Peterborough Station remodelling

[jopsuk]

This diveunder has always been there, but in the past trains both to and from Ely had to share two platforms with northbound ECML trains. Now (in theory at least) there are two platforms for each of these flows.

In practice, most of the time ECML northbound services used 4 and XC, EMT and GA (the latter terminate!) used 5. Don't think I ever got an Ely line train in either drection that used 4 or an ECMl that used 5, though obviously the points allowed this. I'll bet that in practice that 5 now becomes little used- unless it becomes the default for terminating GA trains, with northwestbound XC/EMT on 7 and southeastbound on 6?

 

[Aictos]

Fellow Peterborough resident and commuter here!

There is also the matter of the west end entrance to the station which has not been constructed yet, not sure what is happening with this. Given the hoardings at that end of the footbridge I assume this is still continuing.

I had no idea they were finally going to build a West Side entrance, this will help no end with the congestion in the peak outside the front of the station which as a regular user you know full well about

Have you any links to these works?

Remember that this is an East Coast Station. EC trains will only be very rare visitors to the new platforms 6/7!

I doubt EC will be able to use these platforms unless they are routed via Cambridge on the diverts as 1. These Platforms are not electrified and 2. They are only accessible from the March/Stamford lines.

Surely they haven't got rid of the bay platform, what a stupid thing to do!

Not really, they needed to extend Platform 1 southwards and this meant building over the trackwork to the former bay platform.

 

[D1009]

In practice, most of the time ECML northbound services used 4 and XC, EMT and GA (the latter terminate!) used 5. Don't think I ever got an Ely line train in either drection that used 4 or an ECMl that used 5, though obviously the points allowed this. I'll bet that in practice that 5 now becomes little used- unless it becomes the default for terminating GA trains, with northwestbound XC/EMT on 7 and southeastbound on 6?

As mentioned in post #21, GA trains turn round in platform 6. I believe the reason for this is that trains from the Ely direction have to use the up line from the other side of the Nene bridge to get into platforms 4/5. The GA trains have fairly short turnrounds, but if necessary southbound trains can get past them by using 5.

 

[edwin_m]

In practice, most of the time ECML northbound services used 4 and XC, EMT and GA (the latter terminate!) used 5. Don't think I ever got an Ely line train in either drection that used 4 or an ECMl that used 5, though obviously the points allowed this. I'll bet that in practice that 5 now becomes little used- unless it becomes the default for terminating GA trains, with northwestbound XC/EMT on 7 and southeastbound on 6?

I think things were a bit more flexible back in the 80s when I had the misfortune to change trains there reasonably often. Probably not so many ECML trains stopping then.

Use of 5 it may depend on the future timetable. It should be handy if a terminator from London either has a fast behind it or something is leaving southbound so it can't cross over to 1 or 2 on arrival.

 

[CockneySparrow]

This diveunder has always been there, but in the past trains both to and from Ely had to share two platforms with northbound ECML trains. Now (in theory at least) there are two platforms for each of these flows.

not quite true, they shared one platform and that was platform 4, and that was only for EMT services although it was known occasionally for CC to use P4 but that was rare

EC never went into P5 come to think of it I am not 100% sure the track work would allow EC to use it anyway other than terminating services from the north or diverted services through Ely

 

[dosxuk]

Don't think I ever got an Ely line train in either drection that used 4

On the other hand, I don't think I've caught a train in the Ely direction that hasn't left from P4.

 

[jopsuk]

the new platform 3- I take it there simply wasn't space for the old island to be wide enough for the stairs & lift AND have the platform face on a line separate to the fast? There were surely eyebrows raised at the idea of creating a platform face on a track with trains passing at over 100mph?

 

[CockneySparrow]

the new platform 3- I take it there simply wasn't space for the old island to be wide enough for the stairs & lift AND have the platform face on a line separate to the fast? There were surely eyebrows raised at the idea of creating a platform face on a track with trains passing at over 100mph?

eyebrows raised? Really? Do they not hammer through the platforms at Newark, Grantham, Stevenage and Potters Bar plus loads more the nearer the train gets to London

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

There are toilets on P6/7, just not in use yet, and I believe that there will be a retail outlet going in over there too.
Does seem a bit odd that the messroom has clear glass in the windows, so all the punters can gawp at staff having a brew!!

 

[jopsuk]

eyebrows raised? Really? Do they not hammer through the platforms at Newark, Grantham, Stevenage and Potters Bar plus loads more the nearer the train gets to London

They do, but that's an accepted legacy risk. There's a difference when you create a new risk.

 

[poshfan]

This diveunder has always been there, but in the past trains both to and from Ely had to share two platforms with northbound ECML trains. Now (in theory at least) there are two platforms for each of these flows.

and in fact the "dive-under" pre-dates the ECML itself by 4 years.

Also I noticed when returning from Cambridge last week that there is a new facing crossover at Fletton Road junction (under the road bridge near the football ground) , so presumably the east bound line between there and the station is now bi-directional. There used to be a trailing crossover here, not sure whether it is still there as well, I was on a train so couldn't see.

 

[Aictos]

not quite true, they shared one platform and that was platform 4, and that was only for EMT services although it was known occasionally for CC to use P4 but that was rare

EC never went into P5 come to think of it I am not 100% sure the track work would allow EC to use it anyway other than terminating services from the north or diverted services through Ely

Platforms 2 to 5 were always available for northbound East Coast services, you just were restricted to Platform 2/3 for London bound trains unless you were diverted via Cambridge in which case only Platform 4/5 could be used.

That's the old platforms mind you.

 

[moggie]

Designed for 12 car trains from the south hence why the bay had to go.

 

[Rick1984]

I would have thought platform 5 would be useful for the EMT trains as its on the ECML side but as far as I can gather from above the trackwork is not ideal for northbound trains using 5?

Also having spent many hours in the 4/5 waiting room traveling from Great Yarmouth to Kilmarnock; it could really do with improvement.

The steps make getting in and out with luggage very difficult. The waiting and toilets are cramped and dated

 

[DaveNewcastle]

EC never went into P5 come to think of it I am not 100% sure the track work would allow EC to use it anyway other than terminating services from the north or diverted services through Ely

In normal service, I'm sure you're right. But I did smile one evening over this summer when 'my' northbound was held in P4 while the next service with a brake fault pulled alongside into P5 and all its passengers walked across to join us. Both trains then continued northwards.

(ironically, and nothing to do with Peterborough, that faulty train seemed to have it's fault recified quite promptly, and so a similar move occured at Doncaster in which its passengers then crossed back to their original train!)

 

[dk1]

On the other hand, I don't think I've caught a train in the Ely direction that hasn't left from P4.

Glad it's not just me then. Threw me that one.

 

[38Cto15E]

In the past when up ECML trains were delayed, a Newark/Grantham stopper would be signalled into the old Platform 1 ? whilst a non stopper could be given the through road which I presume is now platform 3.

When delays happen in the future will waiting passengers be directed across to platform 2 for the stopper, which would then allow the quickie to pass through at the maximum line speed?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don't think I ever got an Ely line train in either drection that
used 4 or an ECMl that used 5, though obviously the points allowed this.

East Coast trains use platform 5, and regularly, at least with the old layout.

The 1819 Kings Cross to Newcastle always used 5, as platform 4 was occupied with the terminating 1744 Kings Cross to Peterborough FCC service.

Real time trains says this still happens with the new layout, but I've not seen it yet.

eyebrows raised? Really? Do they not hammer through the platforms at Newark, Grantham, Stevenage and Potters Bar plus loads more the nearer the train gets to London

True, although elsewhere on the network (e.g. Wembley Central, Harrow and Wealdstone) Network Rail have gone to the trouble of fencing off the "fast" platform faces.

 

[jopsuk]

Quite. The ECML fast line platforms though have trains stop at them, so can't be fenced off.

if you had a silly budget, Peterborough would ideally have:
A pair of platforms accessed/accessing the slow lines without a flat crossing of the fast, with a connection (again grade seperate) to a relocated electric depot/sidings to the north. 12 car, for Great Northern services.

north and south platforms the through slow lines, with pointwork to give access to the fasts, for ECML through services.

An island for through services via Ely

A bay for terminating services from Ely

A bay for Lincoln services.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Quite. The ECML fast line platforms though have trains stop at them, so can't be fenced off.

if you had a silly budget, Peterborough would ideally have:
A pair of platforms accessed/accessing the slow lines without a flat crossing of the fast, with a connection (again grade seperate) to a relocated electric depot/sidings to the north. 12 car, for Great Northern services.

north and south platforms the through slow lines, with pointwork to give access to the fasts, for ECML through services.

An island for through services via Ely

A bay for terminating services from Ely

A bay for Lincoln services.

No, bay platforms for Ely and Lincoln terminators would be a waste of time and money, ok it will work for now, ten years time they could be empty with no use or be too small in lenghth

Alot can happen in ten years for example should the Wisbech line reopen there could be Lincoln to Wisbech services by EMT, I know the talk is for Wisbech services going to Cambridge now but you could end up with both or it could change, or the Ipswich services going past Peterborough in some form, possibilities are endless

If services stay as they are now the chances are the trains will be longer to cater for increased passengers, and at some point there is talk of electrification between Felixstowe to Peterborough and beyond and if that happens GA could run 8 car EMUs on the Ipswich service

Before anyone jumps on me about my "old" P1 statements, just think that should have stayed which would allow the odd weekend shuttle to the NVR and it was already in place anyway so wouldn't have cost anything

 

[Tomnick]

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

P1 had to go, as I understand it, to allow the extension of the former P2. Occasional shuttles to the Nene Valley wouldn't justify its retention alone (and who would operate them, and is there even a route to the Nene Valley, let alone paths, from that side of the station?) against the benefits of extending the through platform. Bays for Ely and Spalding, on the other hand, seem a sensible suggestion to me - demand for local travel on those routes is unlikely to require 8-car trains!

As for Wisbech - Lincoln: really?!

 

[CockneySparrow]

Platforms 2 to 5 were always available for northbound East Coast services, you just were restricted to Platform 2/3 for London bound trains unless you were diverted via Cambridge in which case only Platform 4/5 could be used.

That's the old platforms mind you.

Thanks for that, wasn't 100% sure EC could access P5
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

P1 had to go, as I understand it, to allow the extension of the former P2. Occasional shuttles to the Nene Valley wouldn't justify its retention alone (and who would operate them, and is there even a route to the Nene Valley, let alone paths, from that side of the station?) against the benefits of extending the through platform. Bays for Ely and Spalding, on the other hand, seem a sensible suggestion to me - demand for local travel on those routes is unlikely to require 8-car trains!

As for Wisbech - Lincoln: really?!

You can gain access to NVR on the ECML just the other side of the bridge, as for paths might be tight but they are there

Perhaps 8 car trains from Ipswich is OTT

Onto Wisbech to Lincoln, why not, current trains are overcrowded between March and Peterborough so it would reduce the strain and any Wisbech service would have to go somewhere, it wouldn't be feasible to have them terminate at March even if the bought the old Spalding platforms back into use as the driver and ticket guy would wait around most of their shift at March

 

[Tomnick]

Is there a physical route right across the layout though? Even then, how do you know that the paths are there? Seems unlikely to me. Also, who would operate it, and with what? It'd be a huge undertaking for the NVR itself, providing sufficient mainline-certified traction, stock and crew.

Wisbech - March: even if through running to Peterbrough was preferable to Cambridge (which would make it very difficult to travel eastwards), where does Lincoln come into it?

 

[edwin_m]

The link to the NVR is from the ECML not from the March route that actually goes closer to the NVR end station. Therefore all the platforms where London trains arrive/depart could be used for NVR shuttles.

In the rather unlikely event that the industry got its act together to provide such a shuttle, there would be plenty of choice of platforms to run it from given that it wouldn't be operating during the early/late weekday times when the London commuter peak hits Peterborough. I've an idea the Down Slow is bi-directional (haven't checked) and if so a higher numbered platform would be better.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Is there a physical route right across the layout though? Even then, how do you know that the paths are there? Seems unlikely to me. Also, who would operate it, and with what? It'd be a huge undertaking for the NVR itself, providing sufficient mainline-certified traction, stock and crew.

Wisbech - March: even if through running to Peterbrough was preferable to Cambridge (which would make it very difficult to travel eastwards), where does Lincoln come into it?

Yes there is a physical route across, they would use what FCC use now

NR would never agree to 100% booked paths for a substantial period of time on a permanent basis anywhere without room for manouvre, to back this up various rail tours get through from KX into Peterborough and back down to London, and my suggestion for NVR to come into PBO would only be on gala weekends and not on a permanent basis

Wisbech to Peterborough? why have yet another terminator might as well extend the Lincoln service to run to Wisbech,

 

[Tomnick]

Yes there is a physical route across, they would use what FCC use now

I've just checked (three sources), and the NVR is accessible only from the Down Slow at Fletton. There's no access to the Down Slow from the low-numbered platforms (anything east of the Down Fast) at the south end of Peterborough station, so I stand by my (correct) statement that there's no physical route to the NVR from platform 1.

NR would never agree to 100% booked paths for a substantial period of time on a permanent basis anywhere without room for manouvre, to back this up various rail tours get through from KX into Peterborough and back down to London, and my suggestion for NVR to come into PBO would only be on gala weekends and not on a permanent basis

Even if a physical route was available: just because a route isn't planned to 100% of its capacity, it doesn't necessarily follow that a path is available to cross four running lines and foul the overlap at the end of one of the Up platforms. Edwin's suggestion of using one of the higher-numbered through platforms is much more realistic anyway, so can we finally conclude that there was indeed little justification for retaining the old platform 1?

Wisbech to Peterborough? why have yet another terminator might as well extend the Lincoln service to run to Wisbech,

In the absence (for now) of a grade-separated junction at Werrington, it'd introduce unnecessary movements crossing the ECML, for starters. Given that EMT (or whoever ends up operating Lincs local services) are unlikely to end up operating a Wisbech service (would be very difficult to resource), it'd require co-operation between two TOCs. Would the timings work? Unlikely, I suspect, if sensible connections into and out of ECML services were to be provided on both routes. If the main demand from Wisbech is towards Cambridge, what (other than making it very difficult to get to Cambridge) would it achieve anyway?

 

[A-driver]

Quite. The ECML fast line platforms though have trains stop at them, so can't be fenced off.

if you had a silly budget, Peterborough would ideally have:
A pair of platforms accessed/accessing the slow lines without a flat crossing of the fast, with a connection (again grade seperate) to a relocated electric depot/sidings to the north. 12 car, for Great Northern services.

north and south platforms the through slow lines, with pointwork to give access to the fasts, for ECML through services.

An island for through services via Ely

A bay for terminating services from Ely

A bay for Lincoln services.

Well at the very least a relocated 12car electric until siding to the north on the eastern side is about to come true as GN units will stop using the nene as part of thameslink and start using a new yard near eastfields (Spital sidings if I remember the plan correctly?)

 

[dk1]

Just to prove the worth of the new station layout, the 12.57 Norwich-Liverpool had a defect with the rear cab & was diverted round Ely West Curve yesterday. It departed Thetford 1 late then ran non-stop to Peterborough where it arrived 9 early!!!

Before it would have had to wait outside until the 14.18 Stansted had departed. Anyone for the NE would've comfortably made the 14.20 EC service too.

 

[Ironside]

Just to prove the worth of the new station layout, the 12.57 Norwich-Liverpool had a defect with the rear cab & was diverted round Ely West Curve yesterday. It departed Thetford 1 late then ran non-stop to Peterborough where it arrived 9 early!!!

Before it would have had to wait outside until the 14.18 Stansted had departed. Anyone for the NE would've comfortably made the 14.20 EC service too.

It's always good to here that an upgrade has made a material difference to performance.

 

[ungreat]

Quick summary of it all

Plat 1 bay-Gone,track lifted
Plat 2 now becomes plat 1
Plat 3 now plat 2
Plat 3 new one southbound trains only,including FCC that come off Nene sidings to start an up service
Plat 4 and 5 unchanged and EC have always had access to these
Plat 6 and 7 unable to take northbound EC or terminating FCC. Used for Ely/Cambs bound trains and Stamford route