Junctions requiring remodelling

[Nym]

The're all about the same linespeed and level of grade seperation on the options though, so I really don't care what they choose, performance will all be the same.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

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. . . . .

You recall quite correctly. The junction is situated immediately north of a bridge over the River Aire - there's not room for a long lead-in.

. . . . . 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)

Its also true that traffic on the Selby branch (which used to be the mainline before the diversion via Colton was created) is comparitively much much lighter. Its not really a bottlneck at all - the heavy traffic on the mainline is not delayed by the arrangement, and any down traffic to Selby still blocks the Up main, however it is designed. There are several other similar junctions, for example and in the same area on the ECML, Shaftholme Jn to Knottingley, Darlington South junction to Middlesborough and the Nottingham Branch at Grantham are the same.

 

[Rugd1022]

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.

And another vote for Water Orton from me..... I think in nearly ten years of signing this route I've only ever had two or three greens at WO when heading west towards Brum, and maybe one or two heading the other way. It should have been kept as a four track layout with a ladder replacing the diamond, rather than what it is now. Whitcare is now 35mph but it's still a ball ache getting up to Arley, even with empties!

 

[tbtc]

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

What is the problem? Flat crossings?

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

Dore requires redoubling to improve Hope Valley services.

I agree on both of those - Lincoln's services to Nottingham (and lack of Birmingham service etc) is because of the lack of paths over the flat crossing.

Dore is a real pain - a single track chord with a station on it, that sees up to six passenger trains an hour (combined) plus a decent amount of freight.

Camelon (Falkirk)

What would you do?

 

[swt_passenger]

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

They've decided on which route to take at Norton Bridge, it is just the fine tuning going on now. Option A1 (a modification to the original option A) has been decided on according to the May leaflet:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=4576

 

[GB]

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?

Sounds like a single lead junction...used when traffic is fairly light and reduces maintenance costs. However it does cause bottlenecks at high traffic times and increases the risk of a head on collision should a train pass a signal at danger without authority.

 

[tbtc]

I think that we need to separate the discussion between...

..."simple" improvements (like doubling a chord at Dore, sticking in a cross over for southbound Perth services to serve the southbound platform at Ladybank)...

...and "expensive" improvements (like grade separating the junction at Newark).

Just a thought.

 

[swt_passenger]

' Water Orton Capacity Improvements', is listed as a proposed project in NR's CP5 wish list. No real details of what will physically be done at this stage though.

 

[tbtc]

Oh, and a vote for the single track Holmes Chord at Rotherham to be sorted out - a major hassle in South Yorkshire.

 

[swt_passenger]

What is the problem [at Woking]? Flat crossings?

Yes - there is not enough capacity for all the trains off the Portsmouth Guildford route to cross both the down fast and down slow of the four track railway. This is why a few peak trains divert via Cobham and rejoin the main line west of Surbiton, using the up direction underpass at Hampton Court Jn.

Apparently the land to build a flyover at Woking was bought many years ago, but never progressed.

 

[Waddon]

May I nominate the junction (I don't know it's name, sorry) where the lines from Arundel / Littlehampton / Barnham and Brighton all converge? All those conflicting movements plus a busy level crossing... It's crying out for some kind of complicated flyover

 

[MidnightFlyer]

May I nominate the junction (I don't know it's name, sorry) where the lines from Arundel / Littlehampton / Barnham and Brighton all converge? All those conflicting movements plus a busy level crossing... It's crying out for some kind of complicated flyover

Arundel Jn North.

I never really saw it as that much of a problem, it is a lot less complicated than many, plus it would take a lot of flyovers and some engineering to sort everything out and get it back to ground level for Ford Jn or Littlehampton Jn.

 

[The Planner]

Water Orton needs the fourth track back between Water Orton West and Castle bromwich. Would save a huge hassle getting trains out. The reason you will never get a green there coming from Coleshill is that most of the freight has to go inside at Castle Brom so the approach control does you. The only way of doing massive works there is to close and demolish the station.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The only way of doing massive works there is to close and demolish the station.

That doesn't need to happen. There is room to run from Washwood Heath 2xDerby, 2xNuneaton and 1xbi-di freight to Castle Bromwich Junction and 4 track from there. A side platform is needed at Water Orton for ex-Nuneaton trains. Trains to Nottingham are a problem to stop at Water Orton though.

 

[Rugd1022]

Water Orton needs the fourth track back between Water Orton West and Castle bromwich. Would save a huge hassle getting trains out. The reason you will never get a green there coming from Coleshill is that most of the freight has to go inside at Castle Brom so the approach control does you. The only way of doing massive works there is to close and demolish the station.

We do get the occasional green there, just not as often as I'd like! For three nights last week I was on the same Stud Farm - Oxford job; first night I was stopped at WO with nothing about, nowt went by me then I received a yellow and ended up on the down goods, second night I had two yellows and followed something else fast line to Landor St, the third night I had a single yellow and went onto the down goods again.

Coming the other way from Castle Brom, we occasionally get a fast line run all the way from Landor St and get the flashing yellows for the Nuneaton line at WO, the trouble is with the junction still being only 30mph we don't really get that much of an advantage out of it, as our average speed from there to Arley is 30mph anyway!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

Like that at Didcot East Jn from Reading to Oxford.
I always think this is a very well designed junction - gives a 70mph speed off the main line and trains rarely seem to be held.
There is plenty of space, fortunately, unlike at places like Norton Bridge.


I always worry about Ordsall Lane Jn in Salford.
This is a set of double junctions from Piccadilly/Victoria to Salford Crescent/Liverpool, via sharply curved lines (two on viaducts).
Currently 50 to/from Bolton, 30 to/from Piccadilly, 25 to/from Liverpool/Victoria.
Fine for a limited service on all routes as originally intended, but hopeless for peak and frequent services.
About to become a major bottleneck with electrification and the Northern Hub...

 

[jopsuk]

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.

Shepreth Branch Junction, where the Cambridge to London lines split, is of this type- though what with the junction and the very tight curve of the "branch", it is 30mph for Kings Cross trains versus something like 80-85mph for Liverpool Street/Stansted trains each way.

 

[philjo]

Shepreth Branch Junction, where the Cambridge to London lines split, is of this type- though what with the junction and the very tight curve of the "branch", it is 30mph for Kings Cross trains versus something like 80-85mph for Liverpool Street/Stansted trains each way.

I don't think they could do much to ease the curve for the KX trains as they have recently built those homes in the triangle between the 2 lines. - Unless they cut a new section of line past Trumpington (with a new station there near the M11 junction) to ease the curve & the existing section at Shelford could be sold for housing.
I went into Cambridge yesterday & was thinking that an additional bidirectional track (preferably 2) between the junction & Cambridge station would help as the KX trains could then almost be separated from the Liverpool street services now the new plaforms are in use.

Not a junction but that curve at Shepreth station also has a 50mph limit I think - the line speed was raised a few years ago but the trains still have to slow down there.

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree that Norton Bridge requires remodelling or a completely new line avoiding the current layout.

 

[Nym]

The re-modelling is a grade separation taking the slows over the fasts, and providing a cord, basically, grade separating the slow lines over the fasts toward stoke.

Layout: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/Consultation/11075_Stafford_area_proposal_map.aspx
Website: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/11026.aspx

 

[CosherB]

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.

When Norton Bridge is re-built, will Manchester via Stoke Pendos still use Colwich?

 

[Whistler40145]

AFAIK Colwich Junction isn't part of the works at Norton Bridge.

 

[Pumbaa]

When Norton Bridge is re-built, will Manchester via Stoke Pendos still use Colwich?

I think so as the flyover at Norton Bridge means going via Stafford and then onto what are currently the slows from Stafford. I appreciate they won't be as 'slow' after the work but it will still be faster going off at Colwich.

The flyover is intended for trains that stop at Stafford heading to Stoke.

 

[swt_passenger]

I've got an idea that the Colwich Jn area has been left for now because what they need to do there will be seriously affected by HS2 decisions that are yet to be made.

Before they came up with the Norton Bridge proposals currently undergoing consultation the earlier versions of various enhancement reports and RUS stuff usually referred to this area as the 'Stafford/Colwich' project - presumably that went on the back burner when HS2 raised its head...

 

[NSE]

When not at uni, I use Cambridge station all the time and I really don't see how or why the junction can/should be upgraded. No more trains are going to run on either lines I believe so it can just stay as it is.

 

[Eagle]

No more trains are going to run on either lines I believe so it can just stay as it is.

Depends how long-term you think. If the Thameslink programme doesn't bring more services to Cambridge via Hitchin, then IEP Express certainly will. And CrossCountry have always stated they want two an hour between Birmingham and Stansted, but the rolling stock and infrastructure to do that is as yet nonexistent.

 

[Kingsbury Jn.]

' Water Orton Capacity Improvements', is listed as a proposed project in NR's CP5 wish list. No real details of what will physically be done at this stage though.

Similarly, an east-north chord for the Birch Coppice branch at Kingsbury is also detailed in CP5. Currently the Kingsbury oil trains occupy the lines for up to 15 minutes at a time. It would be a great help in improving capacity on this stretch and complement changes at Water Orton.

 

[Old Timer]

And another vote for Water Orton from me..... I think in nearly ten years of signing this route I've only ever had two or three greens at WO when heading west towards Brum, and maybe one or two heading the other way. It should have been kept as a four track layout with a ladder replacing the diamond, rather than what it is now. Whitcare is now 35mph but it's still a ball ache getting up to Arley, even with empties!

The issue with Water Orton, and indeed Whitacre Jct as well is the track geometry.

At both locations the higher speed lines diverge into left hand transitions immediately beyond the "natural" junction.

Taking the Water Orton instance, the transition off the curve on the Down Fast lines runs out into the straight just under Marsh Lane o/b. There is insufficient length as I recall to get a crossover in there onto the Down Nuneaton, however even if there were, the Down Fast has a cant whereas the Down Nuneaton/Slow is on the level. In S&C terms this is pretty much the worst scenario that you would ever wish for, and you would not even start to design an S&C unit here.

Again looking at the arrangement on the Up Fast, the reason the original connection to the Up Nuneaton was removed was because of problems reatining the track geometry on the diamond where the lead passed through the Down Fast.

One potential solution would be to realign the existing Up Fast onto the old Up Goods line formation and realign the existing Down Fast into the existing Up Fast alignment, thus bringing them both through the north side bridge hole. That would allow for the removal of the connection to the Down Nuneaton currently situated to the east of the station on the Down Fast line.

The existing Down fast alignment through the station could then become the Up Nuneaton, meaning that both Nuneaton lines pass through the south bridge hole. This would however require the construction of two new platforms, one on the Up Side and one on the Down side, which would effectively take out a 1/3rd of the existing car park.

Of course none of this removes the need for Nuneaton-bound trains to crosover the Down Fast line at Water Orton West Jct, so there is not much to be gained for the money.

Looking now at Whitacre Jct, the only solution here would be to physically realign the double junction onto the straight closer to Birmingham, and lead the Nuneaton junction onto a new alignment through the adjoining field so as to cut off the tight curve. There may however be clearance issues with the arches in Station Road o/b that would mean this would need to be rebuilt. The final issue is the toe to toe distance of the new junction with the trailing and crossvers, and the lead into Hams Hall.

 

[balne-wonderer]

On the subject of freight traffic blocking up the ECML I think there is currently something going on to improve the Joan Croft Jct in South Yorkshire near Thorpe (and Thorpe Marsh PS)

I believe the level crossing is biting the dust as well.

 

[GingerSte]

I'm in agreement with most of these. However here's some additional ones for your consideration...

• Hare park junction between Sandal & Agbrigg and Fitzwilliam on the Doncaster-Leeds line. Would allow the Grand Central trains to run fast to Hare Park and then access Wakefield Kirkgate (which needs better services if its ever going to be worth upgrading)
• Adwick North Junction (I think) just north of Moorthorpe but again on the Doncaster-Leeds line. Grade separation would allow Leeds->Sheffield trains to run over Doncaster->Leeds trains without conflict, and allow a massive increase in frequency.
• Dore - I would run a third (or possibly even a fourth) line from Dore all the way into Sheffield, and perhaps have another station in between. This would free up a lot of capacity for East Midlands and Cross Country trains (possibly even allowing a third hourly XC service Hull-Birmingham or beyond).
• Swinton - Instead of feeding into the Moorthorpe to Sheffield line, continue as a second pair of tracks to where the line diverges for Rotherham. Bags of extra capacity to be had (and my additional third XC service could stop at Rotherham Central, and then head down the other Dearne Valley line into Sheffield).
• Sheffield Station north throat - Make into 4 tracks (non-grade-seperated) before the two lines for Rotherham and Lincoln diverge. There would be some heavy geotechnical engineering (ie removing shed loads of rock), but it would again provide bags of capacity.
• Clay Cross Junction - Bring back 4 tracks on the MML! Grade separate the reinstated down fast line from Nottingham so it goes over the existing up line to Derby/Birmingham. Again, bags of capacity to be had, and the opportunity to use the Erewash Valley line as a proper mixed use main line.
• Micklefield Station - grade separate to allow the up line from York over the Down line to Selby. Follow up by 4-tracking some of the line between Micklefield and East Garforth to allow fast trains to overtake stoppers.
• Grantham Station - grade separated junction south of Grantham to allow one KX-Grantham-Nottingham and one KX-Grantham-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds service per hour (possibly run by East Midlands Trains). St Pancras trains to run to Derby only (Derby-Sheffield is already provided by XC and my third hourly service would alleviate any crowding issues). This would be after a range of measures to increase capacity on the Southern ECML.

That should keep you going for now!