Draft Anglia route study published

[snowball]

Draft Anglia route study published for consultation

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...s-for-growth-in-the-east-of-England-2190.aspx

Among the potential options for the Great Eastern main line identified in the study are:

To support the Great Eastern Main Line Taskforce's aspiration to reduce journey times between London and Norwich to 90 minutes, work is proposed to increase the line speed between Shenfield to Norwich to 110mph by upgrading track, signalling and overhead line equipment. Network Rail will also continue its work to close level crossings where it can to make the railway safer and increase linespeeds.
Additional platforms at Liverpool Street to increase capacity
Further upgrading signalling technology which means more trains can run on the existing network
Doubling of Trowse swing bridge – this would help towards increasing capacity from Norwich to London as well as from Norwich to Cambridge
Installing a loop (new track) at Haughley Junction and Witham to separate passenger and freight services to help achieve faster journey times between London and Norwich
Further doubling of the Felixstowe branch line to accommodate the forecast increase in freight services

Among the potential options for the West Anglia main line identified in the study are:

Longer trains on the West Anglia Main Line. This would require platform extensions across this part of the network
Journey time improvements on the West Anglia Main Line
Other options include, adding two extra tracks to the West Anglia Main Line south of Broxbourne to increase capacity and doubling the single line tunnel to Stansted Airport

Among the potential options for the line from Fenchurch Street identified in the study are:

Adding extra carriages to existing services to meet passenger demand
Further upgrades at Fenchurch Street station to cope with passenger demand

The Anglia route study also looks at potential options to increase capacity on the North London Line and the line from Gospel Oak to Barking. These include additional platforms at either Gospel Oak or Barking and running longer trains on the North London line.

 

[Searle]

I'm interested to hear where the new platforms at Liverpool Street will be, considering it's already huge and underground!

 

[chubs]

I'd be interested in what the drivers / guards who do the route think (as there are some very knowledgeable ones on here), rather than a certain MP who just likes her name in the paper a lot.

Seems like a lot of potential work before Norwich in 90 ever becomes a reality.

 

[Johnny_w]

Trowse swing bring can't be much of a problem as it's so small anyways?

 

[CdBrux]

anticipated costs of many things seem to be between £35M & £75M!

 

[TheEdge]

Trowse swing bring can't be much of a problem as it's so small anyways?

It can be a remarkable bottleneck. The best example is around xx:30. There is xx:27 arrival from London, the xx:30 arrival from Cambridge and then the xx:30 departure to London.

Often if the xx:27 is late in the Cambridge will be held at Trowse Junction to allow it into Norwich. The Cambridge is then let in and if the xx:27 was late enough the Cambridge can delay the xx:30 departure on the Norwich side of the bridge.

Then chuck in other moves that can happen, EMT, AGA ECS workings to Ipswich, AGA moves to Ilford, DVT/Mk3 and 90 refurbs, RHTTs, the Walsham tanks, stone trains. It really can be an issue.

 

[Aictos]

Further doubling of the Felixstowe branch line to accommodate the forecast increase in freight services

This needs doing ASAP as the reliability of this branch line isn't as good as it should be,hopefully dualling it more will help.

Additional platforms at Liverpool Street to increase capacity

Umm, where? I thought Liverpool Street was busy enough as it was? Where are these new platforms going?

Other options include, adding two extra tracks to the West Anglia Main Line south of Broxbourne to increase capacity and doubling the single line tunnel to Stansted Airport

Is there the room to do this to provide the extra two tracks and also was the tunnel at Stansted built for dualling in the future or will a new tunnel be needed?

Also, IF and WHEN they do complete the extra two tracks on the WAML, I'm not sure how the layout is but....

Could not two tracks be used for stoppers and two tracks be used for expresses?

 

[Bald Rick]

Further doubling of the Felixstowe branch line to accommodate the forecast increase in freight services

This needs doing ASAP as the reliability of this branch line isn't as good as it should be,hopefully dualling it more will help.

Additional platforms at Liverpool Street to increase capacity

Umm, where? I thought Liverpool Street was busy enough as it was? Where are these new platforms going?

Other options include, adding two extra tracks to the West Anglia Main Line south of Broxbourne to increase capacity and doubling the single line tunnel to Stansted Airport

Is there the room to do this to provide the extra two tracks and also was the tunnel at Stansted built for dualling in the future or will a new tunnel be needed?

Also, IF and WHEN they do complete the extra two tracks on the WAML, I'm not sure how the layout is but....

Could not two tracks be used for stoppers and two tracks be used for expresses?

Liverpool St - there is space between the current P10 and P11. Indeed space was left for the approach tracks in the immediate throat when the over site development was built.

WAML. Yes there is space for most of the way. It is quite a job though. Principle is that two will be non stop, 2 will be for stoppers that eventually ends up as Crossrail2.

Stansted - it's a new tunnel. But space was left for it.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Further doubling of the Felixstowe branch line to accommodate the forecast increase in freight services

?

What about re-opening Beach ?

 

[jopsuk]

there's pretty much no chance of that happening

 

[VauxhallandI]

LIVERPOOL ST

I believe there is some excess room buried beyond Platform 1, we just need to lose a branch on Toni & Guy which is no shame

 

[ironstone11]

Additional platforms at Liverpool Street to increase capacity

Umm, where? I thought Liverpool Street was busy enough as it was? Where are these new platforms going?

According to the Draft Anglia Route Study referred to above there will be fewer platforms at Liverpool St.

2.4.4
Following the introduction of Crossrail services, the
number of platforms at London Liverpool Street station will reduce
from 18 to 17. This is to enable platforms 16 and 17 to be
lengthened to accommodate Crossrail trains; platform 18 will be
taken out of commission.

 

[MarkyT]

It can be a remarkable bottleneck. The best example is around xx:30. There is xx:27 arrival from London, the xx:30 arrival from Cambridge and then the xx:30 departure to London.

Although the line redoubles briefly between Trowse and Norwich station, the length available is only a little greater than the standage required for a full length London express. This means that any such incoming movement that has to be held, however briefly, at the station home signal, takes an especially long time to clear the single line to rear, as its tail is passing very slowly through the single to double junction whilst the driver approaches the signal cautiously. Although careful planning, the bidirectional signalling on both roads and the flexibility of the throat junctions can help to reduce the likelyhood of trains approaching a red, that particular manoeuvre merely illustrates the general problem having such a major constraint, no matter how short the single track section is, at such a tight, slow and busy site.

 

[Stats]

I'm interested to hear where the new platforms at Liverpool Street will be, considering it's already huge and underground!

There are 4 options for additional platforms at Liverpool St
1. Platform 0 in the shopping area to the west side of the station
2. 3 additional platforms between P10 and 11
3. Remodelling P1 to 10 to provide 3 additional 12 car platforms or 2 extra 12 car and 2 10 car platforms
4. A new additional terminus on land next to Shoreditch High St station

 

[CockneySparrow]

What about re-opening Beach ?

No chance, for one there is no need and two it will be a logistical nightmare

 

[dk1]

There have been talks for a couple of years of a new two track fixed bridge at Trowse. there is no reason for it to swing anymore as all previous docks & wharfs have closed & are now occupied by retail/trendy appartments.

 

[Class 170101]

There have been talks for a couple of years of a new two track fixed bridge at Trowse. there is no reason for it to swing anymore as all previous docks & wharfs have closed & are now occupied by retail/trendy appartments.

But I bet if NR threatened to take it away and fix the bridge down there would be complaints appearing out of the woodwork like there is no tomorrow.

 

[dk1]

But I bet if NR threatened to take it away and fix the bridge down there would be complaints appearing out of the woodwork like there is no tomorrow.

I know, pathetic isnt it? This is for the good of the whole region, not just the very succesfull City of Norwich. There where several ripples a few years back when NR welded the rails to stop swinging the bridge as the fines to the river authority where peanuts compared to those paid to the train companies. Believe it or not the only water traffic inconvenienced, apart from those too lazy to lower masts, where the Sea Scouts who wanted to swap training ships.

 

[Chris125]

To simplify things, this is the summary for CP6:

Great Eastern Main Line (including cross-country freight)

0.4.2 In order to meet the conditional outputs GECO1, GECO2, GECO3, and F2NCO1, a range of options are presented to funders.
These include:
• additional platform capacity at Liverpool Street
• headway reductions between Chelmsford and Stratford
• provision of a passing loop at Haughley Junction
• doubling of Trowse swing bridge
• headway reductions on the Bury St Edmunds line
• further doubling of the Felixstowe branch
• further doubling between Ely and Soham
• level crossing closures at Ely
• increased linespeeds to at least 110 mph between Shenfield and Norwich
• provision of a passing loop north of Witham.

West Anglia Main Line

0.4.3 In order to meet the conditional outputs WACO1 and WACO3, the options presented to funders are:
• platform lengthening to 12-cars at 18 stations
• increases in linespeeds up to 100 mph.

Further journey time improvements on services to
Cambridge and Stansted Airport would depend on the ability to
separate fast trains from slow trains south of Broxbourne. This is
likely to require an additional pair of tracks between Broxbourne
and Tottenham Hale, the cost of which, however, may not be
justified by journey time improvements alone.

Additional benefits (and funding streams) would need to be captured, such
as the connectivity and capacity improvements proposed by the Crossrail
2 project or the need for additional capacity triggered by
development in the Lea Valley. Some early enabling works are
presented as options for CP6 including level crossing removal and
land purchase.

North London Line and Gospel Oak-Barking Line

0.4.5 To meet the conditional outputs CLC01 and CLFCO1, it is
the route study’s assessment that the extra capacity planned for
CP5 will be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand up
to the end of CP6, for both passenger and freight services.

0.4.6 Despite this the study sets out several schemes that would
support resilience on the routes in particular in relation to the mix of
freight and passenger traffic. This are noted in the longer term
sections below, but depending on the growth in freight traffic from
North Thameside during CP5 and CP6 may be required earlier.

Essex Thameside

0.4.7 In order to meet the conditional outputs ETCO1 and ETCFO1, the following options are proposed:
• lengthening from 8-cars to 12-cars of 8 trains in the three-hour morning peak
• works to improve passenger circulation at Fenchurch Street.

0.4.8 There is adequate capacity to meet the forecast demand
for freight services up to the end of CP6.

Chris

 

[chubs]

I know, pathetic isnt it? This is for the good of the whole region, not just the very succesfull City of Norwich. There where several ripples a few years back when NR welded the rails to stop swinging the bridge as the fines to the river authority where peanuts compared to those paid to the train companies. Believe it or not the only water traffic inconvenienced, apart from those too lazy to lower masts, where the Sea Scouts who wanted to swap training ships.

So can the bridge actually be swung at the moment then?

It's like the other bridges along the river in Norwich, they're all equipped to open But I've never seen it happen.

I've never seen the Sea scouts boat move either, always assumed it was static like it's floating restaurant neighbour!

 

[W230]

It's like the other bridges along the river in Norwich, they're all equipped to open But I've never seen it happen.

I remember seeing Carrow Bridge open over the Wensum one day. Admittedly it was back in the late 80's...

 

[w0033944]

It can be a remarkable bottleneck. The best example is around xx:30. There is xx:27 arrival from London, the xx:30 arrival from Cambridge and then the xx:30 departure to London.

Often if the xx:27 is late in the Cambridge will be held at Trowse Junction to allow it into Norwich. The Cambridge is then let in and if the xx:27 was late enough the Cambridge can delay the xx:30 departure on the Norwich side of the bridge.

Then chuck in other moves that can happen, EMT, AGA ECS workings to Ipswich, AGA moves to Ilford, DVT/Mk3 and 90 refurbs, RHTTs, the Walsham tanks, stone trains. It really can be an issue.

I mentioned Trowse Swing Bridge a while back and was informed that it presented no difficulty at all - I must admit I was doubtful at the time.

 

[dk1]

So can the bridge actually be swung at the moment then?

It's like the other bridges along the river in Norwich, they're all equipped to open But I've never seen it happen.

I've never seen the Sea scouts boat move either, always assumed it was static like it's floating restaurant neighbour!

Don't think Trowse Bridge can actually swing at the moment. Its never been very happy since it was lifted with the jacks still in when brand new in 1986.

All the money spent on those two swinging footbridges, such a waste of money.

The Sea Scout ships are navigable & where last changed over a few years ago.

 

[Class 170101]

I thought Trowse Bridge was an issue with a computer not doing its job.


From the quick glance I had of the report there seemed to be little for Norwich to Cambridge which always seems to be proposed to run half hourly.

As for the Ipswich to Pterborough service going hourly as a shuttle like that is it really needed if it becomes part of a hourly service attaching at Ely?

 

[chubs]

Surely without some new DMUs that can never happen?

Agree about the 2 footbridges entirely. One of them (think novi Sad bridge) has had its floor level lighting all covered over very poorly with tarmac, which makes it looks so shoddy.

 

[Class 170101]

Surely without some new DMUs that can never happen?

Depends on electrification elsewhere I would suggest, but didn't the report also mention something about wiring Ipswich to Nuneaton which may well release DMUs anyway.

 

[Pugwash]

No mention of Chelmsford North which seems odd given planning permission granted.

Also for my mind would seem worthwhile electrifying the Felixstowe branch line when doubling work goes on.

 

[Tobbes]

I agree, Pugwash, but this is contingent on electrifying the Bacon Chord and Haughley Junc - Nuneaton.

T

 

[Tomnick]

Don't think Trowse Bridge can actually swing at the moment. Its never been very happy since it was lifted with the jacks still in when brand new in 1986.

All the money spent on those two swinging footbridges, such a waste of money.

The Sea Scout ships are navigable & where last changed over a few years ago.

There's an item somewhere on the Broads Authority's website somewhere, suggesting that it can be swung, but only if staff from the plant department (Network Rail) come out from Ipswich and do it by hand. It said that 48hrs notice was required, and that it could only be done overnight because of the time that it'd take. It seemed clear that their expectation is that the bridge will be put right and will continue to be able to swing in the long term!

 

[47421]

para 5.4.4 reads as below. This is wrong. There are currently 3 12 car west anglia services in the morning peak, the 0647, 0717 and 0747 from Cambridge arriving Liv St 0755, 0825 and 0855. It is surprising that this is wrong in the consultation paper.

Generally as regards West Anglia the paper is uninspiring in my view. 4-tracking Coppermill to Brox is aired but basically dismissed as uneconomic, and there seem to be no other proposals for major infrastructure improvements to increase capacity or line speeds other than extending platforms so all Camb and Hertford East services can run as 12 cars. Para 5.4.12 suggests 4 extra 4 car units should be procured to strengthen Hertford East and Camb peak services, which is stated as being sufficient to meet capacity requirements to end of CP6.
It is not immediately clear how much traffic they are assuming from Stansted Airport, which has been volatile in the past. But overall 4 extra 12 car in place of 8 car services with no infrastructure improvements seems very un-ambitious for such a busy and congested route.
Currently almost none of the Stansted 'express' services run at line speed Stortford - Tott Hale as they all catch stopping services, and journey times to Stansted as is well known are poor, and the service is poor value for money given the premium fares charged to the airport.

Perhaps all this will be overtaken by CrossRail 2?

There is no discussion of any infrastructure changes at Brox. Currently as I understand it Hertford East to Liv St services cannot arrive on the down side nor can departures towards Hertford East leave from the up side. The only way to terminate an up Hertford East service and return it to Hertford East is to run it south of the station and then cross over to the down side, which is impractical cus it blocks the main line. This seems to me to be a major operating obstacle especially during disruption. Is there no possibility of signalling changes to allow services from Hert East to run into the down side and return to Hert East? Or even building a third track on the down side between Brox Junction to the station to keep Hert East services off the main line until south of Brox? (Admittedly it is a mile or so through a swamp so not easy to add extra track, but surely not impossible).


5.4.4 Cambridge and Stansted Airport services arriving into London Liverpool Street between 08:00 and 09:00 are all 8 carriages in length. The Stansted Airport services and one of the Cambridge services are run using rolling stock that tends to have a low number of seats per carriage. This is appropriate to meet the market for travel to and from the airport because passengers value comfort and space for luggage. Higher density rolling stock could mitigate the capacity gap into London in the peak, but will impact adversely on the airport passengers. Lengthening two of the services from 8 carriages to 12 carriages in length between 08:00 and 09:00 would meet the capacity gap by the end of CP6 and is likely to be the best option