Colwich Junction. Bottleneck?

[furnessvale]

Having spent some time near Colwich Jcn I have noticed a considerable number of both passenger and freight trains being checked or stopped by conflicting movements.

Now that Norton Bridge remodelling is well underway, should thoughts now turn to sorting out Colwich?

My dream solution would include 4 tracking from Milford to Colwich using a new twin track bore at Shugborough tunnel.

Working from north to south, this would put the up slow on the wrong side at Colwich. Part of my solution would be to leave it there until clear of Colwich and then use a single flyover before Rugeley to put it back on the east side.

Thinking even further, why not leave it "wrong side" until after Rugeley? This would make Rugeley even more attractive as an interchange with the Chase line, both for passengers and the potential use of the Chase line as a freight diversion route.

 

[The Planner]

Colwich like any major junction suffers as soon as things run out of course. As for some multi million scheme with flyovers etc don't hold your breath as if HS2 goes to Crewe early then not a lot is going to happen there. You have already disovered the problem anyway, its Shugborough more than Colwich.

 

[furnessvale]

Colwich like any major junction suffers as soon as things run out of course. As for some multi million scheme with flyovers etc don't hold your breath as if HS2 goes to Crewe early then not a lot is going to happen there. You have already disovered the problem anyway, its Shugborough more than Colwich.

Indeed I used the word Colwich to locate the area. 2 tracks Colwich to Milford are as much a problem as the up slow being on the east side causing conflicts at Colwich.

Can we wait for HS2(phase 2)? I for one will have been pushing up daisies for a good number of years when that actually sees traffic, meanwhile HS2(phase 1) will have already put even more strain on the area.

 

[The Planner]

If it goes to Crewe early then it will only be about 18 months where HS trains go through there and the timetable will be radically different anyway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It appears that the SRA gave some consideration to reconfiguring the 4 lines between Milford and Crewe (as part of working out what to do at Stafford).
This would have put the slow lines on the outside all the way from Rugby to Crewe/Winsford.
Eventually they dropped the idea because they "did not want to contemplate" the impact of doing this on the layout at Crewe.

Many man-hours and £££ went into doing the same at Stockport (Adswood-Slade Lane), and they gave up and had to pull out what they had put in (and keep the 5 manual boxes).
Reversing LNWR decisions made 125 years ago are not easy to make.

Makes you wonder what will happen at Shrewsbury when the spotlight eventually falls on that layout and the giant box.

 

[furnessvale]

It appears that the SRA gave some consideration to reconfiguring the 4 lines between Milford and Crewe (as part of working out what to do at Stafford).
This would have put the slow lines on the outside all the way from Rugby to Crewe/Winsford.
Eventually they dropped the idea because they "did not want to contemplate" the impact of doing this on the layout at Crewe.

I can see the logic of having both slow lines on the west side approaching Crewe given the yards on that side which makes my thought of a single line flyover south of Colwich, or better still Rugeley, more attractive.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

You have already disovered the problem anyway, its Shugborough more than Colwich.

Curses, you took the post from under my fingertips ...

 

[thenorthern]

From looking at the patterns of traffic over Colwich Junction I would agree that is is a bottleneck junction although not more so than Stafford Trent Valley Junction or Norton Bridge Junction. Realistically it should have been modified to a flyover in 2003 when the tass was installed but I don't think Railtrack or Network Rail predicted how many services would be using the line as there is today.

One thing that I think there should be realistically is another London Midland stopping service along the Trent Valley Line between Stafford and Nuneaton to make it half hourly although given Colwich Junction and Stafford Trent Valley Junction I can't see this happening for a long time.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorting Colwich was looked at by West Coast Route Mod in the late 90s, when the level of service using it today was well understood (indeed, it was assumed to be more than runs today). However it is a difficult one.

By far the best value solution was to bypass the area completely - the 'Stafford Cut-off'. This was developed up to early designs, but then the prospect of HS2 made it irrelevant. It is not coincidence that HS2 follows the line of the cut off fairly closely.

In any event, even if there was another solution to Colwich, and even if feasibility work started now, it wouldn't open until around the time of HS2 anyway. And persuading the planning authorities that it would be sensible with HS2 making it redundant would be practically impossible.

 

[coppercapped]

In any event, even if there was another solution to Colwich, and even if feasibility work started now, it wouldn't open until around the time of HS2 anyway. And persuading the planning authorities that it would be sensible with HS2 making it redundant would be practically impossible.

Ah! Planning blight strikes again...

 

[thenorthern]

Now that they have got rid of the Class 150s used by Central Trains/London Midland which were used until 2008 when the Chase Line Services ran through to Stafford and the Class 153/156s which were used by Central Trains until 2003 for the local Stafford to Coventry via Nuneaton services I would think that its easier to run as most trains are moving at a similar speed around there.

Nevertheless it is still a busy junction that is a bottleneck.

 

[Class 170101]

Now that they have got rid of the Class 150s used by Central Trains/London Midland which were used until 2008 when the Chase Line Services ran through to Stafford and the Class 153/156s which were used by Central Trains until 2003 for the local Stafford to Coventry via Nuneaton services I would think that its easier to run as most trains are moving at a similar speed around there.

Don't forget the slower freight trains.

Toal speed range probably anything between a Class 6 60mph freight and a 125mph Class 1 Pendolino / Super Voyager.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would it be possible to grade separate the lines at Colwich Junction by building a new junction to the south so that there'd no longer be Fast and Slow lines, instead you'd have e.g. Stoke line and Stafford line?

 

[The Planner]

Anything is possible but with HS2 there, as several of our posts have said, nothing fancy will happen. You need to bear in mind that the HS2 Handsacre junction has the lines arriving on the current fasts on a flyover so splitting by direction is even less likely.

 

[Senex]

Will Colwich to Stone (and thus the junction at Colwich) even survive the coming of HS2? Its principal function is to make sure that Manchester trains get the best possible times even when routed via Stoke, so if the fast Manchester traffic is all on HS2, would Stoke alone justify retention or would Stoke traffic go via Stafford and the new layout at Norton Bridge? (This is an option that has been very seriously considered at least once before.)

 

[The Planner]

It will survive, regardless of any proposition NR and the operators would block it.

 

[DarloRich]

Will Colwich to Stone (and thus the junction at Colwich) even survive the coming of HS2? Its principal function is to make sure that Manchester trains get the best possible times even when routed via Stoke, so if the fast Manchester traffic is all on HS2, would Stoke alone justify retention or would Stoke traffic go via Stafford and the new layout at Norton Bridge? (This is an option that has been very seriously considered at least once before.)

surely it is best, from an operational flexibility angle, to keep it open?

 

[snowball]

The council and population of Stoke, already miffed by the bypassing of the city by HS2, woulk kick up an enormous stink at any proposal to close Colwich to Stone.

 

[furnessvale]

The council and population of Stoke, already miffed by the bypassing of the city by HS2, woulk kick up an enormous stink at any proposal to close Colwich to Stone.

Indeed. I thought the purpose of HS2 was to INCREASE capacity, not facilitate the closure of existing railways.

 

[The Planner]

Don't get drawn into some conspiracy theory about HS2 meaning that Colwich Stone will get closed, it is in no ones plans to do that.

 

[QueensCurve]

Having spent some time near Colwich Jcn I have noticed a considerable number of both passenger and freight trains being checked or stopped by conflicting movements.

Now that Norton Bridge remodelling is well underway, should thoughts now turn to sorting out Colwich?

My dream solution would include 4 tracking from Milford to Colwich using a new twin track bore at Shugborough tunnel.

Working from north to south, this would put the up slow on the wrong side at Colwich. Part of my solution would be to leave it there until clear of Colwich and then use a single flyover before Rugeley to put it back on the east side.

Thinking even further, why not leave it "wrong side" until after Rugeley? This would make Rugeley even more attractive as an interchange with the Chase line, both for passengers and the potential use of the Chase line as a freight diversion route.

There are two problems at Colwich as far as I can see.

1. The Down Stone crosses the Up Fast on the flat
2. The Down Fast and Slow were tranposed as part of the TV4 Project

Originally the Down Fast was on the West side of the formation and went straight onto the Down Stafford. The Fast Lines were put in between the Slow lines for Consistency with the TV4 south of Rugely.

What is worse is that the Down Main is now a 65mph turnout (originally only 50mph) whereas previously Down Fast to Down Stafford trains could pass unchecked at 90mph. This surely is a retrograde step.

Ironically, trains on the Down Fast to Down Stone route have to slow just beyond the juction (45mph???) in any case.

A simplification could be made without much loss of capacity by trailing the Down Slow into the Down Fast south of Colwich then realigning the Down Fast onto the Down Stafford and making the Stone route a turnout just south of the diamond.

A further irony is that the Down Fast being anomalously on the West side of the formation is still the case at the Rugby end.

 

[The Planner]

But doesnt your simplification remove parallel down moves at the junction? Would never get anywhere and I am not sure what else they could have done but transpose the lines as part of the 4 tracking?

 

[Senex]

Originally the Down Fast was on the West side of the formation and went straight onto the Down Stafford.

They were paired by direction until the EML electrification (1966) and it was at that stage that the down fast and down slow were swapped around. The idea was explained to me at the time by one of those responsible: down Manchester trains would turn slow line at Armitage and could then be held on that line at Colwich clear of the down Stafford if there were a conflicting movement. Although there was always the 45mph down fast to down slow crossover at Colwich, that was not at the start the normal route for Manchester trains. As you say, there were swapped again (in fact back to their original state) on completion of the Trent Valley widening.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

You'd only need to build a single flyover line two miles long on the south / west side of the junction (around Colwich) to connect the Down TV Slow to the Down Main, retain the Down / Down facer and then connect the Down TVF to the Down Fast beyond the junction. Then you can recover the dratted diamond and have a good sort out.

Simples.