Stafford/Norton Bridge

[Dolge]

NR has published proposals for Stafford/Norton Bridge rebuilding.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/11026.aspx

Basically just 4-5km of new line taking Birmingham-Manchester via Stone traffic over the WCML fasts at Norton Bridge, plus some rebuilding and resignalling at Stafford. Presumably more ambitious plans for wholesale rebuilding at Stafford, or bypassing the whole Colwich - Norton Bridge stretch, have been abandoned in the light of HS2 proposals.

Completion due by end of 2016 for 2017 timetable. NR say it wil allow two additional fasts per hour to Crewe, one additional Manchester-Birmingham, and one additonal freight.

Dolge

 

[The Planner]

Suprised the plans are using a new formation and not keeping it as close to the exisiting.

 

[Invincibles]

Looking at the diagram it seems the exisiting formation would be kept, with the lines still crossing on the level.

The main change seems to be the flyover which is inevitable if you are going to grade seperate the lines. That takes the Manchester trains over to the "slows" and lets the "fasts" continue to Stafford without being interrupted.

This looks very simple and sensible given that the trains then go on to Birmingham and the Birmingham line is on the west side of Stafford.

Maybe I am missing something?

 

[sprinterguy]

Interesting, options A and B have the new line running round the opposie side of Norton Bridge to the current formation, essentially turning the village into a "raiway island": If either of those choices is taken I expect the local residents will be non too pleased.

I wonder if this will see the official closure and demolition of Norton Bridge station.

 

[CosherB]

Wouldn't it be better to put a flyover in at Colwich? That would enable Pendelinos to take the Stoke line to Manchester without blocking the up lines from Crewe/Stafford?

 

[furryfeet]

I wonder if this will see the official closure and demolition of Norton Bridge station.

Surely IF they can get Norton Bridge station officailly closed, then the layout could be remodelled for better throughput of traffic without having to go through all the expense of the "new build" options suggested above ?

Which TOC would have to pay the legal costs of the parliamentary procedure to close the station ?

ok I accept that the station is being closed by stealth, since no trains actually stop there, but I would think that the closure procedure would not be prolonged, since there will probably be no valid objections !

 

[First class]

It is a London Midland station, (Norton Bridge), so they are paying the cost of running the "replacement" bus.

 

[rail-britain]

Looking at the diagram it seems the exisiting formation would be kept, with the lines still crossing on the level.
Maybe I am missing something?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/Consultation/11066_Stafford_maps.pdf
There are three options, but yes in effect the existing formation is retained

In Option A and B northbound services use the realigned section of track

In Option C the nortbound services for Manchester use a new flyover
This will also probably be the cheapest and eventual option

 

[Cliff Pine]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/Consultation/11066_Stafford_maps.pdf
There are three options, but yes in effect the existing formation is retained

In Option A and B northbound services use the realigned section of track

In Option C the nortbound services for Manchester use a new flyover
This will also probably be the cheapest and eventual option

Do you think that the rail operators will feel that Option C will cause them greater disruption than A & B?

Network Rail appear to be suggesting that all three options are in the same ballpark figure of £200m - which seems slightly incredulous.....

 

[PhilipW]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/Consultation/11066_Stafford_maps.pdf
There are three options, but yes in effect the existing formation is retained

In Option A and B northbound services use the realigned section of track

In Option C the nortbound services for Manchester use a new flyover

Just to clarify.

In all three options there will be a flyover allowing trains to/from the slow lines on the WCML (on the west side of the 4 track formation) to pass over the fast lines (on the east side of the formation) to access the Stoke line.

It is not 100% clear whether there will still be direct access to the fast lines from the Stoke line, but I think the answer is "Yes", though presumably that will only be used by a minority of trains.

 

[mumrar]

Do you think that the rail operators will feel that Option C will cause them greater disruption than A & B?

Network Rail appear to be suggesting that all three options are in the same ballpark figure of £200m - which seems slightly incredulous.....

Well, bridges aren't built out of lego, so given the length/width of the flyover, that's where most of the money will be spent.

 

[Cliff Pine]

Do you think that the rail operators will feel that Option C will cause them greater disruption than A & B?

Network Rail appear to be suggesting that all three options are in the same ballpark figure of £200m - which seems slightly incredulous.....

I wonder whether Network Rail has considered the option of simply lifting the fast lines up on a bridge on their current alignment & bringing the Stone branch under them to connect with the slow lines. Have they capacity modelled that option - it would be far cheaper.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wonder whether Network Rail has considered the option of simply lifting the fast lines up on a bridge on their current alignment & bringing the Stone branch under them to connect with the slow lines. Have they capacity modelled that option - it would be far cheaper.

Probably not, because they won't want to seriously disrupt the WCML fast services for months/years while the work gets done.

 

[Black5]

Went to a presentation by Network Rail about Norton Bridge. There is no doubt that something needs to be done. It is common to see trains at slow speed at Norton Bridge on all lines. If the Trains off the Stoke line join the fast line they inevitably crawl to a stand at Doxey junction outside Stafford to get across the down fast.

It seems to me that both options B and C will mean long viaducts to take the slow lines either across the fast lines as well as across several roads. Option B shows the slow line going over Station road (parallel to the main line) then continuing over the fast lines at high level and remaining at high level to cross the road to Stone. I think the viaducts would look out of place in the landscape.

However Option A seems to cross all roads and other tracks almost at right angles meaning short bridges. I think that option with landscaping would be the best.

The really good news is that the previous idea of leaving the WCML near Colwich and rejoining north of Norton Bridge is now defunct. That would have been far to expensive, it would have affected large numbers of properties and worst of all it would have left Stafford isolated from many train services.

 

[Cliff Pine]

Went to a presentation by Network Rail about Norton Bridge. There is no doubt that something needs to be done. It is common to see trains at slow speed at Norton Bridge on all lines. If the Trains off the Stoke line join the fast line they inevitably crawl to a stand at Doxey junction outside Stafford to get across the down fast.

It seems to me that both options B and C will mean long viaducts to take the slow lines either across the fast lines as well as across several roads. Option B shows the slow line going over Station road (parallel to the main line) then continuing over the fast lines at high level and remaining at high level to cross the road to Stone. I think the viaducts would look out of place in the landscape.

However Option A seems to cross all roads and other tracks almost at right angles meaning short bridges. I think that option with landscaping would be the best.

The really good news is that the previous idea of leaving the WCML near Colwich and rejoining north of Norton Bridge is now defunct. That would have been far to expensive, it would have affected large numbers of properties and worst of all it would have left Stafford isolated from many train services.

Have you been able to view any 3D topographic visuals for the three options? I found the presentation to be very poorly set-out, and there were a number of fundamental contradictions, between NW staff and the consultation documents. It seems very difficult to envisage the plans - compare that to the Hitchin Flyover.

 

[bangor-toad]

It's good to see improvements like this coming along. It should be a good capacity enhancement.

It's amusing though to look at the options. I read through the whole bundle produced by Network Rail and it's clear that they want Option A. Why?

Option A. Goes through mainly open fields away from property and the engineering (bridges & the like) is simple and straightforward.

Option B. It manages to be alligned as close as possible to as many properties as possible in the area and requires some trickier bridges.

Option C. The most environmentally damaging way to run the new tracks as it means the stream would pretty much have to be put in a pipe along with much more significant habitat destruction.

Ah, nice to see projects like this still present three options of a)what they want, b)what would trash homes and property and c)one that manages to destroy as much local wildlife as possible.
Cheers,
Jason

 

[cle]

Does anyone know roughly what impact this would have on journey times and/or linespeeds?
Maybe quicker Brum - Manc timetabled journeys? Or London - Chester/Liverpool/Glasgow?

I had a good run on a via Wilmslow Manc southbound, and it went fast all the way from south of Crewe to Wembley with no slowing around Stafford (wasn't 125 but decent) or Colwich. It arrived 6 mins before timetabled.

So would this just mean more trains arriving 'early' within the existing padding?

 

[The Planner]

Probably a minute or so depending on whether it gets to 125 or not. Its more of a capacity scheme.

 

[dk1]

At such an important junction which has always caused delays, it begs the question why wasnt it done or a start made under the WCML upgrade when engineering blocks where a plenty? Im sure they could have lost the £200m price tag somewhere in the whole thing.

 

[swt_passenger]

At such an important junction which has always caused delays, it begs the question why wasnt it done or a start made under the WCML upgrade when engineering blocks where a plenty? Im sure they could have lost the £200m price tag somewhere in the whole thing.

It always was intended to be a part of the upgrade, the DfT's 2006 WCML progress report explains why it was deferred. Basically they ran out of time, people, and money.

Other major outstanding elements are the Bletchley remodelling (which starts shortly), and the autotransformer upgrade to the OHLE.

Part 16.4 of this has the details:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/wcml/coastmainlineprogressrep3458.pdf

 

[dk1]

It always was intended to be a part of the upgrade, the DfT's 2006 WCML progress report explains why it was deferred. Basically they ran out of time, people, and money.

Other major outstanding elements are the Bletchley remodelling (which starts shortly), and the autotransformer upgrade to the OHLE.

Part 16.4 of this has the details:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/wcml/coastmainlineprogressrep3458.pdf

Cheers mate!! Have read 16.4 & will have a good read of the rest when i can.

 

[Cliff Pine]

It's good to see improvements like this coming along. It should be a good capacity enhancement.

It's amusing though to look at the options. I read through the whole bundle produced by Network Rail and it's clear that they want Option A. Why?

Option A. Goes through mainly open fields away from property and the engineering (bridges & the like) is simple and straightforward.

Option B. It manages to be alligned as close as possible to as many properties as possible in the area and requires some trickier bridges.

Option C. The most environmentally damaging way to run the new tracks as it means the stream would pretty much have to be put in a pipe along with much more significant habitat destruction.

Ah, nice to see projects like this still present three options of a)what they want, b)what would trash homes and property and c)one that manages to destroy as much local wildlife as possible.
Cheers,
Jason

Jason - Lets just say Im a local! I went to most recent presentation at Norton Bridge on Friday and discussed proposals with technical manager for NR - who I hadn't seen before. . He said that option C was only ever put forward, to demonstrate why you CAN'T have the new lines running east of the existing lines. He also said that the woods at Yelds Rough would have no preservation order slapped on them, so no reason that option B could not be a goer. He said that NR were surprised that there has been so much anti-option C as both A & B would "island" Shallowford and Norton Bridge. No getting away from it!:-

Cheers

Cliff

 

[Cliff Pine]

Newsflash - Norton Bridge Rail Enhancement - Option C has been selected - 'm gutted. Looks like surround sound on it's way.

 

[The Planner]

Cheapest option Ive no doubt.

 

[Nym]

Source?

 

[rail-britain]

Source?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=6010&NewsAreaId=2

Conflict, as Network Rail list it as Option A1 :
The chosen scheme – known as option A1 – includes a new 4km section of track to the west of the existing main line railway and a bridge flyover to link it with the Stone branch
This suggests Option A with some minor tweaks (which are not in the original proposal, so will need to wait until the documents appear on the IPT website)

This scheme will be easier to implement as the new northbound section is away from the existing route and will simply be tied-in on completion
Furthermore, the section is within a cutting
However, the flyover is partially exposed and will no doubt increase noise slightly with respect to these services

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres a map showing A1 variance from A option, essentially its just a very large (but not radically different) change to the allignment, as much as 100m in some places.

 

[rail-britain]

Theres a map showing A1 variance from A option

The only map I could find (from the original page) had the three options

If there is a revised map, could you supply the direct link

 

[WatcherZero]

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=4575

 

[moggie]

£200m for five new bridges, 4-5km of new formation which requires significant earthworks and alteration to non-railway infrastructure, 3 new high speed junctions and the significant re-configuartion of the existing signalling in the Norton Bridge area (I would not be suprised if the existing interlockings have inufficient capacity to absorb this level of change therefore likely that additional SSI interlocking(s) will be required).

Nuneaton Nth Chord is costed circa £25m so £200m is definately in the ball park prior to the detailed estimates.

Looks like a decent upgrade of capability.