Junctions requiring remodelling

[jopsuk]

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.

The only way to remodel it given the developments nearby would, I reckon, involve tunneling- way more espensive than anyone would be prepared to spend.
Ideally, I'd have had it done such that from the tunnel portal(s) to a new station at Chesterton was four-track, with "terminal" platforms at Chesterton leading to a stabling yard somehow with the only trains terminating at Cambridge being the Ipswich line ones that could run sperate down the east side to new platforms.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

I know I may be wrong but I actually like the Newark diamond crossing. I know the arguments for getting rid but it will be a sad day for me the first time I travel that way and don't cross it.

 

[Donny Dave]

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.

I know the junction your thinking off, and it isn't Adwick. It's between Fitzwilliam and South Elmsall on the Doncaster - Leeds line. In order to build the flyover, a serious amount of earthworks is required because of all the waterways in the area.

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).

Dore Station Jn is being redoubled anyway soon (or at least that is what's being planned), which will be sufficient for the traffic that currently passes there. There is room available to add a new line from there to Sheffield, but it would mean the lines currently there would have to be re-aligned a little, possibly reducing linespeed.

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).

The big capacity killer between Aldwarke Jn and Swinton is the speed differentials, which is 35/90/100HST That needs sorting first before anything else is considered.

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.

The sheer cost of new tunnels and new alignments means that this will never get the go ahead, even though Nunnery Main Line Jn is 1 of, possibly even the biggest pinch point in the North East.

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.

Chesterfield station - Clay Cross Jn has been re-modelled a bit recently (I'm talking about 2 or 3 years ago now). Trains to/from the Nottingham direct now use the slow lines (used to be the goods lines) between Clay Cross Jn and Chesterfield. There is now a double ladder immediately after the station so traffic can be segregated easily. The fast lines at Clay Cross Jn were plain lined at the same time.

That should keep you going for now!

Sorry if I've put a downer on your plans, as they are all good suggestions. Sadly though, they are very unlikely to ever come about.

 

[Ploughman]

Skelton Jcn North of York.
Where the Up / Up - Down / Down changes to Up Down / Up Down over the 3 track bridge.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

Neither Thameslink nor IEP bring more services to Cambridge, just different trains. The capacity constraints on XC is not Cambridge, nor Shepreth Jn, but Stansted Tunnel and Ely North Jn. The latter of which gets my vote.

 

[Eagle]

The capacity constraints on XC is not Cambridge, nor Shepreth Jn, but Stansted Tunnel and Ely North Jn. The latter of which gets my vote.

And, further afield, Syston junction, which should really be doubled (then again, if Dore can cope...)

 

[YorkshireBear]

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

• 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.
• 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!

Sheffield North throat is not really an option at all, cost an absolute fortune for not really an equal benefit. Considering the lines around sheffield.

And i dont think chucking the sheffield and nottingham to london services down the ECML will be achievable without something changing at welyn which almost 90% wont happen.

Your other points i agree with but them two i do not.....

 

[tbtc]

I know the junction your thinking off, and it isn't Adwick. It's between Fitzwilliam and South Elmsall on the Doncaster - Leeds line. In order to build the flyover, a serious amount of earthworks is required because of all the waterways in the area

Only way I could think would be to build a spur from the Fitzwilliam - South Elmsall line onto the Pontefract - Moorthorpe line (e.g. across the north west of the junction), meaning that Leeds - Fitzwilliam - Moorthorpe - Sheffield services would cross over the Doncaster line on the current bridge that Pontefract trains use.

But I'm not sure whether there is space to climb to that height though.

 

[GingerSte]

I know the junction your thinking off, and it isn't Adwick. It's between Fitzwilliam and South Elmsall on the Doncaster - Leeds line. In order to build the flyover, a serious amount of earthworks is required because of all the waterways in the area.

Earthworks would be required, but it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility. This scheme would be similar in length to the new chord going in North of Nuneaton. Small streams can easily be culverted through, so wouldn't need full bridges. There may be one or two bridges required for footpaths though.

Dore Station Jn is being redoubled anyway soon (or at least that is what's being planned), which will be sufficient for the traffic that currently passes there. There is room available to add a new line from there to Sheffield, but it would mean the lines currently there would have to be re-aligned a little, possibly reducing linespeed.

Doubling Dore Station would be sufficient for the services that pass through it (ie the fasts and slows to Manchester), but this will not have an effect on capacity North of Dore Station (in fact, adding a Manchester service will take up existing spare capacity if anything). The current arrangement also means that trains to Manchester have to cross the MML down line, and the conflict can cause delays in both directions. I would prefer to see the services separated from the MML completely, as that would bring a complete step change in capacity south of Sheffield.

As well as there being enough room, the bridges were designed to take 4 lines on this section. The decks would probably need replacing, but I imagine the abutments and foundations wouldn't, especially if the new bridges were limited by weight to what they were designed for. The linespeed issue I can't comment on (not my area of expertise), but the run is fairly straight as it is, and I can't see it altering too much.

The big capacity killer between Aldwarke Jn and Swinton is the speed differentials, which is 35/90/100HST That needs sorting first before anything else is considered.

Agreed. 4-tracking Aldwarke Jn to Swinton would provide a much longer section where fasts and slows do not conflict (ie not just the Rotherham loop).

The sheer cost of new tunnels and new alignments means that this will never get the go ahead, even though Nunnery Main Line Jn is 1 of, possibly even the biggest pinch point in the North East.

I know that this would be expensive, but the sheer increase in capacity would bring huge benefits. I developed a plan to do this (which I'll dig out later), which would minimise the cost, but it will still be large. For example some of the bridges over the line only carry a dead-end road, and could be removed. However, the signalling for a remodelled throat would be almost as much (if not more) than the earthworks.

Chesterfield station - Clay Cross Jn has been re-modelled a bit recently (I'm talking about 2 or 3 years ago now). Trains to/from the Nottingham direct now use the slow lines (used to be the goods lines) between Clay Cross Jn and Chesterfield. There is now a double ladder immediately after the station so traffic can be segregated easily. The fast lines at Clay Cross Jn were plain lined at the same time.

I know this was recently re-modelled, and I have to admit I don't like what they've done. However I agree that this one in particular is unlikely to come about.

Sorry if I've put a downer on your plans, as they are all good suggestions. Sadly though, they are very unlikely to ever come about.

No worries. It takes more than reality to bring me down! :roll:

 

[NSE]

And, further afield, Syston junction, which should really be doubled (then again, if Dore can cope...)

Until Hitchin and Welwyn and the West Anglian mainline get sorted, I don't think that there is any more capacity to get trains to Cambridge from London.

 

[Eagle]

Eh? Why are you quoting my post to go with that? Syston is in Leicester

 

[GingerSte]

Only way I could think would be to build a spur from the Fitzwilliam - South Elmsall line onto the Pontefract - Moorthorpe line (e.g. across the north west of the junction), meaning that Leeds - Fitzwilliam - Moorthorpe - Sheffield services would cross over the Doncaster line on the current bridge that Pontefract trains use.

But I'm not sure whether there is space to climb to that height though.

Looking at Multimap (I know, not the most accurate ways of telling), the new overbridge for the Hemsworth Bypass is roughly 1km from the bridge on the Pontefract line. With the OHLE and a half through bridge (ie the bridge beams form the parapet, so the structural depth beneath the track is minimised), I would imagine that the track level of the new chord would be somewhere between 5700mm and 6000mm over the existing Leeds<->Doncaster lines. The track could be on the slope as it goes over the bridge, so there need only be one transition (at the Hemsworth Bypass end).

So assuming 6 metres change in elevation and 900 metres (being conservative) chainage, this would give us a gradient of 1 in 150, which I believe is suitable for railways (not my area). This assumes that the Leeds-Doncaster track is level. If the existing tracks slopes up or down then this would affect my calculation, but I don't have a survey of this area.

I would also note that the Hemsworth Bypass overbridge appears to have been built with a possible new chord in mind. There is enough room for four tracks, and I suspect that there is ample headroom to have the new chord a few hundred millimetres above the existing tracks. I would say at this point that my plans would include 4-tracking at least as far as Fitzwilliam Station, at which point fasts could overtake slows and eliminate a lot of problems caused by mixed speed services.

In short, I think the increase in elevation could be achieved.

 

[tbtc]

Looking at Multimap (I know, not the most accurate ways of telling), the new overbridge for the Hemsworth Bypass is roughly 1km from the bridge on the Pontefract line. With the OHLE and a half through bridge (ie the bridge beams form the parapet, so the structural depth beneath the track is minimised), I would imagine that the track level of the new chord would be somewhere between 5700mm and 6000mm over the existing Leeds<->Doncaster lines. The track could be on the slope as it goes over the bridge, so there need only be one transition (at the Hemsworth Bypass end).

So assuming 6 metres change in elevation and 900 metres (being conservative) chainage, this would give us a gradient of 1 in 150, which I believe is suitable for railways (not my area). This assumes that the Leeds-Doncaster track is level. If the existing tracks slopes up or down then this would affect my calculation, but I don't have a survey of this area.

I would also note that the Hemsworth Bypass overbridge appears to have been built with a possible new chord in mind. There is enough room for four tracks, and I suspect that there is ample headroom to have the new chord a few hundred millimetres above the existing tracks. I would say at this point that my plans would include 4-tracking at least as far as Fitzwilliam Station, at which point fasts could overtake slows and eliminate a lot of problems caused by mixed speed services.

In short, I think the increase in elevation could be achieved.

Good stuff.

I agree about fourtracking the line towards Wakefield too, given the number of trains (and the variety of speeds) on that section.

 

[GingerSte]

Good stuff.

I agree about fourtracking the line towards Wakefield too, given the number of trains (and the variety of speeds) on that section.

I'd 4-track that bit, and possibly some of the line between Wakefield and Leeds. But between Fitzwilliam and Wakefield there;s a fairly long cutting with adjacent properties close by (just before Hare Park Jn) and you have the long viaduct on the southern approach to Wakefield Westgate. Both of these would be expensive/difficult to 4-track.

Plus 4-tracking at Hemsworth presents a good opportunity for a new station, meaning that Hemsworth's 13,300 people (according to Wikipedia) could walk to their station instead of driving to Moorthorpe or Fitzwilliam.

Edited to add: there's already passing loops on this section of track, which should reduce the cost of this upgrade (especially in the signalling).