Junctions requiring remodelling

[Whistler40145]

In your humble opinion, which Junctions on the Network Rail system require remodelling to provide an enhanced passenger & freight service?

 

[ainsworth74]

That flat diamond crossing north of Newark North Gate where the Lincoln to Nottingham line crosses the ECML. That really needs to be a flyover.

 

[YorkshireBear]

In your humble opinion, which Junctions on the Network Rail system require remodelling to provide an enhanced passenger & freight service?

How long have you got?

 

[Schnellzug]

Hitchin might be an idea, perhaps, although haven't they been thinking about doing that?

 

[jopsuk]

Hitchin's a long way further advanced than merely thinking about it; there are pegs in the fields and ground works have started for it.

 

[swt_passenger]

Woking. The key limiting factor in the entire SWT mainline timetable.

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree that Newark flat crossing requires rebuilding with a flyover.

Dore requires redoubling to improve Hope Valley services.

 

[Eagle]

Whilst we're on doubling junctions, Syston's a bit of a bottleneck on a major freight route; surprised it wasn't included in the Nuneaton–Felixstowe upgrade plans.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Shaftholme on the ECML (though in common with the Hitchin flyover, plans are already well advanced).
Carstairs north <-> east and south <-> east.
Westerleigh (though that's maybe not just re-modelling as beginning the curve west of the river)
London Bridge to Blackfriars (though if that isn't adequately improved by Thameslink programme then we might as well all give up now).
Camelon (Falkirk).

But as jimmyowl1992 asked, how long ?
There are also existing junctions where the construction of a new chord (converting a junction into a triangle) might greatly improve journey opportunities and facilitating shorter freight movements, even allowing them to avoid conflicts with many passenger services.
Another stragegy, albeit expensive, is the flyover / diveunder as proposed for the north of Hitchin; (these greatly reduce the conflicts on opposing lines, especially where there are quadrupled through lines).

[Shouldn't this thread be in the Infrastructure forum?]

 

[OxtedL]

Windmill Bridge et al up by East Croydon are a recognised issue.

 

[Eagle]

Norton Bridge is another one in the pipeline (preferred option is a massively separated GSJ, which should allow more slow trains in that part of the world).

 

[DarloRich]

The Newark one needs doing!

Norton Bridge is in planning/feasibility but also needs sorting out asap!

 

[GB]

With an increase in freight services (and more in the future), Haughley Jnc on the GEML could do with being a double junction rather than the current single lead setup.

 

[43106]

There are TYPES of junctions that I don't understand. An example is Temple Hirst, just north of Doncaster. In case you don't know it. there's a crossover from the down line to the up line. The actual junction then branches off as a single line from the up line, then opens up to 2-track. I do know that Euxton junction was like this, but has since been rebuilt to what I would call a conventional 2-line junction. What's the thinking behind this design?

 

[Eagle]

What's the thinking behind this design?

No crossovers. A convential fork would have the down branch crossing the up main (or vice versa) at an oblique angle.

 

[43106]

No crossovers. A convential fork would have the down branch crossing the up main (or vice versa) at an oblique angle.

What's wrong with a crossover? Similarly, what's wrong with crossing a line at an angle? As far as I can see, a junction like Temple Hirst creates a bit of a bottleneck, but I have a nasty suspicion I'm missing something. (Having said that, the traffic must be fairly light between Temple Hirst and Selby)

 

[tsr]

Redhill. Somebody keeps on forgetting to improve it.

 

[Whistler40145]

As for Euxton Junction, it was originally a single lead junction with signal protecting it from the mainline. The junction was rebuilt with double track & a crossover nearer to Chorley so that trains off the slow lines can run via the Down Fast, then use the new crossover to regain the correct line towards Chorley.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The southern approaches to Derby station are a nightmare due to the conflicting movements from two very busy mainlines. The lack of space means that the situation will never improve. I frequently travel up from London to the Motherland and almost always get held outside the station by Etches Park.

 

[MK Tom]

Colwich Junction. I think there have been two instances in my entire life where I've been on an ex-Stafford train that hasn't had to wait for something there.

 

[swt_passenger]

What's wrong with a crossover? Similarly, what's wrong with crossing a line at an angle? As far as I can see, a junction like Temple Hirst creates a bit of a bottleneck, but I have a nasty suspicion I'm missing something. (Having said that, the traffic must be fairly light between Temple Hirst and Selby)

Wear and tear on the diamond crossing vees is the usual explanation, where the metal thickness tapers away to nothing at the point where the wheel has to cross a significant gap.

So I understand that unless there are space constraints that prevent it current practice is to use a 'simplified double junction' layout - where a train weaves onto the other track and then onto the branch (and vice versa). Simultaneous parallel moves in the up and down directions are still available, the route in one direction uses a single set of points, the route in the other direction goes over three sets of points. This is a longer layout than a traditional double junction with a crossing though.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Water Orton, diabolical layout currently.

 

[Old Timer]

Water Orton, diabolical layout currently.

Water Orton was remodelled to its present shape in the 70s/80s to get rid of the diamond crossing in the Down Fast, which kept being hammered to pieces because of its location, which made it a complete B*stard to keep the track geometry OK.

What's wrong with a crossover? Similarly, what's wrong with crossing a line at an angle? As far as I can see, a junction like Temple Hirst creates a bit of a bottleneck, but I have a nasty suspicion I'm missing something. (Having said that, the traffic must be fairly light between Temple Hirst and Selby)

If I recall Temple Hirst correctly there were two reasons, one relating to traffic levels and the other one down to the fact that there was insufficient room to fit crossovers in so as to retain the double junction. Both switch diamonds and fixed diamond crossings cause enormous problems in terms of the need for enhanced maintenance, and during hot weather the HW detector and operating rods are prone to fouling one another.

The actual crossings themselves are also subject to fairly rapid deterioration and caused both ride and wheel problems especially when running at high speed.

 

[HSTEd]

Would adding two platforms at Northallerton on the current freight only lines and then completely removing the flat junction north of the existing station count?

That has to be an annoying bottleneck.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would adding two platforms at Northallerton on the current freight only lines and then completely removing the flat junction north of the existing station count?

That has to be an annoying bottleneck.

Well youd think wouldnt you, always seems to defeat the object me having a lovely flyover but passenger trains cant use it!

dont know if the current location of station is prime and moving it would make it worse, someone with more knowledge would have to comment on that.

 

[Nym]

You could add platforms to the off lines without too much trauma, but it would really spread out the size of the station, perhaps just the Northbound ones...

 

[mumrar]

Water Orton, diabolical layout currently.

Another vote for Water Orton, when you go towards Whitacre Jcn you end up being dead on with the Birmingham-Derby main that you left at 30mph and you crawled along wrong line after for some time. Whitacre could also do with straightening out, just buy that field and realign the main instead of the silly curves. Both of these would help keep freight on the route up to speed. Currently they accelerate from Landor St or Lawley Street, slow down to 30 at Water Orton, accelerate again only to go down to 30 again at Whitacre and have to accelerate up the gradient to Daw Mill and Arley.

 

[Minilad]

I would go with Norton Bridge and Water Orton as the worst two I go over. Some station approaches are a lot worse but that doesn't really fall under the remit of this thread I guess

 

[Nym]

Norton Bridge is due a redo soon IIRC...

 

[Minilad]

Norton Bridge is due a redo soon IIRC...

Yes I believe they are currently deciding which of a few possible layouts they will use. My guess is they will go with the cheapest one