Improving rail capacity in the West Midlands

[tbtc]

To look at things a different way; why do all long distance trains need to go through Birmingham in the first place?

You could run "cross country" service like Liverpool/ Manchester - Crewe - Shrewsbury - Hereford - Cwmbran - Bristol. Or Nottingham - Leicester - Nuneaton - Coventry - Oxford - Swindon - Bristol.

Some services that currently terminate at New Street could be extended to somewhere short distance on the other side, in the way that ATW run Aberyswyth to Birmingham International. Would it help platform space if the Cross Country services from Stanstead/ Leicester were tagged on to the Walsall trips? Or extend the Euston - Wolves service to Glasgow/ Edinburgh to replace the existing Birmingham - Glasgow/ Edinburgh train?

Also - you could make more use of Tamworth/ Nuneaton etc to get people to connect there instead of New Street - part of the hassle with New Street is that everyone changes there when they could do it at interchanges like Wolverhampton/ Coventry.

Lastly - the Virgin Trains plan to run London - Nuneaton - Walsall - Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury (and beyond) was an interesting idea. That would allow the existing Euston - Wolverhampton service to be chopped back to New Street.

There's no need for everything to get sucked through a narrow corridor in the middle of Birmingham

 

[Trog]

How about loops midway between Birmingham and Coventry. Say International to at least a braking distance past the next stop in each direction. Then local trains could be looped and the time taken to do the station stops on the loop would allow say a couple of fast trains to pass on the mains, without delaying the locals. This should help with regulation so you get less chance of ending up stuck behind a stopper.
I also think looking at the fence lines that the railway may already own some of the land needed to quadrify this line. Probably advance thinking by the LMSR.

I am assuming that with the lack of intermediate stations between Rugby and Coventry train speeds are less diverse and more predictable and that this section is less of an operating problem.

 

[TDK]

How about loops midway between Birmingham and Coventry. Say International to at least a braking distance past the next stop in each direction. Then local trains could be looped and the time taken to do the station stops on the loop would allow say a couple of fast trains to pass on the mains, without delaying the locals. This should help with regulation so you get less chance of ending up stuck behind a stopper.
I also think looking at the fence lines that the railway may already own some of the land needed to quadrify this line. Probably advance thinking by the LMSR.

I am assuming that with the lack of intermediate stations between Rugby and Coventry train speeds are less diverse and more predictable and that this section is less of an operating problem.

There already loops at International, there are 5 platforms, however the stoppers stop there and because the trains that do not stop at international are pathed behind they either wait at another platform or wait outside.

 

[Geezertronic]

At BHI they tend to use Platforms 1, 3 & 5 for terminating/starting services that usually run North or for holding freight trains. If they really wanted to ease the pressure on New Street, they could probably fit another couple of platforms in the space by platform 5 but that would depend on what they want to do with HS.

 

[The Planner]

Nothing is ever booked to start from 5 in the New St direction and it is only used in times of pertubation. The ATW is the only one that is booked out of 1, all the locals come out of 3.

 

[Geezertronic]

Nothing is ever booked to start from 5 in the New St direction and it is only used in times of pertubation. The ATW is the only one that is booked out of 1, all the locals come out of 3.

That is why I said usually The only services I know for definite that start out of 5 is the 0741 VirginTrains service which starts at International and is to Euston and the 1417 London Midland service that heads north and does the usual local stations to New Street. Might be more, I don't know.

 

[Trog]

There already loops at International, there are 5 platforms, however the stoppers stop there and because the trains that do not stop at international are pathed behind they either wait at another platform or wait outside.

My whole point was long loops so the slowing down and speeding up plus three station stops were on the loop. So as to keep the local train busy for long enough for a couple of faster trains to pass on the main without delaying either.

 

[The Planner]

Not convinced it would work, say you looped Marston Green, Int and Hampton in Arden, you would probably get a local off the fast lines for about 8 minutes at best. Unless you had two fast trains running at headway you wouldnt get any benefit and the likelihood of that is fairly slim. The Cov corridor is never going to get 4 tracked anyway, the cost would be massive as the land take required is peoples back gardens and embankments and cuttings.

 

[43106]

There was a programme on the telly a few years ago about the Coventry - Birmingham New Street line and how overloaded it was. There was also talk of building a freight line from somewhere near Birmingham International to a car plant south of Solihull (I think). The response was that Cross Country doubled the service between Brum and Reading! Would it help matters if ALL Cross Country services were routed via Solihull instead of Coventry? A shuttle between Coventry and Leamington MAY be required if this option is taken>

 

[The Planner]

That was the planned branch to the Land Rover plant, never got off the drawing board. As for Solihull, that would never happen, XC would rather they all went via International and Cov as it is as they would make a fortune.

 

[tbtc]

Are there many spots stopping the Lem - Cov being doubled?

Or is it totally impractical?

 

[Phoenix]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but there is still the remains of the old Viaduct intended to Link snow hill with new street around 70% still exists with various sections missing but sadly it was never actually used due apparently to disagreements between railway companies back in the day.

Any who with some engineering and some common sense it could be possible to send certain service to moor street such as the cannock trains due to the terminating platforms due to be commissioned later this year.

New street's largest problem is the fact that the majority of service pass through the station so a secondary terminus although a good idea would only reduce congestion slightly hence my recommendation for Moor street to be used as it's the utilisation of existing infrastructure.

Please correct me if im wrong im open to all idea's.

 

[The Planner]

Any who with some engineering and some common sense it could be possible to send certain service to moor street such as the cannock trains due to the terminating platforms due to be commissioned later this year.

Duddeston viaduct faces the wrong way, it joins the Snow Hill lines in the Leamington direction, not the Moor St direction. You would need a complete new chord and viaduct to make that work. Im pretty sure it would cross the Stours on the flat too as it doesnt look high enough to go over.

 

[Geezertronic]

They were talking about the possibility of creating a chord around Bordesley as part of any plans to reopen the Camp Hill lines so trains ran into the "old" Moor Street rather than New Street.

This all seems to have gone quiet for the last few years so it probably isn't going to happen, especially since it would appear that the latest Evergreen project will utilise the "old" Moor Street so would there be capacity to handle the proposed Camp Hill services as well (3tph)?

Does anyone know if there is scope to extend Moor Street further in addition to reinstating the old platforms?

 

[150219]

Are there many spots stopping the Lem - Cov being doubled?

Or is it totally impractical?

Not totally impractical, no.

The stretch of line from Kenilworth North Junction to Gibbet Hill Junction has always been single line since construction, the original two line railway running from Kenilworth North Junction to Berkswell which is now closed. The aformentioned stretch of single line involves traversing a high viaduct.

The line between Kenilworth and Leamington was double in the past and could in the future by doubled, with some repositioning of signalling equipment and track work, apart from the Warwick By-pass underline bridge which is of single line width.

 

[Trog]

The Cov corridor is never going to get 4 tracked anyway, the cost would be massive as the land take required is peoples back gardens and embankments and cuttings.

Look at the fence lines particually on the Up side at the Brum end, there is a strip of waste land alongside the railway, between the lineside fence and a second fence a bit further out. This is because the railway already owns a lot of the land needed and has done for years.

 

[Old Timer]

The plan in the late 1990s was to quadruple the whole route through from Coventry to Birmingham, and as far as I remember the planning was quite advanced, with a start date originally quoted about 2003/4

 

[Geezertronic]

The plan in the late 1990s was to quadruple the whole route through from Coventry to Birmingham, and as far as I remember the planning was quite advanced, with a start date originally quoted about 2003/4

Out of interest, who pulled the plug then?

Note: when checking the internet for info on this, I came across an article on the RCTS website that stated that "Cl.390 Pendolino DEMU's operate Virgin Trains Wolverhampton-Coventry-Euston"

 

[Old Timer]

Out of interest, who pulled the plug then?

Note: when checking the internet for info on this, I came across an article on the RCTS website that stated that "Cl.390 Pendolino DEMU's operate Virgin Trains Wolverhampton-Coventry-Euston"

To be honest I am not quite sure. I recall being told in 2001 that we were due to get the four tracking and indeed we started to set up a delivery organisation in the background.

Of course then Hatfield happened and we were all diverted to re-railing. About the same time Manchester South and Rugby started to go wrong for Carillion, and of course administration then happened. I lost sight of the Coventry Corridor four tracking and it just sort of faded into the background.

It was allied to the plan to resignal the West Mids and move everything to the new WMCC at saltley by 2010 !

 

[The Planner]

Only a few years out then, New St re-sig isnt planned to be finished until 2015.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at the fence lines particually on the Up side at the Brum end, there is a strip of waste land alongside the railway, between the lineside fence and a second fence a bit further out. This is because the railway already owns a lot of the land needed and has done for years.

Would still need pretty substantial works between Stechford and/through Marston Green and also Hampton in Arden. The only bit that seems to be future proof is the M42 bridge.

 

[Old Timer]

Only a few years out then, New St re-sig isnt planned to be finished until 2015.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Would still need pretty substantial works between Stechford and/through Marston Green and also Hampton in Arden. The only bit that seems to be future proof is the M42 bridge.

Probably the biggest issue is the embankment by Mackadown Lane. There is room behind the ridge behind BHX.

Some big work would need to be carried out in Stechford, but then again they said we couldn't four track the Trent didn't they !

 

[Geezertronic]

Probably the biggest issue is the embankment by Mackadown Lane. There is room behind the ridge behind BHX.

As my parents live in Moseley Drive (backing onto the railway) as did I until I left home (many years ago), I agree there. The embankment is pretty steep with gardens one side (Moseley Drive) and the old golf course the other side. Not impossible but I guess it would take a few quid to sort out. Through Lea Hall might be interesting too.

 

[Old Timer]

I had a special look this morning and there is almost sufficient existing width along most of the route to get in one additional line and in some cases two additional lines. It would appear that the land-take was almost bought to allow four-tracking at some time in the long distant past.

 

[Geezertronic]

I had a special look this morning and there is almost sufficient existing width along most of the route to get in one additional line and in some cases two additional lines. It would appear that the land-take was almost bought to allow four-tracking at some time in the long distant past.

Someone had foresight for the future? Get outta here

 

[Trog]

Someone had foresight for the future? Get outta here

The Midland Railway bought land south of Luton to allow the laying of a fifth and sixth track, I think the railway still owns most of it. it may come in useful if the coal traffic into London picks up again.

 

[The Planner]

One flow of freight traffic isnt going to be enough to build two new tracks.

 

[Trog]

Coal traffic to Brent was what the Midland thought it needed the two extra tracks for, hence my comment. At the time there were often hold ups due to congestion resulting in trains stacking up for miles at the south end of the permissively worked section of the slows at Luton. Train crew would walk out to relieve a train do their shift then walk back still not having reached the front. The First World War prevented the Midland going ahead, and I assume the depression and larger post war engines allowed the LMS to manage without