Camp Hill Line, Birmingham

[Class172]

Gosh, Thank you I learnt something there. As a child, I lived in Kings Heath and don't remember ever seeing a passenger train on that line. Plenty of freight though. I guess a lot can change in 50 years.

The list should get longer following the May timetable change as XC are reintroducing a full Bristol-Manchester timetable, where it is advantageous to run via the Camp Hill since this removes the requirement to perform a reversal at New St.

 

[jfollows]

Gosh, Thank you I learnt something there. As a child, I lived in Kings Heath and don't remember ever seeing a passenger train on that line. Plenty of freight though. I guess a lot can change in 50 years.

It used to be more unusual I agree, summer Saturday workings and the like, but it’s been in more regular passenger use for quite a while now, it’s not a recent change.

 

[Fidelis]

The pre MRH plan for 2024 is for the Camp Hill unit to use Platform 4 isn't it? The future layout is for MRH. But with the proposed future layout no Northbound services routed to the Camp Hill line can call at Kings Norton. Would it not be better to site a turnback siding south of the station in\at the OTP depot\old goods yard.

The Midlands Rail Hub latest brochure dated December 2022 on page 18 shows revised layout with Up Camphill trains able to access platform 4 .
Whether as Planner says it is probable that other services won't use or find this useful is the question.

 

[Baz2000]

The Midlands Rail Hub latest brochure dated December 2022 on page 18 shows revised layout with Up Camphill trains able to access platform 4 .
Whether as Planner says it is probable that other services won't use or find this useful is the question.

Hi thank you Fidelis for the update ref camphill line kings norton station platform 4 ,

 

[nw1]

It used to be more unusual I agree, summer Saturday workings and the like, but it’s been in more regular passenger use for quite a while now, it’s not a recent change.

I guess in, say the 80s, there was little advantage to going via Camp Hill so it was hardly ever done.

SW-NW trains would change to electric at New St anyway (where a reversal is actually an advantage) while SW-NE trains would not need a loco change, or be HST operated, and would thus avoid Camp Hill to avoid a reversal.

FWIW I've never done the line, even though I've travelled by XC from Bristol to Birmingham perhaps 3 times in each direction, generally in the 1999-2010 period.

 

[gg1]

I guess in, say the 80s, there was little advantage to going via Camp Hill so it was hardly ever done.

SW-NW trains would change to electric at New St anyway (where a reversal is actually an advantage) while SW-NE trains would not need a loco change, or be HST operated, and would thus avoid Camp Hill to avoid a reversal.

There were some loco hauled NE-SE services which went the long way around to New Street via the Camp Hill line and the Lifford curve in order to avoid the need for a reversal. I don't think there were many though.

 

[Liam L]

No, as part of Midlands Rail hub. The Camp Hill stations are clearly an Andy Street thing.

So he claims, if they’re a camera… he usually there to spout stuff down it so who knows. I thought it was a WMR thing truthfully as part of the Francis he commitment.

 

[crosscity]

I've not come across the document until now but this publication appears to show a schematic on page 18 - https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1910/midlands-connect-mrh-report-accessibilitychecked.pdf

Thanks for this. So... a third of the island platform is sliced off to make way for the bay and the 'down' Crosscity line uses P2. This allows the ten-minute interval service to be re-instated and extra paths for fast trains on the Camp Hill line. P4 can then be taken out of use.
The down-side is the Camp Hill stoppers would just run from Moor St to Kings Norton. This doesn't bode well for the new service as it's sort of stymied forever (although theoretically you could have Stourbridge-KN locals).

Like others have argued, a new bi-directional P3 through line (instead of the bay) would offer more flexibility. 'Down' locals from both the Crosscity and Camp Hill lines could be offered a refuge, allowing fast trains to overtake from either line. The 'locals' from Moor St could potentially have a more extensive reach to Longbridge or beyond.

I want the new stations to be a success, and hope it all works out.

 

[The Planner]

Thanks for this. So... a third of the island platform is sliced off to make way for the bay and the 'down' Crosscity line uses P2. This allows the ten-minute interval service to be re-instated and extra paths for fast trains on the Camp Hill line. P4 can then be taken out of use.
The down-side is the Camp Hill stoppers would just run from Moor St to Kings Norton. This doesn't bode well for the new service as it's sort of stymied forever (although theoretically you could have Stourbridge-KN locals).

Like others have argued, a new bi-directional P3 through line (instead of the bay) would offer more flexibility. 'Down' locals from both the Crosscity and Camp Hill lines could be offered a refuge, allowing fast trains to overtake from either line. The 'locals' from Moor St could potentially have a more extensive reach to Longbridge or beyond.

I want the new stations to be a success, and hope it all works out.

No, P4 will stay and Cross City trains will still use it.

 

[Liam L]

Thanks for this. So... a third of the island platform is sliced off to make way for the bay and the 'down' Crosscity line uses P2. This allows the ten-minute interval service to be re-instated and extra paths for fast trains on the Camp Hill line. P4 can then be taken out of use.

Don’t think cross city will be using P2, the track there isn’t electrified iirc, only the outside tracks (P1 & 4) have wires.

 

[crosscity]

Don’t think cross city will be using P2, the track there isn’t electrified iirc, only the outside tracks (P1 & 4) have wires.

That's the current layout. The bay doesn't exist either. The 'Midlands Rail Hub' plan is for changes to increase capacity through KN by 2030. The plans are vague and the budget's nowhere near approved, but implicit in the work is electrification of P2 to re-instate the ten-minute frequency along the (electric) Crosscity line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2023 ==

No, P4 will stay and Cross City trains will still use it.

But only sporadically. The report says "... the currently derelict island platform will be re-instated as platforms 2 and 3, with platform 2 primarily for southbound cross city services and platform 3 for terminating Camp Hill services. It is anticipated that platform 4, the current cross-city south platform will see much reduced usage.".

 

[The Planner]

That's the current layout. The bay doesn't exist either. The 'Midlands Rail Hub' plan is for changes to increase capacity through KN by 2030. The plans are vague and the budget's nowhere near approved, but implicit in the work is electrification of P2 to re-instate the ten-minute frequency along the (electric) Crosscity line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2023 ==


But only sporadically. The report says "... the currently derelict island platform will be re-instated as platforms 2 and 3, with platform 2 primarily for southbound cross city services and platform 3 for terminating Camp Hill services. It is anticipated that platform 4, the current cross-city south platform will see much reduced usage.".

What a report says and what happens once the TOC and NR planners get hold of it are rarely the same things. No one will get rid of P4. I wouldnt say its vague either, the layouts are all pretty fixed from Snow Hill P4, Moor St and the extra tracks down as far as what is proposed at Stoke Works and on to Ledbury.

 

[Class172]

I wouldnt say its vague either, the layouts are all pretty fixed from Snow Hill P4, Moor St and the extra tracks down as far as what is proposed at Stoke Works and on to Ledbury.

I haven’t seen anything that shows what the plans are for Stoke Works or Ledbury. I’m guessing for the former that the intention is to upgrade the junction from single to double lead?

 

[The Planner]

I haven’t seen anything that shows what the plans are for Stoke Works or Ledbury. I’m guessing for the former that the intention is to upgrade the junction from single to double lead?

Yes, and some double tracking around Ledbury I believe. Though those will be the first to get binned if cash is constrained.

 

[Pigeon]

I guess in, say the 80s, there was little advantage to going via Camp Hill so it was hardly ever done.

I don't remember ever being able to do it on a regular main line service, but the DMU fasts to Worcester via the Lickey would quite often go that way: no point taking up a slot on the BWS if you don't have to; there weren't many to spare even then.

 

[GingerSte]

Moseley tunnel says hello.

Based on your comment, I had a look at Moseley Tunnel on Google Earth. (I say that, as things may have changed since Google did it's thing.) Apart from a bit of wasteland and a shop, the tunnel only seems to be supporting St Mary's Row and maybe a sliver of Oxford Road. Most of that tunnel could be demolished rather than gauge cleared.





I don't know the relative heights between the road and railway, but it looks like a concrete portal frame bridge carrying the roads over the railway could be a solution. Something similar to the construction below (taken from Moore Concrete's website - note: I just googled an image, and don't know how well it worked in this case).

 

[zwk500]

Based on your comment, I had a look at Moseley Tunnel on Google Earth. (I say that, as things may have changed since Google did it's thing.) Apart from a bit of wasteland and a shop, the tunnel only seems to be supporting St Mary's Row and maybe a sliver of Oxford Road. Most of that tunnel could be demolished rather than gauge cleared.

Have a look at the size of the embankment above the tunnel portal - digging out the tunnel would be very difficult to achieve without serious risk of damage to the surrounding houses from earth movement. You also have the road junction which means you'd need to build a covered way (cut/cover tunnel) but at a significant height above the trackbed. While digging out a portion of the north end might be feasible, the ultimate answer is still most likely going to be track lowering. Reboring isn't impossible, although if the local services are up and running successfully it'll be rather disruptive.