Small-scale infrastructure projects with extensive benefits

[Ploughman]

Isn't there a scheme in place for a flyover at Skelton Jn North of York.
This to enable freight from the UP Slow to cross over without blocking the Up and Down Mains.

 

[crosscity]

Most journeys on the 'cross city' line are simply journeys to and from BNS - there being few actual cross city journeys. Result of proposed service - no conflicting movements / crossovers of the WCML at the east end of BNS / Proof House Junction.

I am not sure this is true. There are significant flows from Sutton and Erdington to Five Ways (business district) and University (QE Hospital/University).

 

[Robert Taggart]

I am not sure this is true. There are significant flows from Sutton and Erdington to Five Ways (business district) and University (QE Hospital/University).

OK, perhaps so, but - you cannot please all the people all the time...
Back to the start of this article...
Bromsgrove <> Redditch out and back via University and Camp Hill - sorted !

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Riiiiiiight

Glad we agree !

 

[RichmondCommu]

Diversionary routes generally do not rate highly among Network Rail's priorities. However there have been massive housing developments across the south of Derby and commuter stations could be opened at Sinfin, Aston, Chellaston and Castle Donington so a case could be made to the City Council. Unfotrunately said council has litte interest in public transport.

However Castle Donington would give much better access than East Midlands Parkway to the airport, th racetrack and the Download Festival.

Hmm, I think your suggestion would make more sense if the line from Melbourne Jct to the Stenson line was still open. This would remove the need for a north facing chord at Stenson Jct and would make your idea for new stations more plausible. As it stands, your idea would involve much longer journey times from Nottingham to Derby via Stenson Jct and missing out Derby altogether would result in a lot of lost revenue. You also need to look at current service patterns for Willington and Spondon; they are far from spectacular which probably reflects demand.

What would make more sense would be to renew the Courtaulds sidings (which are still connected to the mainline) after the plant finally closes in order to attract business from Toyota. Any traffic heading south would be able to run around at Derby.

 

[LE Greys]

Isn't there a scheme in place for a flyover at Skelton Jn North of York.
This to enable freight from the UP Slow to cross over without blocking the Up and Down Mains.

Well, it's an idea. A second one might be a third approach from the north, linking P8, P9, P10 and P11 with the avoiding lines. I'm not sure if there's room to squeeze it in past the depot, but it would allow access to the depot from the station without conflicting with either main, and allow Harrogate trains in and out with no conflicts.

A much bigger difference might be at Doncaster, but that would involve a massive rebuilt a bit beyond 'small-scale'. Darlington has an easier one, a platform on the up goods loop so that up expresses don't have to cross the down main twice. Down expresses could use either of the current through platforms, whichever is more convenient.

 

[Chris125]

While airport connections are mentioned how about a spur from HS1 or from near Birchington on sea/Herne Bay to Manston. Seems idiotic to have Heathrow at bursting point and one of the longest runways in the UK barely used and not far from a high speed rail link.

There is already spare airport capacity around London, at Stansted for example - the issue with Heathrow is it's status as a 'hub', which can either be exploited at it's current location or moved elsewhere to a new or expanded multi-runway airport with equivalent facilities.

Chris

 

[RichmondCommu]

There is already spare airport capacity around London, at Stansted for example - the issue with Heathrow is it's status as a 'hub', which can either be exploited at it's current location or moved elsewhere to a new or expanded multi-runway airport with equivalent facilities.

Chris

Boris Island is the way forward but who is going to pay for it is another matter!

 

[joeykins82]

I'd imagine that NR, EC, FCC and the stranded passengers are all united in the wish that Ely-Peterborough was electrified!

 

[SJDCornwall]

A thought that crossed my mind that the passing loop just east of Tisbury should be lengthened utilising the relatively clear trackbed from the site of Chilmark sidings to Dinton to enable trains to have a dynamic passing facility to enable trains to pas on the move instead of london bound trains often sitting in the loop for some minutes waiting for a westbound service to clear the single line from Wilton. The section from Chilmark to the Tisbury loop would require some work but the rest should relatively easy. No extra pointwork would be required or signalling. It would be a case of an extra long section of double track and repositioning of pointwork. Indeed Dinton lies on a nice long straight section so higher speed turnouts could utilised like the Axminster loop opened in Dec 2009.

 

[HSTEd]

not by much - i doubt the impact/delay costs outweigh the construction costs.

Then perhaps there is the possibility of reducing maintenance costs by removing a superfluous flat junction over the ECML that would not be needed otherwise.

You coudl remove atleast four sets of points even if you left everything else in the place to allow access to the sidings in the area and to provide single line capability for use during disruption.
Also could pull up two thirds of a mile of track and either remove or stop maintenance on a twin track overbridge.

As the sidings in the area appear largely abandoned the rationalisation would be able to remove them as well and possibly some of the crossovers.

As to the operational disadvantages of this: increased use of an existing level crossing which frankly is a minor problem and it would also require trains approaching on the route from the North to run as far as as Thirsk on the slow.... at 80 (SP90) instead of at 100 (since they will never get 125mph stock this doesn't seem to be a problem really).

 

[ainsworth74]

As the sidings in the area appear largely abandoned the rationalisation would be able to remove them as well and possibly some of the crossovers.

Network Rail fairly regularly park up machinery in those sidings so you'd need to find somewhere else for them to stable.

from the North to run as far as as Thirsk on the slow.... at 80 (SP90) instead of at 100 (since they will never get 125mph stock this doesn't seem to be a problem really).

But it might be an issue if they end up getting 110mph EMUs. Of course nothing has really be said about what EMUs TPE will be getting so this is all speculation but I wouldn't discount it.

 

[LE Greys]

But it might be an issue if they end up getting 110mph EMUs. Of course nothing has really be said about what EMUs TPE will be getting so this is all speculation but I wouldn't discount it.

The last suggestion I heard was 365s displaced from our area by new Thameslink stock. I think I prefer the 110 mph EMU idea, perhaps the "344s" we often hear about in connection with Liverpool Street-Norwich, or simply 350s to save on development costs.

Whatever it is, acceleration times should allow them to run the "Racetrack" in approximately the same time as an HST, losing 4 seconds a mile over a 30 miles is only two minutes, so they will probably be able to use the fasts without problems. However, getting coal trains from the up slow to the avoiding lines would be a much better use for a flyover (coal trains rumbling through York are hardly unknown) and the extra approach from the north would definitely be helpful.

 

[cle]

I'd imagine that NR, EC, FCC and the stranded passengers are all united in the wish that Ely-Peterborough was electrified!

Especially after this week, it seems a no-brainer!

 

[DarloRich]

Then perhaps there is the possibility of reducing maintenance costs by removing a superfluous flat junction over the ECML that would not be needed otherwise.

You coudl remove atleast four sets of points even if you left everything else in the place to allow access to the sidings in the area and to provide single line capability for use during disruption.
Also could pull up two thirds of a mile of track and either remove or stop maintenance on a twin track overbridge.

As the sidings in the area appear largely abandoned the rationalisation would be able to remove them as well and possibly some of the crossovers.

As to the operational disadvantages of this: increased use of an existing level crossing which frankly is a minor problem and it would also require trains approaching on the route from the North to run as far as as Thirsk on the slow.... at 80 (SP90) instead of at 100 (since they will never get 125mph stock this doesn't seem to be a problem really).

Can you clarify or provide a bit more information? I am confused?

 

[The Planner]

As to the operational disadvantages of this: increased use of an existing level crossing which frankly is a minor problem

Far from it, increased use of LC's is a big thing now.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Unsure if this would be cheep or not but could the Edinburgh Sub be upgraded and maybe even wired to free up space at Haymarket and paths through the tunnels and gardens?
It is my understanding that if some further reoronisation were done at Waverley another 2 or 3 bays could be magicked into being and provide platform space for iether additional trains or longer distance services which dont actually need to stop at HYM?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I always thought it was the tunnels south of Waverley as opposed to the tunnels north of Waverley that were at capacity?

 

[joeykins82]

Far from it, increased use of LC's is a big thing now.

True but the focus seems to be on high-speed, rural crossings which are the most dangerous; this crossing would be by station platforms where the majority of trains were already decelerating to come to a stop or pulling out of the station.

 

[The Planner]

Actually makes it worse believe it or not as it complicates matters with stopping and passing trains when the crossing is next to the station.

 

[LE Greys]

Actually makes it worse believe it or not as it complicates matters with stopping and passing trains when the crossing is next to the station.

Apart from anything else, the crossing has to be closed if it is in the overlap. And of course, passengers may well use it instead of a footbridge, as they sometimes do at Foxton. They are also more likely to be full barrier crossing rather than AHBs, so they will be closed for longer but not subject to people swerving around the barriers (hopefully).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unsure if this would be cheep or not but could the Edinburgh Sub be upgraded and maybe even wired to free up space at Haymarket and paths through the tunnels and gardens?
It is my understanding that if some further reoronisation were done at Waverley another 2 or 3 bays could be magicked into being and provide platform space for iether additional trains or longer distance services which dont actually need to stop at HYM?

The possible problem with that is that it might stop the suburban stations from being reopened for a tram service. The only bays likely to be available will be at the east end, where there is virtually no suburban traffic.