WCML between Rugby and Nuneaton?

[Peregrine 4903]

I have travelled on the WCML quite a lot recently and noticed there is a 2 track section of the WCML between Rugby and Nuneaton that seems to be a bottleneck.

For example I was travelling on the 12:10 London Euston to Chester train and we got stuck behind a freight train on that two track section which delayed us before the line became 4 tracks again, the freight went onto the slow and we continued on our way.

What I am wondering is, is there any plan to 4 track this section of the WCML?

Just from looking at the surrounding areas its mostly countryside so I don't see it being to hard to install compared to other 4 tracking schemes.

However considering HS2 I doubt there is much of a business case to 4 track it with all fast long distance services being transferred to HS2 but I still think it should be 4 tracked if the money becomes available.

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s more correctly a 3 track section, there are 2 continuous up direction tracks all the way through there, so it’s ok in one direction.

I don’t believe there are any extant proposals to add a fourth track, it may be countryside but it includes a couple of difficult obstacles such as the M6 overbridge. There’s also a slight difficulty because the down slow is “in the middle” immediately north of Rugby and there’d have to be a way of sorting the flows out before they run more conventionally through Nuneaton. The single track section conveniently hides that issue...

 

[Mag_seven]

It’s more correctly a 3 track section, there are 2 continuous up direction tracks all the way through there, so it’s ok in one direction.

I don’t believe there are any extant proposals to add a fourth track, it may be countryside but it includes a couple of difficult obstacles such as the M6 overbridge. There’s also a slight difficulty because the down slow is “in the middle” immediately north of Rugby and there’d have to be a way of sorting the flows out before they run more conventionally through Nuneaton. The single track section conveniently hides that issue...

I'm sure there must have been good reasons why they didn't add a fourth track when they four tracked the Trent Valley.

 

[Merle Haggard]

That section was 3 track in later LNWR, LMS and BR days until it was reduced to 2 in the ?early 70s? and then of course reinstated in the WCML upgrade.
The reason for the LNWR not widening the down side from Brinkow to Nuneaton (when they progressively provided 4 tracks north from Euston including by opening the 'New line' via Northampton) is said to be the presence of the canal. Whizzing past at 125, it doesn't seem that close, but that was the reason given.
I realise the LNWRs' widening 'gave up' at Tamworth, and this was widened in the recent (ish) upgrade (apart from through the tunnel), but the LNW did seem to be working progressively northwards. Once the LMS took over, only the Midland routes found favour with widening.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure there must have been good reasons why they didn't add a fourth track when they four tracked the Trent Valley.

Brinklow loop was there for a while, so the 2.5 miles of 4th track that was installed in West Coast Route Mod was actually Rugby North (Newbold) - Brinklow. The reason it wasn’t taken through to Attleborough S Jn is as @swt_passenger says, that it was pretty difficult to do, not least because of the M6, and the need to swap the lines over from Rugby to Nuneaton. Also, it isn’t actually that much of a restriction - 7 miles of one line, which a Pendolino takes 3 1/2 minutes to clear, and a freight takes 7. There is an occasional delay, but it is not a restriction on capacity as such.

There is an approved plan to resolve it, though, by constructing a new pair of fast lines from Euston to Crewe...

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Brinklow loop was there for a while, so the 2.5 miles of 4th track that was installed in West Coast Route Mod was actually Rugby North (Newbold) - Brinklow. The reason it wasn’t taken through to Attleborough S Jn is as @swt_passenger says, that it was pretty difficult to do, not least because of the M6, and the need to swap the lines over from Rugby to Nuneaton. Also, it isn’t actually that much of a restriction - 7 miles of one line, which a Pendolino takes 3 1/2 minutes to clear, and a freight takes 7. There is an occasional delay, but it is not a restriction on capacity as such.

There is an approved plan to resolve it, though, by constructing a new pair of fast lines from Euston to Crewe...

I didn't actually realise there were already 3 tracks. Like I said I doubt it will be ever upgraded as hs2 solves the problem but I just thought it worth mentioning as I haven't seen in it mentioned before on the forum.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Perhaps a little further elaboration. Although there are only three lines of track over the section, this does not mean that down traffic is constrained to one of them, with the other two tracks reserved for up traffic. Both the first track on the 'down' side and the centre track are signalled for traffic in both directions, and I travelled recently on a down Pendo that used the centre track to overtake another train. It's only the track on the up side that's signalled for one direction only.
Here's the Open Train Times map which shows the signalling. Slightly confusing - the Trent Valley route is the three tracks in the middle, the line above and below are Nuneaton - Coventry and Nuneaton Leicester branches.

 

[Senex]

That section was 3 track in later LNWR, LMS and BR days until it was reduced to 2 in the ?early 70s? and then of course reinstated in the WCML upgrade.
The reason for the LNWR not widening the down side from Brinkow to Nuneaton (when they progressively provided 4 tracks north from Euston including by opening the 'New line' via Northampton) is said to be the presence of the canal. Whizzing past at 125, it doesn't seem that close, but that was the reason given.
I realise the LNWRs' widening 'gave up' at Tamworth, and this was widened in the recent (ish) upgrade (apart from through the tunnel), but the LNW did seem to be working progressively northwards. Once the LMS took over, only the Midland routes found favour with widening.

Almost all the Midland widening was done by that company itself in response to its own needs. It would be rather interesting to know which company on the eve of Grouping had the greatest proportion of three- and four-track sections. The LMS actually undertook surprisingly little improvement of the infrastructure during its twenty-five years.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Almost all the Midland widening was done by that company itself in response to its own needs. It would be rather interesting to know which company on the eve of Grouping had the greatest proportion of three- and four-track sections. The LMS actually undertook surprisingly little improvement of the infrastructure during its twenty-five years.

I hadn't realised that, thank you; although I think that the widening and tunnel opening of the Birmingham - Bristol route around ???Northfield??? was done by the LMS, and this was what led me to assume others were. It's very difficult to find dates for widening, it does seem to be seen as not important in the history books (although logs of runs does...).

The widening of the bottleneck through Armitage carried out as part of the WCML upgrade was unusual in that it had always previously been 2 track whereas (perhaps) most of the other widenings were along formations previously quadrupled but reduced to twin in the rationalisation period of the '60s - '70s. The LNWR worked Northwards but only got as far as Tamworth and it's a pity, in my opinion, that the LMS didn't carry on - and, also, widen Rugby - at least Stechford. Would have been a lot easier then!

It does seem to me that the G W R went for new, more direct routes as well as widening (it wasn't called the Great Way Round baselessly). These were carried out surprisingly recently (in railway history terms) but in a way could be counted in the 4 tracking proportion - which, of course, raises a whole new area of discussion.

 

[Revaulx]

Almost all the Midland widening was done by that company itself in response to its own needs. It would be rather interesting to know which company on the eve of Grouping had the greatest proportion of three- and four-track sections. The LMS actually undertook surprisingly little improvement of the infrastructure during its twenty-five years.

The LMS had a bad start thanks to infighting between ex-LNW and Midland factions. Its infrastructure improvements, which came later when government cash was made available, mainly consisted of rationalisation and mechanisation of its engine sheds.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The LMS had a bad start thanks to infighting between ex-LNW and Midland factions. Its infrastructure improvements, which came later when government cash was made available, mainly consisted of rationalisation and mechanisation of its engine sheds.

Indeed, although older spotters in my youth regarded it as the Midland taking over the LNWR ('they couldn't even renumber our engines correctly'). That was why I assumed (wrongly, it turns out) that the Midland lines were the ones widened.

As an aside, although the infighting resulted in the LNWR coming second to the Midland in locomotive matters, it wasn't the case with all functions; for instance, the Midland main line at Market Harboro' was remodelled and re-signalled in early LMS days and, because of the S&T areas (possibly one based at Northampton) LNWR pattern signals were provided. All rather petty, and as you say diverted management attention from the business.

 

[S&CLER]

Almost all the Midland widening was done by that company itself in response to its own needs. It would be rather interesting to know which company on the eve of Grouping had the greatest proportion of three- and four-track sections. The LMS actually undertook surprisingly little improvement of the infrastructure during its twenty-five years.

I have a copy of the Railway Year Book for 1921, just before the L&Y-LNWR merger, which gives information on mileages of each company. It would be very laborious to go through every company to work out the answer to your question (maybe I will if I have to self-isolate), but I took the L&Y as a likely example of a company with a lot of multiple track, and the mileage is given as:
owned, 533m 0ch, share of joint lines 68m 28ch, total mileage: first track 601m 28 ch, second track 557m 7ch, third track 112m 66ch, fourth track 88m 20ch, over 4 tracks (reduced to single track) 57m 74ch; total length of single track including sidings 2270m 51ch; under construction 1m 61ch; authorised but not commenced or in abeyance 90m 4ch.

Anyone with a statistical bent can work out the ratio of track mileage to route mileage, which is almost but not quite the answer to your question. I don't think many other companies, if any, were likely to have exceeded the L&Y but I 'll leave it to someone with time on their hands and detailed statistics for 1921 to work that out.

 

[gg1]

I hadn't realised that, thank you; although I think that the widening and tunnel opening of the Birmingham - Bristol route around ???Northfield??? was done by the LMS, and this was what led me to assume others were. It's very difficult to find dates for widening, it does seem to be seen as not important in the history books (although logs of runs does...).

Heading slightly off topic but this was done in 2 stages, Kings Norton to Longbridge in the 1890s and Longbridge to Barnt Green in the 1920s:

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/bournvillebhamns.htm
https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/cofton_tunnel.htm

 

[S&CLER]

Since I posted my last post I have noticed that on page 20 of the RYB for 1921 there is a table showing track mileage owned or leased by all companies with at least 100 miles of railway (19 in England and Wales, 5 in Scotland, 6 in Ireland). This makes it much easier to work out track to route ratios, and as I suspected the L&Y leads with 3.77m of track per mile of route. Most of the others are between 2 and 3.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Since I posted my last post I have noticed that on page 20 of the RYB for 1921 there is a table showing track mileage owned or leased by all companies with at least 100 miles of railway (19 in England and Wales, 5 in Scotland, 6 in Ireland). This makes it much easier to work out track to route ratios, and as I suspected the L&Y leads with 3.77m of track per mile of route. Most of the others are between 2 and 3.

Interesting, perhaps it's a more complex calculation but 3.77 out of a possible 4 suggest 94% of route mileage was quad. This was possibly because the L&Y had both heavy mineral traffic on many routes and heavy business and holiday passenger traffic. Residential and holiday traffic to Blackpool falls into the latter group. Preston - Blackpool (possibly only quad to Kirkham) and also Euxton J - Preston were joint with the LNWR and I wonder how this was treated in the statistics. Although the line to Blackpool was shown as joint between the two railways. the Euxton J section had a name - Northern Union - so presumably fell out of the statistics because it was (much!) less than 100 miles.

 

[S&CLER]

Interesting, perhaps it's a more complex calculation but 3.77 out of a possible 4 suggest 94% of route mileage was quad. This was possibly because the L&Y had both heavy mineral traffic on many routes and heavy business and holiday passenger traffic. Residential and holiday traffic to Blackpool falls into the latter group. Preston - Blackpool (possibly only quad to Kirkham) and also Euxton J - Preston were joint with the LNWR and I wonder how this was treated in the statistics. Although the line to Blackpool was shown as joint between the two railways. the Euxton J section had a name - Northern Union - so presumably fell out of the statistics because it was (much!) less than 100 miles.

The L&Y's share of the joint lines was included in the statistics; it had 533m 0ch of its own route-miles and a share in 68m 28ch of jointly-owned lines, giving it a total route mileage of 601m 28ch. See my post above in reply to Senex for how the Railway Year Book sets it out as miles of first track (which is of course the same as the route mileage, i.e. 601m 28ch), second track, third, fourth, more than 4, sidings etc.

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the figure 3.77; this is the result of dividing the total track mileage by the route mileage, so it just means that there were 3.77 miles of track (including sidings) for every mile of route. There could in theory have been more than 4, so it's not correct to speak of "a possible 4".

Joint lines seem to be counted twice (or more) being allocated to both the owning companies, so the North Union and the Preston and Wyre would have appeared in the totals for both the L&Y and the LNW.

I am sure that I have also read somewhere that the L&Y had more signal boxes in proportion to the length of its system than any other company, but I cannot find a source for this.

 

[Senex]

I hadn't realised that, thank you; although I think that the widening and tunnel opening of the Birmingham - Bristol route around ???Northfield??? was done by the LMS, and this was what led me to assume others were. It's very difficult to find dates for widening, it does seem to be seen as not important in the history books (although logs of runs does...).

You're right — Cofton Tunnel was opened out in January 1929.

It does seem to me that the G W R went for new, more direct routes as well as widening (it wasn't called the Great Way Round baselessly). These were carried out surprisingly recently (in railway history terms) but in a way could be counted in the 4 tracking proportion - which, of course, raises a whole new area of discussion.

Yes, the GW (in collaboration with the Great Central on the Birmingham route) did indeed build some fine, fast, well laid-out new lines to shorten the main lines to Taunton and beyond, to South Wales, and to Birminham, as well as its own (well, largely its own) Birmingham to Bristol route. As for what might be counted as quadding, that really does open a dispute. The first big cut-off route was probably the Trent Valley line, closely followed by the Great Northern to cut the distance from London to York and beyond. When the LNW was busy building its 4 tracks to Rugby, what about the deviation through Northampton? It was always seen as the slow lines, but it's a lengthy diversion from the fasts and manages to serve a major additional town. Then there's the well-known case of the Midland's Sharnbrook deviation to get better gradients for up coal trains. And much more interesting, the Midland's Kettering & Manton and Melton & Nottingham lines, the first especially being planned as the "widening" of the northern section of the Leicester & Hitchin and neither being seen at first as an alternative express passenger route to the north. And there are other nicely arguable cases!

 

[AndrewE]

Surely the ex-LNWR line from Crewe to Weaver Jct was prepared for quadrupling before the 2nd WW put paid to it? There are (were) lots of lengths of 4-track there, land bought and some bridges prepared or built later to accommodate it (- Hartford station?)
Pity it hasn't been carried through since.
I could also point out (again) that the approach to Crewe station over South Junction has only 3 lines due to the cheapo upgrade done in preparation for APTs streaking through!

 

[Merle Haggard]

When the LNW was busy building its 4 tracks to Rugby, what about the deviation through Northampton? It was always seen as the slow lines, but it's a lengthy diversion from the fasts and manages to serve a major additional town. Then there's the well-known case of the Midland's Sharnbrook deviation to get better gradients for up coal trains.

As far as the 'New Line' (Roade - Rugby via Northampton) this was built in the same process as the widening South of Roade; Northampton was of course already served by the Blisworth - Peterboro' line, planned I think as the London & Birmingham's route to York. Interestingly, because the L&B 'Old Line' went off a direct route to serve the then-important military establishment at Weedon the extra mileage via Northampton is only 2m 26ch (going by the m.p.s at Hillmorton j). I can't find the similar comparison for the Sharnbrook Midland one (presumably this has its own mile posts), but it is at one point some distance from the fast lines when it passes the village of Wymington. The Sharnbrook summit is well known, but there is a similarly challenging summit North of Kettering (can't remember the name) and, as you suggest, the Manton route was possibly built to avoid it. So the quadrupling had the new lines less and less close to the original alignment as it headed North until it was quite remote.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the figure 3.77; this is the result of dividing the total track mileage by the route mileage, so it just means that there were 3.77 miles of track (including sidings) for every mile of route. There could in theory have been more than 4, so it's not correct to speak of "a possible 4".

I was assuming that the maximum number of tracks was 4, so that if the figure had been '4' instead of '3.77' then 100% of route miles would have been 4 track and 3.77 is 94% of 4. I did wonder if there was a flaw in my logic! There are (or were) long loops (usually on the up side, for obvious reasons} on the LNWR south of Roade which made the alignment 5 tracks and very likely there was the same situation on the L&Y, which I hadn't occurred to me.

Thank you for the other information. I didn't know the name 'Preston & Wyre' was used, rather than just the two companies.

 

[John Webb]

I hadn't realised that, thank you; although I think that the widening and tunnel opening of the Birmingham - Bristol route around ???Northfield??? was done by the LMS, and this was what led me to assume others were. It's very difficult to find dates for widening, it does seem to be seen as not important in the history books (although logs of runs does...)…..

The London Extension from Bedford to St Pancras was opened in 1868 just as two tracks, but with the Midland Railway buying sufficient land throughout for at least four tracks - land was cheaper than the steel rails! It slowly built an 'Up Goods' line to get goods traffic into London which eventually reached St Albans where goods trains were funnelled onto the original pair of lines into London as the passenger service allowed. In the early 1890s they had the money to develop the goods lines, by then both up and down, further south - by June 1894 the line was four-tracked to Elstree from Harlington. With the opening of the second Elstree Tunnel in June 1895 the line was four-tracked to Silkstream Junction and beyond and become the slow passenger lines from south of St Albans. At Silkstream junction the goods traffic was split off to form a third pair of lines.

The preserved St Albans South box was opened in June 1892 in anticipation of the lines southwards becoming four-tracked; the original box had insufficient room for the larger number of levers needed to operate the extended layout.