Welwyn Viaduct section doubling - How?

[D365]

Please get East Coast to stop at Huntingdon - FCC keep adding extra stops and generally mucking about with our trains! :l

 

[Bald Rick]

ATO will cause all the delays.

Quite the opposite. ATO is being programmed to be as aggressive as possible, and will make up small amounts of lost time in the core. Hold on to those hand rails.

Both Canal tunnels will have space for two trains to stand in the event of a problem. The contingency plans are being written now ,so are in early stages however they currently say that for northbound, if the issue is not resolved and a third train arrives into the core it will tip out at St Pancras and go empty to Cricklewood. Subsequent ECML trains won't get past London Bridge or Elephant and Castle. If the core is blocked, then Southbound trains will tip out at Finsbury Park or head into KX. It's going to mean some interesting crewing arrangements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Delays in the core will see trains entering the ECML late and with nowhere to slot in without causing (big) delays. And if they aren't cleared to enter the ECML, what happens as St Pancras - do the trains sit there and block the whole line?

I am not looking forward to seeing how it all fits together, as there just won't be any recovery time in the peaks unless longer Thameslink trains will see a fall in the current FCC services we have now to create gaps.

The TL services will take the paths of some current FCC services to Cambridge, Peterboro and Welwyn (semi fasts).

 

[Lee_Again]

Yep and cause delays to the Hertfords instead :roll:

It's bad enough the line is only two tracked and has low speeds in certain areas but when the route via Welwyn is affected by disruption then the Hertford service is non existent.

So no thanks, you can keep these trains and the delays on the route via Welwyn!

To enable 4 fast services (K+,FP,ST>CB/PB & TL,FP,ST,CB/PB) to rush around the loop I have proposed in other threads that the current service is increased to 4tph (3tph current). It makes for a better fit. TL=new Thameslink services.

I would then have the slows stop in the (new) loops at Gordon Hill while the fasts pass. Additionally I would make every other slow service become a semi-fast. Say, FP,AP,GH,HN,WA,ST,HC,LW. I'd also have two fasts stop at HN. One going to Cambridge and another to Peterborough (these are the existing semi fast services that go FP,ST - albeit across the viaduct).

How would that work for you? Your now going to tell me you line in Bayford
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please get East Coast to stop at Huntingdon - FCC keep adding extra stops and generally mucking about with our trains! :l

Where's Huntingdon?

 

[ainsworth74]

Please get East Coast to stop at Huntingdon - FCC keep adding extra stops and generally mucking about with our trains! :l

Forgive me but I'd rather not have my journey to London delayed by stopping at a station that close to London

Personally (and I know this will be unpopular) I'd rather that East Coast basically stopped calling at Stevenage apart from the York/Newark terminators and maybe one service each way to Edinburgh.

 

[Lee_Again]

If the core is blocked, then Southbound trains will tip out at Finsbury Park or head into KX. It's going to mean some interesting crewing arrangements.

Sounds like, Bald Rick, you are involved in this somehow, and your involvement, if that is the case, on this thread is most welcome and I will try and keep my comments respectful and well considered.

The problems occur when people don't make decisions. If a train has a problem at St Pancras there could already be one, or sometimes two, trains waiting in those tunnels. And there could well be another one or two between Finsbury Park and the tunnel entrance. There are only a few 12 coach platforms at King's Cross and in the peaks these will all ready have planned arrivals. You can't just chuck in a few TL services. And then you'll have TL trains in blocking the up slow.

I've used that core section too may times to believe anything will work. I don't mean hardware. Sure, it will go bang at some points, but it is the ability of controllers to make decisions that I doubt.

For example, how long do you think it takes between a driver being informed that a passenger is ill to the service being cancelled, all the passengers getting off, including the ill passenger, and the train clearing the section? Do all that in less than 15 minutes and I'd be impressed. And in 15 minutes, King's Cross will be full and the down slow is blocked.

And what is the criteria for cancelling a service? 30 sec delay, 60 secs, 120 secs. It will only take a 5 minute delay for chaos to ensue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally (and I know this will be unpopular) I'd rather that East Coast basically stopped calling at Stevenage apart from the York/Newark terminators and maybe one service each way to Edinburgh.

That's fighting talk

 

[Bald Rick]

With 8 trains an hour to/ from the ECML, there is basically 15 mins to identify and react to a problem in the core. You are quite right to say the problems arise when people don't take decisions. Fortunately the new traffic management system will be continually updating the 'in service' timetable and will be programmed such that any train overstaying its booked time by more than (x) mins is flagged and amendments to the train service suggested or potentially even made automatically. The service controllers at Three Bridges will have live links to all the stations and be able to see what is going on for themselves.

It's more difficult for the MML, but then it is today.

Incidentally, only half the TL trains on the ECML will be 12 car. The rest will fit nicely in plats 9-11 which will otherwise be gathering dust.

 

[jopsuk]

Forgive me but I'd rather not have my journey to London delayed by stopping at a station that close to London

Personally (and I know this will be unpopular) I'd rather that East Coast basically stopped calling at Stevenage apart from the York/Newark terminators and maybe one service each way to Edinburgh.

EC should be first stop Peterborough minimum, pickup-only for northbound and set-down only for south bound, with better GN service (including Cambridge-style non-stops) aided by improving the line to be four-track all the way....

 

[D365]

EC should be first stop Peterborough minimum, pickup-only for northbound and set-down only for south bound, with better GN service (including Cambridge-style non-stops) aided by improving the line to be four-track all the way....

Peterboroughans really wouldn't be happy with that... The only places up to that point where ECML isn't four-track are Digswell Viaduct and Huntingdon-Peterborough, of which the latter is being filled and rewired IIRC.

Thanks for recognising Huntingdon's importance guys

 

[tbtc]

To enable 4 fast services (K+,FP,ST>CB/PB & TL,FP,ST,CB/PB) to rush around the loop I have proposed in other threads that the current service is increased to 4tph (3tph current)

So the four FCC services an hour from London to Cambridge or Peterborough that stop at Finsbury Park/ Stevenage etc go via the "loop"? What's going to stop at Knebworth etc?

Forgive me but I'd rather not have my journey to London delayed by stopping at a station that close to London

Personally (and I know this will be unpopular) I'd rather that East Coast basically stopped calling at Stevenage apart from the York/Newark terminators and maybe one service each way to Edinburgh.

Agreed - maybe even make Peterborough set down/ pick up on some services - I've been on a lot of Yorkshire bound services from the Cross that have almost emptied at Peterborough (which has its own London service).

 

[D365]

Agreed - maybe even make Peterborough set down/ pick up on some services - I've been on a lot of Yorkshire bound services from the Cross that have almost emptied at Peterborough (which has its own London service).

As long as there are enough services which do not stop after Hitchin, or even better, St. Neots (or Huntingdon!), that should make up for it.

 

[jon0844]

The TL services will take the paths of some current FCC services to Cambridge, Peterboro and Welwyn (semi fasts).

I know, and what happens if they're delayed in the core and now 5-10 minutes late? How do they slot in with the services from KGX?

I guess there will be fewer services leaving, so perhaps they won't have such a problem there - but further up the line?

The other thing I thought might have worked was to have a longer dwell time at St Pancras, but that would have required 4 platforms. I do agree that this would have been better (even if a lot more expensive to build) as you'd then be able to separate people who are wanting to use the MML and those for the ECML - at peak times, there's a good chance that even the wide platforms at St Pancras are going to become rather packed, given the fact that some people aren't after the next train(s) coming in and will be in the way of those wanting them.

Then add in the already confused tourists and you've got a serious bottleneck to come when trains are running every couple of minutes.

You've now got a LOT of destinations all going from one platform in each direction, rather like London Bridge on the through platforms. Maybe it will work and I'm worrying too much, but I actually hope there will still be a fair few services going from KGX so you can turn up, get on (and get a seat) without the same level of stress.

 

[HSTEd]

Four platforms won't fit at St Pancras LL for the simple reason that its boxed in by other tunnels on both sides.

Comes with digging a hole in central London.

 

[jon0844]

Fair enough.. it's way too late now anyway!

 

[Lee_Again]

So the four FCC services an hour from London to Cambridge or Peterborough that stop at Finsbury Park/ Stevenage etc go via the "loop"? What's going to stop at Knebworth etc?

The existing KX,FB,PB,HT,WG,WN,KN,ST... services would continue as now. So no change in the current 2tph service.

I am talking about the 2 non-stop Cambridge services and 2 semi-fast KX,FB,ST... services. This pattern will change with the advent of TL services.

I am proposing that services with no stops in the Alexandra Palace, Langley Junction section, go around the loop. And two of these would stop additionally at Hertford North. To enable a clear path, the slows would increase to 4 tph and stop in the (new) loops at Gordon Hill. I would also consider making 2 of these 4 slows, semi-fast-slows (if such a thing exists). I would extend 2 of these faster stoppers beyond HN to at least Cambridge. And why not Peterborough?

At present, HN has 3 slows per hour. In my plan they would have 2 slows, 2 semi-slow (albeit with an extended stop at GH), and 2 fast services(FB, KX only). Further, they would have 2 stoppers per hour to Letchworth and 2 semi-fasts to Cambridge and/or Peterborough. This is a 'massive' increase in services.

Oh, and the consequence of all this is that the viaduct now has 4 free paths per hour for the big boys to run their super fasts over.

 

[Aictos]

The existing KX,FB,PB,HT,WG,WN,KN,ST... services would continue as now. So no change in the current 2tph service.

I am talking about the 2 non-stop Cambridge services and 2 semi-fast KX,FB,ST... services. This pattern will change with the advent of TL services.

I am proposing that services with no stops in the Alexandra Palace, Langley Junction section, go around the loop. And two of these would stop additionally at Hertford North. To enable a clear path, the slows would increase to 4 tph and stop in the (new) loops at Gordon Hill. I would also consider making 2 of these 4 slows, semi-fast-slows (if such a thing exists). I would extend 2 of these faster stoppers beyond HN to at least Cambridge. And why not Peterborough?

At present, HN has 3 slows per hour. In my plan they would have 2 slows, 2 semi-slow (albeit with an extended stop at GH), and 2 fast services(FB, KX only). Further, they would have 2 stoppers per hour to Letchworth and 2 semi-fasts to Cambridge and/or Peterborough. This is a 'massive' increase in services.

Oh, and the consequence of all this is that the viaduct now has 4 free paths per hour for the big boys to run their super fasts over.

This is a good idea in theory BUT being realistic, it will never happen as the Hertford Loop is the poorer relation of the Welwyn route.

Being realistic though, the only improvement I can see apart from more trains is improved line speeds and signalling but that needs a lot of work to be done.

Don't get me wrong, I like nothing better then to see your ideas mature in reality but I think your plans are just pie in the sky.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The existing KX,FB,PB,HT,WG,WN,KN,ST... services would continue as now. So no change in the current 2tph service.

I am talking about the 2 non-stop Cambridge services and 2 semi-fast KX,FB,ST... services. This pattern will change with the advent of TL services.

I am proposing that services with no stops in the Alexandra Palace to Langley Junction section, go around the loop. And two of these would stop additionally at Hertford North. To enable a clear path, the slows would increase to 4 tph and stop in the (new) loops at Gordon Hill. I would also consider making 2 of these 4 slows, semi-fast-slows (if such a thing exists). I would extend 2 of these faster stoppers beyond HN to at least Cambridge. And why not Peterborough?

At present, HN has 3 slows per hour. In my plan they would have 2 slows, 2 semi-slow (albeit with an extended stop at GH), and 2 fast services(FB, KX only). Further, they would have 2 stoppers per hour to Letchworth and 2 semi-fasts to Cambridge and/or Peterborough. This is a 'massive' increase in services.

Oh, and the consequence of all this is that the viaduct now has 4 free paths per hour for the big boys to run their super fasts over.

I like your plan to send services with no stops in the Alexandra Palace to Langley Junction section around the Hertford Loop, by providing passing loops at Gordon Hill. But surely the whole point of creating 4 new paths over the viaduct should be to give Potters Bar/Hatfield/WGC residents a chance to have 4tph to/from Stevenage and beyond, which would still leave two paths spare for longer distance services ? These new semi-fasts could have a stopping pattern KX-FP-PB-HAT-WGC-SG-HIT, then onward to Cambridge or Peterborough.

As has been pointed out, Hatfield has a burgeoning student population, yet still has only 2 semi-fasts to London and 2 semi-fasts to stations north of Langney junction off-peak. A 30min interval between northbound services at WGC in the off-peak surely needs improving upon.

Like with the North London Line, demand is somewhat tempered by the relative lack of trains: provide a 15min interval and numbers will rise, I feel sure. (In the 30min wait between trains at WGC, one could take a 300/301 bus - which do run at 4 per hour - and be most of the way to Stevenage before the next train departs WGC!!).

Hertford residents still have an alternative route from Hertford East, too

 

[tbtc]

The existing KX,FB,PB,HT,WG,WN,KN,ST... services would continue as now. So no change in the current 2tph service.

I am talking about the 2 non-stop Cambridge services and 2 semi-fast KX,FB,ST... services. This pattern will change with the advent of TL services.

I am proposing that services with no stops in the Alexandra Palace, Langley Junction section, go around the loop. And two of these would stop additionally at Hertford North. To enable a clear path, the slows would increase to 4 tph and stop in the (new) loops at Gordon Hill. I would also consider making 2 of these 4 slows, semi-fast-slows (if such a thing exists). I would extend 2 of these faster stoppers beyond HN to at least Cambridge. And why not Peterborough?

At present, HN has 3 slows per hour. In my plan they would have 2 slows, 2 semi-slow (albeit with an extended stop at GH), and 2 fast services(FB, KX only). Further, they would have 2 stoppers per hour to Letchworth and 2 semi-fasts to Cambridge and/or Peterborough. This is a 'massive' increase in services.

Oh, and the consequence of all this is that the viaduct now has 4 free paths per hour for the big boys to run their super fasts over.

Okay, thanks for explaining further. Hertford would certainly get a boost (from three slow London trains an hour to six faster trains an hour) though presumably this would slow down the faster Peterborough/Cambridge "semi fasts" (both by diverting them via the loop and adding in an extra stop). Makes some sense though.

One problem, howerver, is that you'd need to increase the WGC stoppers to four an hour too - to fit evenly through the Moorgate route with the four an hour on the Hertford loop. Can Moorgate cope with eight trains an hour? (genuine question, I don't know)

Not sure about extending the Hertford stoppers to Cambridge/ Peterborough - who'd use these north of Stevenage?

 

[jon0844]

In the week, with the 2tph to Moorgate and 2tph to King's Cross, it's not actually too bad. Hatfield doesn't need more trains during the day, but in the evening peak (where a fair few people are heading back to London - mostly students or workers at Hatfield Business Park) I think there could be some more trains. But, actually I think there already are a few more then?

It's on a weekend, Sunday in particular, that it would be good to still retain 2tph to King's Cross, but that would of course mean more semi-fast trains to Peterborough and Cambridge as those are the trains that call at Hatfield. Either that, or run some semi-fast trains from WGC.

I think the most likely scenario - whether one day it becomes part of London Overground or not - is that the slows to Moorgate/KGX will increase to 4tph (that's been a vision since 2006 or perhaps even earlier). If MOG can't cope with 8tph, you could potentially terminate some of the slows at FPK, if there's another train along in a matter of minutes and you don't need to change platform. They'll all be six car eventually, even on weekends (if the trains are modified to become permanent six-car units, with the middle cabs opened up), so I doubt capacity will be a major issue.

With the growing popularity of Shoreditch, I expect weekend services to Moorgate will be viable (at least Saturday) so in the next 5-10 years there will probably be a lot of changes.. much of which won't need any upgrade of the viaduct.

 

[tbtc]

In the week, with the 2tph to Moorgate and 2tph to King's Cross, it's not actually too bad. Hatfield doesn't need more trains during the day, but in the evening peak (where a fair few people are heading back to London - mostly students or workers at Hatfield Business Park) I think there could be some more trains. But, actually I think there already are a few more

Is this one of those "reverse peak" flows that TOCs aren't very good at responding too (being too focussed at getting people out of London at tea time they aren't catering to a flow of people heading into the city at that hour)?

 

[jon0844]

I've gone into London a few times around 5-6pm for evening events and it can be quite busy on the platform, but the trains aren't that busy so they seem to cope just fine. There are a few trains that, like the morning peak, only started at WGC so they're not full of people coming back from days out to PBO or CBG.

So, on this occasion, I'd say FCC hasn't misjudged and has managed things well. Where it all goes tits up is when there's an evening game at Arsenal. I don't know if they put on extra trains in the week for these.

 

[philjo]

It is better than it used to be as some of the trains that originally went as ECS from Welwyn sidings to London were put in to the timetable as additional fast services from Welwyn GC, Hatfield & Potters Bar to Kings Cross though these are mainly between 16:30 and 17:30 I think. But there are still some gaps and those services coming from Cambridge are restricted to 4 coaches which are often full and standing after Potters Bar.
I think there are still some ECS workings of 313s terminating at WGC going back empty to Finsbury Park so maybe one or two of those could form a fast service to Finsbury Park & stations to Moorgate?

 

[jon0844]

I suppose it depends on whether those ECS trains are needed back at Moorgate quickly to form new northbound services in the peak OR if they'd hold up the trains that run now. I wonder how many FCC services to KGX could be moved out to the fast line to overtake - even if going against the main evening flow?

I expect FCC has looked at this, but until I experience a train that is really busy (such that people can't sit down if they want to, because as it is most people standing are simply choosing to do so) then I am sure they've concluded that it's perhaps nice, but not essential (football at Emirates excepted).

 

[Lee_Again]

One problem, howerver, is that you'd need to increase the WGC stoppers to four an hour too - to fit evenly through the Moorgate route with the four an hour on the Hertford loop. Can Moorgate cope with eight trains an hour? (genuine question, I don't know)

Not sure about extending the Hertford stoppers to Cambridge/ Peterborough - who'd use these north of Stevenage?

If money was available, and partly in response to others too, rather than putting 8 trains in to Moorgate, how about putting 4 on to the NLL and becoming part of the LOROL services. I know the tunnel at Cannonbury is single bore and the junction with the NLL is flat but it would open up a huge range of destinations and a furter cross-London route.

It's a shame the ECML connections are poor with other lines. The WCML seems to have plenty of connections.

Agree about stoppers going to CB/PB. Probably overkill.

I think the time penalty for stopping a semi-fast at Hertford, as well as going via the loop would be about 7-8 minutes. This is based on experience, not any particular source. A non-stopping train would be about 4 minutes. I've done that plenty of times. Those that remember post Hatfield when the mainline was blocked will remember the virtual 'no difference'.

 

[Aictos]

Hertford residents may have the choice of Hertford East and North which is fine for London BUT its going northbound to Stevenage for ECML connections that matters.

I don't think it's overkill to expect a stop on any service going to Peterborough or Cambridge, in fact the 01:06 Kings Cross to Letchworth is given a hour to complete its journey yet could easily do it in 50 mins or less.

I say this because I've lost count of the times it's had to wait time at various stations as it gets to them too early.

That aside, there MUST be a good reason why FCC has the 03:25 Peterborough to Kings Cross stop at a number of stations on the loop and its not just to pick up/drop off staff, indeed Alexandra Palace will be a new stop on that service from December.

 

[philjo]

Hertford residents may have the choice of Hertford East and North which is fine for London BUT its going northbound to Stevenage for ECML connections that matters.

I don't think it's overkill to expect a stop on any service going to Peterborough or Cambridge, in fact the 01:06 Kings Cross to Letchworth is given a hour to complete its journey yet could easily do it in 50 mins or less.

I say this because I've lost count of the times it's had to wait time at various stations as it gets to them too early.

I think the 01:06 service has extra time allowed in the timetable to cater for overnight engineering works.

 

[D365]

Bit late but Moorgate did use to handle 18tph, so 8tph would be barely a shot in the arm. I believe an automatic system is [still] used to handle trains entering and leaving, with Platform 9 taking priority if both are free.

(Reference: Eastern Electric, John Glover. A good read!)

 

[Wolfie]

I've lived in both Welwyn and Stevenage (still do) and there is lots of local thoughts on this subject.

In my opinion I would do the following;
1 - make all platforms at Gordon Hill through platforms
2 - change the service frequency on the loop to every 1/4 hour
3 - put the non-stop Cambridge services and semi fast Cambridge/Peterborough services on the loop; over taking the slows at Gordon Hill (this adds about 5 mins to journey times but gives 4 new paths across the viaduct)
4 - force the open access operators to join their trains together. I'd have two services run as a pair to Doncaster (or where ever) where they would split. This frees another path and/or allows more services to use a single path.
The upgrade to the loop, most of which is already happening with improved power supply and line speed improvements, coupled with the new loops at Gordon Hill, would be significantly cheaper than a new route/viaduct/tunnels.

Here's hoping.

my bold

Two issues, technical and legal:
a Technical: I presume that Class 180s can run together but doubt that Hull Trains' Class 180s can run with Grand Central's HSTs;
b Legal: What legal powers does ORR have to insist on this (and indeed effectively on Grand Central's rollimg stock give tmy technical point)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Look at the shenanigans around the Brunel tunnel in London (cf the East London line) and the Bishopgate's good yards - don't hold your breath!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If money was available, and partly in response to others too, rather than putting 8 trains in to Moorgate, how about putting 4 on to the NLL and becoming part of the LOROL services. I know the tunnel at Cannonbury is single bore and the junction with the NLL is flat but it would open up a huge range of destinations and a furter cross-London route.

Rather depends on how many people want to go to Stratford! While there are limited linkages effectively the LO North London line and East London line operate separately. The East London line core (Dalston Juntion to Surrey Quays) is already timetabled to operate trains every 3-6 minutes. I cannot see any Mayor of London downgrading his (rather expensively integrated) LO plans to suit your cunning plan, unless of course he was given control of the whole train set in that neck of the woods.....

 

[Skimpot flyer]

There's no logic to sending any Moorgate terminators round the Canonbury curve onto the NLL, even if suitable paths existed. Diverting any FCC trains away from the ex-Northern City Line terminus would inconvenience the majority of travellers using the line.

The existing Thameslink service suffers a major constraint between Blackfriars and London Bridge because of a short section of single track which then requires trains to cross a busy junction, on the flat. Huge amounts of money have been and are still being spent on infrastructure projects to overcome those problems. Why would any transport planner want to risk jeopardising the reliability of the NLL services by creating a virtual replica of that situation, this time at Canonbury? Anyone on a FCC train wanting to reach Canonbury and stations east of thereof can easily change at Highbury & Islington anyway, so your plan is a non-starter ! :roll:

 

[Ediswan]

The Hertford Loop is my local line.

Excuse me if this has come up before and I did not find it.

I see the discussion of loops at Gordon Hill. Would it help to add loops at Hertford North? The land to the south is already railway land. To the north it is floodplain, no housing, so with care could be built across.

On that basis, platform 3 could be extended into a loop. What would be platform 0, for the other loop, already exists, though never used. (It is visible through the current fence.)

 

[LE Greys]

There's no logic to sending any Moorgate terminators round the Canonbury curve onto the NLL, even if suitable paths existed. Diverting any FCC trains away from the ex-Northern City Line terminus would inconvenience the majority of travellers using the line.

The existing Thameslink service suffers a major constraint between Blackfriars and London Bridge because of a short section of single track which then requires trains to cross a busy junction, on the flat. Huge amounts of money have been and are still being spent on infrastructure projects to overcome those problems. Why would any transport planner want to risk jeopardising the reliability of the NLL services by creating a virtual replica of that situation, this time at Canonbury? Anyone on a FCC train wanting to reach Canonbury and stations east of thereof can easily change at Highbury & Islington anyway, so your plan is a non-starter ! :roll:

It's a pity the old Northern Line tunnels under Finsbury Park are in the state they are in, they might make a decent northern end terminus for the ELL. The ideal would be to run right through to Edgware via Mill Hill, but that's clearly a non-starter because of development. There's also the problem you brought up, where the only sensible answer is to grade-separate, and that involves either building up or digging down, both of which are too expensive. It's probably too impractical to work.