Is there a case for re-aligning the track through Burton on Trent?

[class26]

I knew there was something between Derby and New Street, but I couldn’t remember if it was 125 or 100mph.

Should have also added there is a 50 limit through Burton. Case for realigning alla M Harborough ?

 

[adamedwards]

How many non stop trains per hour? Plus is the platform long enough for all full length trains? If most trains stop and the platforms are full length, it's harder to make a case I would guess.

 

[The Planner]

Yes there is, and its being looked at, though not in massive detail.

 

[edwin_m]

There are loops outside the platform tracks at Burton, which I'm sure nobody would want to get rid of given the mix of traffic on this line. However re-aligning the tracks off the ends of the platform might push the loops beyond the railway boundary.

 

[Senex]

How much land does the railway still own north and south of the station? And given the width of that particular island platform and the fact that it's in the middle of a long straight, how long do the transitions need to be to get a reverse curve into and out of the platforms good for 125 mph?

 

[class26]

How many non stop trains per hour? Plus is the platform long enough for all full length trains? If most trains stop and the platforms are full length, it's harder to make a case I would guess.

You could reverse the argument though and say that trains stop as they have to reduce from 125 to 50 anyway. If it was realigned so 125 could be maintained perhaps more would go through at 125 ?

 

[adamedwards]

Good point. Might a solution be to make the loops the fast lines as easier to align track without the complexity of the platform and make the platform tracks the lower speed loops. Key would be making the points fast enough to fit the breaking curve of the trains stopping. My model for the pints is the works done at Milton Keynes when an extra down fast platform was added to allow for overtaking. One could imagine a Birmingham Nottingham service being overtaken by a Cross Country fast train in this way. One for the timetablers to comment on.

 

[ABB125]

Presumably the 50mph restriction is there because the tracks need to negotiate the island platform?
Would it be possible to rebuild the station with single platform faces on the outside of the four tracks instead of the island platform, allowing the tracks to be realigned, or would that cause issues with the structure(s) built on top of the station?
Alternatively, what about a realignment of the existing layout a bit like this?
Starting at the south end, there would be a loop for access to/from the Leicester line (as now). The Down Tamworth (fast) line would then be moved to the eastern-most side of the formation on a gentle, 125mph curve, and the loop would cross over to become a bi-directional goods loop between the two main lines. The Up Tamworth line would then move outwards gently, using some of the space for the current goods loop (which would be slightly shortened) to permit 125mph. Just before the start of the platform, the bi-directional loop would split, with the Derby-bound direction crossing over the fast line to take up the existing goods line formation; the Birmingham bound loop would become the platform line. This slow-fast-slow-fast arrangement would continue up to the end of the current 4-track formation (although there may be some issues at some of the bridges where the current goods line slews to the side to fit the space under the bridges).
If more goods looping is required, there appears to be space to the south of the station (and possibly as far as the voyager depot).

 

[The Planner]

Depends if the signalling is fit for 125 there and one of the original plans was to move the station slightly to the north. You would probably end up having to do something with Clay Mills LC.

 

[newmilton]

I may be mistaken, but having lived in Burton until seven years ago, I thought there had been a partial realignment to increase the speed through the station a few years back. The other question that would affect any decision is the ongoing issue of reopening the line to Leicester for passenger service ... which seems to be on the agenda again.

 

[Senex]

Yes, there was a slight adjustment to the platform faces at the north and south ends to get the speed up from the 30 that had applied for many years to the present 50. The ideal solution wouldbe to bulldose the whole lot and replace it with two dead straight through lines in the centre and platform loops on either side, but that would be rather expensive. That's why I asked how much space there is north and south to be able to lengthen the S-bends in the platform lines to be able to get 125. If there is plenty of space, then you could solve it either by moving the fast lines to the outside and having the slows in the middle and serving the platform, so that a stopper could be overtaken (like Milton Keynes if there's length enough for the additional signal-section), or by keeping the fast lines in the middle serving the platform with the slows really just as freight lines on the outside. And what is the signalling at Burton—three-aspect or four—and was it spaced for a future re-alignment or to allow maximum capacity with the 50 mph station speed? My curiosity in #5 above came from knowning just how much land the railway did own in the station area when facilities in Burton were at their maximum extent.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I remember going to Burton-upon-Trent when I worked for BR back in around 1975 and talking to the local Traffic Manager.

The 'idea' then was to completely remove the current island, have two fast lines essentially 'straight through the middle' (the bridge design supposedly allowed for that) and flank platforms and and goods loops/lines outside.

Given that the Derby re-signalling had not long been done this was hardly ideal timing and I never heard the idea seriously mentioned again.

 

[Kettledrum]

Presumably the 50mph restriction is there because the tracks need to negotiate the island platform?
Would it be possible to rebuild the station with single platform faces on the outside of the four tracks instead of the island platform, allowing the tracks to be realigned, or would that cause issues with the structure(s) built on top of the station?

The "structures" on top of the station are a small station building, comprising ticket office, lift to the platform and staircase down to the platform and the busy road bridge.

The station building structure is nothing special, and arguably not fit for purpose, and in true 1970's style has a flat roof too. It would not be missed.

Dr Hoo has posted that the bridge span was built in such a way that that two fast lines could be built straight through the middle. I don't know if this is correct, but it would be my preferred solution too, with the single island platform being replaced with two platforms on the outside slow lines.

If this increases line speeds from 50mph to 100 or 125 mph, this could shave a couple of minutes off cross country journey times. The network has certainly invested large sums of money elsewhere in shaving minutes off journey times, so why not in the midlands?

 

[The Planner]

Probably a minute tops, its 50mph for only 34 chains.

 

[class26]

Probably a minute tops, its 50mph for only 34 chains.

Isn`t it more the case of the time taken to accelerate back to 125 from 50 and before that brake from 125 to 50 ? If that time was at the 125 I would think more than 1 minute would saved. Maybe others can shed light ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn`t it more the case of the time taken to accelerate back to 125 from 50 and before that brake from 125 to 50 ? If that time was at the 125 I would think more than 1 minute would saved. Maybe others can shed light ?

There’s various simple tools to calculate this. The one I have shows that for a 10 car Voyager, a 34ch speed restriction of 50mph in an otherwise 125mph stretch of track costs 66 seconds including acceleration and deceleration. In train planning terms that’s 1 minute.

 

[Senex]

There’s various simple tools to calculate this. The one I have shows that for a 10 car Voyager, a 34ch speed restriction of 50mph in an otherwise 125mph stretch of track costs 66 seconds including acceleration and deceleration. In train planning terms that’s 1 minute.

Presumably there are still tools (and probably much better ones than in the past) for calculating costs and benefits. Wear-and-tear from additional braking and acceleration, extra fuel cost for getting back up from 50 to 125, and extra income generated by the 1-minute cut in journey-time? Back in the days of the EML electrification wasn't the rule-of-thumb that 1% off journey time meant 1% more in revenue?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably there are still tools (and probably much better ones than in the past) for calculating costs and benefits. Wear-and-tear from additional braking and acceleration, extra fuel cost for getting back up from 50 to 125, and extra income generated by the 1-minute cut in journey-time? Back in the days of the EML electrification wasn't the rule-of-thumb that 1% off journey time meant 1% more in revenue?

Indeed so.

The fuel cost can be quite significant. For a restriction like this, at an educated guess, it would be in the region of £20 per non stop train. That’s about £1000/ day, £300k pa.

The savings are much less on electrified railways where trains have regen braking.

 

[edwin_m]

The other factor to consider is that under HS2 phase 2 few passenger trains will run through Burton non-stop, because most of the faster XC service will be replaced by HS2 services. So any work at Burton might have less than 20 years to pay for itself.

 

[The Planner]

There’s various simple tools to calculate this. The one I have shows that for a 10 car Voyager, a 34ch speed restriction of 50mph in an otherwise 125mph stretch of track costs 66 seconds including acceleration and deceleration. In train planning terms that’s 1 minute.

Route Runner? you have too much time on your hands if you are playing about with that

 

[Bald Rick]

Route Runner? you have too much time on your hands if you are playing about with that

No, on both counts! I have a ‘special’ spreadsheet. Takes 3 seconds.

 

[43055]

I think I have taken this to far. Thinking about growth and what could be done I have come up with this:

This would give you 4 platforms as well as the current 4 lines through the station and a similar layout as present. A straight passage of the main lines through the station giving the possible 125mph running. Adding the extra two platform faces could give you an option for a number of moves such as the Long distance services overtaking the 170's if they are delayed and out of place and also gives option for growth with the possible reopening of lines such as the Burton - Leicester and Burton - Litchfield lines. Also by signaling platforms 1 and 4 bi-directionally and the relevant lines it could allow for reversals and if the Leicester line reopens a shuttle could be done without any interference with the main lines. All in all it is probably a good idea just a small problem of a bridge is in the way.

 

[Merle Haggard]

One of the oddities of the XC timetable was (before the amended Covid timetable) that trains not booked to stop at Burton were timetabled to take longer between Birningham and Derby. (I'm referring to the long-distance, Voyager or HST trains, not the 170s).
When I've travelled on a non-stop train, it seems to catch up with something in front about Tamworth, and run on the block, but still arrives at Derby right time.
This may be relevant to the suggestion of improving the line speed through Burton for such trains...

 

[The Planner]

One of the oddities of the XC timetable was (before the amended Covid timetable) that trains not booked to stop at Burton were timetabled to take longer between Birningham and Derby. (I'm referring to the long-distance, Voyager or HST trains, not the 170s).
When I've travelled on a non-stop train, it seems to catch up with something in front about Tamworth, and run on the block, but still arrives at Derby right time.
This may be relevant to the suggestion of improving the line speed through Burton for such trains...

Normally down to catching up a Notts Cardiff service which is probably behind a crossing move at Water Orton and which then clashes with a Cross City at Proof House.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I may be mistaken, but having lived in Burton until seven years ago, I thought there had been a partial realignment to increase the speed through the station a few years back. The other question that would affect any decision is the ongoing issue of reopening the line to Leicester for passenger service ... which seems to be on the agenda again.

Looking on Google Earth the island platform looks wide enough for a bay platform to be built in the South for terminating Ivanhoe services from Leicester unless the service is extended to Derby to pick up stops at Willington and Peartree.

 

[43055]

Looking on Google Earth the island platform looks wide enough for a bay platform to be built in the South for terminating Ivanhoe services from Leicester unless the service is extended to Derby to pick up stops at Willington and Peartree.

Defiantly wide enough. Just have to knock down the National Forest in the middle to build it (it would make the station look better)!

 

[trentvalley]

Wouldn't the plan for the ivanhoe line to terminate in the long disused or indeed if ever used bay platform?

Also the long term plan is to terminate Birmingham Cross City north at Burton too so the current layout would need a major overhaul for this.

 

[Furrball]

There were North and South facing bays although IIRC offset on the platform.

If you search on old maps for the area the more detailed one show

 

[newmilton]

There were North and South facing bays although IIRC offset on the platform.

If you search on old maps for the area the more detailed one show

The north bay served the now-lifted line to Tutbury. I believe the south bay was for trains to Walsall via Lichfield. The Lichfield line still connects to the main line at Wychnor, and is used as an occasional diversionary route for XC services towards B'ham. Extending the Cross City line is new to me - it would presumably mean electrification, but would still be much slower than the direct route via Tamworth, unless they're counting on people wanting to travel between Burton and Lichfield/Sutton Coldfield.

 

[MarkyT]

planning terms that’s 1 minute.

An advantage of a very high-performance unit with electric-like acceleration.

The fuel cost can be quite significant. For a restriction like this, at an educated guess, it would be in the region of £20 per non stop train. That’s about £1000/ day, £300k pa. The savings are much less on electrified railways where trains have regen braking.

With Voyagers, to save brake pad wear, much of the braking will likely be regen too, but the energy will be discharged as heat through the resistors on the roof. If they had some traction batteries on board, they could notionally capture some of that for use in acceleration out of the restriction, saving some emissions too.