Future potential remodelling schemes similar to Carstairs

[och aye]

I wasn't sure how to title this thread, but following on from the remodelling at Carstairs and the benefits that the new layout provide, I was wondering what other parts of the network could benefit from such works and how financially viable they would be to do.

I suppose one unique example would be the removal of the flat/diamond crossing at Newark, but given the physical restrictions of the river and A46, could the cost be justified?

 

[Alfie1014]

Haughley Jn re-doubling/grade separation and sorting out Ely once and for all!

 

[zwk500]

Newark is regularly talked about, and could possibly happen if the ECML wants to boost capacity although it'd be very tight on the budget.

I'm not sure what the current status is, but there was a rather dramatic rebuilding plan as part of the CARS - Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme that would have seen Grade separation of Windmill Bridge Junction, 12-car standage on connecting lines and additional platforms at Norwood Junction and East Croydon.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Haughley Jn re-doubling/grade separation and sorting out Ely once and for all!

Number 1 on my list

 

[D6130]

Perth.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Perth.

No question that is a key piece of major remodeling and then wiring but will be done as part of electrification of Scotland and in particular the important political bit of getting the seven cities done.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suppose one unique example would be the removal of the flat/diamond crossing at Newark, but given the physical restrictions of the river and A46, could the cost be justified?

Not sure how that is similar to Carstairs!

a Newark flyover would be big bucks.

Number 1 on my list

Which one, Haughley or Ely?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Which one, Haughley or Ely?

Good question. You caught me out. Both! It is my fond hope before I die to see F2N/MN electrified throughout and I think both these would be needed as I understand it.

 

[BrianW]

Good question. You caught me out. Both! It is my fond hope before I die to see F2N/MN electrified throughout and I think both these would be needed as I understand it.

This report seems to be very supportive of improvements at Haughley as well as Ely:

https://eeh-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Keeping_Trade_on_Track_-_case_for_Ely_FINAL.pdf

A lot of political support locally/ regionally and from the business community.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This report seems to be very supportive of improvements at Haughley as well as Ely:

https://eeh-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Keeping_Trade_on_Track_-_case_for_Ely_FINAL.pdf

A lot of political support locally/ regionally and from the business community.

Great read thanks. I have downloaded it.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Not sure how that is similar to Carstairs!

a Newark flyover would be big bucks.



Which one, Haughley or Ely?

Are dive unders any cheaper than fly overs?

 

[swt_passenger]

Are dive unders any cheaper than fly overs?

Not a lot in it I believe. IIRC it was mentioned in the Werrington TWA inspectors report, technically and cost wise it could have been done either way, but a diveunder was much better visually.

But there are always going to be scenarios where a diveunder is impossible, eg it often gets suggested by members proposing running ELL services towards Finsbury Park, and of course a diveunder would clash with HS1…

 

[Bartsimho]

Not a lot in it I believe. IIRC it was mentioned in the Werrington TWA inspectors report, technically and cost wise it could have been done either way, but a diveunder was much better visually.

But there are always going to be scenarios where a diveunder is impossible, eg it often gets suggested by members proposing running ELL services towards Finsbury Park, and of course a diveunder would clash with HS1…

Newark would have to be a Flyover unless you fancy a very wet line in the River Trent

 

[Kingston Dan]

Newark would have to be a Flyover unless you fancy a very wet line in the River Trent

I was thinking more about using the old Newark to Cotham line (now a cycle way) with a new alignment from it to Rolleston on the existing Newark Castle line - closing Castle and building a dive under for Lincoln - Nottingham traffic so as not to conflict with ECML traffic and concentrate all services in one station.

 

[zwk500]

I was thinking more about using the old Newark to Cotham line (now a cycle way) with a new alignment from it to Rolleston on the existing Newark Castle line - closing Castle and building a dive under for Lincoln - Nottingham traffic so as not to conflict with ECML traffic and concentrate all services in one station.

I'm 99% sure there's not the room between Newark NG station and the diverge to get a grade-separated layout in, even if you could resolve the problems with a new alignment from the existing line to the cycleway and the problems of converting the cycleway back to a rail alignment.

If Newark ever gets a Flyover I suspect it will be a deviation from Staythorpe power station area north of the Sugar Processing plant, potentially with a triangular junction of some kind to maintain access to Newark NG for East-West traffic.

 

[Kingston Dan]

I'm 99% sure there's not the room between Newark NG station and the diverge to get a grade-separated layout in, even if you could resolve the problems with a new alignment from the existing line to the cycleway and the problems of converting the cycleway back to a rail alignment.

If Newark ever gets a Flyover I suspect it will be a deviation from Staythorpe power station area north of the Sugar Processing plant, potentially with a triangular junction of some kind to maintain access to Newark NG for East-West traffic.

It looks like it's just under 2 km between the flat crossing and where the Cotham line used to diverge. With a low level platform at NG would that be enough?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are dive unders any cheaper than fly overs?

Not often. But depends on the topology and geology.

It looks like it's just under 2 km between the flat crossing and where the Cotham line used to diverge. With a low level platform at NG would that be enough?

It’s also 8km of new railway, including crossings of the Trent and A46, a big dive under or flyover for the ECML (that must accommodate the heaviest freight trains) plus changes to the existing lines. That’s half a billion easily.

A flyover at Newark would be easier cheaper, and that’s what all the feasibility studies ever done have demonstrated.

 

[D6130]

A flyover at Newark would be easier cheaper, and that’s what all the feasibility studies ever done have demonstrated.

Presumably it would have to be fairly long and easily-graded for the heavy oil trains from Immingham to be able to cope with it....or perhaps by the time it's built we won't be using oil any more?

 

[Kingston Dan]

Not often. But depends on the topology and geology.




It’s also 8km of new railway, including crossings of the Trent and A46, a big dive under or flyover for the ECML (that must accommodate the heaviest freight trains) plus changes to the existing lines. That’s half a billion easily.

A flyover at Newark would be easier cheaper, and that’s what all the feasibility studies ever done have demonstrated.

Fair dos - how much less than £500m is a flyover to replace the flat crossing?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably it would have to be fairly long and easily-graded for the heavy oil trains from Immingham to be able to cope with it....or perhaps by the time it's built we won't be using oil any more?

Yep, 1:100. Which needs 800m approach ‘ramps’.

Fair dos - how much less than £500m is a flyover to replace the flat crossing?

Well it hasn’t been estimated for a while. But my guess is that it would be in the region of £2-300m, assuming no major complications.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Yep, 1:100. Which needs 800m approach ‘ramps’.



Well it hasn’t been estimated for a while. But my guess is that it would be in the region of £2-300m, assuming no major complications.

Ta!

 

[snowball]

Yep, 1:100. Which needs 800m approach ‘ramps’.

The bridge of the A46 over the Nottingham-Lincoln line seems to be the nearest constraint on the vertical alignment of a diversion of that line, and seems to be about 800m from the crossing.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Are dive unders any cheaper than fly overs?

Newark would have to be a Flyover unless you fancy a very wet line in the River Trent

Yes it has to be a flyover in that location.

A flyover at Newark would be easier cheaper, and that’s what all the feasibility studies ever done have demonstrated.

 

[BrianW]

Yes it has to be a flyover in that location.

Is not a vertical realignment something like the A46 (which runs parallel) the most straightforward- it works for the road:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Clapham Junction

 

[Bald Rick]

Is not a vertical realignment something like the A46 (which runs parallel) the most straightforward- it works for the road:

Maximum gradients on highways are somewhat steeper than on railways, especially when the latter carries 2000t oil trains regularly.

Nevertheless a rail flyover does fit. However were you to do it exactly on line you would need to close the line for about 2-3 years minimum. Do it off line and you keep it open.…

 

[BrianW]

Maximum gradients on highways are somewhat steeper than on railways, especially when the latter carries 2000t oil trains regularly.

Nevertheless a rail flyover does fit. However were you to do it exactly on line you would need to close the line for about 2-3 years minimum. Do it off line and you keep it open.…

Thank you Bald Rick. I was envisaging something shallower than 1 in 37 and somewhat offline (enough for embankments) or concrete (like Rugby flyovers?) It must surely fit. Is it worth it for the extra paths on the ECML?

 

[snowball]

The Newark area is a flood plain and soft ground. The construction of the A46 back in the late 1980s was difficult. The first time tenders were sought, the prices came in much higher than expected. The road embankment has many culverts underneath so as to balance the water pressure each side in the event of flooding, otherwise the embankment could be swept away. Any rail flyover will have to use a similar technique or use approach viaducts instead of embankments.

The road is planned for dualling, which will occupy much of the space between the present A46 and the Nottingham-Lincoln line. The preferred route announcement says this on page 8, referring to the results of a consultation:

What you told us

Respondents highlighted the need for the scheme to consider Network Rail’s aspirations to separate the levels of the existing flat crossing between the Nottingham to Lincoln line and the East Coast mainline at Newark-on-Trent.

Our response

We have worked with Network Rail and the Department for Transport to identify and understand any conflicts between the A46 Newark Bypass scheme and potential rail schemes, and to discuss opportunities for working together. As a result, we identified a location immediately to the east of the sewage works underpass where the schemes would be very close together. We have changed the layout of the eastbound off-slip to Brownhills roundabout to increase the space between the railway and the road so that a future rail scheme would not be prevented by our scheme. We will continue to work together as the design of both schemes is developed.

I suspect that the last few words of this quote should not be read in isolation as they might give the impression that there is a definite rail project when, as it says earlier, there is only the potential for a project.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you Bald Rick. I was envisaging something shallower than 1 in 37 and somewhat offline (enough for embankments) or concrete (like Rugby flyovers?) It must surely fit. Is it worth it for the extra paths on the ECML?

As said above, it would likely be viaduct the whole way. I forget what the feasibility did, but if it was me I’d have 1:100 on the east side and 1:80 on the west. (Loaded trains are generally east to west).

 

[Bartsimho]

Maximum gradients on highways are somewhat steeper than on railways, especially when the latter carries 2000t oil trains regularly.

Nevertheless a rail flyover does fit. However were you to do it exactly on line you would need to close the line for about 2-3 years minimum. Do it off line and you keep it open.…

If you can do it without closing Newark Castle you might be able to run a shuttle between Newark Castle and Newark Northgate for passengers with a train waiting potentially as it has Platfrom 3 which is only used for the once every 2 hours London-Lincoln service and some sidings next to it as well