Improving WCML South Performance

[LNW-GW Joint]

Virgin Trains has published an ORR report on its web site compiled by Chris Gibb who has been working with Network Rail on improving the performance of WCML South, which continues to be well below acceptability.
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/wcs-reliability-programme-191112.pdf

It's a really good analysis of some deep-rooted problems, with interesting solutions identified.
The problems include a high level of suicides, neutral section problems, difficult access to the Up Fast in particular, and NR's procurement policies actually working against long-term solutions.
The ORR's attitude of fines and enforcements is considered unproductive, given the deep-seated nature of the problems.

The recommended solutions include fencing to HS1 standards, deploying a rail-mounted maintenance train, and running LM/SN trains on the DC lines between Willesden and Watford on weekend nights to enable the power to be turned off on the main lines for urgent maintenance.

This is an extract regarding neutral sections:

All 125mph neutral sections are to be changed to the so-called “Red Label” Arthur Flurry neutral section. The manufacturer claims to have recommended this in 2008, but NR cannot trace such a request, and also claims the current “Yellow Label” version was never intended for 125mph operation. It appears that the West Coast Route Modernisation project team were more focussed on within budget / on time delivery of the project, than the medium / long term component performance, and this approach has clearly cost NR and the industry dearly in terms of poor performance.

It shows what a tough job the guys in orange suits have to keep the WCML running.

 

[eMeS]

Thanks for the link - interesting reading. It goes some way to explain why decent trackside photography is so difficult...

 

[DXMachina]

I can see one issue - only some of LM's class 350s are capable of running on DC, the first batch. More recent addictions are AC only, their remaining Class 321s are AC only, and they lost their 313s long ago when Overground took over DC ops.

They'd need to draft in their 150s AND borrow other trains to do it.

 

[mr_jrt]

I can see one issue - only some of LM's class 350s are capable of running on DC, the first batch. More recent addictions are AC only, their remaining Class 321s are AC only, and they lost their 313s long ago when Overground took over DC ops.

They'd need to draft in their 150s AND borrow other trains to do it.

...or wholesale conversion of the DC lines to AC now the 378s providing the DC/New Lines service are all dual-voltage.

Tangent: On that note, aside from conversion to AC, it would be great if the local and slow lines were also more conveniently paired by direction rather than use to improve flexibility...you could end up with some attractive single-seat service patterns more akin to the southern end of the Met (i.e. St. Albans/Tring-Watford all stations then H&W, Willesden and Euston on the slows, Watford-H&W all stations on the New Lines then to Willesden & Euston on the slows, H&W-Willesden all stations on the New Lines then to Euston on the slows and Willesden Junction to Euston all stations on the New Lines). It would do a lot to prevent the dangerous scrums over the footbridge at Harrow & Wealdstone you currently see due to the interchange. I suspect a pair of flyovers or diveunders before and after the station and a diversion of the fast lines would be the more likely solution than building new platforms at every station though.

 

[OxtedL]

I can see one issue - only some of LM's class 350s are capable of running on DC, the first batch. More recent addictions are AC only, their remaining Class 321s are AC only, and they lost their 313s long ago when Overground took over DC ops.

They'd need to draft in their 150s AND borrow other trains to do it.

If I quote the bit I think you're worried about:

Our conclusion is that from 2015 a radical new approach to maintenance/renewal on this section is required, based on the following:
1. Signalled Passenger train access to/from DC lines at Watford, as part of Watford Re-signalling project at Christmas, 2014. “Passive provision” is currently part of the project, and must be stepped up to “active provision” at the earliest possible opportunity.
2. By agreement with DfT, with the support of ORR, new LM and ICWC franchise agreements with SLC/PSR requiring the following:
3. Complete closure of Bushey - Euston to AC traction, and block of all AC only lines, for the following periods: 2200 Sat-0715 Sun and 0005 - 0500 Mon, every weekend. Renewal of most OHLE components during these periods over a 5-10 year period. Power supply to Wembley Depot must be maintained. Extensive track work, S&C maintenance, drainage work, vegetation, tunnel work, HS2 Page 8 of 9 work all enabled with all OHLE off. DC lines power supply is to be reviewed to establish that it can support LM/Southern train sets.
4. Between these periods LM/Southern/diesel hauled trains diverted to DC lines between Watford and Willesden Junction/Euston. Options for Southern (Thameslink by then) or LOROL to run the MK -Euston service during this period at night, as all trains are DC active and many spare, and the trains
can be diverted from Willesden to Victoria when Euston shut for HS2 work. VT trains operate north of Watford only (turning at Watford possible post re-signalling).
5-8. <snip>

I doubt they'd need very many DC capable units to pull this off - it'd just need careful diagramming.

 

[Trog]

I wonder how much work will be required on the DC to make and keep it fit for that sort of thing. It is also a rather slow 45MPH line, with several slower PSR's on top of that.

AC electrification would also probably be difficult, through the tunnels at Kensal Green and Primrose Hill. I think that when the similar rat hole tunnel was electrified in the 1960's extra segments were inserted to enlarge the tunnel.

 

[John55]

I wonder how much work will be required on the DC to make and keep it fit for that sort of thing. It is also a rather slow 45MPH line, with several slower PSR's on top of that.

AC electrification would also probably be difficult, through the tunnels at Kensal Green and Primrose Hill. I think that when the similar rat hole tunnel was electrified in the 1960's extra segments were inserted to enlarge the tunnel.

Spending money on a railway does wonders for it speed profile. Parts of the new line used to be the fast lines before 1912 so I am sure acceptable performance can be achieved.

Item 3 above mentions ensuring the DC power supply can cope with LM and SR trains so OHLE installation should not be necessary.

 

[Trog]

The DC used to be 60MPH, but was reduced to 45MPH as it was considered unsafe for BR trains to be going faster than the tube trains. There are also several tight curves, which will never be any faster than they are now. If the traffic is to be increased much, large amounts of track renewal will be required, and working on the DC is a big problem due to access constraints etc.

 

[mr_jrt]

The DC used to be 60MPH, but was reduced to 45MPH as it was considered unsafe for BR trains to be going faster than the tube trains.

A good a reason as any to withdraw the Bakerloo back to Queens Park and enhance the LO service then, surely?

 

[D365]

Or to finally order 60mph+ Evo Stock :P That wouldn't allow for AC conversion though.

 

[OxtedL]

A good a reason as any to withdraw the Bakerloo back to Queens Park and enhance the LO service then, surely?

Alas, cramming another 9tph off the DC into Euston would possibly a bit much.

 

[mr_jrt]

Alas, cramming another 9tph off the DC into Euston would possibly a bit much.

...that's what Primrose Hill and the NLL is for

 

[D365]

Extend services into Goblin when electrified and create Watford Junction-Barking/Stratford!

 

[Nym]

Or just order the 60mph EVO stock and crack on with flat bottom conversion...

 

[OxtedL]

...that's what Primrose Hill and the NLL is for

Yes, because there's totally enough room to at least double the current service provision on the NLL...!

Extend services into Goblin when electrified and create Watford Junction-Barking/Stratford!

The only way to do this would be to miss out Queens Park and diverge straight after Willesden Jn Low Level. Thus you'd lose all interchange with the Bakerloo Line.

 

[causton]

The only way to do this would be to miss out Queens Park and diverge straight after Willesden Jn Low Level. Thus you'd lose all interchange with the Bakerloo Line.

You could go via Primrose Hill, as has been done a few times when Euston is unavailable (the junction is just after South Hampstead)

And then you could have Watford - Willesden Low Level - Stratford and Willesden High Level terminating services to Richmond and Clapham with some Richmond/Claphams running through and some ex-Watfords running to Barking? (This is getting more fantasy as I type!)

 

[Eagle]

The only way to do this would be to miss out Queens Park and diverge straight after Willesden Jn Low Level. Thus you'd lose all interchange with the Bakerloo Line.

I think he means via Primrose Hill.

EDIT: ninjaed

 

[Nym]

Something more mad could be to hand over the DC lines to Crossrail north of Willesden Junction and just run the Bakerloo that far...?

Or just, keep it as is and when new stock comes in you can up line speed.

North of Harrow and Weldstone you might be able to do this now, if you have the track renewed, a fair amount of it is rather, well, old...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think he means via Primrose Hill.

EDIT: ninjaed

Considering the fact that via Primrose Hill will shortly have a lot of works going on for UIC-GC2 clearance and will have 3tph HS2 paths on it, there won't be much space left for 9tph!

 

[OxtedL]

I think he means via Primrose Hill.

To get to the GOBLIN?

Anyway, while it was fun letting this get out of hand so quickly, you aren't going to get rid of the Bakerloo as it'd disadvantage far more people than it'd help, however fantastically neat it looks on paper. Shall we move on?

I'm guessing a big thing for the DC lines would be gauge clearance?

 

[Trog]

To get to the GOBLIN?

I'm guessing a big thing for the DC lines would be gauge clearance?

The DC line structure gauge is OK so far as I am aware, as it has been used in the past by HST stock. The track however is fragile, and would not take much of a pounding, even where it has been converted to FB. The signals are also quite few and far between, so a few more of them would probably also be required before you could run much traffic that way.

 

[mr_jrt]

Considering the fact that via Primrose Hill will shortly have a lot of works going on for UIC-GC2 clearance and will have 3tph HS2 paths on it, there won't be much space left for 9tph!

That's still not a given yet. TfL aren't happy about it, nor are several other influential stakeholders. We may well see a proper continuation of the tunnel to St. Pancras instead.

Euston's losing its DC lines service in the rebuild, that's pretty much a given, so it's really a question of what to do with Queens Park to Primrose Hill.

Handing over the line north of QP to the Bakerloo means South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road have to close as the DC service can't efficiently reverse at Queens Park unless they only use platform 4 and abandon platform 1, though thankfully the required crossover is already present. So you have to either operate a Queens Park-NLL shuttle, wasting paths north of Camden Road, or you widen the viaduct as is currently planned for the HS2 works and run using the capacity on the new four-track section currently used as freight loops, either to Stratford (unlikely due to aforementioned pathing constraints), or onto the ELL by merging into the H&I services.

This change alone gives you 8tph, 4 of which from Crystal Palace can terminate at H&W and the other 4 from West Croydon at Willesden. You then just extend the New Cross services to Watford from Dalston and you're done, (and have improved the service provision on the DC lines to every 15 minutes at Watford), and only have a net loss of 1 tph between H&W and Queens Park (9tph to 8tph). Accordingly, if Crystal Palace gets an extra 2tph as planned then you've effectively increased frequency from 9tph to 10tph, and increased frequency at Willesden Junction from 9tph to 12 or 14tph, and you have an simple cross-platform change at Queens Park to an empty Bakerloo train should you want stations on that route.

...ideally the Bakerloo tunnels would be continued somewhere useful...but that's another thread entirely.

 

[OxtedL]

...so now we're sending 12tph ELL, at least 6tph NLL (aspirations for at least 8) and a non-trivial amount of freight down the maximum 4 track Camden Road-Canonbury section?

 

[Eagle]

deleted.

 

[mr_jrt]

...so now we're sending 12tph ELL, at least 6tph NLL (aspirations for at least 8) and a non-trivial amount of freight down the maximum 4 track Camden Road-Canonbury section?

Yup.

Ideally, that freight wouldn't be there unless it's to/from London, and then it should only be there off peak. That said, even with the freight loops the freight has to intermingle in with the NLL between Stratford and Highbury and Islington, and then again between Maiden Lane and Camden Road to get to Primrose Hill.

I think there's room to build loops on the both the Maiden Lane (i.e. 6 tracks) and Primrose Hill (i.e. 4 tracks - and I think you could do so with platforms as well) sites, but this doesn't solve the flat crossing issue, nor indeed the interworking with massive number of trains I'm proposing from the ELL.

Sending them to the Goblin via South Tottenham from Stratford buys NLL capacity on the Camden Road-Stratford section (perhaps when widened a 5-track viaduct would be possible to manage a central NLL turnback siding for the proposed Camden-Stratford service), and then the capacity constraint becomes Willesden Junction to South Tottenham. The Goblin already has loops in place south of Upper Holloway, and these could be expanded if needed. Alternatively, a new flyover at Forest Gate Junction could link the Goblin and GEML directly, and the land looks available, abet it is near to, or part of a graveyard. This would add some capacity at Stratford on all lines as well, as ideally the flyover would remove the at-grade crossing currently freight has to use to access the NLL.

Basically, the NLL and Goblin routes are already capacity restricted by the freight using them, so keeping it off the extended ELL should make little difference as it will still get to Wembley yard, and doing it this way removes the flat crossing at Camden Road and keeps the freight off the lines between Primrose Hill and Willesden. Willesden to Gospel Oak becomes a bottleneck...but until the fright gets a diversionary route that will just have to be the case, and it's better than the existing situation the line has of Camden to Stratford being the bottleneck, as that's the busier section of line. Having 12pth on the southern pair of tracks should also do wonders for the overcrowding on the NLL between Camden Road and Dalston.

 

[OxtedL]

What an exciting and incredibly expensive proposal.

Moving back to something actually within the scope of the WCML South document for a second though...

The DC line structure gauge is OK so far as I am aware, as it has been used in the past by HST stock. The track however is fragile, and would not take much of a pounding, even where it has been converted to FB. The signals are also quite few and far between, so a few more of them would probably also be required before you could run much traffic that way.

This has come up before, but I can't find anything specific: when was the last time something substantial (HST, Voyager, ...) was diverted down the DC line, and how tricky is it to clear new stuff to go down there?

 

[Trog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YiRO3ZvYrFI


I don't think this was the only time this was done.

 

[miikey]

The gauge clearance on the DC lines is shocking.
There needs to be some substantial work done to enhance the gauge clearance if any future development is to happen. I guess this can be done with track relaying/lowering through Primrose Hill and all the stations.

 

[Trog]

The gauge clearance on the DC lines is shocking.
There needs to be some substantial work done to enhance the gauge clearance if any future development is to happen. I guess this can be done with track relaying/lowering through Primrose Hill and all the stations.

Primrose Hill DC tunnels are of a circular cross section cast iron ring construction. The bottom of the ring is filled with concrete, that contains a drain running along the 4'. The sleepers virtually sit on the concrete slab, and in places are chamfered off underneath at the ends so they do not rest end bound on the rings. Lowering the track through these tunnels is therefore just about impossible.

To get more gauge height the upper half of the rings would have to be lifted as was done in the similar rat hole (Up Empty Carriage) tunnel for electrification. However outside the southern portal of Primrose Hill slow line tunnel the DC line tunnels are so shallow that the slows have to rise up to go over them. Hence the hump just out side the tunnel mouth before the slows drop into the Chalk Farm cutting.

The platforms on the DC are all low, this is NOT a fault to be cured by lowering the track. But a deliberate feature the height being a compromise between the National Rail and London Underground stocks requirements.

Lowering the track to give greater gauge height can also be a poor solution, as unless done as a formation dig it removes any existing blanketting layer. While creating a natural sump which will collect water, and be difficult to drain.

 

[miikey]

Well all the platforms on the DC lines are low. It actually has created more of a problem than a solution as a compromise to NWR vs LUL stock as the LUL stock comes very close to some platforms, when compared to NWR stock.
I don't know what the solution will be but they need to start doing something soon.

 

[Trog]

The platforms have been like that for over thirty years to my certain knowledge, and probably since the line was built ~100 years ago. If the LNWR, LMS and BR could handle it why not Network Rail?

The LUL stock also has much stiffer suspension than that used by the National Rail TOC's. So it sways less and can thus be safely used at tighter clearences.