BR didn't see the need for them, it's worth remembering that BR never anticipated the growth we've enjoyed both in terms of passenger but just as importantly the number of services using the infrastructure. I don't think it's criminal just a shame. Similarly how quad-track sections of the ECML became three track sections so that the electrification could be kept within the exiting railways footprint. At the time few will have anticipated all the extra services that are now running over the sessions.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Welwyn Viaduct section doubling - How?
- Thread starter AlanFry1
- Start date
- Status
BR didn't see the need for them, it's worth remembering that BR never anticipated the growth we've enjoyed both in terms of passenger but just as importantly the number of services using the infrastructure. I don't think it's criminal just a shame. Similarly how quad-track sections of the ECML became three track sections so that the electrification could be kept within the exiting railways footprint. At the time few will have anticipated all the extra services that are now running over the sessions.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RichmondCommu
Established Member
The thing is the one city in the UK that was always going to continue to grow and prosper was London, and yet we decided to cut capacity on a line that feeds it! This should have been obvious to even the thickest of civil servants that people would always want to travel to London!
I understand that BR was under huge pressure to keep costs to a minimum but now decades later we are paying for those mistakes. Short sightedness has crippled this country for far too long. Any other country in northern Europe would have simply extended the railway boundaries.
Taking an hour commencing 1715 at WGC (northbound).
Times will be a little later through Welywn North
1715 Edinburgh
1718 Leeds
1719 Cambridge (calls WGC & WLW)
1724 Peterborough
1728 Ely
1732 Peterborough
1735 Hull
1738 Royston
1745 Newcastle
1748 Harrogate
1748 Cambridge (calls WGC & WLW)
1754 Peterborough
1758 Kings Lynn
1802 Peterborough
1805 Leeds
1808 Royston
16 trains in 53 minutes!
I appreciate that it's started a little earlier in the thread, but which loops are being referring to? I didn't think there were many on the GN into London! Going back to an earlier post, I don't think Welwyn North ever had them (why would it?); the areas in question were presumably occupied by sidings. Were the bays at Gordon Hill ever able to be worked as through lines?
RichmondCommu
Established Member
In all honesty, not knowing the route that well I'm only commenting on what others have said. The point is any rationalisation of a major route so close to London was absolute lunacy!
Whilst I don't wish to excuse some of the lack of strategic forsight of BR, isn't there also a question to be asked as to why it is so expensive to re-instate these tracks. Particularly as these are alongside mainlines and will not have had a housing estate built over them.
If you can't rebuild a railway along an existing trackbed without obstacles, particularly with modern technology, doesn't that say something about our system ?
Agreed (in response to RichmondCommu!) entirely - I'm just not sure that it was the case here! I'm still not convinced by the effectiveness of short loops in this sort of situation anyway - all it does is extend the journey times significantly on the stopper, and probably (overall) lose some paths anyway!
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
I in no way at all endorse this, but would lowering the speed limit over the two-track section from Welwyn Garden City to Knebworth aid capacity?
Well in the case of the loops it looks like they may never have existed anyway! But relaying triple track sections to quad track runs back into the problem that caused BR to rationalise originally. The railway would need more land if it's going to have four tracks and OHLE masts.
I'm tempted to think it's worth doubling the viaduct and tunnells and having done with it. Yes, it's a big capital project, but no less than the other big projects at the moment.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Ainsworth, I really don't want to shoot the messenger here but that didn't stop the WCML four tracking project! These are the kind of infrastructure projects that will help the construction sector (which continues to contract) and make a real difference to people travelling to the capital.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yorksrob, I'm in complete agreement but it will never get past our planning laws! Which is exactly why we need Boris Island, nobody gives a monkeys about what happens in the Thames Estuary!
Last edited:
I'm not sure about Boris Island (and I'm not made up either way) but I think if the new viaduct were made identical to the existing one it could get through !
RichmondCommu
Established Member
I must confess that I don't know much too much about the law regarding listed structures but certainly with the case of St Pancras I think it was decided that everyone must be able to see the original structure. But then again I maybe wrong! However, as before these kind of projects would be a god send to the construction sector. And would surely be useful to Thameslink?
johnnychips
Established Member
If you look at Google Images, it seems to be a huge brick-built structure. Replicating this parallel to it would cost a fortune compared with modern concrete/steel structures. Is it bigger than Stockport?
No danger of that
Well my original point was simply answering the question as to why it would be so expensive and I believe the reason I outlined is one of the main reasons. BR had little money so had to compromise, Railtrack/Network Rail on the other hand had plenty of cash to do what was needed (well more than BR, even they ended up having to make compromises so clearly it wasn't enough). Certainly my post was not meant to be a suggestion that such work should not be undertaken, on the contrary I think quad-tracking more sections of the ECML should be done.
That's certainly true. Hopefully the regulations would recognise that this is first and foremost a piece of the national infrastructure, but you never can tell.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
You could do a modern structure and clad it in brick effect pre-cast sections coloured to match the original?
.
.
.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.
.
.
I was thinking along the same lines myself ( excuse the pun ); would extending the four track as far as physically possible within the present infrastructure reduce the transit time on the double track section of the stopping trains enough to squeeze another path each hour each way out of the line?
Last edited:
At the south end of the viaduct, the current Down Slow looks to stop a little way short of the viaduct, but I don't think changing that would achieve much (possibly a half-minute saving?). Obviously there'd need to be some adjustment to the position of signals to make the most of it, which then might have effects elsewhere!
I'd read ess's post as referring to additional running lines north of the viaduct - I don't think there ever were any (but there probably were sidings), and I don't think any in that position would achieve much.
I'd read ess's post as referring to additional running lines north of the viaduct - I don't think there ever were any (but there probably were sidings), and I don't think any in that position would achieve much.
The thing is that this simply wasn't the case. Read a few issues of, say, Modern Railways from the 70s and 80s and you will see that passenger traffic into central London was slowly declining. As late as 1983/4 services were being shortened or taken out of the timetable in the south east as there was insufficient custom to require them. Closure notices for all services into Marylebone were posted. Successive governments set very challenging financing limits (and incidentally, not very challenging performance targets).
So, when infrastructure that is not required, and with no realistic prospect of being used, is due for renewal and there is no cash, you don't replace it!
As it turns out, a small proportion of what was taken out 30/40 years ago is now needed again. By now it would have been due for renewal again. So the railway (indeed UK plc) has saved a whole life cycle cost.
Yes there are few examples of where removing capacity has increased the cost of putting it back - the OLE headspan masts between Huntingdon and Connington being a good example. However there are dozens of other places where infrastructure has been retained or built when it is not needed.
All this shows is that predicting the future 30 years in advance (let alone 10) is an inexact science, and we shouldn't be surprised at that.
Cliveblackpool
Member
Imo this is a situation which gives another good reason for HS2 -
Thought should be given in its design to allow for 4 tracks on the last leg to London.
Thought should be given in its design to allow for 4 tracks on the last leg to London.
Chris125
Established Member
If i remember correctly the quadruple track was cut back north of Welwyn so higher speed turnouts could be used, reducing the impact of slow line services on the bottleneck.
Chris
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,348
What about fitting gauntlet track?
That would allow pointwork to be replaced with fixed equipment that might allow higher speeds without serious maintenance issues?
That would allow pointwork to be replaced with fixed equipment that might allow higher speeds without serious maintenance issues?
I'm not entirely sure, but AIUI, the Welwyn bays (or bay, if there was one) were used for goods only. Not sure when they closed, but it may have been pre-LNER. It was certainly pre-BR. The opening of Welwyn Garden City would have removed any need for them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That's definitely the case. There is clearly space available through the Woolmer Green bridges to fit slow lines, but they are just not there. It probably happened at the same time as electrification, towards the end of the Deltic era.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This was, of course, before Peter Parker and Chris Green turned around Inter-City and NSE respectively. In some ways, the work saved many routes - I doubt we would still have Waterloo-Exeter, the Chiltern, the Cotswold or the S&C without it. It's a complete and utter pain in the backside to reverse, but at least the lines are still there. Still, it's no excuse for not allowing for four tracks during electrification, which happened during the late '80s boom when HSTs had virtually doubled ECML express traffic and the 'sparks effect' was well-known. It's also a worthwhile thing to remember when it comes to predicting whatever future is predicted.
Ploughman
Established Member
Is there clearance on the viaduct to do this?
As for another posts mention of moving the pointwork nearer.
Would there be a minimum length of overrun required for the trap points if needed.
Lot's of interesting ideas in this thread. Makes a pleasent change that realistic options have been discussed rahter than the normal fanciful mutil billion pound projects that will never happen.
In an earlier post I discussed routing trains around the loop. I was refering to the Finsbury Pk, Stevenage fasts and non-stop Cambridge services. There are typically four of these per hour. That's why I suggested increasing the slow services on the loop to 4tph from the present 2 or 3 tph. With the slows stopping in new loops at Gordon Hill the fasts can pass unhindered.
Welwyn North did have a number of sidings and from what I've seen there was a down loop but this was not used for passenger trains. It was more a reception siding that had access from both directions. Some local 'mature' expects told me that.
Somebody earlier mentioned the new Thameslink franchise. Part of my grand plan for the inner subs would to be have 4tp from WGC and 4tph from Hertford (and possible further north-Letchworth would be easy once the viaduct at Hitchin is completed). 4tph would run to Moorgate and 4tph would run onto the North London Line and continue to South East London or where ever is suitable on that service. I know the tunnel linking the NLL with the ECML is single bore and the junction with the NLL is not grade seperated but with some investment there (ok, quite a bit of investment) you would be linking two areas of the home counties that could benefit the both.
And wouldn't it be great if they continued the Moorgate tunnels to Bank and joined the Drain to Waterloo and then surfaced somewhere around Vauxhall. A fairly cheap (relative term!!) way of getting at least 4tph from Herts to Surrey.
What with all these cross London tunnels and HS2 what future King's Cross. A couple of services to Hull and Lincoln!!!
It's interesting that when the New Barnet > Potters Bar section was quadruppled in the early 50's (which included no less then 3 new tunnels) it was not also done at Welwyn. I would love to read the investment notes from that period if anybody has details of where to find them.
In an earlier post I discussed routing trains around the loop. I was refering to the Finsbury Pk, Stevenage fasts and non-stop Cambridge services. There are typically four of these per hour. That's why I suggested increasing the slow services on the loop to 4tph from the present 2 or 3 tph. With the slows stopping in new loops at Gordon Hill the fasts can pass unhindered.
Welwyn North did have a number of sidings and from what I've seen there was a down loop but this was not used for passenger trains. It was more a reception siding that had access from both directions. Some local 'mature' expects told me that.
Somebody earlier mentioned the new Thameslink franchise. Part of my grand plan for the inner subs would to be have 4tp from WGC and 4tph from Hertford (and possible further north-Letchworth would be easy once the viaduct at Hitchin is completed). 4tph would run to Moorgate and 4tph would run onto the North London Line and continue to South East London or where ever is suitable on that service. I know the tunnel linking the NLL with the ECML is single bore and the junction with the NLL is not grade seperated but with some investment there (ok, quite a bit of investment) you would be linking two areas of the home counties that could benefit the both.
And wouldn't it be great if they continued the Moorgate tunnels to Bank and joined the Drain to Waterloo and then surfaced somewhere around Vauxhall. A fairly cheap (relative term!!) way of getting at least 4tph from Herts to Surrey.
What with all these cross London tunnels and HS2 what future King's Cross. A couple of services to Hull and Lincoln!!!
It's interesting that when the New Barnet > Potters Bar section was quadruppled in the early 50's (which included no less then 3 new tunnels) it was not also done at Welwyn. I would love to read the investment notes from that period if anybody has details of where to find them.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Can't argue with any of that - I know that other people seem to have amazing hindsight, but BR acted on the hand they had been dealt.
If they'd known about demand patterns of the last twenty years, they'd never have bothered with shorter term things like Pacers, but based on the information known at the time, they did the best they could.
The sparks effect has taken on mythical status amongst some enthusiasts, like a transport version of the Jedi "force" - as if the move to EMUs suddenly attracts larger numbers of passengers.
The way I see it, if you increase the frequency and run longer trains, you'll attract more passengers. Nothing to do with "sparks".
Of course it is nothing to do with sparks. It's a figure of speech!
Electrification results in faster journey times, and lower costs can (and should) result in longer trains and sometimes more frequent services.
For instance, the Trans Pennine route is at capacity and the TPE fast services often end up catching up with the slow Northern trains that struggle to keep to time. If those poor performing Class 150s etc that Northern use are replaced with Class 317/319 EMUs, loading times will reduce, acceleration will improve and that means you can potentially fit in more paths and/or reduce the delay to following TPE trains.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I see it used so often regarding electrification , and no mention of it being used on routes like the Midland Mainline (where longer trains and improved frequencies happened), so get the impression that some people think it *is* something to do with sparks.
3141
Established Member
The interchange at Highbury and Islington does provide a quite easy way of getting to LO and on to SE London.
They'd have to enlarge or replace the Waterloo and City tunnels as they are tube train size. They'd also need a new station at Waterloo and passenger routes from it.
I guess it would have cost at least as much to quadruple at Welwyn North as it did to do the section from just south of Hadley Wood to Potters bar (not from New Barnet - the four tracks continued to a point just short of the tunnel that lies south of Hadley Wood station).
That's a fair point. There are a good many routes that have been saved due to rationalisation, so it seems churlish to fixate on the ones that have turned out to be a rationalisation too far.
I'm more reinforced in my view that the quadroupling of the section needs to be gotten on with.
- Status