Single Track Pinch Points

[tbtc]

There's been discussion of a few of these in various threads recently:

• Wrexham - Chester
• Montrose - Arbroath
• Dore Station
• Coventry - Leamington Spa

...but which is the biggest priority to "double"?

 

[LE Greys]

There's been discussion of a few of these in various threads recently:

• Wrexham - Chester
• Montrose - Arbroath
• Dore Station
• Coventry - Leamington Spa

...but which is the biggest priority to "double"?

There's no way Montrose Viaduct would be wide enough for double track. My money is on Coventry-Leamington Spa, provided there is enough width to do so.

 

[Trog]

There's no way Montrose Viaduct would be wide enough for double track. My money is on Coventry-Leamington Spa, provided there is enough width to do so.

Most of the line was originally double track, with just a short single line section north of Kenilworth North Junction. Although there is one 1970's road bridge on the ex-twin track section that was only built to carry a single line.

 

[matchmaker]

The long single lines sections between Perth & Inverness, I believe, are restricting traffic. However, the only single track section that could easily be converted to double is the final stretch to Culloden (it was double until the late 1960's)

 

[tbtc]

The long single lines sections between Perth & Inverness, I believe, are restricting traffic. However, the only single track section that could easily be converted to double is the final stretch to Culloden (it was double until the late 1960's)

Good point. I didn't list this as there are obviously a few single track sections, but I wonder how frequent the Inverness service would be if it was double track all the way?

When I was growing up in Scotland, Inverness was another world. Nowadays though, there seems to be a lot more traffic - could Inverness sustain an hourly service, or even the two trains an hour to the central belt which Aberdeen has?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no way Montrose Viaduct would be wide enough for double track. My money is on Coventry-Leamington Spa, provided there is enough width to do so.

True. I only included it because it was mentioned in the thread about Forfar (if doubling the Montrose viaduct would be too expensive it was suggested they reopen the inland line from Perth to Aberdeen)

 

[ObservationCar]

According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-14186837 Inverness and the Mid Highlands had the 2nd highest growth in economic terms in the UK, 1st being the east end of London. So there is a case to increase links between Inverness and Aberdeen/Central Belt. Whether it is hourly, I don't know, certainly not half-hourly alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh, (although a quirk of the sunday timetable means that a train from Edinburgh and a Train from Glasgow arrive into Inverness within 15 minutes of each other, both coming via Perth). My personal view would be to have a longer train with better facilities running 2-hourly fast to Edinburgh, then a slow every 4 hours to Glasgow. With an almost megabus model of all trains connecting at Perth for any other destination in Scotland.

Back to the topic of thread I think it is important that expensive re-doubling or doubling should only take place if it benefits Intercity travel. I can't see point in increasing Dore for the sake of the local trains as these can be better timetabled to miss faster trains using the line, especially when loadings are low throughout the day on local services, provision needs to be made for longer trains again at busy periods.

COV-LMS, is essential, for current traffic, for volume of freight and as a diversion route, this would be top priority in my view as there is not just a case for potential local expansion but has benefits nationwide if this is doubled.

Montrose, who knows, re-route via Forfar!! as they are saying on the Scot-Rail discussions forums. I do like the thought of having one slow train an hour calling at all stations, even if this is only a ABD-DEE shuttle, well except Golf Street and Barry Links.

Chester - Wrexham, only double if it is to be electrified, as electrification improves acceleration in turn improves frequencies with less stock.

And a local issue to me is the doubling of Beauly to Clachnaharry (Inverness Swing Bridge), as this is at capacity at the moment, and could be done at the same time as a signal renewal, as it is planned to extend colour lights to Dingwall, where RETB or future alternative would take over.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Back to the topic of thread I think it is important that expensive re-doubling or doubling should only take place if it benefits Intercity travel. I can't see point in increasing Dore for the sake of the local trains as these can be better timetabled to miss faster trains using the line, especially when loadings are low throughout the day on local services, provision needs to be made for longer trains again at busy periods.

I think youve missed the point of dore redoubling, it isnt so you can get moer local trains in, its so local train do not interupt long distance anymore, they want a 3rd express between manchester and sheffield they also want to increase freight. Yes making the stopper hourly is an aspiration but it isnt the only reason they are redoubling dore. It is to benefit EMT liverpool norwich FTPE cleethorpes MIA and hope valley freight.

The provision between manchester and sheffield needs increasing mainly due to the lack of any form of major road link between the two.

 

[Donny Dave]

There's been discussion of a few of these in various threads recently:

• Wrexham - Chester
• Montrose - Arbroath
• Dore Station
• Coventry - Leamington Spa

...but which is the biggest priority to "double"?

I think youve missed the point of dore redoubling, it isnt so you can get moer local trains in, its so local train do not interupt long distance anymore, they want a 3rd express between manchester and sheffield they also want to increase freight. Yes making the stopper hourly is an aspiration but it isnt the only reason they are redoubling dore. It is to benefit EMT liverpool norwich FTPE cleethorpes MIA and hope valley freight.

The provision between manchester and sheffield needs increasing mainly due to the lack of any form of major road link between the two.

If Dore is re-doubled to allow extra services along the Hope Valley, then at the other end of the route, either the Hazel Grove chord needs doubling and Hazel Grove - Stockport upgraded, or the route via Romiley needs upgrading as well, otherwise your just moving the bottleneck from 1 side of the Hope Valley to the other.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If Dore is re-doubled to allow extra services along the Hope Valley, then at the other end of the route, either the Hazel Grove chord needs doubling and Hazel Grove - Stockport upgraded, or the route via Romiley needs upgrading as well, otherwise your just moving the bottleneck from 1 side of the Hope Valley to the other.

Well thats how they are advertising the scheme, i am aware that manchester end if just as bad, although apparently somehow some of the liverpool norwich are going into victoria not sure how though.

 

[NXEA!]

There's been discussion of a few of these in various threads recently:

• Wrexham - Chester
• Montrose - Arbroath
• Dore Station
• Coventry - Leamington Spa

...but which is the biggest priority to "double"?

I think redoubling the single sections west of Plymouth would be beneficial, it would allow a service increase amongst other things such as improved reliability, although the Brunel bridge cannot be done. Also if the flyover width allows it, I'd redouble the little section of flyover between Barking and Woodgrange Park as I noticed today when there is a freight waiting to go to Tilbury or Dagenham it has to wait quite often for the train to come out of Barking which holds up the train behind it, to the point where all the services I saw at Woodgrange Park were at least running 2 minutes late. It would just improve punctuality a little bit I think.

 

[Tomnick]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the route from Woodgrange Park over the flyover to the LTS lines at Barking is very much double track. Either way, it's not going to avoid the conflict between a freight bound for the LTS and a passenger unit coming out of the bay.

 

[Lineside]

Coventry - Leamington Spa has been talked about for years - decades - now. I'm just flabbergasted that they singled it in the first place. Talk about a rationalisation that now appears short sighted in the extreme.

 

[The Planner]

Can't see it ever being completely re-doubled, last I saw was to do Milverton to Kenilworth to allow all the XCs to go that way but that is it. You could argue it to be fruitless aswell if E-W ever happens as a vast amount of the container freight would use Oxford - Bletchley and the WCML.

 

[LE Greys]

According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-14186837 Inverness and the Mid Highlands had the 2nd highest growth in economic terms in the UK, 1st being the east end of London. So there is a case to increase links between Inverness and Aberdeen/Central Belt. Whether it is hourly, I don't know, certainly not half-hourly alternating to Glasgow and Edinburgh, (although a quirk of the sunday timetable means that a train from Edinburgh and a Train from Glasgow arrive into Inverness within 15 minutes of each other, both coming via Perth). My personal view would be to have a longer train with better facilities running 2-hourly fast to Edinburgh, then a slow every 4 hours to Glasgow. With an almost megabus model of all trains connecting at Perth for any other destination in Scotland.

Back to the topic of thread I think it is important that expensive re-doubling or doubling should only take place if it benefits Intercity travel. I can't see point in increasing Dore for the sake of the local trains as these can be better timetabled to miss faster trains using the line, especially when loadings are low throughout the day on local services, provision needs to be made for longer trains again at busy periods.

COV-LMS, is essential, for current traffic, for volume of freight and as a diversion route, this would be top priority in my view as there is not just a case for potential local expansion but has benefits nationwide if this is doubled.

Montrose, who knows, re-route via Forfar!! as they are saying on the Scot-Rail discussions forums. I do like the thought of having one slow train an hour calling at all stations, even if this is only a ABD-DEE shuttle, well except Golf Street and Barry Links.

Chester - Wrexham, only double if it is to be electrified, as electrification improves acceleration in turn improves frequencies with less stock.

And a local issue to me is the doubling of Beauly to Clachnaharry (Inverness Swing Bridge), as this is at capacity at the moment, and could be done at the same time as a signal renewal, as it is planned to extend colour lights to Dingwall, where RETB or future alternative would take over.

I'd also think about getting Aberdeen-Inverness up to hourly. That's not so much a matter of full dualling as extra loops. Lengthen or move the awkward ones at Keith and Forres, and perhaps consider some new ones in between stations. The only bits that really need dualling are Aberdeen-Dyce and Inverness-Nairn, which would make it possible to build a station at Inverness Airport (at last!).

 

[Bald Rick]

Coventry - Leamington Spa has been talked about for years - decades - now. I'm just flabbergasted that they singled it in the first place. Talk about a rationalisation that now appears short sighted in the extreme.

Let's not forget it didn't have ANY passenger services for quite a while, until the early 80s from memory?

In the days when the choice was singling or closure, it's a wonder it stayed open at all given that the only traffic was a handful of freight trains. I suggest the decision to single it to keep it open with little immediate prospect of traffic was quite a brave decision.

 

[142094]

Pelaw - Hebburn and Hebburn - Jarrow/Jarrow-Bede on the TW Metro are the main places which need to be doubled on the system. Currently part of the line is used for access to Jarrow Oil Terminal, which limits the amount of trains that can be sent to South Shields. There was a plan a while back to double parts of this section but nothing came of it.

 

[ObservationCar]

Pelaw - Hebburn and Hebburn - Jarrow/Jarrow-Bede on the TW Metro are the main places which need to be doubled on the system. Currently part of the line is used for access to Jarrow Oil Terminal, which limits the amount of trains that can be sent to South Shields. There was a plan a while back to double parts of this section but nothing came of it.

Could one line work bi-directional for westbound Metro and all freight and the other line work one-directional for eastbound Metro only?(as what happens at Hunterston on the Largs line but its the freight which goes on both lines, as there is only a single platform at West Kilbride/Fairlie? can't remember) Or would it better to make it fully double for all traffic, which would free up westbound paths but create pinchpoints and expense for cross-overs and assoiciated signalling?

 

[Pumbaa]

Good point. I didn't list this as there are obviously a few single track sections, but I wonder how frequent the Inverness service would be if it was double track all the way?

When I was growing up in Scotland, Inverness was another world. Nowadays though, there seems to be a lot more traffic - could Inverness sustain an hourly service, or even the two trains an hour to the central belt which Aberdeen has?

Inverness - Edinburgh is going hourly in December.

 

[142094]

Could one line work bi-directional for westbound Metro and all freight and the other line work one-directional for eastbound Metro only?(as what happens at Hunterston on the Largs line but its the freight which goes on both lines, as there is only a single platform at West Kilbride/Fairlie? can't remember) Or would it better to make it fully double for all traffic, which would free up westbound paths but create pinchpoints and expense for cross-overs and assoiciated signalling?

The freight line isn't electrified and avoids both Hebburn and Jarrow stations, but it could have been a possibility that the Metro might have been able to use it from the start. IIRC BR didn't want to give running rights to the Metro on this section (happy to be corrected if this is wrong). An infill to allow the Metro to be double track would probably be quite easy apart from a couple of bridges at either end that would have to be removed. Network Rail have only recently improved one of these bridges (just before Jarrow station) but it can only take 1 Metro line and the freight line at present.

 

[shinkansen1966]

How about Exter to Salisbury ?

The Axminster doubling was an excellent start, but trains still have to pass again in a loop outside Tisbury.

The scheme was intended to extend the Axminster loop to Seaton junction and double Whimple,too. But this has been dropped. Shame, because it would allow an additional hourly stopper between Axminster and Exeter Central.

 

[caliwag]

The long single lines sections between Perth & Inverness, I believe, are restricting traffic. However, the only single track section that could easily be converted to double is the final stretch to Culloden (it was double until the late 1960's)

The Scotland RUS discusses additional passing loops at Etteridge (between Dalwinnie and Newtonmore) and Ballinluig (former junction for Aberfeldy) as possibilities for improvement of line capacity.

 

[LE Greys]

The Scotland RUS discusses additional passing loops at Etteridge (between Dalwinnie and Newtonmore) and Ballinluig (former junction for Aberfeldy) as possibilities for improvement of line capacity.

Always useful to have a station at a loop. Were there ever stations there?

 

[caliwag]

Etteridge not, but Ballinluig certainly did. Up to the early sixties it was served by a Caley 0-4-4 Tank with a brake coach...sometimes forming a mixed train. It was often seen in the curved Aberfeldy platform awaiting arrivals on the main line. Latterly a 25 or 26 was employed, with a single coach.

According to my reproduction pamphlet (1900) of Highland track plans, there was a loop at Etteridge, which it helpfully notes held 400 wagons!

 

[jopsuk]

No- Etteridge is basically a single farm

 

[matchmaker]

Etteridge not, but Ballinluig certainly did. Up to the early sixties it was served by a Caley 0-4-4 Tank with a brake coach...sometimes forming a mixed train. It was often seen in the curved Aberfeldy platform awaiting arrivals on the main line. Latterly a 25 or 26 was employed, with a single coach.

According to my reproduction pamphlet (1900) of Highland track plans, there was a loop at Etteridge, which it helpfully notes held 400 wagons!

Ballinluig station closed in 1965. It was the junction for the Aberfeldy branch and had platforms on the main line and branch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No- Etteridge is basically a single farm

Farm?

 

[tbtc]

Inverness - Edinburgh is going hourly in December.

Cheers - didn't realise this was happening (or that the loops would allow it - going to have to be some careful timetabling?)

 

[lancastrian]

There's been discussion of a few of these in various threads recently:

• Wrexham - Chester
• Montrose - Arbroath
• Dore Station
• Coventry - Leamington Spa

...but which is the biggest priority to "double"?

I personally would say Leamington - Coventry, followed by Wrexham - Chester. But you miss out many other lines that really need to be re-doubled. Here is my list:

• Bolton - Blackburn
• Kirkham - Blackpool South
• Rose Grove - Colne (with double track extension to Skipton)
• Ormskirk - Burscough Bridge (with 3rd rail electrification)
• Preston - Burscough Bridge (these last 2 include reopening the Burscough Curves)
• Halton Curve
• Salisbury - Exeter
• Evesham - Worcester
• Charlbury - Wolvercote
• Oxford - Bletchley
• Wool - Dorchester (the bit of the Weymouth line singled when it was electrified, the usual completely daft dessision)

There must be many more, really stupid singling dessisions that need to be re-doubled. However one of the daftest dessisions to my mind was the reduction from 4 tracks to 2, from Standish to Balshaw Lane on the WCML, these slow lines would be very helpful now for dealling with capacity problems, plus the benefit of reopening Coppull Station.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

There's no way Montrose Viaduct would be wide enough for double track. My money is on Coventry-Leamington Spa, provided there is enough width to do so.

As part of a study into better Central Belt-Aberdeen trains, they suggested re-routeing the railway via a new bridge to the west, as the SLW section is a real pain for faster / more trains.

The long single lines sections between Perth & Inverness, I believe, are restricting traffic. However, the only single track section that could easily be converted to double is the final stretch to Culloden (it was double until the late 1960's)

Inverness - Edinburgh is going hourly in December.

They are looking a two new loops (I forget the locations; I think one a way north of Dunkeld and one near Blair Atholl / Newtonmore), and they are running extra services over the line from December, I don't quite think it makes it hourly though...

• Bolton - Blackburn
• Kirkham - Blackpool South
• Rose Grove - Colne (with double track extension to Skipton)

Could be solved with crossing loops at Entwistle, St Annes and Burnley Central respectively

 

[exile]

A loop somewhere on the Oxenholme-Windermere branch, please!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The long single lines sections between Perth & Inverness, I believe, are restricting traffic. However, the only single track section that could easily be converted to double is the final stretch to Culloden (it was double until the late 1960's)

The last analysis I read in the Scott-Wilson 2006 report into improving capacity and resilience on the Highland Mainline recommended doubling exactly that stretch, where the old formation (including Culloden Viaduct) is still useable from Culloden to Daviot (there is an issue with the embankment close to the viaduct).
This was costed at £17m in 2006.

As there are already 9 passing loops in the 120 miles from Perth to Inverness, then doubling just 4 miles at one end doesn't seem to provide great opportunities for interleaving new Up and Down services (the longest single track stretch is surely the 13 miles from Dalwhinnie to Kingussie?) what it would achieve is a massive improvement in resilience. At present, a late northbound arrival into Inverness will delay the southbound departure, with all the knock-on damage to timekeeping while passing through timetabled passing in the loops back to the lowlands and probably even more chaos on reaching Edinburgh or Glasgow late. By doubling that northernmost 10 miles then any delayed northbound arrival will not prevent a southbound from departing on time (and potentially maintaining its timetable). The benefits could be greater than from introducing new loops in more difficult terrain.

As for that long stretch between Dalwhinnie and Kingussie, it was suggested that great improvements in capacity could be achieved not by doubling, but by signallng (and therefore a much less expensive intervention). By breaking that 13 mile section into 2 or 3 smaller sections, it becomes possible to path freights immediately behind passenger services - into track which is currently sterile while a passenger train occupies that entire section. That would provide a great inmprovement to the much needed capacity on such a vital, but single, line.