Lines that should be four track

[91101]

I am very much with Ajax regarding the Hertford loop, and the provision of passing loops, or even four tracking for some of the critical sections, and an associated line speed upgrade, you could easily push two of the FCC outers paths an hour around the loop and release capacity on the main line.

 

[centurian]

Does Norwich really warrant an Intercity style service?

Try sitting for 2+ hours on a 5 abreast Class 321, which NXEA are now running to Norwich once per day. And that service is slower than the Intercity services (it does make more stops).

The Intercity-style trains are very popular for commuters in Ipswich and Norwich and pressure groups are fighting hard to keep an equivalent service. I think if you gave them the option of brand new EMU's or 20+ year old Class 91's / MK4's (if they are ever cascaded), most passengers would go with the latter.

But whether it's "Intercity" or not, the problem is still the same. The same 2 track line is used for short stopping commuter services and mid-distance services.

The problem isn't top speed, but congestion - how do the "fast" services get out of town without being held up by the stopping services. Swapping LHS for an EMU doesn't solve that problem.

I think the congestion runs from Shenfield to Colchester, rather than Chelmsford. Pretty much all the trains going to Chelmsford run on to Colchester anyway - and then branch out from there.

 

[captainbigun]

That's not a problem with the 321s per se, it's an issue with the physical seating which I think most would acknowledge is crap.

The 91s are completely unsuited to the route, they are geared for 140mph and that won't be easily altered. They need to be doing constant high speed at a minimum of 125mph.

Introducing a modern EMU would enable quicker journeys and allow more stops whilst bringing more seats to the equation. So, the answer isn't a few fast trains, the answer is better use of the capacity with trains that can maintain, maybe reduce, journey times whilst increasing stops. The GE is a commuter route and that market is only going to increase as the London sprawl spreads.

It's not all about the passengers north of Ipswich, they are in the minority vs the other intermediate stations and I would wager that their income doesn't warrant retention of an Intercity service medium term and beyond.

 

[Class172]

Kings Norton-Birmingham New St
The line (from what I've read) is already over 100% capacity as cross-city services, H'ford and some XC services have to share the same line. I don't know if it would be possible to quad all the track - improvements should be made so more services can go onto the Camp Hill line. If new chords were built at Bordesley, HFD-BMS services could go to Moor St, taking pressure off New St

 

[IanXC]

Kings Norton-Birmingham New St
The line (from what I've read) is already over 100% capacity as cross-city services, H'ford and some XC services have to share the same line. I don't know if it would be possible to quad all the track - improvements should be made so more services can go onto the Camp Hill line. If new chords were built at Bordesley, HFD-BMS services could go to Moor St, taking pressure off New St

Would the Camp Hill line have capacity for this if the proposed Kings Norton-Moor Street services were introduced? I'm guessing there would be signalling improvements to make?

Although potentially one of the 3 tph on the Camp Hill line could be a Hereford service, maybe only calling at Kings Norton?

 

[The Planner]

Camp Hills could cope, you can run at 5 minute headways along there. Nothing will be done signalling wise down there as it is part of the Water Orton scheme which comes in next year. Kings Norton to New St isn't over capacity otherwise you couldnt run whats there without delay to every train, that doesn't happen.

 

[Eagle]

If it hasn't been mentioned already, Dorridge to Birmingham (Bordesley Jcn minimum, but preferably all the way to Moor St at least). With the mix of LM stoppers, Chiltern semistoppers, Chiltern fasts, XC nonstop and a generous helping of freight; the rules for priority between these services are completely unfathomable. XC in particular always seems to get delayed into New St. And four-tracking this would have almost as much improvement for Chiltern's journey times as the rest of the Chiltern Mainline upgrades put together—comparable to Euston-New St. (Oh, and while we're in fantasy land, some Mainline electrification would be nice. With IEPs. Lovely. )

Then of course if Kenilworth ever gets redoubled XC will be forced to run everything via Coventry (or so say Network Rail in the new West Midlands strategy document thingy), so Cov-New St might get busier and quadruple that instead.

 

[centurian]

Introducing a modern EMU would enable quicker journeys and allow more stops whilst bringing more seats to the equation. So, the answer isn't a few fast trains, the answer is better use of the capacity with trains that can maintain, maybe reduce, journey times whilst increasing stops.

I think GEML probably will go down the EMU route in the end, more for fleet flexibility reasons.

But EMUs alone won't reduce journey times for the longer distance passengers. In fact the evidence suggests it will increase it. The only current EMU service to Norwich is 2hr7min - longer than any of the 90/MK3 services (except the past-midnight one) - and it only makes 4 extra stops. The long journey times aren't caused by slow acceleration - it's one of sheer congestion.

I'm not suggesting 4 tracking purely so the inner tracks can allow 140mph non stop to Ipswich/Norwich. When I say "fast" service, I don't mean it has a higher top speed, but a higher average speed. If small sections were 4 tracked, some of the 360's to Harwich, Ipswich & Colchester could use the inner tracks, while the stopping services used the outer tracks. We don't need 110/125/140 mph - we need to get to 100mph and stay there for a sustained period of time.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

How about 4-tracking through Cross Gates station - would this help ease congestion over the lenghty double track that all Leeds-Selby/Hull/York trains must traverse?

 

[The Planner]

Then of course if Kenilworth ever gets redoubled XC will be forced to run everything via Coventry

No forcing in it, XC would run that way now if they could. They are not interested in going via Solihull at all, they'd rather have an extra stop at International.

 

[Class172]

Kings Norton to New St isn't over capacity otherwise you couldnt run whats there without delay to every train, that doesn't happen.

I presume it's the trains that are over capacity, not the infrastructure

 

[swt_passenger]

No forcing in it, XC would run that way now if they could. They are not interested in going via Solihull at all, they'd rather have an extra stop at International.

Eagle does seems to have the cart before the horse here.

As you rightly point out XC have wanted to run all their trains via Coventry and International for quite a while, it's been in all the applicable RUSs for ages.

It is XC's aspiration that requires the further doubling, not the other way round...

 

[LE Greys]

Eagle does seems to have the cart before the horse here.

As you rightly point out XC have wanted to run all their trains via Coventry and International for quite a while, it's been in all the applicable RUSs for ages.

It is XC's aspiration that requires the further doubling, not the other way round...

And I suppose that boosts the case for quadrupling to Rugby (if it wasn't boosted enough already). The big problem with that is, of course, New Street itself at the eastern end.

 

[daikilo]

That's not a problem with the 321s per se, it's an issue with the physical seating which I think most would acknowledge is crap.

The 91s are completely unsuited to the route, they are geared for 140mph and that won't be easily altered. They need to be doing constant high speed at a minimum of 125mph.

Introducing a modern EMU would enable quicker journeys and allow more stops whilst bringing more seats to the equation. So, the answer isn't a few fast trains, the answer is better use of the capacity with trains that can maintain, maybe reduce, journey times whilst increasing stops. The GE is a commuter route and that market is only going to increase as the London sprawl spreads.

It's not all about the passengers north of Ipswich, they are in the minority vs the other intermediate stations and I would wager that their income doesn't warrant retention of an Intercity service medium term and beyond.

I think we need to listen to our customers. If they prefer a slower service with more comfort and say an equal frequency, so be it. They pay the fares.

 

[Bittern]

Partick - Hyndland could use with it. Would allow for even more services to relieve some of the already packed trains in the peak hours. Actually, I'm pretty sure this idea was in Network Rail's head not too long ago. There's even plenty of room because (and I could be wrong here) it could've been quadruple track before BR 'rationalized' it (around the time of Hyndland terminus' closure?)

 

[LE Greys]

I think we need to listen to our customers. If they prefer a slower service with more comfort and say an equal frequency, so be it. They pay the fares.

The passenger profile of Norwich might be a good question. Norwich could almost have gone NSE, but it did not, it stayed Intercity. It's quite possible some of the wealthier commuters don't want to lose their Intercity status, and the Council certainly would not look too kindly on becoming yet another commuter town. Is that really worth compromising a good service over? If it keeps the revenue up, then yes.

 

[gnolife]

Llandudno - Piccadilly is routed 'long way round' from Chat Moss to Victoria then through to Piccadilly East, unless all services get extened to Manchester Airport

Under these plans Warrington Bank Quay and Liverpool South Parkway looses it's fast services to Manchester. I'd propose either of the following to 'keep them happy'

i think you mean Central there, the Llandudnos take Bank Quay, the Liverpools take Central (apart from the Airport - Chat Moss - Liverpools)
pickyness over for now

I think that Hope Valley from Edgeley Junction (1) to Dore and Totley should be 4 tracked, and the Stopping service increased to once hourly.Alternatively, a bay be installed at Chinley, so that trains can extend from Hazel Grove (or New Mills Central for that matter) to Chinley, as i think that there is demand for terminating services in the peak hours.
[Off topic now]
speaking of the Hope Valley lines, does anyone know why the HV all stopper runs as an extension of the New Mills Central limited stops service, surely there would be more demand for connections made available at Hazel Grove (for Buxton) and at Stockport (for Altrincham, Macc, Crewe and so on)?

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Dore Junction - Sheffield Midland

 

[Tomnick]

I think that Hope Valley from Edgeley Junction (1) to Dore and Totley should be 4 tracked, and the Stopping service increased to once hourly.

Probably the most unlikely to happen in its entirety - something like eight or nine miles of the route is underground!

 

[AndyJB]

"Impractical" is an understatement!

The problem this stretch of line has is the differing speeds of the services using it. If it was reasonably possible I would new stations at Saltford and St Anne's (east and west of Keynsham respectively). If this was to happen the there would probably be a necessity for the line to have at least passing loops, if not necessarily four tracks. It would be less of a problem if Bath had more than two platforms, but I feel that similarly-disadvantaged Chelmsford has a greater need.

I do agree on the need for Cheltenham to have an extra platform. As a potential solution, why not carve a bay platform into the southbound platform (there is plenty of room!) and run a shuttle to Gloucester, and then terminate more existing services there? That way the two through platforms at CNM should suffice, and it would allow the Worcester runs to become hourly. To facilitate this, all non-London terminators stop short at Gloucester, and a twice-hourly shuttle is run with a 150 (one unit would do). The services via Stroud could then terminate at Gloucester if short, connecting into a local 150, or as current if an HST. This would also mean that units no longer have to cross the lines north of the station.

There are one or two locations on the Bath - Bristol route on which it would be possible to have (short) four track sections. There used to be four tracks running through Bath Spa, for example. The bridge out of Bath spa would be impossible to add anything to, but the section after the bridge used to have sidings and it wouldn't be impossible from there to Oldfield Park, as the redundant ACC waste sidings are still extant and there used to be a siding on the oposite side too. Unlikely that they'd provide any real advantage though.

 

[phil281]

Some in the London Area

Twickenham to Barnes (Trains stupidly overcrowded in the peaks)
Epsom to Raynes Park (Epsom has a rubbish service to London, needs a fast train to Waterloo)
Victoria to Bromley South (Again stupid overcrowding due to lack of paths)
Marylebone to High Wycombe (Needs 4 tracks to unlock potential of the route)

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Marylebone to High Wycombe (Needs 4 tracks to unlock potential of the route)

It would be virtually impossible to do this. There is just not enough room in lots of key areas, the tunnels out of Marylebone (St Johns Wood & West Hampstead) are substantial and can only accept two tracks, as can the tunnels at South Harrow (near Northolt Park station) and Whitehouse (between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe). Interestingly, the now infamous new "Tesco" tunnel at Gerrards Cross can accept four tracks. The line between West Hampstead and Neasden is mostly on viaducts and these would need widening to allow more tracks, something I cant see happening any time soon, and the bridges over the West Coast Mainline (which the Marylebone - Wycombe stretch crosses twice) and the M25 would also need significant, expensive and highly disruptive work on them. It is highly highly unlikely to ever happen. The only way to increase capacity along that stretch of railway is with clever use of loops and signalling and smart timetabling.
You should see even more of an improvement in this once Evergreen 3 is complete (September this year, hopefully) as the line speed is going up, lots of extra signals are going in, there will be a new passing loop on the down at South Ruislip and down trains will now be able to terminate in up platforms at West Ruislip and Gerrards Cross, so disruptive shunts will take less time.

 

[LE Greys]

It would be virtually impossible to do this. There is just not enough room in lots of key areas, the tunnels out of Marylebone (St Johns Wood & West Hampstead) are substantial and can only accept two tracks, as can the tunnels at South Harrow (near Northolt Park station) and Whitehouse (between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe). Interestingly, the now infamous new "Tesco" tunnel at Gerrards Cross can accept four tracks. The line between West Hampstead and Neasden is mostly on viaducts and these would need widening to allow more tracks, something I cant see happening any time soon, and the bridges over the West Coast Mainline (which the Marylebone - Wycombe stretch crosses twice) and the M25 would also need significant, expensive and highly disruptive work on them. It is highly highly unlikely to ever happen. The only way to increase capacity along that stretch of railway is with clever use of loops and signalling and smart timetabling.
You should see even more of an improvement in this once Evergreen 3 is complete (September this year, hopefully) as the line speed is going up, lots of extra signals are going in, there will be a new passing loop on the down at South Ruislip and down trains will now be able to terminate in up platforms at West Ruislip and Gerrards Cross, so disruptive shunts will take less time.

Aren't there unused bores parallel to Lords and St John's Wood tunnels? If so, they would be useful in getting four tracks as far as Neasden Junction. I'd also be looking at electrifying that route, meaning that the Metropolitan would have to go dual-system from Harrow onwards.

 

[Zoe]

I'd also be looking at electrifying that route, meaning that the Metropolitan would have to go dual-system from Harrow onwards.

Or you could electrify with OLE to Harrow and from Amersham to Ayelsbury and have Chiltern use dual voltage stock. Alternatively you could just electrify the line via High Wycombe and leave the Aylesbury line for DMUs.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Aren't there unused bores parallel to Lords and St John's Wood tunnels? If so, they would be useful in getting four tracks as far as Neasden Junction. I'd also be looking at electrifying that route, meaning that the Metropolitan would have to go dual-system from Harrow onwards.

I don't know if there are unused bores, or if there are whether they run the full length of the tunnels. Even if there were (and I dont think there are) you still have the two track bridge over the WCML, the mouth of the tunnel at West Hampstead and the fact that most of the track is on a viaduct between West Hampstead and Kilburn to contend with. It would be a massively expensive and disruptive job to undertake. I cant see it ever happening.

 

[LE Greys]

Or you could electrify with OLE to Harrow and from Amersham to Ayelsbury and have Chiltern use dual voltage stock. Alternatively you could just electrify the line via High Wycombe and leave the Aylesbury line for DMUs.

Working with dual-system on the Met opens the possibility of extending the service to Aylesbury. I'd see the fast lines from Harrow to Moor Park being converted to a.c., with all the platforms at Harrow and Moor Park having both systems for changeover purposes. Leave the Uxbridge branches as it is, with the Watford branch being done only if they thought that having both systems running in parallel was a bad idea. Chiltern could perhaps then extend to Milton Keynes when they finally get the Varsity Line open. They would need new stock, call it E-Stock (basically something similar to 378s) for the service, complete with through-gangways, toilets and so on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know if there are unused bores, or if there are whether they run the full length of the tunnels. Even if there were (and I dont think there are) you still have the two track bridge over the WCML, the mouth of the tunnel at West Hampstead and the fact that most of the track is on a viaduct between West Hampstead and Kilburn to contend with. It would be a massively expensive and disruptive job to undertake. I cant see it ever happening.

I don't know the line very well, but I'm sure I remember the remains of a second bridge span on the down side of the line. The abutments are wide enough for two spans, unless that was simply Denizon allowing for potential growth. I'll have to go to South Hampstead soon for a closer look.

 

[Zoe]

Working with dual-system on the Met opens the possibility of extending the service to Aylesbury. I'd see the fast lines from Harrow to Moor Park being converted to a.c., with all the platforms at Harrow and Moor Park having both systems for changeover purposes. Leave the Uxbridge branches as it is, with the Watford branch being done only if they thought that having both systems running in parallel was a bad idea. Chiltern could perhaps then extend to Milton Keynes when they finally get the Varsity Line open. They would need new stock, call it E-Stock (basically something similar to 378s) for the service, complete with through-gangways, toilets and so on.

Considering that from December this year all Met services outside of peak hours are going to call at all stations (even peak Amersham services will have an additional call at Wembley Park) you may as well hand the fast lines to NetworK Rail and leave the Met with the Uxbridge and Watford branches. The only possible change would be for Chiltern to stop at Moor Park so that anyone from Northwood wouldn't have to doubel back to Harrow.

 

[londonmidland]

Not quite 4 tracks but I think they should double the freight line at Leicester, it is going to be used a lot as new intermodal freight services are going to use that line.
***Of task, does anyone know when the intermodal services are going to start?***

 

[Bittern]

http://bristol-rail.co.uk/w/images/b/bc/Oldfield_Park15.jpg

Unrelated, but the Blue Pullmans were pretty sleek looking for their time.

 

[Class 33]

Another vote for Dr Days to Filton AW. They can throw in stations at Ashley Hill and Horleaze [I think] while they're at it.

You're getting Horfield and Lockleaze mixed up. The correct name for that old station was Horfield.

But yes I agree, they really ought to quadruple the track again on this line in the near future. Re-open former stations Ashley Hill and Horfield. As well as Henbury. And introduce a brand new service. Bristol Temple Meads-Avonmouth. Calling Lawrence Hill, Stapleton Road, Ashley Hill, Horfield, Filton Abbey Wood, Henbury, and Avonmouth. And also have the current Bristol Temple Meads-Bristol Parkway all stations stopping services also call additionally at Ashley Hill and Horfield. Perfectly viable I think if they were to quadruple that stretch of line again....