Improving rail capacity in the West Midlands

[deltic]

As part of some work for Department for Transport we are seeking radical but sadly low cost ideas for improving rail capacity to and around the West Midlands - both in terms of the number of trains that can be operated and the number of people carried per train

Interested in anything from minor infrastructure works, retimeabling, changes in ticketing etc

all ideas welcome

 

[Mojo]

Any chance of getting some more services diverted into Snow Hill instead of New Street (eg. Wolverhampton locals, Welsh services, Shrewsbury services & Chase line services) by building a new chord at Soho, or would the topography and Midland Metro line stop this?

I think also three-tracking or four-tracking the Coventry & Wolverhampton routes to allow more local trains would be too costly, if space can even be found to do it.

 

[The Planner]

Where do you need the increased capacity ?? anywhere ?? there is nothing cheap you can do that would improve it I dont think.

I know lots of options are being looked at far and wide as part of the BNS re-sig but lots will get binned due to the costs of extra signalling.

 

[BlythPower]

The morning peak services from Coventry into Birmingham New St are poor. The service is infrequent, irregular and subject to delays. Conversely, the evening peak return has plenty of trains at regular intervals. This model should be followed for the morning.

 

[TDK]

Where do you need the increased capacity ?? anywhere ?? there is nothing cheap you can do that would improve it I dont think.

I know lots of options are being looked at far and wide as part of the BNS re-sig but lots will get binned due to the costs of extra signalling.

I drive through the midlands nearly every day and to be honest there isn't any improvements that can be done on a budget basis without resignalling. The main cause of delays to our services (WSMR) are at Aston and Wolverhampton we are delayed by late running LM stopping services, we are also delayed from Coventry to Stechford for these stopping services also, we sometimes get held outside or at international for up to 10 minutes (running time at 100mph from international to Stechford about 4 - 5 minutes) to then follow a stopper. To improve the delays to services such as ours and ones behind us you need to look at the signalling relulations of delaying a train that is early or on time because it is slotted behind a train that will be a late runner this in turn will free up some space. It happens on a daily basis especially at Wolverhampton where a late running Liverpool will delay a WSMR that in turn delays a XC manchester, surely one late train is better than 3.

So, look at the signalling regulations first and get them sorted I would say.

 

[The Planner]

I suppose its how they are told to regulate, Id guess on PPM. Therefore a LM stopper is on 5 minutes before counted late, WSMR on 10 ?? How you get stopped for 10 minutes I'll never know though, there isnt enough going on at International to do that.

 

[boing_uk]

Have anyone at NR, DfT, or similar ever though of using something similar to the Active Traffic Management being rolled out on the motorways?

What I mean is, using variable speed limits at congested times to reduce train headways? I presume that line speed and signal spacing has a great deal to do with line speed; if linespeeds are reduced, can headways be reduced?

 

[the sniper]

As part of some work for Department for Transport we are seeking radical but sadly low cost ideas for improving rail capacity to and around the West Midlands - both in terms of the number of trains that can be operated and the number of people carried per train

all ideas welcome

I can give you plenty of radical ideas, but I'm afraid I'm pretty stuck for low cost ones...

What I mean is, using variable speed limits at congested times to reduce train headways? I presume that line speed and signal spacing has a great deal to do with line speed; if linespeeds are reduced, can headways be reduced?

Well, what you describe is basically ERTMS, which won't be seen in the Midlands for many years.

 

[boing_uk]

Well, what you describe is basically ERTMS, which won't be seen in the Midlands for many years.

Not really, as I understand the principles behind ERTMS... what I am talking about is a much less technological and simplistic traffic control technique. Slow the traffic down when it is really busy (i.e. a train in every section or other section) so that its crawling along, rather than stop/start.

Its something we do/rolling out on motorways to try and reduce the phantom traffic jam; when traffic reaches a certain saturation level, the traffic is slowed to prevent it from hitting the back of a slower moving queue and coming to a halt and thus increasing network capacity.

Whether that could be practically ported over to the railways is another matter entirely. However the cost of variable limit signs would be relatively cheap.

 

[Geezertronic]

It really depends on what services in and around the Midlands you are on about.

Quad'ing the Coventry-BHM-Wolverhampton line would be an ideal capacity increase but wouldn't happen due to the cost. Interesting to read the previous comments on the signalling.

Capacity increases on the Cross City line between BHM and Lichfield would also help but it may be easier to reopen the Camp Hill line from Kings Norton to passenger services (not just the odd XC service) which could include new stations.

Diverting trains into Moor Street could happen but it would need new chords (particularly one at Bordesley) and also a capacity increase at Moor Street above and beyond that planned for Evergreen 3 (IMO).

It will also be interesting to see what plans are for HS2 in the Midlands, whether the line will go direct into Birmingham City Centre (and where) or whether they will run it to International instead.

 

[tbtc]

A lot of potential ideas, but none that come cheaply

I would suggest that in the longer term services on the Cheltenham/ Derby/ Coventry/ Stafford lines could be joined/ split, to run fewer/ longer trains on the core service through New Street (for example the Newcastle and Nottingham services joining at Derby, running together through to Cheltenham, then splitting into one for Cardiff and one for Bristol).

I'm never certain whether it helps or hinders things to split services that run through a major station (e.g. replacing the Wolverhampton - Coventry stopper with a separate Wolverhampton - New Street and New Street - Coventry services)

 

[The Planner]

Not really, as I understand the principles behind ERTMS... what I am talking about is a much less technological and simplistic traffic control technique. Slow the traffic down when it is really busy (i.e. a train in every section or other section) so that its crawling along, rather than stop/start.

But technically that should never happen, if everything runs to time there shouldnt be any delay. Its also the job of the signaller to regulate and path trains in times of pertubation as he/she sees fit, it's what they are trained to do (whether they do it or not and how they are told to regulate is a different kettle of fish and a seperate argument).

Ive also found that lots of drivers tend to hold back at a slower speed anyway so they sit behind a double yellow instead of the stop start of going quicker to catch up a red signal.

 

[Mojo]

I'm never certain whether it helps or hinders things to split services that run through a major station (e.g. replacing the Wolverhampton - Coventry stopper with a separate Wolverhampton - New Street and New Street - Coventry services)

There is no Wolverhampton - Coventry stopping service, it runs Wolverhampton - Walsall and there is a New Street - Coventry - Northampton service. It's not too bad on the way into New Street, as they come in on the Stour and leave on the Stour from platform 1a normally. Of course if the service terminated it would have to take up a platform in the b end (or, like in the evenings when the Liverpool stops, 4c).

 

[tbtc]

There is no Wolverhampton - Coventry stopping service, it runs Wolverhampton - Walsall and there is a New Street - Coventry - Northampton service. It's not too bad on the way into New Street, as they come in on the Stour and leave on the Stour from platform 1a normally. Of course if the service terminated it would have to take up a platform in the b end (or, like in the evenings when the Liverpool stops, 4c).

Yeah, I was meaning that it used to be half hourly from Wolverhampton to Coventry (back in Central Trains days), but was chopped (with the Wolves bit later being tagged to the Walsall service.

Chopping a route like this means you have two more reliable services (since a delay in one half of the route shouldn't affect the other side), but takes up more platform space (two terminating services mean units spend more time there than if they were running "cross city").

 

[moggie]

Slowing the trains down won't help - on it's own. Comparison with variable speed motorway control is invalid as road trafic is akin to moving block technology. The 'headway' determined by how far from the vehicle in front the car driver will travel without constantly tapping or applying the brake. Rail signalling is fixed block therefore while keeping the trains rolling may have marginal benefits the designed headway is determined by the time a following train passes a point at line speed under clear signals. Slowing trains down will just create more instances of caution aspects being seen by the train joining the queue approaching a New St station and therefore slower journey.

I would suggest if increasing capacity is measured by seats available within a time slot between points x and New St some longer train (more rolling stock) would be the quickets solution.

Re-signalling would also help and this is where judicious lowering of linespeed and therefore reducing post to post signal spacing could assist. But can't see this happening as potentially now seen as obsolete technical solution, not cheap and will be hard to persuade all TOC's of the conflicting benefits (low speed high density / high speed / lower density?)

 

[Ivo]

I hate to admit this but I think that, peak periods aside, there are too many local services in and around Birmingham. For example, there are six trains an hour to Stourbridge. Of these, four continue to Kidderminster, and two continue further still, to Worcester (either FS or SH). Why? Wouldn't it make sense to decrease the service to a 4tph model with all services running through to Kidderminster and (alternately) Worcester? I don't see the point in running a total of 18 carriages an hour along this relatively quiet route. Why not just remove some middle carriages and merge them with other 150/3s, thus giving some four-car units? (This will reduce capacity by about 11%.) As for the "new" 150/2s... I'm sure that there are Pacers out there that could be disposed of! (By contrast, there are some areas that could benefit from an increased service. Stratford-upon-Avon would be an obvious example of this in my opinion.)

As for everything else... New Street. There must be some way to improve it! Either that, or do as Mojo suggests and route more services through Snow Hill. Mind you, it isn't particularly appealing either!

 

[deltic]

Thanks for comments so far

Presumably at some time the lines into Snow Hill and Moor St will be electrified given the Government's aim to decarbonise surface transport - what difference if any will this mean to local services?

When is New St up for resignalling and what opportunities will this bring about in terms of increasing capacity?

The present presumption is that Birmingham's High Speed Rail Station will be on the Curzon Street site

How can Curzon St, New St, Moor St/Snow Hill be better linked up to allow easier interchange if this does occur

thanks?

 

[The Planner]

Surely if you are working for or contracted by the Dft these details and answers should be obvious to yourselves, I can't work out why you would be asking and looking for answers on a largely enthusiast based site ??

 

[Ivo]

The present presumption is that Birmingham's High Speed Rail Station will be on the Curzon Street site

How can Curzon St, New St, Moor St/Snow Hill be better linked up to allow easier interchange if this does occur

The words "underground" and "tunnel" spring to mind. Maybe divert the Midland Metro at the Birmingham end so that it runs in a deep-level tube under the city, serving the main stations and ultimatel continuing through to the Airport.

 

[deltic]

To gain a different perspective from people who know the day to day working of the network and the rail industry and who dont have to tow a particular "party" line.

London based civil servants tend to be risk averse - think in a certain way with little knowledge of life on the ground in a location they rarely visit

Reading hundreds of pages of reports rarely helps to generate new ideas

 

[Chafford1]

To gain a different perspective from people who know the day to day working of the network and the rail industry and who dont have to tow a particular "party" line.

London based civil servants tend to be risk averse - think in a certain way with little knowledge of life on the ground in a location they rarely visit

Reading hundreds of pages of reports rarely helps to generate new ideas

Seems like a sensible approach - you might also like to try the Google UK railways site.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/topics

 

[Old Timer]

As Moggie says the solution boils down to either increased train lengths or a reduction in maximum linepseed. It is the high variation in linespeed, together with the intensity of trains over the Coventry Corridor that makes this such a difficult section. Regulation over this section is always difficult and at times a very thankless task indeed.

Whilst four tracking the Coventry Corridor would assist in some ways all that would happen is that the pinch point would be moved further in, to Proof House Junction.

When the Bull Ring was re-developed some years back, a wonderful once in a lifetime opportunity to run a third tunnel into the South end of New St was not taken, and is now lost for ever. Taking trains into and out of the South end will thus remains, as it always has been, a pain at the best of times.

On a more lateral perspective does Birmingham really NEED a 20 minute London service ? Experience shows that the 43 on the Down and the 50 on the Up are the first to go in any disruption in anycase, especially as disruption seems to occur on a regular to frequent basis. I think passenger would prefer a more reliable and punctual 30 minute service to a less reliable 20 minute service.

Is via Rugby the best way to London ? Long term improvements to the Chiltern route already provide a lengthy section of 100mph running, and properly planned would potentially open up a less heavily trafficked route from Birmingham to Marylebone. A Solihull stop, combined with a decent connecting bus service to BHX would be ideal. Extended 125 running anyone ?

An alternative would be to go to the "Aston solution", with that (new) station being the focal point for WCML London services.

Passengers coming in from the former GW and Midland routes could use New St / Snow Hill.

A rearrangement of the track layout at Longbridge could see long distance services running on the existing Down side, with the local EMUs running on the Up side, this removing the need to cross the Fast lines into the turnback sidings. This would also allow a faster run through Kings Norton, especially combined with a the diversion of the main line services South through Proof House, Grand Jct and the Camp Hill.

Does New St really need to be the main interchange ? What about a redevelopment at Kings Norton or even in the Bordesley / St Andrews area where changes could be made into cross-country services ?

 

[Mojo]

As for everything else... New Street. There must be some way to improve it! Either that, or do as Mojo suggests and route more services through Snow Hill. Mind you, it isn't particularly appealing either!

The problem I highlighted with New Street isn't the nature of the station (work has already started on the new station anyway) but the capacity issues that affect it, which is why I suggested additional services into Snow Hill.

The reason for an intensive service on many of the suburban railways is to encourage people to use them and "turn up and go," and along with the social issues in the area and excellent, cheap bus service (aside from the high crime levels on the buses) is one of the reasons Birmingham city is one of the few British cities to have more public transport users than private car users in the morning peak!

 

[The Planner]

Whilst four tracking the Coventry Corridor would assist in some ways all that would happen is that the pinch point would be moved further in, to Proof House Junction.

The past plans and ideas I have seen about that never had it four tracked to Proof House, it was always Stechford to Beechwood tunnel.

When the Bull Ring was re-developed some years back, a wonderful once in a lifetime opportunity to run a third tunnel into the South end of New St was not taken, and is now lost for ever. Taking trains into and out of the South end will thus remains, as it always has been, a pain at the best of times.

Im still not convinced a third tunnel would have solved anything, all it would have done is split the Stours, Cross City and the Derby lines, it would still leave the problem of getting all the trains in the platforms. You have to make Proof House complex to enable all the crossing moves to get to the third tunnel. However, if Cov to Proof House was four tracked I can see the benefits of it.

One of the bigger problems is the lack of parallel moves on the low side of the station, platforms 1 and 2 tend to knacker the job up.

Is via Rugby the best way to London ? Long term improvements to the Chiltern route already provide a lengthy section of 100mph running, and properly planned would potentially open up a less heavily trafficked route from Birmingham to Marylebone. A Solihull stop, combined with a decent connecting bus service to BHX would be ideal. Extended 125 running anyone ?

You would need E-W open to Bletchley for that to work in my opinion, you need all the freight off the Oxford - Leamington corridor and Oxford to Banbury re-signalled. Marylebone would need extensive expansion as there isnt the platforms for it all. Evergreen 3 also is chucking an awful lot of trains down there anyway.

The problem with Solihull is that the road network doesnt suit an Airport link. You have to go through the town itself or wind your way out to the M42, it takes for ever even in the off peak. Do it from a "Dorridge Parkway" or a relocated Widney Manor by the M42 bridge and you could be on to a winner.

A rearrangement of the track layout at Longbridge could see long distance services running on the existing Down side, with the local EMUs running on the Up side, this removing the need to cross the Fast lines into the turnback sidings. This would also allow a faster run through Kings Norton, especially combined with a the diversion of the main line services South through Proof House, Grand Jct and the Camp Hill.

Now I can see where a third tunnel would have would benefit you. The curvature of the track at Lifford apparently limits any improvements to the current speed on the existing lines through Kings Norton. Re-building Longbridge and some slewing wouldnt cost the earth Id have thought. I may throw that one at the New St re-sig bunch !!

 

[Old Timer]

Mojo, I had not meant local services, rather the London's.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo, I had not meant local services, rather the London's.

Yeah sorry I meant to quote Ivo rather than have it appear as a reply to you.

 

[TDK]

I suppose its how they are told to regulate, Id guess on PPM. Therefore a LM stopper is on 5 minutes before counted late, WSMR on 10 ?? How you get stopped for 10 minutes I'll never know though, there isnt enough going on at International to do that.

The 10 minutes is running time, we get signal checked into international slowing from 100mph, we then get platformed to wait for a LM stopper to depart. The standing time at international is about 5 minutes, we then follow the stopper to Stetchford arriving there late. This is when we are running early due to a slot through Coventry, the signaller could let us through early and then hold us at Aston Junction as we would not be holding anything up there allowing a right time arrival at Tame Bridge. I don't think I have ever left Tame Bridge on time in 18 months due to this regulation. Generally speaking if we pass Coventry on time we can get to international 6 minutes up, if let through we would not delay the LM stopper.

 

[Old Timer]

The past plans and ideas I have seen about that never had it four tracked to Proof House, it was always Stechford to Beechwood tunnel. !

True but that would only benefit freight and Grand Jct diversions. The approach to New st with NW to SW services and Midland terminators along with the Cross-Citys will always mean that Proof House is the pinch point. Even a Continental style train plan that brings the Class 1s in a flight behind the local services falls down there.

Four-tracking into Proof House Jct, together with that new tunnel would have opened up much bigger opportunities.

Im still not convinced a third tunnel would have solved anything, all it would have done is split the Stours, Cross City and the Derby lines, it would still leave the problem of getting all the trains in the platforms. You have to make Proof House complex to enable all the crossing moves to get to the third tunnel. However, if Cov to Proof House was four tracked I can see the benefits of it. !!

The Cross-Citys could have used 10 and 11, with those platforms and 12 say separated out with maybe just one crossover at each end.

The CrossCountrys could use 8 and 9, with 6 and 7 for terminators. That would leave 4 and 5 for through Class 1s, 2 and 3 for through local services and 1 for terminators. All rather simplistic I admit but then foreign expeience is now looking to simplify and reduce crossing movements, and in doing so is gaining some considerable improvements in train service performance.

One of the bigger problems is the lack of parallel moves on the low side of the station, platforms 1 and 2 tend to knacker the job up. !

Agreed but with 2 as a southbound platform as set out above ?

You would need E-W open to Bletchley for that to work in my opinion, you need all the freight off the Oxford - Leamington corridor and Oxford to Banbury re-signalled. Marylebone would need extensive expansion as there isnt the platforms for it all. Evergreen 3 also is chucking an awful lot of trains down there anyway.!

Agreed but do we really need to run all our freight during the day ?

In any case the nature of some freight is changing and faster speed rolling stock would minimise the line capacity constraints. That said more thought would have to be given to this. I threw it in to open the debate.

The problem with Solihull is that the road network doesnt suit an Airport link. You have to go through the town itself or wind your way out to the M42, it takes for ever even in the off peak. Do it from a "Dorridge Parkway" or a relocated Widney Manor by the M42 bridge and you could be on to a winner. !

I had thought about that but Solihull has the advantage of also being a good sized town and shopping area, and the station to reach the A34 is not too onerous, certainly not as bad as you may think, and in anycase there is also a large bus interchnage at Solihull, whereas there is not at Dorridge.

Now I can see where a third tunnel would have would benefit you. The curvature of the track at Lifford apparently limits any improvements to the current speed on the existing lines through Kings Norton. Re-building Longbridge and some slewing wouldnt cost the earth Id have thought. I may throw that one at the New St re-sig bunch !!

It would not cost that much to be honest. There is (I believe) adequate space to move the current Down platform into the existing Up Fast alignment, moving the new Fast lines into the Down side. It may require an widening to the Longbridge Lane o/b but the benefits would be enormous.

Trains from the Camp could then run at 90 from Bordesley Jct subject to some geometry and increaased maintenance. Such a move would separate out the inner south Cross-Citys, as well as enabling the possible extension of the services onto the old Halesowen branch, indeed with some lateral thinking the station could be moved into the old Austin works which would then give an easy interchange with the Bristol Road services and negate the need for any realignment at Longbridge, other than directional transposition.

I certainly think this is a suggestion worthy of more investigation. Is there anyone who is open to a different form of thinking though ?

 

[The Planner]

There is lots of money being spent at the mo on the plans for the Cross City extension to Bromsgrove so sticking the station on the old Rover branch is unlikely. It would make more sense though as the old station on the A38 bridge could be used.

 

[moggie]

I understand that the S&C to the old Longbridge works at Halesowen Jcn. is destined for recovery shortly and the site prepared for sale - pity.