Lines that should be four track

[Class172]

Another doubling one ( there isn't any other thread to put it in), Droitwich Spa-Stoke Works. This 5 mile single track section is currently limiting the number of trains that can come down the line, and it probably limits line speeds. This line was originally double track but was singled when Gloucester (PSC?) took control of the line south of Barnt Green. By redoubling the line, it would unlock the true potential of the line and it would benefit settlements all along the line.

 

[The Planner]

Doesn't need doubling, just needs a section of twin track at the Stoke Works end. As for the linespeed, doubling it would probably make it worse, not better, was the alignment slewed when it was singled ?

Its 30 over Stoke Works, 65 in the middle and 30 over Droitwich Jn anyway, you wouldnt be able to attain a much higher speed than that over the 4 miles if you were stopping at Droitwich.

 

[Class172]

Why was it singled anyway? The only 'tightish' bend I know of is as the track curves north-east around the Chateau Impney (that's ignoring Droitwich Jnc)

 

[LE Greys]

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.

Now I didn't know that. So I really ought to do Chesham and Amersham ASAP. Thanks for the info.

 

[Metrailway]

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.

Hi all, long time observer, first time poster!

There are bores which are unused between Marylebone and Finchley Road. There is one unused bore which runs starts at Finchley Road, running for a short distance south (not sure how far south though), which can provide an additional 2 tracks.
There are also 2 disused bores from Lodge Road to just north of Lord's Cricket Ground. The two disused bores can provide an additional 4 tracks together, and the bore curently used, is actually wide enough for three tracks, making the approach to Marylebone wide enough for a total of 7 tracks.

 

[Zoe]

Now I didn't know that. So I really ought to do Chesham and Amersham ASAP. Thanks for the info.

The Met is still running to Amersham and Chesham. The only change is that trains will call at all stations from Aldgate to Amersham and Chesham and not run fast as now. In peak times there will still be fast Amersham/Chesham services but they will call additionaly at Wembley Park.

 

[mr_jrt]

Hi all, long time observer, first time poster!

There are bores which are unused between Marylebone and Finchley Road. There is one unused bore which runs starts at Finchley Road, running for a short distance south (not sure how far south though), which can provide an additional 2 tracks.
There are also 2 disused bores from Lodge Road to just north of Lord's Cricket Ground. The two disused bores can provide an additional 4 tracks together, and the bore curently used, is actually wide enough for three tracks, making the approach to Marylebone wide enough for a total of 7 tracks.

Indeed, though I believe one of the tunnels only goes so far so as to act as a shunting neck for the old goods yard.

The GCR bought enough land for four tracks all the way out from central London (hence the tunnels under Lords and the bridge abutments over the WCML), but as it initially shared the Met tracks from Finchley Road, it only built it's own to Harrow to relieve the most congested area a few years after opening (imagine the stopping Met - now Jubilee, fast Met services, and Chiltern services all sharing two tracks!). I believe the land reserved for four-tracking the GCR line was later used to widen the Met to four tracks to Finchley Road instead, leaving the GCR with just the two tracks. I do wonder if the land the LPTB used to widen the Met to four tracks north of Harrow came from the GCR's assets.

..which is also why Marylebone was intended to have 10 full-length platforms. Presumably, the eastern 5 would have served the GCR&MR line and the western 5 the GC&GW Joint line, with four tracks out to Neasden Junction.

On another note, my votes for widening go to:
The West London Line.
The Chiltern Mainline to High Wycombe. (Aside from the short stretch around Sudbury Hill the London section was built as four track).
The Great Western Mainline. Six tracks to the M25 please.
The MML. Extension of the freight Lines to St. Albans please.
The BML. 4 all the way to Brighton please.
West Anglia Mainline. Coppermill Junction to Broxbourne.
Hertford Loop. Passing loops please.

...and large swathes of the South London metro network too.

 

[captainbigun]

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.

Ha ha, I like the notion. But it's rare for a TOC to listen to anyone!

 

[Metrailway]

Indeed, though I believe one of the tunnels only goes so far so as to act as a shunting neck for the old goods yard.

Possibly, but the wording of a 1901 ICE minutes of proceedings it about the 'Metropolitan Division' of the London Extension which I have on me, suggests that all three bores went north of Lord's.

I do wonder if the land the LPTB used to widen the Met to four tracks north of Harrow came from the GCR's assets.

I do remember reading somewhere that if the LTPB New Works Programme was completed to plan, it was intended for the new fast lines from Harrow to Rickmansworth to be solely used by the LNER.

..which is also why Marylebone was intended to have 10 full-length platforms. Presumably, the eastern 5 would have served the GCR&MR line and the western 5 the GC&GW Joint line, with four tracks out to Neasden Junction.

The GC intention with the GC&GW Joint line was to bypass the MetR, after relations soured between the two companies. When the London Extension was being built, the companies shared the same chairman, Edward Watkin. It was only after he became ill and had to resign, that the relationship deteriorated. Marylebone was always envisaged as a 10 platform terminus as the GCR believed it would actually compete with traffic with the Midland Railway. Of course, this was wrong, and the GCR never paid a dividend to it shareholders after the London Extension.

Back on topic - what I think needs 4 tracks urgently is Birmingham to Coventry!

 

[Anonywave]

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.

Can you please explain to me why Norwich would become "yet another commuter town"? and what do you mean by "Intercity status"? Your suggesting that it could be lost by conveersion to EMU/ a few more stops?

 

[LE Greys]

Can you please explain to me why Norwich would become "yet another commuter town"? and what do you mean by "Intercity status"? Your suggesting that it could be lost by conveersion to EMU/ a few more stops?

Let us contrast two places, Norwich and Bournemouth. Both have been major railway destinations with their own fast express trains, the East Anglian and the Bournemouth Belle among others. They are also about the same distance from London. Population sizes are 132,000 for Norwich and 164,000 for Bournemouth. Travel time is also about the same, around two hours. Yet Norwich is a main line destination and Bournemouth is suburban. Why?

Norwich still retains loco-hauled trains, a decision made by Eastern Region in the 1950s, while Bournemouth went over to EMUs at about the same time. However, the crucial decision was to include Bournemouth in Network South East while leaving London-Norwich as Intercity. However, that may have been promoted by the EMU-based service. It was thus managed by NSE as a part of their grand London commuter network, not as an individual main line. Stopping patterns and ticketing policy reflected this. The Cotswold Line suffered from this as well, despite being loco-hauled in the 1980s. It was far easier. Had it been up to me, both the Wessex and Exeter routes would have been Intercity, but it clearly was not. The alternative would have been to have the whole of East Anglia in NSE, leaving Norwich as a suburban station. This reflects on the city, affecting house prices and encouraging London commuters to move in. As a result, the economic pattern of the local area changes, especially around the city centre. Because commuters tend to prefer out-of-town shopping, fewer people spend money there, thus the local economy deflates. I can't see the City Council liking that.

One might say that this was just main line snobbery, or that it is an inevitable result of sectorisation. Whichever is true, it will inevitably happen again if they introduce EMUs and increase stops on London-Norwich. They might as well extend the Network Card at the same time.

 

[telstarbox]

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)?

AIUI the simple reason is that it would get in the way of the 2 fast services each way which do run Sheffield - Stockport - Manchester, as well as the freight services. This problem is only avoided by getting the stopper out the way at Chinley (i.e. via New Mills Central).

For example, the morning services out of Sheffield run as follows:

07.09 TPE fast service to MIA - stops at Dore then fast to Stockport
07.12 Northern stopper to MAN - runs just behind the 07.09
07.35 EMT fast service to LIV - this tends to catch the stopper up around Edale/Chinley. If the stopper didn't go via New Mills Central the fast service would have to follow it all the way to MAN, making it somewhat pointless.

Some peak fast services also stop at Chinley which makes the connections situation a little better.

AIUI (again), until 1986 all the Sheffield - Manchester services ran via New Mills Central until the Hazel Grove chord was constructed, allowing them to use the quicker route via Stockport.

 

[Anonywave]

This reflects on the city, affecting house prices and encouraging London commuters to move in. As a result, the economic pattern of the local area changes, especially around the city centre. Because commuters tend to prefer out-of-town shopping, fewer people spend money there, thus the local economy deflates. I can't see the City Council liking that.

Hold on, Firstly, in what way will switching to EMU's affect Norwich housing prices (will it make them cheaper or more expensive?). Either way how will this encourage London Commuters to move in (I mean, further down the line I can understand but norwich?) and you seriously expect a sizeable percentage of people in Norwich to suddenly often shop in London?

One might say that this was just main line snobbery, or that it is an inevitable result of sectorisation. Whichever is true, it will inevitably happen again if they introduce EMUs and increase stops on London-Norwich. They might as well extend the Network Card at the same time.

There is a difference between bringing the services within NSE and changing the rolling stock/calling patterns slighty and remember, NSE hasn't existed for 14 years and I imagine that what you describe happened before that anyway. How do you know that it will have the same effect.

 

[LE Greys]

Hold on, Firstly, in what way will switching to EMU's affect Norwich housing prices (will it make them cheaper or more expensive?). Either way how will this encourage London Commuters to move in (I mean, further down the line I can understand but norwich?) and you seriously expect a sizeable percentage of people in Norwich to suddenly often shop in London?

There is a difference between bringing the services within NSE and changing the rolling stock/calling patterns slighty and remember, NSE hasn't existed for 14 years and I imagine that what you describe happened before that anyway. How do you know that it will have the same effect.

As I believe I said, it is a gradual process that started in the 1950s. Network South East was just the final stage. It was an interaction between socio-economic changes over time and the rail service. I'm a zoologist, not a sociologist, so I'm not sure which factor was more important.

 

[Whistler40145]

If there was sufficient space, I would make Wigan North Western to Balshaw Lane Jn 4 track, giving extra capacity for when Preston-Bolton shuts for electrification.

 

[Fred26]

As I believe I said, it is a gradual process that started in the 1950s. Network South East was just the final stage. It was an interaction between socio-economic changes over time and the rail service. I'm a zoologist, not a sociologist, so I'm not sure which factor was more important.

Frankly I think it's ludicrous that Norwich has retained an Intercity service. I'd change it's services to three EMUs per hour - with justification being, it's too close to London to be 'Intercity' (in my eyes). I think a place as large as Norwich should have at least three trains per hour though, even if two run fast and one is slow. Three trains per hour will still be an improvement and I would definitely timetable it to run like that.

In fact...

Norwich - Liverpool Street, Fast:

Norwich
Diss
Stowmarket
Ipswich
Colchester
Chelmsford
Liverpool Street

Norwich - Liverpool Street, Slow:

Norwich
Diss
Stowmarket
Needham Market
Ipswich
Manningtree
Colchester
Marks Tey
Witham
Chelmsford
Shenfield
Romford
Stratford
Liverpool Street

...as a rough idea.

 

[tbtc]

Let us contrast two places, Norwich and Bournemouth. Both have been major railway destinations with their own fast express trains, the East Anglian and the Bournemouth Belle among others. They are also about the same distance from London. Population sizes are 132,000 for Norwich and 164,000 for Bournemouth. Travel time is also about the same, around two hours. Yet Norwich is a main line destination and Bournemouth is suburban. Why?

Norwich still retains loco-hauled trains, a decision made by Eastern Region in the 1950s, while Bournemouth went over to EMUs at about the same time. However, the crucial decision was to include Bournemouth in Network South East while leaving London-Norwich as Intercity. However, that may have been promoted by the EMU-based service. It was thus managed by NSE as a part of their grand London commuter network, not as an individual main line. Stopping patterns and ticketing policy reflected this. The Cotswold Line suffered from this as well, despite being loco-hauled in the 1980s. It was far easier. Had it been up to me, both the Wessex and Exeter routes would have been Intercity, but it clearly was not. The alternative would have been to have the whole of East Anglia in NSE, leaving Norwich as a suburban station. This reflects on the city, affecting house prices and encouraging London commuters to move in. As a result, the economic pattern of the local area changes, especially around the city centre. Because commuters tend to prefer out-of-town shopping, fewer people spend money there, thus the local economy deflates. I can't see the City Council liking that.

One might say that this was just main line snobbery, or that it is an inevitable result of sectorisation. Whichever is true, it will inevitably happen again if they introduce EMUs and increase stops on London-Norwich. They might as well extend the Network Card at the same time.

Do you think the average passenger would notice if their loco hauled "Intercity" service was replaced by equivalent length of EMU with the same stops?

 

[87015]

Do you think the average passenger would notice if their loco hauled "Intercity" service was replaced by equivalent length of EMU with the same stops?

If you listen to Chiltern they certainly notice and like it the other way round.

Enjoy pathing three trains per hour to Norwich, the best thing you can do on the GE is speed up the slow services then the Norwich's will just take care of themselves.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also would be interesting to see three train loads of fresh air carted around north of Ipswich each hour (off peak), rather than just the two we see today.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If you listen to Chiltern they certainly notice and like it the other way round.

yeah buts that is a DMU much easier to tell difference.

Alot of people wouldnt be able to tell difference between a pendilino and a mk4/mk3 (in terms of EMU loco hauled)

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Frankly I think it's ludicrous that Norwich has retained an Intercity service. I'd change it's services to three EMUs per hour - with justification being, it's too close to London to be 'Intercity' (in my eyes).

Norwich is about the same distance from London as Birmingham is, and Birmingham is very much an intercity destination. Some might argue that Birmingham will have two completely separate intercity routes in about three months time!

Passengers do like "big" trains though. I have noticed the reaction to the mark 3 services out of Moor Street. Part of that might just be down to novelty, but I think most of it is genuinely down to the fact that people genuinely prefer being on a locomotive and coaches.

 

[jopsuk]

Norwich is about the same distance from London as Birmingham is, and Birmingham is very much an intercity destination. Some might argue that Birmingham will have two completely separate intercity routes in about three months time!

Kings Lynn is about as far from London as Birmingham, and is served by 365s and 317s...

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Yes, but thats not really the point is it? 120 miles/2 hours from London is not "too close" for an intercity service. Birmingham is a perfect example of that.

 

[Fred26]

Yes, but thats not really the point is it? 120 miles/2 hours from London is not "too close" for an intercity service. Birmingham is a perfect example of that.

I almost argued this point, until I checked, via Google Maps. Birmingham is approximately 118 miles from Euston and Norwich approximately 112 miles from Liverpool Street. By road.

 

[sprinterguy]

I almost argued this point, until I checked, via Google Maps. Birmingham is approximately 118 miles from Euston and Norwich approximately 112 miles from Liverpool Street. By road.

By rail:

Liverpool Street - Norwich: 114 miles 77 chains
Euston – Birmingham New Street: 112 miles 73 chains

 

[Fred26]

By rail:

Liverpool Street - Norwich: 114.77 miles.
Euston – Birmingham New Street: 112.73 miles.

I think, perhaps because I used to work for NXEA (or one, as was), I see Norwich as part of NSE (I know it isn't). Norwich always felt very close to Southend for me and we always scoffed at the idea of Norwich being Intercity.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

And for the sake of completion:

Marylebone - Snow Hill 113m 05 chains. (80 chains to a mile)

 

[sprinterguy]

I think, perhaps because I used to work for NXEA (or one, as was), I see Norwich as part of NSE (I know it isn't). Norwich always felt very close to Southend for me and we always scoffed at the idea of Norwich being Intercity.

I don't blame you, Norwich feels like a natural extremity of the NSE map to me as well. The distinction between Intercity and regional/commuter services is a blurred one (There's two Intercity/regional debates going on simultaneously on this forum at the moment!) that hinges at least in part on the influence, size and nature of the intermediate locations the route serves
and not just on the end to end journey.

 

[Zoe]

I'm not sure why the Gatwick Express went to Intercity though. How is this an Intercity service in any way?

 

[LE Greys]

What I was getting at was this sequence over ten or so years, which you might call suburbanisational decline.

1. Railway company introduces a suburban-style service
2. London commuters move into the area (both around Norwich itself and near places like Diss which get additional stops)
3. Commuters have different spending patterns, and prefer out-of-town shopping
4. A critical mass (say 2,000 commuter households) builds in the area
5. Out-of-town developments and new housing estates increase in number
6. City centre shops in Norwich begin to decline
7. The railway reacts to the change in travel patterns by modifying stopping patterns (and cutting catering in favour of more seats)
8. This encourages more commuters to move in
9. Therefore again changing spending patterns
10. Therefore furthering the decline of the city centre

It would probably take about ten years to stabilise. Motorways cause exactly the same phenomenon. I look upon it as a bad thing (but then I don't like cities, as you might have guessed). The question is whether this is simply a socio-economic change that we can do nothing about or whether it is preventable by careful planning. I don't want to see yet another place go into local recession because of London commuting.