non-standard item that is on the critical path, do you not have your own spare for it standing by nearby?

Depends how many you need, how likely you are to need it, and the implications if it fails.

The old Euston had hundreds of them, all different, and keeping spares for them all would have been a ‘challenge’, not to say a lot of working capital tied up doing nothing.

 

[miklcct]

This brings up another benefit, which is that it allows cross-platform interchange from the Up Main Slow to the Down Main Fast at Clapham Junction.

This is definitely not a benefit. An island platform for lines in the opposite direction means it's useless for interchange. Using Clapham Junction as an example, the Up Main Slow (10) shares an island to the Down Main Fast (9), but because trains run in the opposite direction, a journey involving a change will not benefit from such configuration.

Instead, if the lines are grouped by direction, by putting an island between the fast and the slow lines in the same direction, masses of passenger will change there from the slow to the fast, or vice versa, for the same direction, for example, at Finchley Road.

 

[edwin_m]

A bizarre one there was from north of Warrington, slow lines branching off on the west side to Earlestown, crossing on the Liverpool & Manchester bridge, then back from Newton-le-Willows to the WCML on the east side, and crossing over straight away to start slow lines on the west side. This was all electrified in 1973, there was no other way for electric trains to go, and was regarded as the "slow" lines.

I've often thought that someone should sort that lot out to provide down-down-up-up all the way from Golborne to Wigan, which would allow freights to be overtaken without coming to a stop - something sorely needed on the WCML. They could also provide bi-di on the easternmost track so trains joining at Golborne didn't have to cross over straight away.

 

[Signal Head]

PicVic proposed a flyover here (as also at Edgeley No. 2), but we all know what happened to those plans.

As for those later curious plans for Slade Lane to Adswood Road, I never quite understood what the benefits were if not coupled with a completion of the quadding between Adswood Road and Cheadle Hulme to make the Stoke lines completely independent of the Crewe lines (given that IIRC there wasn't the regular M/c-Euston via Crewe service while all that was being planned).

There was a version of the Stockport resignalling (Ansaldo) scheme plan around at the time which included 4-track between Adswood Road and Cheadle Hulme, thus separating the routes all the way into Manchester Piccadilly. I may still have a copy somewhere...

 

[Senex]

There was a version of the Stockport resignalling (Ansaldo) scheme plan around at the time which included 4-track between Adswood Road and Cheadle Hulme, thus separating the routes all the way into Manchester Piccadilly. I may still have a copy somewhere...

I never knew that. It would be really interesting to see how those plans differ from what was later actually proposed to be done .... (But you can see why they fought shy of doing the viaduct. A century earlier, of course, the Crewe route was by far the more important to London and the L&NWR had solved its own Stockport problem with the Styal line (but why, oh why, did it go for such a lousy alignment for the curve at Slade Lane?).

 

[Railcar]

Pairing by direction works well at Finsbury Park, where the Thameslinks bound for the Core are routed from the Up Fast to the Up SLow 1 for Platform 2, allowing cross-platform interchange with Hertford Loop trains arriving on Platform 1.
In the Down direction, FPK Platforms 7 and 8 allow a swap between Thameslink and Hertfords at walking pace.

 

[gabrielhj07]

This is definitely not a benefit. An island platform for lines in the opposite direction means it's useless for interchange. Using Clapham Junction as an example, the Up Main Slow (10) shares an island to the Down Main Fast (9), but because trains run in the opposite direction, a journey involving a change will not benefit from such configuration.

Instead, if the lines are grouped by direction, by putting an island between the fast and the slow lines in the same direction, masses of passenger will change there from the slow to the fast, or vice versa, for the same direction, for example, at Finchley Road.

In that example the interchange is beneficial to passengers arriving at Clapham from stations between Teddington & Earlsfield, whereas a DS-DF interchange would only benefit passengers coming from Waterloo or Vauxhall.

 

[sjm77]

One major pinch point is Slade Lane Jn a few miles south of Manchester.

Leaving Manchester Piccadilly lines are paired by speed Up Fast - Down Fast - Up Slow - Down Slow.

At Slade Lane Jn they change to being paired by direction Up Slow - Up Fast - Down Fast - Down Slow.

One thing to add here is that from Piccadilly to Slade Lane it is not fast trains on the fasts and slow trains on the slow, it is simply the naming of each track and trains move at the same speed! (Yes I know the fasts have a uselessly short 90 mph section).
In reality trains and paired by routing to avoid conflict and the vast majority of the time;
-Airport trains use the slows as do Stockport services going onto/from Oxford Road
-Piccadiily main shed to Stockport use the fasts.
The removing of TransPennine services that run from Piccadilly main shed to the airport has reduced conflicts on this section. (Please, nobody mention the Oxxxxxx Cxxxx)!!!!!!!

 

[Signal Head]

I never knew that. It would be really interesting to see how those plans differ from what was later actually proposed to be done .... (But you can see why they fought shy of doing the viaduct. A century earlier, of course, the Crewe route was by far the more important to London and the L&NWR had solved its own Stockport problem with the Styal line (but why, oh why, did it go for such a lousy alignment for the curve at Slade Lane?).

I think the plans that evolved to final proposals (before the whole lot was canned) were basically the same elsewhere, but with Adswood Road rearranged to a double junction from the existing 4 to 2 reduction. I can't remember what connections were provided for the 4 track version between Adswood Road and Cheadle Hulme, I presume there would have been something otherwise the Macc/Crewe decision is taken at Edgeley with no opportunity to switch afterwards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2023 ==

Yes, and the conversion of Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme is a bonkers bit of spending (it needs a viaduct) which is out of proportion to the benefit, putting aside the silly pairing by use anyway. I mean that, in comparison, the remodelling of the junction at Cheadle Hulme to allow an overlap on a red signal was of significant benefit at relatively little cost, and now allows down trains from Macclesfield to be allowed into Cheadle Hulme station rather than being stopped at the previous signal adjacent to Ravenoak Road bridge which was what used to happen to me all the time on the way to school. That small piece of work alone probably saved thousands of delay minutes a month, and is the sort of sensible work that should be done rather than the grandiose schemes which don't offer much more but with vast cost.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant and getting off-topic I know!

Used to happen to Down trains on the Crewe line just as often I think. I seem to recall there was a suggestion in the 1980s to provide a Warning Route off the Crewe line to allow trains to get into the station. I think it got as far as a scheme plan being drawn up, but never implemented, vague memory it may have been squashed by the HMRI who were unhappy with the length of Restricted Overlap available.

 

[jfollows]

Used to happen to Down trains on the Crewe line just as often I think. I seem to recall there was a suggestion in the 1980s to provide a Warning Route off the Crewe line to allow trains to get into the station. I think it got as far as a scheme plan being drawn up, but never implemented, vague memory it may have been squashed by the HMRI who were unhappy with the length of Restricted Overlap available.

I'd be surprised if it didn't, thank you for confirming, same lack of overlap after all. I only moved to Wilmslow indirectly in the early 1980s and had left home really, so my daily trips were all on the Macclesfield branch in the 1970s. I do recall being held well before Cheadle Hulme on the Crewe line on a number of occasions though.

 

[Signal Head]

I'd be surprised if it didn't, thank you for confirming, same lack of overlap after all. I only moved to Wilmslow indirectly in the early 1980s and had left home really, so my daily trips were all on the Macclesfield branch in the 1970s. I do recall being held well before Cheadle Hulme on the Crewe line on a number of occasions though.

CH36 signal, not far after Handforth Loop if I remember correctly, almost certainly the 'wrong' side of the school. With regard to the overlap, there would have been *something* available on the Down Wilmslow, but coming off the Macc line it would have been zero as the junction protecting signal was right in the 'vee', plus, the consequences of passing that one at the wrong moment is a potential 'head on' at a closing speed of 100mph+, rather than a sideswipe.

 

[jfollows]

CH36 signal, not far after Handforth Loop if I remember correctly, almost certainly the 'wrong' side of the school.

The school I went to 1970-1973, once called Manchester Warehousemen & Clerks' Orphan Schools (in 1867), or "MWCOS" although it's more sensibly Cheadle Hulme School now and was when I was there!

 

[Taunton]

I never knew that. It would be really interesting to see how those plans differ from what was later actually proposed to be done .... (But you can see why they fought shy of doing the viaduct. A century earlier, of course, the Crewe route was by far the more important to London and the L&NWR had solved its own Stockport problem with the Styal line (but why, oh why, did it go for such a lousy alignment for the curve at Slade Lane?).

Because even express passenger trains would not be doing more than about 30-40mph by Slade Lane, so not an issue. More significant was they didn't get stopped.

What was really the important route, for slow and heavy freight, was the Stockport-Stalybridge line, quite a lot of which was four track - how times change. The big flow was from Crewe yards, through Stalybridge and into Yorkshire, and also from Liverpool through Warrington Low Level to Stockport, and onward the same, this latter to avoid central Manchester, the steep Miles Platting bank, and that Victoria to Stalybridge was the L&Y rather than LNWR. The Styal line bypassed this bottleneck at Stockport.