Brighton Main Line CP6 options study

[Stats]

The DfT have today published Network Rail's pre-Route Study of the Emerging Capacity Strategy for CP6.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...erging-capacity-strategy-for-control-period-6

Options under consideration:
Keymer Junction: Several options under consideration from grade separation to third track option

Stoats Nest Junction: Grade separation for Up Slow to Up Fast under development

Windmill Bridge Junction: Grade separation of remaining flat junction conflicts

Victoria Main Line platforms: Transfer of platform 8 to South Central section creating 1 addition fast line platform; investigate changes to Baattersea to
Victoria fasts to make them reversible and flexible 3 track railway; greater use of Pouparts junction to Battersea reversible to Victoria Eastern route

Clapham Junction main line platforms: Consider ERTMS but may not be feasible; Options for additional fast line platform; Reduction in stopping fast services not feasible from demand point of view but would relieve this location as the ruling constraint on the route.

East Croydon Main Line platforms: Additional 1 or 2 platform scheme under development with additional track between station and Windmill Junction

No obvious solution to single up and down fast lines at a number of locations.

Lewes - Uckfield: Network Rail have ruled out development on Lewes to Uckfield in the medium term as it will offer limited benefit. DfT have agreed with Network Rail however, that the route should be safeguarded for longer term benefits.

Arundel Chord: Currently being assessed for a faster diversionary route through unplanned disruption and to increase maintenance access south of Balcombe.

 

[RichardN]

Not sure how they plan on getting an extra platform at Clapham Junction. Maybe putting both up and down WLL services into 17, up slow through 15 and down slow through 16.

13 could then be a reversible fast and 14 down fast.

 

[76020]

There might be conversion from 3rd Rail to 25KV between East Croydon and Preston Park/Brighton as well, please see page 5 on the link below.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/library/research-development-and-innovation/research-brief-T950.pdf

 

[swt_passenger]

Not sure how they plan on getting an extra platform at Clapham Junction. Maybe putting both up and down WLL services into 17, up slow through 15 and down slow through 16.

13 could then be a reversible fast and 14 down fast.

How about creating a gap between the up and down slow routes on the up side of the station, and add a junction and dive under route off the up slow (now P15) line towards the up WLL. Then the down slow runs through P16 as in your idea, but only the down WLL through 17 as now. That should allow for future increases in WLL capacity, and remove a crossing conflict at the down end junction as well.

Haven't checked what the gradient would be like, but I suppose there's a chance it might be ok downhill...

 

[higthomas]

Interesting document; but it seems a lot less fancy (in terms of graphics and details) than RUS's.

 

[steamybrian]

I have read the NR report on the London to Brighton main line

Reopening Lewes to Uckfield ruled out with little value as a diversionary route.


This will generate interest from the "Wealden Line Campaign" and "Railwatch" groups.

http://www.wealdenline.org.uk/

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting document; but it seems a lot less fancy (in terms of graphics and details) than RUS's.

It's only an initial report from NR to Dft isn't it? It will be up to them to put the detailed information in their eventual route study.

 

[JonathanH]

The DfT have today published Network Rail's pre-Route Study of the Emerging Capacity Strategy for CP6.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...erging-capacity-strategy-for-control-period-6

Options under consideration:

Stoats Nest Junction: Grade separation for Up Slow to Up Fast under development

Is grade separation of the up slow to up fast line, and indeed, down fast to down slow possible in the cuttings south of Coulsdon South? There would seem to be space if the embankments could be removed although some slewing of the lines to where the embankments between the lines currently reside would be needed too.

Are the embankments railway land? There doesn't appear to be anything built on top.

Alternatively, would Network Rail simply try to build a flyover at the existing location of Stoats Nest Junction?

 

[yorksrob]

I would have thought Keymer Junction would be more of a priority to seperate as all up Lewes trains conflict with all down Brighton trains, whereas at Stoats Nest, most services will presumably stick with either the slow or quarry lines.

Platform 8 at Victoria seems like a reasonably quick win.

"Boo" to NR for ruling out Uckfield Lewes.

 

[swt_passenger]

I would have thought Keymer Junction would be more of a priority to seperate as all up Lewes trains conflict with all down Brighton trains, whereas at Stoats Nest, most services will presumably stick with either the slow or quarry lines.

They don't at the moment. AIUI it's the normal location where West Coastway services cross from slow to fast. That's possibly why that is the move described as the problem, rather than down fast to down slow. There's also the possibility of more Thameslink trains north of Gatwick via Redhill (as has been previously discussed, albeit with some doubts about what the franchise spec is describing) - they might also have to cross up slow to up fast at Stoats Nest.

 

[RichardN]

Is grade separation of the up slow to up fast line, and indeed, down fast to down slow possible in the cuttings south of Coulsdon South? There would seem to be space if the embankments could be removed although some slewing of the lines to where the embankments between the lines currently reside would be needed too.

Are the embankments railway land? There doesn't appear to be anything built on top.

Alternatively, would Network Rail simply try to build a flyover at the existing location of Stoats Nest Junction?

I would build it south of the existing flyover where the quarry line goes over the redhill. It all depends on if there is enough space to get the line down to the redhill track level before the road overbridge. As you say, you could also remove the ridge between the lines to make a wide cutting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How about creating a gap between the up and down slow routes on the up side of the station, and add a junction and dive under route off the up slow (now P15) line towards the up WLL. Then the down slow runs through P16 as in your idea, but only the down WLL through 17 as now. That should allow for future increases in WLL capacity, and remove a crossing conflict at the down end junction as well.

Haven't checked what the gradient would be like, but I suppose there's a chance it might be ok downhill...

There is an electrical substation in the way, but that equally applies to my idea.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is an electrical substation in the way, but that equally applies to my idea.

[Clapham Junction - my fantasy remodelling...]
Yes - it wouldn't be too straightforward in that respect, but I think the site within the railway boundary is big enough, and I guess that's the major consideration in the London area...

 

[tsr]

OK... now for my idea.

Quadruple track from Earlswood through to a point just South of Merstham. Re-design the platform layout at Redhill from West to East with a bay on the old Up Goods Yard for NDL reversals to/from Reading, a pair of island platforms (or one island, and two side platforms each adjoining the bays) for the Slows and the Fasts, and a bay for any Tonbridge line reversals & RHTTs (as needed). The through platforms should allow bidirectional use for turnarounds in case of engineering works or emergencies (as now, with just 3 platforms). The Fast Lines would run from Redhill and rejoin the Quarry Lines just before Merstham, with a diveunder on the Down side, heading through the narrow industrial yard presently between the lines. This yard would be relocated to a new site on a further section of the disused Up Goods Yard at Redhill, allowing better road access as well as a possible rail spur for the business(es) present. The Slow lines would be shifted slightly to the West, on renewed overbridges (allowing a better street environment beneath, including wider and safer carriageways), and continue onwards to Merstham and Coulsdon South.

Gatwick & Brighton Express services, as well as the much-desired faster services from the Eastbourne area, could use the Quarry Lines, with a diveunder in the Earlswood area. Some Thameslink route services and possibly extended WLL semi-fast services, as well as Mainline West trains as today, could use the Fasts through Redhill. Terminators for Reigate could head straight from the Down Slow to the Westbound Reading line, crossing just the Up Slow. Tonbridge services could be split from/join to trains on the Thameslink route (allowing better connectivity for Edenbridge and Tonbridge to stations North of London), or terminate at Redhill except for peak hours.

This would mean:
a - Trains to/from the Redhill route could cross to the Fasts without having to use Stoats Nest Jn, also reducing the need for a flyover/diveunder to be built into the fragile embankments at Hooley, or perhaps an eyesore at Stoats Nest, which is in the middle of Coulsdon/Purley.
b - The Redhill-Tonbridge line could easily be linked to faster services and prompt further investment in the villages along the line.
c - Redhill could receive all-night services using either the Fasts or Slows, as available - this would also add resilience during geological problems in bad weather.
d - An extra pair of tracks would be available from Earlswood to Merstham, allowing trains to queue or even wait as ECS if an incident closed lines around Gatwick.
e - The Reading-Gatwick route would be easier to access, and would not block Fasts' capacity unless an emergency occurred.

 

[RichardN]

[Clapham Junction - my fantasy remodelling...]
Yes - it wouldn't be too straightforward in that respect, but I think the site within the railway boundary is big enough, and I guess that's the major consideration in the London area...

I thought of another way which looks from Google maps to be feasible and doesn't mean moving the substation.

WLL single lead but on an inner alignment, which can be tightened a bit to the overbridge as single track into 16. Down slow routed around the outside into 17. Up slow slewed onto 15.

No conflicting routes on WLL..

 

[TheKnightWho]

Would there be scope for 110 or 125mph running if it was converted to AC overhead?

 

[B&W]

Bit ironic BR sold off the land the Southern Railway had bought for a flyover at Keymer Junc for housing.

At least the Arundel cord is being looked at. Bit of a waste of money in putting in all those extra signals on the Mid Sussex line if it is not built. (but they will have to fix the level crossing at Billingshurst first currently causing 20 mins delays)

All academic for me anyway. I now use my car and unless the trains are fitted with more comfortable seating will continue to do so in the future.

Brian

 

[Chris125]

Would there be scope for 110 or 125mph running if it was converted to AC overhead?

Almost certainly not as much of the route is not even suitable for 100mph and it would make precious little difference to journey times, capacity would likely suffer too.

Chris

 

[59CosG95]

Would there be scope for 110 or 125mph running if it was converted to AC overhead?

I'd imagine there would be south of Selhurst Jct., as it's relatively straight from there on in. Around Hooley Cutting, 110 or 100 would probably be the max, as it's quite wiggly. Otherwise, I think much of the line could be 125mph capable. Same could be said for much of the SWML west of Surbiton and south of Basingstoke.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Almost certainly not as much of the route is not even suitable for 100mph and it would make precious little difference to journey times, capacity would likely suffer too.

Chris

How much of this is down to DC capacity constraints, though? Just because the current speed limit isn't 100 doesn't mean that's because of curvature.

 

[swt_passenger]

At least the Arundel cord is being looked at. Bit of a waste of money in putting in all those extra signals on the Mid Sussex line if it is not built. (but they will have to fix the level crossing at Billingshurst first currently causing 20 mins delays)

It does explain though, as they already did in the earlier RUS, that the Arundel Chord could not be used to provide additional weekday services, because there is no terminal capacity available for them. They do acknowledge that extra trains could be run as far as Horsham:

The Arun Valley itself will be re-signalled by the late spring of 2014. This means ruling headways of around four minutes will replace some of the existing long block sections. Paths as far as Horsham therefore are likely to be available. However, to run additional trains into London via this diversion during weekday peaks, trains would then have to continue via the Horsham – Dorking – Epsom – Sutton route and rejoin the BML slow or fast lines London side of Streatham Common.

 

[Bald Rick]

Time for me to wheel out my oft quoted linespeed criteria:

There are over 80 separate things to consider to to raise a linespeed. Alignment is but one of them.

Signal spacing and track quality is the main issue on the Brighton main line. And the ability to use it within the timetable.

 

[Chrisgr31]

One issue only very briefly mentioned is the dwell time of the Uckfield Line trains in London Bridge. They comment that the 6 terminating platforms will cause issues but the fact that Uckfield Line trains have to spend 20 minutes there due to the single track cannot help.

Perhaps they should be look to see whether changes can be made to the single line so they can dwell longer at Uckfield instead

 

[neilm]

Last time I checked the land was still there for grade separation of keymer junction.

 

[infobleep]

Interesting that they don't want to run more trains to Victoria because people use Clapham Junction so much and they would have to remove it off the peak time timetable.

Head over to platforms 7; 8 and 9 and we find that they don't want to allow trains to stop at Clapham Junction because it would mean they would have to run less trains. So the exact reverse. Sounds like they don't want to change the status quo in either case.

What do people think. Should Clapham Junction be taken out of the timetable to allow more peak services? People could get a slow train to East Croydon and pick up a connecting train there. It takes less time to reach East Croydon on a slow service than Guildford or Woking, which are the alternatives for South West Trains customers. [Also Surbiton once an hour in evening peak but wouldn't want to miss connection there]

If they ran more services though, could they fit them in at East Croydon? I'm sure East Croydon is more heavily used than Surbiton, which has no greater number of services during peak than off peak from memory. Personally I find being able to get out at Clapham Junction useful so I wouldn't want them to run more services if it had to go.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[RichardN]

One issue only very briefly mentioned is the dwell time of the Uckfield Line trains in London Bridge. They comment that the 6 terminating platforms will cause issues but the fact that Uckfield Line trains have to spend 20 minutes there due to the single track cannot help.

Perhaps they should be look to see whether changes can be made to the single line so they can dwell longer at Uckfield instead

You could easily "solve" that one by routing them via Tulse Hill. Something will need to be routed that way to replace the journey opportunity peak time to Herne Hill and Elephant and Castle that will be vastly impaired when Thameslink trains via East Croydon all go via New Cross Gate.

Outside peak time, I've had a journey planner quote a journey from Herne Hill to East Croydon with changes at Tulse Hill, Crystal Palace and Norwood Junction, which must be some sort of record for such a short journey between stations where there is a direct service at certain times.

 

[thelem]

What do people think. Should Clapham Junction be taken out of the timetable to allow more peak services? People could get a slow train to East Croydon and pick up a connecting train there. It takes less time to reach East Croydon on a slow service than Guildford or Woking, which are the alternatives for South West Trains customers. [Also Surbiton once an hour in evening peak but wouldn't want to miss connection there]

Given that Clapham Junction is such an important interchange station, I'd be wary of adding another change to people's journeys, particularly as some of those journeys are a short arc avoiding London to pickup a train out of London. You'd end up with more people travelling 'Via London', paying more and using up some of the extra capacity created.

 

[evergreenadam]

One issue only very briefly mentioned is the dwell time of the Uckfield Line trains in London Bridge. They comment that the 6 terminating platforms will cause issues but the fact that Uckfield Line trains have to spend 20 minutes there due to the single track cannot help.

Perhaps they should be look to see whether changes can be made to the single line so they can dwell longer at Uckfield instead

Nor any mention of any adverse effect on line capacity caused by slower acceleration of Uckfield line DMUs between South Croydon and London Bridge. If these were operated by EMUs instead following electrification of the Uckfield branch, would it free up any paths into London Bridge in the peak?

 

[infobleep]

Given that Clapham Junction is such an important interchange station, I'd be wary of adding another change to people's journeys, particularly as some of those journeys are a short arc avoiding London to pickup a train out of London. You'd end up with more people travelling 'Via London', paying more and using up some of the extra capacity created.

Well they do from Waterloo so what's the difference, other than they don't currently do it at Victoria. Not that I'd want them to do it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Bald Rick]

Nor any mention of any adverse effect on line capacity caused by slower acceleration of Uckfield line DMUs between South Croydon and London Bridge. If these were operated by EMUs instead following electrification of the Uckfield branch, would it free up any paths into London Bridge in the peak?

In a word, no.

 

[tsr]

In a word, no.

It may not add paths or any significant extra capacity, but as you will be aware, it would quite possibly result in a small but useful amount of extra "timetable padding" (in laymans' terms).

That said, I appreciate that any reworking of the timetable in that area could well do away with such fantasies very easily...