ECML capacity improvements

[The Planner]

Waste of time, just grade seperate Norton Bridge and the vast majority of the problem goes for a fraction of the cost.

 

[swt_passenger]

Waste of time, just grade seperate Norton Bridge and the vast majority of the problem goes for a fraction of the cost.

The whole 'greenfield' Stafford bypass proposal would probably have gone straight in the bin as soon as the financial situation got tougher.

But I'd go as far as suggesting another flyover a few miles east of Colwich Jn as well, to make the lines paired by use rather than paired by direction, (ie reading south to north - down Stafford, up Stafford, down Stoke, up Stoke) - that and a Norton Bridge GSJ should cover most eventualities...

Having said that they'll be understandably cautious about changes that will get overtaken by HS2 in the area...

 

[Lee_Again]

I have a 'cheap(ish) grand plan' for the southern end of the ECML that I'll bore you all with another time but in dealing with the Welwyn Viaduct my solution for this is to route the two fast Cambridge services via the Hertford Loop. The existing slow services would pull over at Godon Hill (old loops put back) and allow the fasts through. A little extra point work at Hertford North, and maybe a siding/loop north of Hertford North to ease terminating serices would all go to help.

I have actually put together a very rough timetable that allows four fasts and four stoppers on the loop. The increase in journey time for the Cambridge services is about 6 minutes. Remember, though, that the present timings are relatively new. It wasn't that long back that the quickest journey time was well over an hour. I'd also put an alternating Leeds, Newcastle slow service in the other two paths (or even freight!).

This frees 4 paths per hour across the viaduct that could be used to add pathing time to existing journies (it would all help towards a 4hr Edinburgh timing and 2hr Leeds) or to add additional Open Access services.

And with Open Access... I'd make it a condition that if they insist on using 1/2 length trains they must run two together, and not just accross the viaduct but all the way to Doncaster. If they can't split in the station, let them do it in the yard south of the station.

So, 2 semi fast FCC, 2 slow FCC, 5 EC, and 2 OA (joined) makes 10 paths/hour which is 6 mins seperation. With 2 stops for the semi fast you're at about 3-4 mins seperation. No new viaduct, no new tunnels, relatively cheap work on the loop, bit of flexing in the timetable and 80% of problem solved.

Oh, I should also have added...
Run the Cambridge fasts services off the loop and keep them on the slows from Langley to Hitchin. A new viaduct there (which is a lot cheaper than Welwyn) puts them on to the branch without crossing the main. This will grade seperate the entire service from the East Coast services from Alexandra Palace. And if you made them run on the upgraded but already existing up/down goods lines from just south of Finsbury Park then almost 95% of the route is grade seperated from the expresses. This would keep delays to a minimum and the 6 minutes you lose going via Hertford is mostly made back.

Come on, shoot me down

 

[jon0844]

I think the only feasible way to circumvent the problem would be a second viaduct, but with the number of NIMBYs' in the area, as mentioned above, that would be unlikely. I'm all for ingenious viaduct widening plans though!

I agree, but if it was built alongside so in effect it's just wider, what would anyone actually lose in terms of the view.

If it was built in keeping with the same style and the Government was clever enough to bribe them with more services from Welwyn North etc, then I am not sure why anyone would complain - besides complaining for the sake of complaining.

To me, it's the cost that would probably stop this happening. Without having a perfect memory of Welwyn North, could you in theory expand this to have the track open out to allow stopping trains to stop outside and allow fast trains through? I'm not sure that would create many extra paths, but it could be a lot cheaper - unless the station is right by the tunnel?

The other idea is of course to have two tracks divert off, following the A1(M) and then coming back in towards Stevenage (or even AT Stevenage) somehow. That would require compulsory purchasing and probably a few bridges, but it would be cheaper. Yes, some services may then skip Stevenage altogether but is that a real problem? The capacity running the old way remains the same, so as many trains could stop as do now.

 

[Lee_Again]

I agree, but if it was built alongside so in effect it's just wider, what would anyone actually lose in terms of the view.

If it was built in keeping with the same style and the Government was clever enough to bribe them with more services from Welwyn North etc, then I am not sure why anyone would complain - besides complaining for the sake of complaining.

To me, it's the cost that would probably stop this happening. Without having a perfect memory of Welwyn North, could you in theory expand this to have the track open out to allow stopping trains to stop outside and allow fast trains through? I'm not sure that would create many extra paths, but it could be a lot cheaper - unless the station is right by the tunnel?

The other idea is of course to have two tracks divert off, following the A1(M) and then coming back in towards Stevenage (or even AT Stevenage) somehow. That would require compulsory purchasing and probably a few bridges, but it would be cheaper. Yes, some services may then skip Stevenage altogether but is that a real problem? The capacity running the old way remains the same, so as many trains could stop as do now.

50 lorries a day, every day for 5 years. You can see why people would complain. Also, the locals in that area are very well connected and would put up a mean challenge. Even if you beat them you'll be looking at 20 years until completion.

The thing with the A1(m) is that it goes over the very hill that the trains run through. Going North you'd never get a train up it. Mind you, coming South, even the Rocket could break Mallards record

 

[jon0844]

I didn't think of the problems during the construction phase. As for the hill, I must admit that despite driving to Stevenage loads of times, I've never noticed it being that steep!! I will do now though.

 

[LE Greys]

50 lorries a day, every day for 5 years. You can see why people would complain. Also, the locals in that area are very well connected and would put up a mean challenge. Even if you beat them you'll be looking at 20 years until completion.

The thing with the A1(m) is that it goes over the very hill that the trains run through. Going North you'd never get a train up it. Mind you, coming South, even the Rocket could break Mallards record

HS1 and various LGV routes tackle similar gradients every day. Coming off the Medway Viaduct, there is a gradient roughly equivalent to the Lickey Incline, tackled at 186 mph with trains that have so much kinetic energy that it's not noticeable.

That actually brings me on to an interesting point. If you do build a massive diversion for any reason, why not the to the same standards as HS1. Structures strengthened for trains passing at 250 mph, duobloc sleepers, UIC GB+ loading gauge, maximum curve radius 2 miles, the works. Fit conventional signalling for now, but leave the option to install TVM 430 at a later date. That way, we get HS2 by stealth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To be a bit more realistic, there are two things we could do straight off.

1. Reroute the Cambridge fasts into Liverpool Street or stop them at Stevenage and Hitchin. They don't contribute to the ECML and take up an extra path. Either make them contribute or send them somewhere else.
2. Relay the connection from the Down Leeds into York station, thus providing a fourth approach from the south and a bit more operational flexibility.

 

[jopsuk]

Now that we're used to them, there'd be a lot of anger if the Cambridge Express service was slowed down at all- even during the depths of the daytime off-peak they're busy trains.

 

[Failed Unit]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To be a bit more realistic, there are two things we could do straight off.

1. Reroute the Cambridge fasts into Liverpool Street or stop them at Stevenage and Hitchin. They don't contribute to the ECML and take up an extra path. Either make them contribute or send them somewhere else.
2. Relay the connection from the Down Leeds into York station, thus providing a fourth approach from the south and a bit more operational flexibility.

I would say the Cambridge fasts contribute the ECML by the fact that they are full, If you use that logic the we should get rid of Grand Central's service to Bradford from the ECML and force them to use St Pancras instead!

The other thing to remember is the Cambridge trains, The Liverpool Street route is full with Stansted Express services, so no paths anyway.

The "Cambridge Cruiser" Certainly merits its place on the ECML in terms of the loadings it has. Look at it in the peak and it has more passengers on it then trains to minor destinations like Leeds & Newcastle.

 

[TGV]

HS1 and various LGV routes tackle similar gradients every day. Coming off the Medway Viaduct, there is a gradient roughly equivalent to the Lickey Incline, tackled at 186 mph with trains that have so much kinetic energy that it's not noticeable.

... and 12MW of power!

 

[tbtc]

I would say the Cambridge fasts contribute the ECML by the fact that they are full, If you use that logic the we should get rid of Grand Central's service to Bradford from the ECML

Yes. Get rid. Not to St P, just get rid generally. Or at least force them to couple to Hull services at Doncaster to stop wasting a path.

As for the rest of this thread, the more I think about it the more I'm ultimately in favour of a HS2 approach - a brand new line built without the bottlenecks that creates additional capacity for all services.

Maybe instead of building HS2 all the way to Lancashire/ Yorkshire we'd be better with three or four shorter lines (Peterborough/ Birmingham/ Didcot/ Basingstoke) which would resolve a lot of the capacity problems.

Tinkering with Welwyn will be expensive and disrupt the railways for years; a brand new line for 100 miles outside London would be constructed without affecting existing lines.

 

[Failed Unit]

Yes. Get rid. Not to St P, just get rid generally. Or at least force them to couple to Hull services at Doncaster to stop wasting a path.

I think Grand Central did look at coupling it to their Sunderland services but Network rail thought that it would make it too unreliable. I guess the arguement that it works at Faversham and Haywards Heath is not as valid here.

I suspect if a portion is significantly late at Faversham it is terminated and one portion works alone, as it is 1/2 hourly frequency (maybe someone that knows the local circumstances can correct me). At Doncaster if a cable is nicked from Hartlepool a 180 could be sat waiting a long time for the other half to turn up and pax are not going ot be best pleased if the Sunderland service is terminated short.

I agree 5 car trains carrying fresh air are not the best use of scare capacity, but equally someone of the Peterborough stopping services that call at Welwyn North are not well loaded.

 

[LE Greys]

I would say the Cambridge fasts contribute the ECML by the fact that they are full, If you use that logic the we should get rid of Grand Central's service to Bradford from the ECML and force them to use St Pancras instead!

The other thing to remember is the Cambridge trains, The Liverpool Street route is full with Stansted Express services, so no paths anyway.

The "Cambridge Cruiser" Certainly merits its place on the ECML in terms of the loadings it has. Look at it in the peak and it has more passengers on it then trains to minor destinations like Leeds & Newcastle.

Yes. Get rid. Not to St P, just get rid generally. Or at least force them to couple to Hull services at Doncaster to stop wasting a path.

How much time would actually be lost with stops at Hitchin and Stevenage (on the Cambridge fasts) or Doncaster and Peterborough (on the GCs). I've often seen suggestions that you could use 90s to get to Cambridge, recouping the extra stops by running at 110 from Wood Green to Stevenage. That doesn't allow for overhead wire issues on the Cambridge branch, or slower acceleration, but the main point would actually be to increase the number of Stevenage-London shuttles. With the GCs, that gives a chance for people other than Londoners to have a reasonably direct service to non-EC destinations.

As for the rest of this thread, the more I think about it the more I'm ultimately in favour of a HS2 approach - a brand new line built without the bottlenecks that creates additional capacity for all services.

Maybe instead of building HS2 all the way to Lancashire/ Yorkshire we'd be better with three or four shorter lines (Peterborough/ Birmingham/ Didcot/ Basingstoke) which would resolve a lot of the capacity problems.

Tinkering with Welwyn will be expensive and disrupt the railways for years; a brand new line for 100 miles outside London would be constructed without affecting existing lines.

That's an interesting idea, but I think it would be better to go with an upgrade of the existing lines over these sections unless capacity is a serious issue (such as on the WCML) or the line is third rail electrified. The main reason for this is that it gives you the chance to use existing stations at Didcot, Reading, Slough, Peterborough and Stevenage. Perhaps if there is a high speed link to Heathrow, that could be incorporated into the Great Western version.

 

[Tomnick]

I have a 'cheap(ish) grand plan' for the southern end of the ECML that I'll bore you all with another time but in dealing with the Welwyn Viaduct my solution for this is to route the two fast Cambridge services via the Hertford Loop. The existing slow services would pull over at Godon Hill (old loops put back) and allow the fasts through. A little extra point work at Hertford North, and maybe a siding/loop north of Hertford North to ease terminating serices would all go to help.

I have actually put together a very rough timetable that allows four fasts and four stoppers on the loop. The increase in journey time for the Cambridge services is about 6 minutes. Remember, though, that the present timings are relatively new. It wasn't that long back that the quickest journey time was well over an hour. I'd also put an alternating Leeds, Newcastle slow service in the other two paths (or even freight!).

How much time would looping the stoppers at Gordon Hill put into those services though? I'd suggest 8 minutes at a minimum, before considering the performance issues of a late running express either delaying the stopper further, or missing its path and becoming immediately heavily delayed!

And with Open Access... I'd make it a condition that if they insist on using 1/2 length trains they must run two together, and not just accross the viaduct but all the way to Doncaster. If they can't split in the station, let them do it in the yard south of the station.

I agree that running half-length trains is hardly making the best use of finite capacity. Joining long-distance portions at Doncaster - a busy station with fairly limited platform space - is a big performance risk though, especially if each of the two portions is operated by a different company! Doing anything on a regular basis with passenger trains on goods lines or sidings south of the station is a big no-no too.

 

[tbtc]

That's an interesting idea, but I think it would be better to go with an upgrade of the existing lines over these sections unless capacity is a serious issue (such as on the WCML) or the line is third rail electrified. The main reason for this is that it gives you the chance to use existing stations at Didcot, Reading, Slough, Peterborough and Stevenage. Perhaps if there is a high speed link to Heathrow, that could be incorporated into the Great Western version.

There's no easy way round it, but a "parallel high speed" line would allow places like Stevenage/ Slough/ Woking the service they deserve, since paths on that line wouldn't be swallowed up by long distance non-stop services.

Plus, you avoid disrupting existing services whilst you build the additional capacity

 

[Failed Unit]

How much time would actually be lost with stops at Hitchin and Stevenage (on the Cambridge fasts) or Doncaster and Peterborough (on the GCs). I've often seen suggestions that you could use 90s to get to Cambridge, recouping the extra stops by running at 110 from Wood Green to Stevenage. That doesn't allow for overhead wire issues on the Cambridge branch, or slower acceleration, but the main point would actually be to increase the number of Stevenage-London shuttles. With the GCs, that gives a chance for people other than Londoners to have a reasonably direct service to non-EC destinations.
.

They Cambridge fasts from experience don't have enough capacity for extra stops, it would mean passengers standing.

However thinking along the same lines, I guess their is nothing to stop splitting trains on route.

For example in the peak run a 12 car train to Hitchin, split the train at Hitchin send the front 8 to Peterborough and the rear 4 to Cambridge (all stations). I don't think capacity is such an issue off peak.

I am sure Finsbury Park, Stevenage and Hitchin can all take 12 car trains. The Cambridge fasts can also be 12 car. Most IC services are full length in the peak anyway (don't class the 1650 as peak)

 

[tbtc]

They Cambridge fasts from experience don't have enough capacity for extra stops, it would mean passengers standing.

However thinking along the same lines, I guess their is nothing to stop splitting trains on route.

For example in the peak run a 12 car train to Hitchin, split the train at Hitchin send the front 8 to Peterborough and the rear 4 to Cambridge (all stations). I don't think capacity is such an issue off peak.

I am sure Finsbury Park, Stevenage and Hitchin can all take 12 car trains. The Cambridge fasts can also be 12 car. Most IC services are full length in the peak anyway (don't class the 1650 as peak)

Interesting.

Could we make all services leaving London in the peaks minimum eight coaches (twelve on EMUs)? Split them at Stevenage/ Watford etc

 

[MCR247]

But at places at Watford, I'm not sure there will be capacity to have an extra 5-10 minutes dwell time. It would also obviously slow the journey times down

 

[Aictos]

I am sure Finsbury Park, Stevenage and Hitchin can all take 12 car trains.

Finsbury Park currently only takes 8 car trains although there are plans afoot by September 2011 to extend the platforms to take 12 car trains.

The stations below all take 12 cars:

Peterborough*1
Huntingdon
St Neots
Stevenage
Royston*2
Cambridge*3
Ely
Kings Cross*4

*1 Platforms 2 to 5 only
*2 Platform 1 only
*3 Platforms 1 and 4 only
*4 Platforms 0 to 8 only

 

[Failed Unit]

Finsbury Park currently only takes 8 car trains although there are plans afoot by September 2011 to extend the platforms to take 12 car trains.

The stations below all take 12 cars:

Peterborough*1
Huntingdon
St Neots
Stevenage
Royston*2
Cambridge*3
Ely
Kings Cross*4

*1 Platforms 2 to 5 only
*2 Platform 1 only
*3 Platforms 1 and 4 only
*4 Platforms 0 to 8 only

I did think afterwards that the Northbound platform at Finsbury park could not but I was sure the Southbound could.

What trains are already 12 cars (or planned to be from Dec) from KX. I know the 1807 London - Peterborough has been for a while.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What about a third line from Kings Cross on the ECML (aside from Hertford North and Welwyn), maybe leaving at somewhere around Brookmans Park, and rejoing Stevengae-Hitchin, would this avoid the near-enough valley tyhe viaduct goes over, and the subsequent tunnels therefater? I know the cost would be huge, its just an idea though

EDIT AFTER CHECKING - You can do it from Hatfield, curve west around Digswell, and rejoin at Knebworth, gets a bit complex after there

 

[tbtc]

But at places at Watford, I'm not sure there will be capacity to have an extra 5-10 minutes dwell time. It would also obviously slow the journey times down

Not idea, I grant you, but paths are at a premium going out of London termini at that time of day, and it doesn't take ten minutes on Southern/ South Eastern to uncouple units

 

[Fred26]

How about, instead of trying to do something with Digswell viaduct, the old Welwyn GC to Hertford line was brought back. With both a north and south facing curve at either end (ie, so trains could run Hertford North - Welwyn GC, Hertford North - Hatfield, Bayford - Welwyn GC and Bayford to Hatfield). I'm not suggesting that those services could or should run, but you get the idea. I'd double track it and reopen the station at Cole Green, with the platforms on loops, so as not to obstruct any fast services. From Hertford North to Langley Junction, I'd double the track to four track and put in extra points and signals at Stevenage to allow trains from the Hertford Loop to use all four platforms.

I'm not sure which services would use it primarily, but I'd probably go for some express services. Alright, it's a bit of an arse about face route, but the majority of the track bed is still there. It'd cost time and money to reconnect at Hertford North and even more at Welwyn (the track there has been built over) and four-tracking from Hertford North - Langley Junction wouldn't be cheap either.
Oh yeah, I'd somehow extend the platforms at Hertford North to at least take 8-cars.

 

[Aictos]

I did think afterwards that the Northbound platform at Finsbury park could not but I was sure the Southbound could.

What trains are already 12 cars (or planned to be from Dec) from KX. I know the 1807 London - Peterborough has been for a while.

There are a number of services which will be extended which FCC will no doubt publicise soon.

How about, instead of trying to do something with Digswell viaduct, the old Welwyn GC to Hertford line was brought back. With both a north and south facing curve at either end (ie, so trains could run Hertford North - Welwyn GC, Hertford North - Hatfield, Bayford - Welwyn GC and Bayford to Hatfield). I'm not suggesting that those services could or should run, but you get the idea. I'd double track it and reopen the station at Cole Green, with the platforms on loops, so as not to obstruct any fast services. From Hertford North to Langley Junction, I'd double the track to four track and put in extra points and signals at Stevenage to allow trains from the Hertford Loop to use all four platforms.

I'm not sure which services would use it primarily, but I'd probably go for some express services. Alright, it's a bit of an arse about face route, but the majority of the track bed is still there. It'd cost time and money to reconnect at Hertford North and even more at Welwyn (the track there has been built over) and four-tracking from Hertford North - Langley Junction wouldn't be cheap either.
Oh yeah, I'd somehow extend the platforms at Hertford North to at least take 8-cars.

I doubt very much that anyone would reopen the old Welwyn Garden City to Hertford North route as it didn't actually go into Hertford North but curved off towards Hertford East and as Yorkie can confirm it's now a cycle route.

As to extending the platforms at Hertford North, the only platform which can be extended to 8 cars with the minimum of fuss or cost is to extend platform 1 southbound UNLESS of course NR actually want to replace the bridge at the north end of the station and extend the two island platforms northbound so the platforms span the bridge so 8 car trains can call there but if they want to do that, they could always lay track and ohl into the unused platform face on the Up so it acts both as a bay platform and also as a headshunt for shunting.

With such major works, they might as well go for the full works and install a lift for platform 1 so the platforms have full DDA capabilty, build a station bulding similar in design to the one on platform 2 and 3 and extend the canopy so the majority of the platforms are under cover.

 

[Fred26]

I doubt very much that anyone would reopen the old Welwyn Garden City to Hertford North route as it didn't actually go into Hertford North but curved off towards Hertford East and as Yorkie can confirm it's now a cycle route.

It didn't go into Hertford North, but it could. There's ample space to be able to. As for it being a cycle route, I don't see it as being particularly relevant - a railway should take priority.

 

[MCR247]

Not idea, I grant you, but paths are at a premium going out of London termini at that time of day, and it doesn't take ten minutes on Southern/ South Eastern to uncouple units

After a Southern arrives in Horsham as an 8/12 car train heading for Portsmouth & Bognor, at least part of the train will be in the platform until 9 minutes later.

It also makes sense for Southern & SouthEastern, especially SouthEastern, as their networks are so complex, and there is a lot of different lines to serve.

London Midland just has London - Watford - MKC - Northampton mainly for commuting into London. So you'd have 2 trains leaving MKC within ten minutes of each other, the first calling at all stations to Watford, the second a semi-fast, with them joining at Watford. Not really worth is it?

It mainly works, when you have trains going to different destinations on different lines where a line splits off

 

[jon0844]

With a bit of effort, you could easily keep a cycle route (and indeed a pedestrian walk that is quite popular, like the Alban Way) and reinstate the railway (or the tram idea). I doubt it would be double tracked though, as that may require a lot of compulsory purchasing because of the extra width. More so on the Alban Way as it goes through more built-up areas, and has at least one or two places where there are now properties on it (and the path has to divert around it).

Of course, given that we're talking about building HS2, such a project to reinstate a line that's more or less already there, certainly shouldn't be too difficult or expensive.

In my case, it would be more of a link to the towns than something with a way of actually diverting trains from one mainline to another, but it would still be very useful - especially if there's any disruption and people can easily get from one line to another and continue their journey (or get close enough to their destination to then take a taxi/bus etc).

 

[swt_passenger]

After a Southern arrives in Horsham as an 8/12 car train heading for Portsmouth & Bognor, at least part of the train will be in the platform until 9 minutes later.

That's mainly because of the long signalling headways south of Horsham I think. Similar splits at Southampton, (ie where a slow portion follows a fast down the same route) can take about 5 mins, because in principle the second train can follow as soon as the signal changes.

 

[LE Greys]

Splits at Hitchin are nothing new. That's one of the reasons that Hitchin had a fairly busy shed. A B12 would come in from King's Cross with 10 coaches and drop off 4 of them then go on to Peterborough, while (usually) a D16 would take the remainder to Cambridge. With the flyover, conflicting moves accross Cambridge Junction would be less of a worry.

Incidentally, whoever mentioned Stevenage brought up something else. The Stevenage/Letchworth stoppers having nowhere to reverse. I've often wondered if there was enough room between Stevenage station and the leisure park to fit in a bay, something like the one at Woking. It would require a bit of platform lengthening, and probably the southern down crossovers would have to move back beyond the road bridge, but there is just about enough room under the bridge as well. Worth trying?

 

[jon0844]

You could easily purchase a bit of the car park to get extra width. The leisure park buildings are miles away.