Coventry Improvements

[TomJ93]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...esponses/c/coventry transport users forum.pdf

As good as it is that NR come up with these plans, I find that the people who come up with them are 'detached' and have no idea about the true nature of the problems/desires of the place they are planning for, other than numbers and statistics.

Say the big pot of money was available, I would have Kenilworth and the Ricoh built. The tunnel for the line to cross the WCML trunk at Nuneaton would be built. This would enable trains to/from Leicester to it's marginally bigger neighbour directly. This service would be run by LM with Turbostars. If possible it would be extended to Oxford, if not Banbury will do. Oxford may not be possible due to a 168 in future having dominance over it's bay platform, though another could be built.

All XC's Reading trains would as NR recommended come from Southampton, and go via Coventry. As suggested Arriva's 158s will be more than welcome into Coventry's shiny new bay. This will free up a platform at Birmingham International, thus allowing a Pendonlino to overtake if needed at International, something which is not currently possible most of the time due to congestion there (Mainly due to the International-New Street shuttle and Arriva) taking up a platform each at the station. If possible this 323 would occupy Coventry's bay when the 158 has gone.

Currently there is a problem at Coventry, two trains currently use the station to idle in whilst awaiting their return journeys. My extension of the Nuneaton service rids this problem (and the frankly stupid work of putting it in P1 and having a VT come into P2, especially when they were on strike, the 153 spent all day there!) Our friends at NR have also extended the 350 shuttle service that took up P4 to Northampton and joined it up with a Euston service, thereby creating another through train.

I accept some very tight planning will be needed in order to enable this, a siding will be created (possibly north of Beechwood tunnel?) on each line to enable a unit to be cleared of the line if needed, every train bar the 158s have regular class mates coming through the line which should be able to move the failed unit into the siding and out of the way were it unable to do it under it's own power.

Chiltern would get the metals north of Leam to themselves and LM without having to worry about AXC slotting in, more LM trains can run to Leamington with the 172s hopefully then. Whilst the 9 car Voyagers which are well liked by passengers will be able to suck more juice through their Pantograph cars!

Coventry to Nuneaton would also be electrified, allowing more flexibility in the West Coast accounting for problems, could this be joined to the Nuneaton to Birmingham section to allow Voyagers to circumvent a blockage at International? If my peak 2x3 car 170s can't handle the pressure, Coventry to Leamington could be strung up allowing 323s to operate another service serving "Bedurthh", the Ricoh, Kenilworth and Leamington.

With all this Coventry would become a mighty hub for movements within the Midlands, allowing more XC passengers to avoid a change at BHM. Whilst providing a catalyst for growth in a city that has seen more job losses over the years than most.

Thoughts?

(The Planner, would this work? )

 

[western Champion]

a siding will be created (possibly north of Beechwood tunnel?)

You could always put Tile Hill loop back in !!!!

When I worked locals I was forever in there waiting for expresses to pass by.

Now I work the expresses I have to follow locals. Some would call it progress !

 

[The Planner]

The tunnel for the line to cross the WCML trunk at Nuneaton would be built. This would enable trains to/from Leicester to it's marginally bigger neighbour directly. This service would be run by LM with Turbostars. If possible it would be extended to Oxford, if not Banbury will do. Oxford may not be possible due to a 168 in future having dominance over it's bay platform, though another could be built.

So you would run Cov to Leicester missing out Nuneaton ? no TOC would do that. It might have a small use for freight but not very much. The bays at Oxford won't be accessible from the Banbury direction, they will be purely Chiltern only. You would need a really crappy shunt at Banbury to terminate from the north too, will probably be fixed when it is re-signalled but not yet.

All XC's Reading trains would as NR recommended come from Southampton, and go via Coventry. As suggested Arriva's 158s will be more than welcome into Coventry's shiny new bay. This will free up a platform at Birmingham International, thus allowing a Pendonlino to overtake if needed at International, something which is not currently possible most of the time due to congestion there (Mainly due to the International-New Street shuttle and Arriva) taking up a platform each at the station. If possible this 323 would occupy Coventry's bay when the 158 has gone.

Why ? The Arriva is there for 22 minutes in the hour in platform 1 and causes no hassle. You couldn't get it to Cov and back in time for its return journey. Also the bay is purely for the Nuneaton line, Ive seen no plans to suggest it would be possible to use it from Birmingham.

It is also far from congested at International and Im not sure why you would need to overtake anything. The New St stopper arrives at xx.55 and goes back out at xx.17 so there is only 14 minutes in the hour where P1 and 3 are blocked.

Currently there is a problem at Coventry, two trains currently use the station to idle in whilst awaiting their return journeys. My extension of the Nuneaton service rids this problem (and the frankly stupid work of putting it in P1 and having a VT come into P2, especially when they were on strike, the 153 spent all day there!)

The bay mentioned above removes that issue and Virgin only want to use P1 as the first class lounge is there.

Our friends at NR have also extended the 350 shuttle service that took up P4 to Northampton and joined it up with a Euston service, thereby creating another through train.

LM wanted that, we just made sure it could work.

I accept some very tight planning will be needed in order to enable this, a siding will be created (possibly north of Beechwood tunnel?) on each line to enable a unit to be cleared of the line if needed, every train bar the 158s have regular class mates coming through the line which should be able to move the failed unit into the siding and out of the way were it unable to do it under it's own power.

Can't see a need for a siding at all, if the Nuneaton service sat in the bay or continued on and the LM is going on to Northampton, nothing sits in the platforms ??

Chiltern would get the metals north of Leam to themselves and LM without having to worry about AXC slotting in, more LM trains can run to Leamington with the 172s hopefully then.

Not convinced that taking the XC path out gives you a lot without researching the graph.

Coventry to Nuneaton would also be electrified, allowing more flexibility in the West Coast accounting for problems, could this be joined to the Nuneaton to Birmingham section to allow Voyagers to circumvent a blockage at International?

You would be better off just wiring Nuneaton to Brum, Pendo's would then miss Cov and International and if required either stop at Nuneaton or Rugby and get people off there for Cov as you would have the space to dump 350s and turn them around there.

 

[Trog]

The tunnel for the line to cross the WCML trunk at Nuneaton would be built.

I thought that bridge was only removed a couple of years ago?

...a siding will be created (possibly north of Beechwood tunnel?) on each line to enable a unit to be cleared of the line if needed.

Does the disuse of the existing siding at Berkswell not suggest that this is not a useful facility?

 

[Dreadnought]

I didn't think there was much capacity available between Cov and New St now without adding in an additional XC service every hour as well.

Also, the XC routed via SOL departs BHM at 33, the same time that a LM service departs to NMP (and beyond) so one of these would need to be replanned!

 

[The Planner]

The XC would move as it would get into New St later on the northbound leg anyway.

 

[Dreadnought]

The XC would move as it would get into New St later on the northbound leg anyway.

Looking at NRE from Leamington journey times are 35 mins via SOL and 36 mins via COV so in theory should not make a difference.

Altough in the southbound direction it is 25 mins via SOL versus 33 mins via COV.

Also, as these services come from Manchester or Newcastle then I would expect them to still get to New St at the times they do now.

 

[The Planner]

Bare running times with no trains anywhere near it would be 23½ via Solihull and 27½ via Cov non-stop. Add in Cov and International stops then it makes it longer. You are also assuming that once you get to Cov northbound you get a clean run to New St. The only reason it is similar at the moment is that the Solihull route trains get hammered by LMs on the approach to Tyseley.

 

[Batman]

Re-double Coventry to Leamington and new stations at Kenilworth and Richo are the only realistic proposals I can think of for the Coventry area. Those should be done as HS2 spin off projects if the government committs to funding them.

The Coventry - Nuneaton service could be converted to light rail using ex-manchester metrolink stock with a 4 tph frequency and new stations at Radford Road, Bermuda and possibly Exhall in adition to Richo and Bedworth. I wouldn't link Coventry services back to the East Midlands because the RUS already talks about increasing the Birmingham - Leicester service to 3tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I didn't think there was much capacity available between Cov and New St now without adding in an additional XC service every hour as well.

Also, the XC routed via SOL departs BHM at 33, the same time that a LM service departs to NMP (and beyond) so one of these would need to be replanned!

I believe I've mentioned this elsewhere as a possible long term solution to that problem:

All times are ex New Street in the Coventry direction.

xx04 - Birmingham International, Coventry, than onto Bournmouth.

xx10 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Watford Junction, London Esuton.

xx13 - Marston Green, Birmingham International, Hampton in Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill Canly, Coventry.

xx16 - Adderley Park, Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green, Birmingham International.

xx30 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston.

xx33 - Birmingham International, Coventry, then onto Reading.

xx36 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Long Buckby, Northampton.

xx39 - Birmingham International.

xx50 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, London Euston.

xx53 - Birmingham International, Hampton in Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill Canly,
Coventry then onto London Euston.

xx56 - Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green, Birmingham International.

 

[The Planner]

Where is the Arriva from Holyhead/Aberystwth in that, xx.39 ?? and the xx.04 would catch the xx.56 local.

 

[Batman]

Where is the Arriva from Holyhead/Aberystwth in that, xx.39 ?? and the xx.04 would catch the xx.56 local.

The Arriva service is at xx39. The xx56 stopping service would arrive at Birmingham International 2 minutes before the Bournmouth service, so that may create one or two problems. Since that is a Manchester - Bournmouth service, it would operate under electric power as far as Coventry under IEP. That may allow it to make up time between Birmingham International and Coventry, althought the timings will still be tight.

Also, the reason why the xx36 service runs fast is because I'm not sure how well this service fits in with West Coast paths at Rugby. If it could be timed to run 4 or 5 minutes later from Coventry to Northampton, I would remove the Marston Green stop on the xx16 service and add extra stops at Marston Green and Tile Hill on the xx36 service to give Marston Green and Tile Hill a near even 20 minute service.

 

[TomJ93]

So you would run Cov to Leicester missing out Nuneaton ? no TOC would do that. It might have a small use for freight but not very much. The bays at Oxford won't be accessible from the Banbury direction, they will be purely Chiltern only. You would need a really crappy shunt at Banbury to terminate from the north too, will probably be fixed when it is re-signalled but not yet.



Why ? The Arriva is there for 22 minutes in the hour in platform 1 and causes no hassle. You couldn't get it to Cov and back in time for its return journey. Also the bay is purely for the Nuneaton line, Ive seen no plans to suggest it would be possible to use it from Birmingham.

It is also far from congested at International and Im not sure why you would need to overtake anything. The New St stopper arrives at xx.55 and goes back out at xx.17 so there is only 14 minutes in the hour where P1 and 3 are blocked.

The bay mentioned above removes that issue and Virgin only want to use P1 as the first class lounge is there.

LM wanted that, we just made sure it could work.



Can't see a need for a siding at all, if the Nuneaton service sat in the bay or continued on and the LM is going on to Northampton, nothing sits in the platforms ??



Not convinced that taking the XC path out gives you a lot without researching the graph.

You would be better off just wiring Nuneaton to Brum, Pendo's would then miss Cov and International and if required either stop at Nuneaton or Rugby and get people off there for Cov as you would have the space to dump 350s and turn them around there.

Sorry Nuneaton would be served, as a high level or a low level (sub surface would work well, though has it been done anywhere before?)

Seriously? Nowhere to sit in Banbury for 20 minutes? Surely the Arriva unit can be changed? Maybe also extended to Banbury (were it possible) to provide Wales with a better link to London (as Arriva wanted due to WSMR competition?) Seeing as this bay is hypothetical, it could be made accessible to the WCML, what are the most advance plans I can look at for this bay?

 

[The Planner]

The Arriva service is at xx39. The xx56 stopping service would arrive at Birmingham International 2 minutes before the Bournmouth service, so that may create one or two problems.

We wouldn't allow it, it would have to be padded out to arrive 4 minutes after. The following EBW would be right up it's backside but it would work.

Also, the reason why the xx36 service runs fast is because I'm not sure how well this service fits in with West Coast paths at Rugby.

Shouldn't cause a problem unless a freight is about but you could move it out the way without too much hassle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry Nuneaton would be served, as a high level or a low level (sub surface would work well, though has it been done anywhere before?)

That would be a fair way from the station itself, in effect a seperate station.

Seriously? Nowhere to sit in Banbury for 20 minutes? Surely the Arriva unit can be changed? Maybe also extended to Banbury (were it possible) to provide Wales with a better link to London (as Arriva wanted due to WSMR competition?)

Im confused now, I thought the Arriva was going to Cov ?? if it was going to Banbury you would need more 158s.

Seeing as this bay is hypothetical, it could be made accessible to the WCML, what are the most advance plans I can look at for this bay?

Nothing in the public domain that I know of. It would involve a fair bit of re-modelling of the north end of the station to make it accessible from the WCML and that is never going to happen since it was re-signalled only a few years ago.

 

[TomJ93]

I did want the 158s to go to Coventry, but they could always continue onwards were more stock available, where is this bay planned to be? I'm thinking where the sidings are, which makes me think the WCML would be easily connected to it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Funding was indentified for improvements at Coventry station, (see here) so that explains the new flowers!

 

[The Planner]

The bay would be at the end of the sidings alongside the car park, and believe me, they won't spend the cash connecting it to the WCML.

 

[Batman]

We wouldn't allow it, it would have to be padded out to arrive 4 minutes after. The following EBW would be right up it's backside but it would work.



Shouldn't cause a problem unless a freight is about but you could move it out the way without too much hassle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So it would need a radical rethink of the Birmingham - Coventry stopping pattern. I'll have to think about that and post an alternative.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We wouldn't allow it, it would have to be padded out to arrive 4 minutes after. The following EBW would be right up it's backside but it would work.



Shouldn't cause a problem unless a freight is about but you could move it out the way without too much hassle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So it would need a radical rethink of the Birmingham - Coventry stopping pattern. I'll have to think about that and post an alternative.

Here's a solution.

The xx07 Birmingham New Street to Walsall/Rugeley Trent Valley service could depart from platform 7 at New Street at xx12 (like the 18:12 currently does). This would have little effect on Chase Line services appart from replacing a 4 minute layover at Walsall with an extended 9 minute layover at New Street.

The Bournmouth service could then depart New Street at xx06, arriving at Birmingham International 4 minutes after the xx56 local service and 4 minutes before the xx10 Virgin service. But this ould of course add 2 minutes onto journey times that would need to be made up further down the line. And it would lose oven more time if you add a stop at Kenilworth.

 

[Buttsy]

Seriously? Nowhere to sit in Banbury for 20 minutes? Surely the Arriva unit can be changed? Maybe also extended to Banbury (were it possible) to provide Wales with a better link to London (as Arriva wanted due to WSMR competition?) Seeing as this bay is hypothetical, it could be made accessible to the WCML, what are the most advance plans I can look at for this bay?

Banbury used to have a north facing bay in the down side island.

 

[Dreadnought]

Banbury used to have a north facing bay in the down side island.

The bay is still there, I'm sure I have seen Chiltern units stabled in it this year. Not numbered anymore according to the NRE map though so presumably not used for passenger services at the moment!

 

[The Planner]

You can't get to it from the up direction though.

 

[Lineside]

They really need to seriously think about doubling the line through Kenilworth...it's been on the cards for too long now. In this day and age a route with important IC traffic such as this one (Birmingham - Coventry - Oxford - South Coast) still being single track beggars belief. Surely it isn't that expensive, either that or it's never been considered a priority.

 

[Batman]

Here's a solution.

The xx07 Birmingham New Street to Walsall/Rugeley Trent Valley service could depart from platform 7 at New Street at xx12 (like the 18:12 currently does). This would have little effect on Chase Line services appart from replacing a 4 minute layover at Walsall with an extended 9 minute layover at New Street.

The Bournmouth service could then depart New Street at xx06, arriving at Birmingham International 4 minutes after the xx56 local service and 4 minutes before the xx10 Virgin service. But this ould of course add 2 minutes onto journey times that would need to be made up further down the line. And it would lose oven more time if you add a stop at Kenilworth.

Here's a more simple solution that I should have thought of earlier.

xx04 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Kenilworth, Leamington, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton Airport Parway, Southampton Central, Brokenhurst, Borunmouth.

xx10 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Watford Junction, London Euston.

xx13 - Birmingham International, Hampton in Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill, Canley, Coventry.

xx16 - Addderley Park, Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green, Birmingham International.

xx30 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston.

xx33 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Kenilworth, Leamington, Banbury, Oxford, Reading.

xx36 - Marston Green, Birmingham International, Hampton in Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill, Canley, Coventry, Rugby, Long Buckby, Northampton.

xx39 - Birmingham International.

xx50 - Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, London Euston.

xx53 - Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green, Birmingham International, Tile Hill, Coventry, Rugby, Long Buckby, Northampton, Wolverton, Milton Keynes Central, Bletchley, Leighton Buzzard, Berkhampstead, Hemel Hempstead, Watford Junction, London Euston.

Again, the only problem may be the xx36 Northampton service. I'm not sure if it would still have a path at Rugby if it departs New Street 3 minutes later and makes additional stops at Berkswell and Canley?

I've worked out platform allocations for these services at New Street with knock on effects for other services.

I also have a rough idea of platform allocations at New Steet for all services if all the projects in the RUS.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I also have a rough idea of platform allocations at New Steet for all services if all the projects in the RUS.

I've just noticed a flaw in my platform alocation model.

It could easily be rectified if the east facing bay on the southside of platform 12 at New Street could be brought into use for passenger trains. I believe it was used years ago for loading mail trains but has not been used for many years now.

It would need to be used for 7 minutes every hour by the xx22 Stanstead Airport service.

Is it realistically possible for that to happen?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've just noticed a flaw in my platform alocation model.

It could easily be rectified if the east facing bay on the southside of platform 12 at New Street could be brought into use for passenger trains. I believe it was used years ago for loading mail trains but has not been used for many years now.

It would need to be used for 7 minutes every hour by the xx22 Stanstead Airport service.

Is it realistically possible for that to happen?

Another correction, I've now got my platform allocation model to work without the need for additional platforms at New Street. It pushes New Street to it's absolute capacity limit though.

 

[The Planner]

The xx.39 being that close to the Northampton (which it is now but 3 earlier) means he gets pathed out on the approach to International. It would cause a clash with the xx.53 EBW from International.

 

[Batman]

The xx.39 being that close to the Northampton (which it is now but 3 earlier) means he gets pathed out on the approach to International. It would cause a clash with the xx.53 EBW from International.

The Arriva service to International runs 3 minutes behind a Northampton service at the moment, even with the Northampton train stopping at Marston Green.

 

[The Planner]

I know it does and that's what I said ! but you clash with the Pendo coming the other way as you cross into 1.

 

[Batman]

I know it does and that's what I said ! but you clash with the Pendo coming the other way as you cross into 1.

Simple solution. The Arriva train uses platform 5. There will be no clashes as it crosses back over to the Birmingham line at xx09.

I've also got the New Street - International shuttle using platform 5. That will depart International at xx48, arriving at New Street at xx05, ready to form the xx16 service back to International, arriving on platform 5 at xx34.

There should be no clashes, correct me if I'm wrong.

I've worked out the timings based on the current hourly New Street - International shuttle with an extra 2 minutes added on to each journet to account for the extra stop at Marston Green.

 

[The Planner]

Signallers don't like using 5 to terminate trains, we also don't plan it either and you can't do it all day anyway as there are certain times when freight is booked in.

 

[Batman]

Signallers don't like using 5 to terminate trains, we also don't plan it either and you can't do it all day anyway as there are certain times when freight is booked in.

Ok, that throws a few spanners in the works.

I don't really know International too well.

So how many freight trains per hour get overtaken at International?

 

[The Planner]

It is sporadic, but if something is running out of course then having P5 blocked is a pain in the backside.

 

[Batman]

It is sporadic, but if something is running out of course then having P5 blocked is a pain in the backside.

Platform 5 will only be in use between xx34 and xx09. So there will still be over 20 minutes in each hour for freight to use platform 5.

Am I correct in saying there is a cross over immidiateley to the north of the platforms, crossing over between the lines on platforms 3 and 4?

If a smilar cross over sould be built to the south of the platforms, then a possible operating senario could be:

The 2tph which terminate at International use platform 4 instead of 5.

A southbound freight train that needs to be overtaken by a pendo waits on platform 5.

The pendo crosses over onto platform 3 to call at International, and crosses back over to the Coventry line immidiateley after leaving the station.

Any northbound services would call on either platforms 1 or 2.

May need some re-signaling to make platform 3 bi-directional.

 

[The Planner]

Would nail you for 2 minutes minimum on the up through 3, Virgin would tell you where to go with that one.