Suggestions for new short-ish lines

[Nottingham59]

Waverley already has two 400m+ platforms - 1/19 and 10/11. You'd probably want to renumber, though, as "the train now arriving at platforms 1 and 19" might confuse people.

Only P7+11 (542m) is on the south side of the station. Unfortunately P2+19 (595m) and P1+20 (385m) are on the north side, so would mean crossing the western throat to be usable by long HS2 trains.

See also this thread:

400m platforms at Edinburgh Waverley

Could Waverley handle 400m HS2 trains? When HS2 phase 1 opens in 2033, it seems to me that HS2 will become the main route between London and Edinburgh, with journey times from Old Oak Common to Waverley likely to be under four hours. Edinburgh-London flows (at 2700 passengers / day) are much...

www.railforums.co.uk

The idea of splitting/joining on the "Scotland superfasts" was more I think because 2tph at 200m has more value to people than 1tph at 400m

True but, even with phase 2a and the new tunnel to Slateford, London-Edinburgh journey times will still be around 3h30. So the attractiveness of high frequency will be less than it would be for shorter journeys.

And I understand that the London-Edinburgh market is three times the size of London-Glasgow. So it really makes sense to be able to send full length HS2 trains non-stop to Edinburgh. 1tph would be plenty.

(plus there's far less scope to extend Glasgow Central).

I think you could extend P1 and P2 to 400m by building out over the river Clyde, as shown here:

400m platforms at Glasgow Central?

[Crayon alert!] Could space be found for 400m long platforms at Glasgow Central? When HS2 phase 1 starts, the fastest route from London to Edinburgh will be via HS2 phase 1 and Carlisle. So I'm expecting England-Scotland passenger traffic via Carlisle to grow strongly over the next twenty...

www.railforums.co.uk

That would have the advantage of being able to run a 400m shuttle between Waverley and Central (but I don't know enough about the rail usage in Scotland to know if that would be worthwhile)

 

[Shimbleshanks]

The Amlwch branch, as far as Llangefni.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, this is the problem, and I don’t think Tottenham South grade separation would be all that much cheaper than the Manor Park connection.

Joining the continuous tightly surrounded Goblin viaduct there with its many road underbridges and tight curvature would be very complex and likely require at least some housing demolition and much disruption to local residents and rail users. A wide strip of the the cemetery would be needed for the new ramp down and junction with the GE Mains. All this would be difficult, maybe impossible, from a planning/political perspective and no doubt very expensive. Far less demolition would be required at South Tottenham, possibly non at all, and disruption would be minimal.

Also going via High Meads interacts with the NLL at Channelsea, crossing both tracks.

True. Some detailed study of track and signalling layout around there could help to identify options to mitigate.

 

[Meerkat]

A line extending Stansted round the east end of the runway to join the Cambridge line north of Elsenham, taking all the traffic to/from the north away from the single track tunnel and junction.

Ascot - Frimley line connecting to North Downs line, across the Blackwater river (and relief road!) and also North Downs Line to Aldershot North Jn.

WAO

Not sure about the first but a link that allowed a Farnham-Aldersho-Reading stopper would be very useful as the traffic is pretty awful.

A new line from Boston to Wainfleet via Wrangle, with the existing line via Frisby to shut.

My crayons have always wanted to cut that corner off, but shorter than your version - basically going directly west at Wainfleet.

Whitacre curve. 300m of track. Would allow Birch Coppice freight access to the WCML without the magical mystery tour of the West Mids. Could also send the empty Kingsbury tanks back via Leicester.

Would straightening out the kink at Whitacre as part of building a triangle be useful (it just looks annoying to my crayons!)? Bang in loops to the east as well to get freights to the junctions then wait for a crossing move slot)

Askam-in-Furness to Millom with a new Duddon Viaduct, as originally proposed before the Furness Railway ran out of money (it would have cost only £37k in 1843!)

My crayons have always wanted this (built as [he whispers] a combined road and rail bridge). Would save nearly 15 mins and get rid of a load of level crossings. I would build it as a green energy tidal barrage but the sandal wearers would kick off as they love mud.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I would construct a new line adjacent to the A629 at Skipton to create a loop not because of 'reversal anxiety' as I for one dont have that, but to reduce platform occupation and to speed up services.
It would also remove the need for all freight services to run round at Skipton.

This is patent nonsense I'm afraid, what exactly do you think there is to be gained?

 

[yorksrob]

I've always thought the simplest solution would be to build a platform on the Heart of Wessex line as close to Yeovil Junction as possible and install a footbridge linking the stations - as far as I can tell it wouldn't be anything more than a half mile walk which while not ideal is much better than having to pay a lot more to reinstate track. The best way to do this would then be also move the platforms at the existing Yeovil Junction station closer to the crossover of the tracks to also reduce that interchange walk, although then costs would obviously go up and the trains that currently reverse in the station wouldn't be able to reverse at a platform anymore.

Yes, that would still be an improvement on the current situation which is extremely poor for interconnecting.

 

[Halifaxlad]

This is patent nonsense I'm afraid, what exactly do you think there is to be gained?

Thinking about it now I don't actually know what there is to be gained by not having the Aire Valley services occupy a platform on the through lines which some people want to send services to Colne down if they get their way along with all freight services to draxx, don't forget the Friends of the S&C would like at least an hourly service. So I don't know what you would get by not having to terminate services on the through lines.

I was initally thinking about sending services around in a loop but I think it might be worth considering reopening P5 to terminate them then departing in the opposite direction instead.

 

[The Planner]

Would straightening out the kink at Whitacre as part of building a triangle be useful (it just looks annoying to my crayons!)? Bang in loops to the east as well to get freights to the junctions then wait for a crossing move slot)

Ideally you would realign it to get the speed up. Not convinced about the loops, its not going to get any more than 4tph passenger in each direction.

 

[Meerkat]

Ideally you would realign it to get the speed up. Not convinced about the loops, its not going to get any more than 4tph passenger in each direction.

I was guessing that getting across to Hams Hall (and Kingsbury if extra chord built) could be tricky, so it would be easier if you could send the freight out from Nuneaton knowing it could loop just before rather than predicting so far ahead.

 

[The Ham]

Not sure about the first but a link that allowed a Farnham-Aldersho-Reading stopper would be very useful as the traffic is pretty awful.

I would guess that, unless there's capacity issues near Reading, adding a few extra services and hour to lines which have less than 6tph should mostly be viable.

Other than needing to do something about the level crossing at Farnham. Arguably just close it and make improvements to the roads to allow traffic to use the bridge to the west. As the delays from the barriers being closed are likely to be bad enough that slowing all traffic down by (say) 35 seconds would be no worse than the current situation.

 

[Mr. SW]

I suggest an additional double track Belsize tunnel bore (2.4km) alongside the MML and passing under both fast and slow tracks whie underground to allow trains from Goblin to get to Hendon Lines on the south side of the MML at West Hampstead. WCML bound trains could then proceed to Cricklewood before turning left onto the Dudding Hill Line. Near Taylors Lane Power Station a new junction would lead to a single line ramping down to a new 0.9km 'mousehole' tunnel connecting to Wembley yard, emerging at low level next to the Willesden Relief Lines adjacent to their bridge diving under WCML Fasts and Slows, then rising up into the yard area. New tunnel: Orange. New Surface track: Yellow.

A bijou problemette with this idea is the presence of the Northern Line Edgware branch, Belsize Park Station and its attendant wartime deep-level shelter. I believe the Northern Line is quite steeply graded at this point too as well as being shallow enough to be mentioned on the Railway Data site, although it has been incorrectly identified as "Barnet"


(Excerpt from Railway Data site (https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/linefiles/route/?ELR=SPC1)

I looked very problem at this some time ago, so what will have to happen is this from my own personal crayons.

(Google MyMaps)
Pink is the Gospel Oak/West Hampstead Route, Rust is the Belsize Tunnel (Slow Lines), Orange is the Belsize Tunnel (Fast), Black is the Northern Line. The wartime shelter is alongside the station at Belsize Park Station on the east side and roughly the same level. It also stops short of the Fast Line Tunnel. I've not marked it.

The pink line descends from West Hampstead Station and enters a tunnel, the Portal marled by a red pin by the 'F' for Freud. This is so the line can dip to go under the Belsize Tunnels before rising sharply to pass over the Northern Line. Finally it runs levelish/slightly graded to emerge at a portal marked by the red pin at Gordon House Road to connect with the low level line at Highgate Road.

Going south of Belsize Park Station is not possible. The land falls away sharply, so you'll either have to go absurdly deep with your tunnel, or very shallow and that would run into a whole other set of problems, probably involving some very rich and influential people indeed.

Ignore the other pins, they're just me trying to find where everything is.

 

[JKF]

How about a bit of track to allow a connection between the Waterloo & City and the DLR at Bank, allowing it to become part of the DLR network? Or would that just be duplicating some of what the Jubilee line does already?

 

[zwk500]

How about a bit of track to allow a connection between the Waterloo & City and the DLR at Bank, allowing it to become part of the DLR network? Or would that just be duplicating some of what the Jubilee line does already?

That will almost certainly require reboring the W&C to accept a DLR train + walkway, as well as the alterations to the platform(s) at Waterloo, regardless of the alignment/vertical separation issues between the two lines. I can see why it'd be a good idea from a passenger and operational perspective, but reboring is exceptionally unlikely.

 

[gallafent]

Luton to Hitchin!

Connect to the Midland Main Line south of Luton Airport Parkway (north-facing), join the East Coast Main Line south of Hitchin (again, north-facing). Provide a fast connection Bedford <-> Luton (+ airport) <-> Hitchin <-> Cambridge! There must be a way to thread through avoiding too much destruction, orange line here drawn just to give an idea of how close the two connection points are!

EWR2, anyone? (the next section is to the west, reopening the Luton <-> Leighton Buzzard via Dunstable and Stanbridgeford line! ... at least some of the alignment has been preserved there, thanks to the guided busway and the Sewell Greenway, which gets you most of the way there, though it's been built on at the LB end, unfortunately (as have the two platforms at LB station which served the branch!) ...

Edit: Luton airport capacity expansion confirmed today (partial quote; the article also talks about some other airports) .. public transport capacity, particularly from the east, surely should be added if this goes ahead!:

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/green-light-expected-for-major-airport-expansion

Green light expected for major airport expansion​

The government is reportedly poised to back signifiant expansion of London-area airports.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce her support for a third runway at Heathrow.
She is also likely to approve plans to bring a second runway at Gatwick into full-time use and to increase capacity at Luton airport.
[...]
A decision on expanding Luton airport, which would involve using the existing runway to handle more flights, is due by April 3. The proposal is projected to create 12,000 jobs.
Luton airport’s passenger numbers continued to rise in 2024 and a strong end to the year took the total annual figure to 16.7 million.

https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov...g/652/london_luton_airport_proposed_expansion

London Luton Airport proposed expansion​

Pages in London Luton Airport proposed expansion​

1. Background for the London Luton Airport proposed expansion (this page)
2. Application process

Background for the London Luton Airport proposed expansion​

London Luton Airport wishes to increase its capacity, using the existing runway to handle 32 million passengers per year by 2043, up from its current limit of 18 million passengers per year. This includes expanding the current terminal (terminal 1) and building a new terminal (terminal 2) and associated facilities.
The proposals would include:

• additional capacity within the existing terminal
• a new second terminal
• additional taxiways
• multi-storey short-stay / mid-stay car parking close to the terminal
• mid and long-stay parking
• bus station, taxi ranks and Luton DART (direct air to rail transport)
• support buildings
• surface access and road changes

The proposals do not involve new flight paths.

Public consultation​

Recent consultation (April 2022)​

Luton Rising, the owner of Luton Airport, undertook a statutory consultation between 8 February and 4 April 2022 in relation to the proposed expansion of Luton Airport.
The consultation related to the latest proposals and included extensive background studies into the environmental and other impacts of the proposals. Feedback on the representations received during the 2019 consultation was included within the consultation material.
Members of the public were able to see the proposals and ask questions at 13 in-person consultation events. There was also a virtual room that re-created the in-person experience online and was available 24 hours a day throughout the consultation period.
For the latest information on the proposals please visit Luton Airport's website.

Our response​

Our response to statutory consultation (PDF)
Cover letter on behalf of the host authorities (PDF)
Joint response to statutory consultation (PDF)
Joint review of statutory consultation documents (PDF)
Joint review of statutory consultation documents – traffic and transport (PDF)
Joint review to statutory consultation – Appendix A (PDF)
Joint response to statutory consultation – Appendix B (PDF)

Previous consultations​

Luton Airport held a first round of public consultation on its proposals in summer 2018, followed by a statutory public consultation from October to December 2019, with public events held in locations around the airport and within Central Bedfordshire.
In 2019, we submitted a response to the consultation, alongside a joint technical response provided by WSP and Vincent & Gorbing who were commissioned by to undertake a review of the statutory consultation documents on behalf of the four host authorities:

• Central Bedfordshire Council
• Hertfordshire County Council
• North Hertfordshire District Council
• Luton Borough Council

The responses submitted in December 2019 are available to view below:

• Central Bedfordshire Council's response to statutory consultation
• cover letter to LLAL on behalf of host authorities
• joint review of statutory consultation documents
• joint response to statutory consultation

 

[30907]

Thinking about it now I don't actually know what there is to be gained by not having the Aire Valley services occupy a platform on the through lines which some people want to send services to Colne down if they get their way along with all freight services to draxx, don't forget the Friends of the S&C would like at least an hourly service. So I don't know what you would get by not having to terminate services on the through lines.

A simple crossover Down Slow to Fast at the country end of Skipton would allow (1) Rylstone freights to run round clear of the station (2) Down through trains to use P4 instead ot P3 if necessary (ie when the Rylstone is around, 1-2 each way daily).
Cheaper than a new build across the flood plain.

It would be done and paid for as part of the Skipton-Colne project, along with other work there.

BTW there is a much simpler solution planned to the Harrogate line problems at York, though admittedly it won't facilitate a Poppleton-Haxby service

 

[Halifaxlad]

BTW there is a much simpler solution planned to the Harrogate line problems at York, though admittedly it won't facilitate a Poppleton-Haxby service

I wouldn't have said that the 3rd line is a much simpler, much cheaper yes.

Nor will it remove all crossing conflicts which is the main reason for my suggestion not to give Poppleton a direct service to Haxby. which I don't believe would be feasible anyway as you would have to extend Harrogate line services to Scarborough which isn't part of my suggestion. Although it may be an idea to extend some Harrogate line services to Hull to give Harrogate and Selby a direct service.

One of the my favorite things about it is that it would make the line much more attractive to use as departing and arriving platforms would be upon the Eastern side of the station with no-need to cross the line by either the bridge or subway.

Anyway a few other suggestions for up North and probably more likely that some of my earlier ones.

A 15km realignment of the ECML between Sutton on Trent and Retford.



An 11km realignment of the Scarborough line between Welham and Flaxton to remove all those curves.



The latter would also knock about 4.5km off track off, so the realignment would be considerably shorter.

Now for the slightly more complicated.

I would build the HS2 leg from Micklefield - Church Fenton as has been suggested elsewhere but I would carry this onto Hambleton Jct so that LNER could use it to reach Leeds. In a later phase I would also extend it to Cliffe, East of Selby adjacent to the A623 below Selby to enable NPR services to use it and bypass Selby and the Swing bridge.

With the South Milford - Sherburn-in-Elmet chord as suggested by Yorkslad12 I would send all slow services this way, take out the junction at Micklefield and the platforms on the fast lines at Church Fenton.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Down through trains to use P4 instead ot P3 if necessary[.]

For accuracy/pedantry, P4 can already be used by down trains.

 

[30907]

For accuracy/pedantry, P4 can already be used by down trains.

Provided there's not a Rylstone freight in the way, I should have been more specific

 

[Severnia333]

Waterlooville. It'd be expensive and fiddley but not unfeasible. Area has rapidly grown in population (64k in Waterlooville town plus more in the villages/ towns that join on like Cowplain, Purbrook etc) and the traffic is v bad in the whole area around Pompey.

A small sliver of space to do it running to the left of the A3(M).

About 3 ish miles with a station for Waterlooville proper and then another near Purbrook before joining the main line.

I think there'd be demand for half hourly peak service to Portsmouth, and if there's the paths occasional ones to Fareham/Soton Central.

 

[daodao]

Waterlooville. It'd be expensive and fiddley but not unfeasible. Area has rapidly grown in population (64k in Waterlooville town plus more in the villages/ towns that join on like Cowplain, Purbrook etc) and the traffic is v bad in the whole area around Pompey.

A small sliver of space to do it running to the left of the A3(M).

About 3 ish miles with a station for Waterlooville proper and then another near Purbrook before joining the main line.

I think there'd be demand for half hourly peak service to Portsmouth, and if there's the paths occasional ones to Fareham/Soton Central.

This proposal seems like a re-creation of the former interurban electric tramway known as the Portsdown and Horndean Light Railway, which ran between Cosham and Horndean via Purbrook, Waterlooville and Cowplain from 2nd March 1903 to 9th January 1935.

 

[Severnia333]

This proposal seems like a re-creation of the former interurban electric tramway known as the Portsdown and Horndean Light Railway, which ran between Cosham and Horndean via Purbrook, Waterlooville and Cowplain from 2nd March 1903 to 9th January 1935.

Pretty much, although connecting to the main line east of the triangle rather than at Cosham.

I imagine the population was considerably smaller 90 years ago.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Provided there's not a Rylstone freight in the way, I should have been more specific

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[MarkyT]

A bijou problemette with this idea is the presence of the Northern Line Edgware branch, Belsize Park Station and its attendant wartime deep-level shelter. I believe the Northern Line is quite steeply graded at this point too as well as being shallow enough to be mentioned on the Railway Data site, although it has been incorrectly identified as "Barnet"

View attachment 173165
(Excerpt from Railway Data site (https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/linefiles/route/?ELR=SPC1)

I looked very problem at this some time ago, so what will have to happen is this from my own personal crayons.
View attachment 173166
(Google MyMaps)
Pink is the Gospel Oak/West Hampstead Route, Rust is the Belsize Tunnel (Slow Lines), Orange is the Belsize Tunnel (Fast), Black is the Northern Line. The wartime shelter is alongside the station at Belsize Park Station on the east side and roughly the same level. It also stops short of the Fast Line Tunnel. I've not marked it.

The pink line descends from West Hampstead Station and enters a tunnel, the Portal marled by a red pin by the 'F' for Freud. This is so the line can dip to go under the Belsize Tunnels before rising sharply to pass over the Northern Line. Finally it runs levelish/slightly graded to emerge at a portal marked by the red pin at Gordon House Road to connect with the low level line at Highgate Road.

Going south of Belsize Park Station is not possible. The land falls away sharply, so you'll either have to go absurdly deep with your tunnel, or very shallow and that would run into a whole other set of problems, probably involving some very rich and influential people indeed.

Ignore the other pins, they're just me trying to find where everything is.

Interesting thanks. Looks like there's about 1400m between your West Hampstead portal before passing over the Northern Line. Hopefully enough to dip under the existing tunnels, on a ~1:200 falling gradient through much of the area according to the data. It would be quite a roller coaster!

 

[RichJF]

A couple down South (unlikely viable in the short term but potentially useful)

Polegate - Hailsham. Massive, massive house building in Hailsham since the Cuckoo Line closed. This section allegedly turned a profit before it was closed as well.

Reinstatement of the avoiding curve for the Eastbourne line, so some services could be sped up.

 

[Class15]

Reinstatement of the avoiding curve for the Eastbourne line, so some services could be sped up.

Which services do you want to skip Eastbourne?!

 

[WAO]

I would guess that, unless there's capacity issues near Reading, adding a few extra services and hour to lines which have less than 6tph should mostly be viable.

Other than needing to do something about the level crossing at Farnham. Arguably just close it and make improvements to the roads to allow traffic to use the bridge to the west. As the delays from the barriers being closed are likely to be bad enough that slowing all traffic down by (say) 35 seconds would be no worse than the current situation.

I would be content with a good connection at Say Farn N, or Frimley to allow interchange between N Downs and Ascot services. We only need extra trains when the present ones are (nearly) full. The counsel of perfection would be a big interchange at Farnborough (Rectory Road), where the SWML and the other two services would cross.

This area of Silicon Valley around Reading and the new "Hollywood" studios at Shinfield deserves a lot better treatment than just battery driven Tadpoles, whenever, and the dismissal of electrification is shameful for a service that is also an "International Gateway" at Gatwick.

However the likelihood of a new link at Camberley however desirable, is about the same as Bradford Crossrail; both potential routes being expensively built over in spite of known proposals.

Grasping defeat out of the mouth of victory,

WAO

 

[MrC]

I've always thought the simplest solution would be to build a platform on the Heart of Wessex line as close to Yeovil Junction as possible and install a footbridge linking the stations - as far as I can tell it wouldn't be anything more than a half mile walk which while not ideal is much better than having to pay a lot more to reinstate track. The best way to do this would then be also move the platforms at the existing Yeovil Junction station closer to the crossover of the tracks to also reduce that interchange walk, although then costs would obviously go up and the trains that currently reverse in the station wouldn't be able to reverse at a platform anymore.

As the land is already there and given deep pockets I'd build the South - West chord to enable Weymouth - Exeter direct trains. Main reason is that road and rail transport from the larger conurbations of Bournemouth/Poole/Dorchester and Weymouth towards Devon (and v.v.) isn't good - the A35 is pretty bad even outside of the holiday season and rail connections are even worse (actually non-existent). There's already a very short interchange between the Dorchester stations - or change at Upwey.

 

[zwk500]

As the land is already there and given deep pockets I'd build the South - West chord to enable Weymouth - Exeter direct trains.

There's a strong argument that the better location of Pen Mill is going to offer enough traffic to offset the journey time penalty, certainly in the case for a new line. Remember any chord to the Heart of Wessex line triggers a major signalling upgrade on the Yeovil-Dorchester section.

Main reason is that road and rail transport from the larger conurbations of Bournemouth/Poole/Dorchester and Weymouth towards Devon (and v.v.) isn't good - the A35 is pretty bad even outside of the holiday season and rail connections are even worse (actually non-existent). There's already a very short interchange between the Dorchester stations - or change at Upwey.

Agree that there is a strategic gap though.

 

[Topological]

Somewhere just to the West end of Platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly to somewhere in the Ardwick area. I would add platforms to allow easy interchange with Piccadilly. May canibalise some of the services on Platforms 13/14 though.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If we ever complete HS2 as far as the Golborne Link at least, we can then reinstate 4 tracks as far as Preston.
Further north, we will have to construct a few high speed bypasses in some locations to speed up services more than currently is possible, and in a few locations, permit more local services.

1.) Lancaster bypass - southern junction leaving the WCML would be near M6 J33 at Bay Horse, a few miles off the edge of the Lancaster urban area. The line would then proceed north east towards the M6, cross on an overbridge over the motorway itself and then run alongside the right hand side up until Tewitfield near Carnforth, where there would be approximately 0.75 miles of alignment to connect it back to the WCML at a northern junction near Yealand Conyers. Total length would be approx. 14 miles.

2.) Lowgill and Tebay bypass - southern junction would be east of the village of Lambrigg, close to where the railway passes under the M6. The line would gently curve north west for approx. a mile and a half, where the line would enter a tunnel towards a northern tunnel portal near Wickersgill, with a northern junction close to the B6261. A very expensive section to build, but worth it IMHO. Total length approx. 11 miles.

3.) Penrith bypass - southern junction adjacent to the Penrith Farmers Auction Mart in Redhills, proceed roughly northerly until an overbridge crossing Newton Road, where a gentle north easterly curve would begin and the line cross the M6. The curve would continue towards a northern junction with the WCML approx. 1.5 miles north of Penrith station. A lower priority for funding, but one of the projected cheaper projects at approx 2.5 miles total length.

4.) Carlisle bypass - a tunnel beginning at a southern junction and portal just north of Carlisle City Football Club, with a northern junction and portal north of Kingmoor Yard. Approx. 5 miles in length, not a huge priority initially due to the infrequency of services that skip Carlisle, but a bigger priority than the Penrith bypass, due to the numerous existing lines that the WCML interacts with on the approach to/from Carlisle in both directions.

I will post more about a bypass line I would build on the Scottish side tomorrow perhaps.