East West Rail: 4 route options announced for Bedford-Cambridge section

[Tobbes]

Thanks Philjo

In that case, Sandy / ECML / Option 2 above sounds like a good option, as well as providing ECML interchange and a number of new as well as enhanced journey options.

Kind regards to all

Tobbes

 

[MarkyT]

Here's a Hitchin with reversal option I sketched earlier:

http://www.townend.me/files/EWR2.pdf

 

[petersi]

Here's a Hitchin with reversal option I sketched earlier:

http://www.townend.me/files/EWR2.pdf

I think there would be clearance problems with A405 bridge
With reversals how are you going to handle freight

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WestCountry]

I think there would be clearance problems with A405 bridge
With reversals how are you going to handle freight

Freight could presumably go via Peterborough and Stamford - the extra distance/journey time isn't so important, and that's already a well-established route.

TBH, I can't think of much that would use it anyway - what goes from Anglia (essentially Felixstowe) to Bletchley/Oxford or the West? Most of the intermodals go to places around Birmingham.

 

[jopsuk]

Still don't think there's any need to go into Hitchin at all. Just because you're putting a junction north of there, doesn't follow it has to be included. Much more complex layout, service reliability risk of the reversal, for very little gain

 

[mr_jrt]

Still don't think there's any need to go into Hitchin at all. Just because you're putting a junction north of there, doesn't follow it has to be included. Much more complex layout, service reliability risk of the reversal, for very little gain

Indeed. The only benefit would be for interchange with fast services, of which none now stop at Hitchin as they all now stop at Stevenage New station instead.

The only way a stop at Hitchin would be viable would be if EWR runs south to the Hertford Loop from Bedford (and perhaps onwards to Stansted via Harlow), or if they chose the route via Luton and approach Stevenage from the south.

 

[MarkyT]

Indeed. The only benefit would be for interchange with fast services, of which none now stop at Hitchin as they all now stop at Stevenage New station instead.

The only way a stop at Hitchin would be viable would be if EWR runs south to the Hertford Loop from Bedford (and perhaps onwards to Stansted via Harlow), or if they chose the route via Luton and approach Stevenage from the south.

Clearly reversing at Hitchin would provide a new direct link between Bedford and Hitchin and could also provide strengthened local services between Sandy and Hitchin, linking those places en route to Letchworth and on to Cambridge. Interchange with ECML express services might be better acheived by a separate EWR service leg stretching north to Peterborough, either via the Midland main line north from Bedford then over the Corby line and Stamford, or using additional west - north chord connections at Sandy.

 

[HowardGWR]

Clearly reversing at Hitchin would provide a new direct link between Bedford and Hitchin and could also provide strengthened local services between Sandy and Hitchin, linking those places en route to Letchworth and on to Cambridge. Interchange with ECML express services might be better acheived by a separate EWR service leg stretching north to Peterborough, either via the Midland main line north from Bedford then over the Corby line and Stamford, or using additional west - north chord connections at Sandy.

I like the pragmatism of your idea Mark (I usually do) and it seems more likely to get off the ground quickly. Long term, there could be a more direct connection from Bedford to Cambridge but this (your diagram posted earlier) provides the earliest implementation.

If I were the campaign group of Rail Future, I would go for that solution (and the Manton Junction chord reinstatement).

 

[al green]

I think there would be clearance problems with A405 bridge
With reversals how are you going to handle freight

No there wouldn't be clearance problems. The existing bridge already has space for the 6th track on west side. Only new bridge required would be for platform. But platform level is approx 1m above track level so greater clearance than for existing bridge.

 

[MarkyT]

I like the pragmatism of your idea Mark (I usually do) and it seems more likely to get off the ground quickly. Long term, there could be a more direct connection from Bedford to Cambridge but this (your diagram posted earlier) provides the earliest implementation.

If I were the campaign group of Rail Future, I would go for that solution (and the Manton Junction chord reinstatement).

Thanks for the compliment Howard. I'm not convinced there ever was a Corby-Stamford chord at Manton Junction, although Google Earth suggests it could be possible to insert a short, approximately level, 200 metre radius double track example there traversing only farmland on an embankment and crossing no roads. The very similar Allington Junction chord scheme near Grantham acheived 40 MPH linespeed from such a construction and cost around £12 million I believe. A longer curve on a gradient following the contour of the hill below the village of Wing might give higher line speed using a larger radius. Reinstating a 5km route from Luffenham on the Stamford line through Morcott to a new junction just north of Harringworth viaduct on the Corby line could save around 7km (5 minutes journey time?) but blocked trackbed in places would indicate expensive and politically difficult diversions and land acquisition.

 

[glbotu]

Here's a Hitchin with reversal option I sketched earlier:

http://www.townend.me/files/EWR2.pdf

So, the trackwork here seems to bring up a few issues. You seem to have taken out the Down Fast - Up Slow junction, used to get the Cambridge Expresses from the ECML to the Cambridge Line. I assume this means you're putting them all through the flyover. If nothing else I'd say it'd be useful to keep in as a diversionary route, if not that it's a good way of not having fasts/slows in each others' way. Also, in your plan, every train from Peterborough/Bedford to Bedford has to cross the entire ECML to get back (assuming there's a Down Fast - Down Slow junction somewhere between Hitchin and Sandy). It's fine for Bedford - Hitchin - Cambridge and the appropriate reverse procedure, but you're taking out what could be a useful junction/turning point.

 

[Tomnick]

Putting the whole Down Cambridge service over the flyover, then trying to fit anything for the 'E-W bay' (the only reversal option, excepting the Down Slow platform, for anything heading west) in the opposite direction sounds like rather a performance risk, if indeed it can even be made to work on paper.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thanks for the compliment Howard. I'm not convinced there ever was a Corby-Stamford chord at Manton Junction, although Google Earth suggests it could be possible to insert a short, approximately level, 200 metre radius double track example there traversing only farmland on an embankment and crossing no roads. The very similar Allington Junction chord scheme near Grantham acheived 40 MPH linespeed from such a construction and cost around £12 million I believe. A longer curve on a gradient following the contour of the hill below the village of Wing might give higher line speed using a larger radius. Reinstating a 5km route from Luffenham on the Stamford line through Morcott to a new junction just north of Harringworth viaduct on the Corby line could save around 7km (5 minutes journey time?) but blocked trackbed in places would indicate expensive and politically difficult diversions and land acquisition.

Yes, I did a recce of the long curve reinstatement and there is a problem at Luffenham. There is a gap there but the new developments won't like it so near them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, the trackwork here seems to bring up a few issues. You seem to have taken out the Down Fast - Up Slow junction, used to get the Cambridge Expresses from the ECML to the Cambridge Line. I assume this means you're putting them all through the flyover. If nothing else I'd say it'd be useful to keep in as a diversionary route, if not that it's a good way of not having fasts/slows in each others' way. Also, in your plan, every train from Peterborough/Bedford to Bedford has to cross the entire ECML to get back (assuming there's a Down Fast - Down Slow junction somewhere between Hitchin and Sandy). It's fine for Bedford - Hitchin - Cambridge and the appropriate reverse procedure, but you're taking out what could be a useful junction/turning point.

I wonder if the flyover could not be doubled. I'll leave Mark to deal with this one as it was his plan!

 

[jopsuk]

The flyover that's recently been built cannot be doubled.

 

[Tomnick]

Putting the whole Down Cambridge service over the flyover, then trying to fit anything for the 'E-W bay' (the only reversal option, excepting the Down Slow platform, for anything heading west) in the opposite direction sounds like rather a performance risk, if indeed it can even be made to work on paper.

Apologies, just checked and there is a DF-DS crossover at Sandy. I'm still not convinced that a reversal is a wise option though, especially if it pushes freight off the route and through other bottlenecks (Bedford station, Kettering, Peterborough).

 

[MarkyT]

So, the trackwork here seems to bring up a few issues. You seem to have taken out the Down Fast - Up Slow junction, used to get the Cambridge Expresses from the ECML to the Cambridge Line. I assume this means you're putting them all through the flyover.If nothing else I'd say it'd be useful to keep in as a diversionary route, if not that it's a good way of not having fasts/slows in each others' way.

Yes I would advocate all down Cambridge trains using the flyover via an improved fast-slow crossover north of the station (which I believe is planned anyway). The slow/ fast issue is not really relevant as the slow can always be held in the down platform briefly for the fast to get ahead. The crossover is outside the overlap for the platform starting signal so a stopping train can be drawing into the station at the same time as a fast Cambridge is overtaking.

Also, in your plan, every train from Peterborough/Bedford to Bedford has to cross the entire ECML to get back (assuming there's a Down Fast - Down Slow junction somewhere between Hitchin and Sandy).

A Peterborough/Bedford train reversing and returning whence it came would have to cross all lines, but that is no worse than the current situation and at least there would be an additional platform available on the up side to handle it.

There are indeed two further down fast to slow crossovers at the south ends of both Biggleswade and Sandy stations.

It's fine for Bedford - Hitchin - Cambridge and the appropriate reverse procedure, but you're taking out what could be a useful junction/turning point.

Although not shown on my diagram, A 60 MPH full right hand ladder across all four tracks south of Hitchin station would be the most flexible option. Both down platforms and the up fast (all made reversible through the station) could then be used for a diverted down Cambridge train or turn-backs towards London when the line north of Hitchin is closed. That would also give direct access into the sidings on the up side for freight and engineering traffic from the south through the up platforms.

 

[HowardGWR]

The flyover that's recently been built cannot be doubled.

I meant duplicated, but this point has nothing to do with MarkyT's suggestion, just the increase in capacity, so I ought not to have introduced it, although one OP doubted whether a bidirectional flyover line was sufficient capacity for both E/W and N/S to Cambridge / London.

See Mark's answers above to other points.

 

[MarkyT]

I meant duplicated, but this point has nothing to do with MarkyT's suggestion, just the increase in capacity, so I ought not to have introduced it, although one OP doubted whether a bidirectional flyover line was sufficient capacity for both E/W and N/S to Cambridge / London.

See Mark's answers above to other points.

I reckon with the Cambridge/ Kings Lynn fast trains included there would be around 6 down trains an hour maximum crossing the new flyover. Assuming they were evenly distributed, that gives ten minutes between departures from Hitchin, and it's 4 minutes running time to Letchworth. The flyover is not the full distance clearly so lets assume the single line clearance is 3 minutes after departure, leaving a window of 7 minutes for a EWR train from Letchworth to get over the main line and into it's dedicated bay on the down side. Doable I think but could import some contra-directional friction into operational performance if things started to run out of sequence. Mitigations could include adequate turnround allowance at Hitchin for the EWR service and the possibility of an additional up through platform at Letchworth to hold trains waiting to cross without disrupting other closely following services (the station design actually already partly caters for this possibility and such a facility could be useful for trains starting and terminating there too).