Peterborough to get Flyover

[cle]

The Hertford loop is underused. I think there used to be an off peak hourly service Huntington - KX (from Huntingdon platform 1 bay) that went via Hertford years ago but I'm not certain. In view of off peak passenger growth on the line in recent years there's a need for a third Peterborough train and it could go that way. It also begs the question why Cambridge get 4 trains off peak to KX (in addition to Liverpool St trains) while Peterborough only gets 2.

Because Cambridge is twice as busy, and hugely important economically:

Cambridge 9,168,938
Peterborough 4,290,598

 

[muddythefish]

What are those figures ?

 

[ac6000cw]

It also begs the question why Cambridge get 4 trains off peak to KX (in addition to Liverpool St trains) while Peterborough only gets 2.

It's mostly just demand - just spend some time watching on the platforms at Cambridge station (after you've stood in a long, winding queue from the station entrance to the ticket windows to buy your ticket - and that's with 6 windows + 4 machines in use on a Saturday morning !). Demand also means some of the off-peak non-stops have to run as 12 car (including 8 from Kings Lynn). Also one of those trains every hour to KGX is a stopping service which is actually shown on the destination boards as 'Finsbury Park' (or Foxton in the other direction) to discourage people from using it to get to London.

Re. using the Hertford loop for the fast services - it's slower, so a non-stop train would almost certainly take longer than an hour (rather than about 50 minutes via Welwyn), so you would probably need more rolling stock to run the service.

 

[Aictos]

The Hertford loop is underused. I think there used to be an off peak hourly service Huntington - KX (from Huntingdon platform 1 bay) that went via Hertford years ago but I'm not certain. In view of off peak passenger growth on the line in recent years there's a need for a third Peterborough train and it could go that way. It also begs the question why Cambridge get 4 trains off peak to KX (in addition to Liverpool St trains) while Peterborough only gets 2.

That was a DMU shuttle from Hertford to Huntingdon I believe, having a 3rd Peterborough train call at Hertford could be no more longer then having the train call at Knebworth, Welwyn North, Welwyn Garden City AND Potters Bar especially if timed right to slot between the Inners.

Peterborough could then see a 20 min frequency calling all stations to Stevenage then Hertford then London Kings Cross.

 

[cle]

What are those figures ?

They are station usage details from 2012/2013.

Dive in, you might be some time!

http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates

 

[IrishDave]

Hitchin, Doncaster, Peterborough...gradually all the East Coast bottlenecks are being removed. Is it too much to hope that Welwyn will be 4-tracked and FCC passengers are no longer held at signals at Woolmer Green Junction ?

I remember reading an article in, I think, Modern Railways some years ago, in which the point was made that the double-track section through Welwyn isn't the limiting factor, at least not on its own; fast line capacity south of Potters Bar was just as problematic. In other words, 4-tracking through Welwyn wouldn't be truly worth doing unless you could 6-track the section between Alexandra Palace and Potters Bar (compare the Watford DC lines meaning the WCML is effectively 6-track to Watford).

I'm not saying I totally agree with that point of view, but at the very least I would be wary of thinking of 4-tracking through Welwyn as the "silver bullet" that solves all the problems with (the south end of) the ECML.

 

[mr_jrt]

In other words, 4-tracking through Welwyn wouldn't be truly worth doing unless you could 6-track the section between Alexandra Palace and Potters Bar (compare the Watford DC lines meaning the WCML is effectively 6-track to Watford).

I used to commute that way for a few years, and I had the same thoughts - I don't think there are any insurmountable problems - there's just a fair bit of expense due to the tunnels. Handily, the Barnet and Wood Green tunnels have 3 bores already (a centre double bore and two outer single bores) - so you just need to widen the outer bores and you have your tunnels, which shouldn't be too disruptive. The Hadley Wood tunnels would need a new double bore alongside, but again, this should be quite doable. The tunnels under the M25 would be expensive due to their length, and Potter's Bar station itself would need reconstruction as I doubt you'd get another pair of lines through.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect enlarging a single bore to double would be more cost and risk than making a new double bore.

 

[deltic08]

True, but... isn't the latter kind of necessary to stop it from, you know... falling apart?

Can I also ask; was it March - Wisbech - Spalding? Or March - Spalding and Wisbech on another route?

Just put a 20mph restriction on it and stop all trains at Watford Junction. Sorted.

Latterly the connection to Wisbech was from a junction off the Spalding line at March Whitemoor. I think it is OOU currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have long advocated a plan for this route that involves the following.

For the Loop...

• Increase stopping services to 4 tph (Primarily to make it easier to fit in 2tph services)
• 2 tph Moorgate 2tph NLL (via upgraded connection at Cannonbury)
• Add passing loops at Gordon Hill and Hertford (doesn't have to be at the station)
• The 2 Cambridge Fasts routed via Hertford (overtake stoppers at Gordon Hill)
• Two extra services as part of the new Thameslink Connection (possibly call at Hertford)

This would create at least two paths over the viaduct for faster ECML services.

I would also FORCE the Open Access guys to join the trains together. A 15 coach (3*5) super train with a portion to Hull/Bradford/Sunderland. These could split at a location (doesn't have to be a station) before the first scheduled stop. This could create an extra path as well as giving an hourly service from/to those destinations.

This would allow EC (or whoever) to run the following over the viaduct...

• 2 semi fasts to Leeds
• 1 Fast (non-stop) to Leeds
• 1 Fast to Newcastle/Edinburgh (1 stop only)
• 2 semi fast to Newcastle
• 1 other (Lincoln/Nottingham ??)

Plus the 4 FCC services. All this without a single change to the viaduct. I would seriously look at increasing the line speed. The 115mpg through the tunnels is a pain. It effectively stops 125mph running from Hatfield. Would probably save a minute or so per journey (and add further opportunity for paths).

Here we go again, a Londoner telling the North what is has to do. Sorry FORCING the North what to do. Where would you suggest terminating a 15 coach train in London? Kings Cross can't take a train this long.

I would FORCE anybody working in London to live within walking distance of their workplace. Accommodate them in those Crossrail tunnels that would become surplus to requirements. That would solve rail capacity problems in the Southeast at a stroke.

 

[Ploughman]

Slightly off subject.
The new flyover at Hitchin.
I had a comment made to me today that on the new flyover at Hitchin, if a Cambridge bound freight gets checked on the approach to the flyover it cannot get up and over due to the gradient and curveature. Meaning that the freight then has to make use of the ladder crossover blocking all lines.

Can anyone confirm this?

I hope that any future flyover designer at Peterborough or elsewhere bears this in mind.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I remember reading an article in, I think, Modern Railways some years ago, in which the point was made that the double-track section through Welwyn isn't the limiting factor, at least not on its own; fast line capacity south of Potters Bar was just as problematic. In other words, 4-tracking through Welwyn wouldn't be truly worth doing unless you could 6-track the section between Alexandra Palace and Potters Bar (compare the Watford DC lines meaning the WCML is effectively 6-track to Watford).

I'm not saying I totally agree with that point of view, but at the very least I would be wary of thinking of 4-tracking through Welwyn as the "silver bullet" that solves all the problems with (the south end of) the ECML.

That would certainly explain why Network Rail's high-output alternative to HS2 on the ECML involved 60 or so km of entirely new build 225km/h track between Alexandra Parade and Biggleswade following the A1.

 

[ultrabox]

Back on topic, NR proposals at Werrington Junction seem rather interesting and raise a few questions.

Could NR insert another line on the ECML from New England between the Down Fast and Stamford Up Lines for a flyover/ tunnel.

How does NR connect a flyover/ tunnel to the Joint Line given that there are two bridges in close proximity, the A15 dual carriageway and Lincoln Road.

 

[Aictos]

It might even be placed just north of the existing junction where there's nothing but countryside - look at Hitchin where the flyover was placed north of the existing junction.

Personally I think this will be the case with the dual track flyover curving round to meet the GN/GE line, do this and all though freight will be separated fully from affecting ECML services, they can still use the New England North ladder crossing to access the yards in any case.

 

[John R]

Slightly off subject.
The new flyover at Hitchin.
I had a comment made to me today that on the new flyover at Hitchin, if a Cambridge bound freight gets checked on the approach to the flyover it cannot get up and over due to the gradient and curveature. Meaning that the freight then has to make use of the ladder crossover blocking all lines.

Can anyone confirm this?

I hope that any future flyover designer at Peterborough or elsewhere bears this in mind.

But how many freights use the Hitchin flyover? 1 a day, maybe? The additional cost in easing the gradient and curve would have been very considerable, and would have taken more land. So not worth it. In contrast, any flyover at Werrington will be designed for freight traffic, so of course it will be engineered accordingly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have long advocated a plan for this route that involves the following.

For the Loop...

• Increase stopping services to 4 tph (Primarily to make it easier to fit in 2tph services)
• 2 tph Moorgate 2tph NLL (via upgraded connection at Cannonbury)
• Add passing loops at Gordon Hill and Hertford (doesn't have to be at the station)
• The 2 Cambridge Fasts routed via Hertford (overtake stoppers at Gordon Hill)
• Two extra services as part of the new Thameslink Connection (possibly call at Hertford)

This would create at least two paths over the viaduct for faster ECML services.

I would also FORCE the Open Access guys to join the trains together. A 15 coach (3*5) super train with a portion to Hull/Bradford/Sunderland. These could split at a location (doesn't have to be a station) before the first scheduled stop. This could create an extra path as well as giving an hourly service from/to those destinations.

This would allow EC (or whoever) to run the following over the viaduct...

• 2 semi fasts to Leeds
• 1 Fast (non-stop) to Leeds
• 1 Fast to Newcastle/Edinburgh (1 stop only)
• 2 semi fast to Newcastle
• 1 other (Lincoln/Nottingham ??)

Plus the 4 FCC services. All this without a single change to the viaduct. I would seriously look at increasing the line speed. The 115mpg through the tunnels is a pain. It effectively stops 125mph running from Hatfield. Would probably save a minute or so per journey (and add further opportunity for paths).

125mph over 115mph saves around 2 1/2 secs per mile, so only around 15 secs in totalover the 6 mile stretch. And you would have to lower the speed on the up line by a corresponding amount, as the limiting factor is the passing speed in the tunnels. Also, increasing the speed differential between the Inter City services and suburban units doesn't provide extra paths - it actually reduces paths, though on such a short stretch is unlikely to make any difference.

The increase in journey times by routing the Cambridge fasts via Hertford would be considerable, and the risk to reliability by having to overtake services on the branch completely unacceptable. Sorry, but that's a hairbrained suggestion that will never see the light of day.

Similarly, suggesting that the Open Access operators run their services together but split them en route, and not even at a calling point. What happens on the up services when one is late. Are you expecting another operator's service to wait? And what about the loss of time in splitting and connecting the services.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Hitchin, Doncaster, Peterborough...gradually all the East Coast bottlenecks are being removed. Is it too much to hope that Welwyn will be 4-tracked and FCC passengers are no longer held at signals at Woolmer Green Junction ?

I'm afraid I can't ever see that happening as the costs would be astronomical for relatively little benefit compared to other bottlenecks that are being cleared. And with HS2 on the horizon I think the DfT / Network Rail would suggest that the situation is likely to improve in the long term.

 

[ac6000cw]

Hitchin, Doncaster, Peterborough...gradually all the East Coast bottlenecks are being removed. Is it too much to hope that Welwyn will be 4-tracked and FCC passengers are no longer held at signals at Woolmer Green Junction ?

It's been looked at by (at least) the GNR, BR, Network Rail (and possibly Railtrack as well) - it's always ended up in the too difficult/expensive box.

The GNR developed the Hertford Loop line 100 years ago because it was better value-for-money (in terms of providing more capacity) than widening the viaduct and tunnels.

It might well be cheaper to straighten out the loop for higher speeds than do the widening.

 

[Aictos]

It's been looked at by (at least) the GNR, BR, Network Rail (and possibly Railtrack as well) - it's always ended up in the too difficult/expensive box.

The GNR developed the Hertford Loop line 100 years ago because it was better value-for-money (in terms of providing more capacity) than widening the viaduct and tunnels.

It might well be cheaper to straighten out the loop for higher speeds than do the widening.

I quite agree, I like to see work done to raise line speeds on the entire Hertford Loop line and not just because I have to use it...

Down Hertford for Passenger Trains

Alexandra Palace to Bowes Park 30mph
Bowes Park to Enfield Chase 70mph
Enfield Chase to Langley Jct 75mph
Langley South Jct to Langley Junction 60mph
Langley Junction to Stevenage 40mph

Down Hertford for Freight Trains

Alexandra Palace to Bowes Park 30mph
Bowes Park to Winchmore Hill 50mph
Winchmore Hill to Grange Park 40mph
Grange Park to Langley Jct 60mph
Langley Junction to Stevenage 40mph

Up Hertford for Passenger Trains

Stevenage to Langley Jct 40mph (Down Hertford) 75mph (Up Hertford)
Langley Junction to Langley South Jct 50mph
Langley South Jct to Winchmore Hill 75mph
Winchmore Hill to Bowes Park 70mph
Bowes Park to Alexandra Palace 30mph

Up Hertford for Freight Trains

Stevenage to Langley Jct 75mph
Langley Junction to Langley South Jct 35mph
Langley South Jct to Gordon Hill 60mph
Gordon Hill to Bowes Park 40mph
Bowes Park to Alexandra Palace 30mph

There were accurate prior to the conversion of the Down Hertford between Hertford and Langley Jct for ERTMS testing purposes but you can clearly see why the Hertford Loop is neglected line speed wise aka why it takes longer to travel across it however I'm sure if it was possible to raise line speeds surely it would have been done by now or at the very least looked at as a value for money alternative to working on Digswell Viaduct.

Least if faster line speeds were brought in then maybe it might be attractive to run a semi fast service that way as a third semi fast using Hertford and Gordon Hill instead of Knebworth to Hatfield/Potters Bar

 

[GNER 91128]

Just a few pics of some work going on the GNGE near Werrington Junction.



It's the old Lincoln Road bridge which was close to traffic after a bypass was built and has been just used as a cycle path.

There's also a new footbridge at Fox Covert crossing.

 

[ultrabox]

Thanks for the pics. Looks like down line is due to be replaced given the rails laying in the middle of the Up line.

Would just add this from NR website regarding Werrington Junction and shows both proposed flyover and dive under.

https://networkrail.citizenspace.co...documents/Werrington Consultation Leaflet.pdf

 

[petersi]

Thanks for the pics. Looks like down line is due to be replaced given the rails laying in the middle of the Up line.

Would just add this from NR website regarding Werrington Junction and shows both proposed flyover and dive under.

https://networkrail.citizenspace.co...documents/Werrington Consultation Leaflet.pdf

Pity they have not an option to take ecml up slow traffic to the Stamford lines as it would reduce conflict movements Nottingham Ely trains crossing at grade

 

[Aictos]

Pity they have not an option to take ecml up slow traffic to the Stamford lines as it would reduce conflict movements Nottingham Ely trains crossing at grade

I agree but you can't do anything south of Werrington Junction as it's a built up land hence any other flyover/dive under to do just that will have to A.) Be in the same area as Werrington Junction or B.) In Helpston Junction area.

 

[petersi]

I agree but you can't do anything south of Werrington Junction as it's a built up land hence any other flyover/dive under to do just that will have to A.) Be in the same area as Werrington Junction or B.) In Helpston Junction area.

I was thinking of option A as one flyover for both may be cost effective

 

[PhilipW]

Although the Network Rail pamphlet does not state it, I am assuming that the proposed flyover will be two track to take both northbound and southbound traffic over the ECML.

If the Stamford lines are slewed and the flyover starts in the middle, that will remove any at grade conflicts there too.

Sounds good.

 

[Aictos]

I was thinking of option A as one flyover for both may be cost effective

I believe it be far too complicated with the layout needed, far simpler to have a dive under near Helpston to allow Peterborough bound freight and passenger services to access the March lines without needing to cross on the level just north of Peterborough station.

Then a flyover at Werrington Junction could see a reduction in conflicts there with more paths for IC services.

 

[Tomnick]

It depends where exactly the flyover is planned to be located, I suppose. If it's going to be at Werrington Jn itself, the descent to ground level following the curve of the Spalding line, then it will be difficult to arrange access from the Up Slow. If it's going to be a little further south, with the flyover lines descending to ground level before reaching Werrington Jn, then it should be straightforward to provide a route from the Up Slow, conflicting only with traffic to and from Spalding - certainly easier and cheaper than repeating the exercise at Helpston!

 

[edwin_m]

I believe it be far too complicated with the layout needed, far simpler to have a dive under near Helpston to allow Peterborough bound freight and passenger services to access the March lines without needing to cross on the level just north of Peterborough station.

Then a flyover at Werrington Junction could see a reduction in conflicts there with more paths for IC services.

A diveunder at Helpston wouldn't help the freight that approaches from Spalding, which is likely to be most of it in the future with the ECML being increasingly busy. Might be the possibility of a Nuneaton-type addition to the one at Werrington though.

Having had a look at the line there are few years back, it looks pretty boggy so a flyover is probably going to be easier than a diveunder.

 

[Tio Terry]

Perhaps they should re-open the GEGN Joint line and run direct from Lincoln, Spalding to March so missing out the ECML all together! Would need to make a detour around the Jail at Whitemoor though!

 

[Aictos]

Perhaps they should re-open the GEGN Joint line and run direct from Lincoln, Spalding to March so missing out the ECML all together! Would need to make a detour around the Jail at Whitemoor though!

In a ideal world, the Spalding to March route would never have been closed but used for freight - besides what reason did BR give at the time for closing the route?

Still I wonder what we will end up at Werrington Junction, my gut tells me a Hitchin type flyover will be chosen.

 

[PhilipW]

Still I wonder what we will end up at Werrington Junction, my gut tells me a Hitchin type flyover will be chosen.

... but double track ... surely

 

[David Barrett]

In a ideal world, the Spalding to March route would never have been closed but used for freight - besides what reason did BR give at the time for closing the route?


Still I wonder what we will end up at Werrington Junction, my gut tells me a Hitchin type flyover will be chosen.

Declining use, mainly freight as I recall. Anyway all we need now is a solution to Newark and Doncaster conflicts, other than not running trains across the ECML, and the job will be properly finished off.