Single Lines That Should Be Doubled

[MidnightFlyer]

Equally, I'm not convinced there's enough of a business case to redouble Salisbury-Exeter. More passing loops might be a big win, however. Personally, I think there needs to be an acceptance that no major infrastructure changes will happen along that route any time soon, and therefore procuring new DMUs for that route is not an unreasonable goal.

What's wrong with the 159s along there? They seem universally approved on here, and always seemed ideal to the route for me.

 

[Trainfan344]

Instead of re-doubling the entire east suffolk line, how about joining the two current double track sections, from Saxmundham to woodbridge?

 

[leedslad82]

i would suggest redoublling the section of track on the wharfedale line between guiseley and apperly bridge where it joins the airedale line.
its a major constraint to growth on the line and one of the main reasons that the extension to otley from menston was classed as not feasible as it would only allow one extra tph at the mo

 

[AndyLandy]

What's wrong with the 159s along there? They seem universally approved on here, and always seemed ideal to the route for me.

Nowt wrong with them. I'm just led to believe that it would be easier for pathing between Waterloo and Basingstoke if they were actually 100mph units rather than 90mph ones. If you ended up with something Desiro-based, then you'd likely end with an easier time of driver training and possibly even some fleet flexibility.

 

[The Ham]

Nowt wrong with them. I'm just led to believe that it would be easier for pathing between Waterloo and Basingstoke if they were actually 100mph units rather than 90mph ones. If you ended up with something Desiro-based, then you'd likely end with an easier time of driver training and possibly even some fleet flexibility.

I'd add to that if the replacement stock could more easily be run as 10 coach trains and/or had more coaches per MU so that the number of peak hour seats could be increased (without going over to 3+2 seating).

 

[Eagle]

I'd add to that if the replacement stock could more easily be run as 10 coach trains and/or had more coaches per MU so that the number of peak hour seats could be increased (without going over to 3+2 seating).

10-car causes problems at some stations IIRC. Also the current 3/6/9 works very well with the various loadings and splitting patterns west of Salisbury; there's no good way of dividing up 10 coaches like that.

(The one Salisbury service that is 10-car at the moment is 3+3+2+2, which then gets split into a 3+3 for London services and two 2s for Romsey loop services.)

 

[30907]

it would make re-instating the Cromer avoiding curve easier.

Why would you want to avoid Cromer - the curve's not seen a train for nearly 60 years (it was still there, derelict, in 1961)?

 

[MarkyT]

Equally, I'm not convinced there's enough of a business case to redouble Salisbury-Exeter. More passing loops might be a big win, however. Personally, I think there needs to be an acceptance that no major infrastructure changes will happen along that route any time soon, and therefore procuring new DMUs for that route is not an unreasonable goal.

Agreed. I wouldn't suggest wholesale redoubling, but rather some additional provision at the western extremities beyond Honiton that would help to accommodate the various additional traffic proposals that have been floated. Namely a freight terminal near the airport, served via the GW from the Exeter end, and a separate regular local service calling at Pinhoe, Whimple, Feniton, any new station built for new housing development near the airport and presumably terminating at Honiton, thus allowing the minor stops to be removed from the London trains.

 

[Maxfly]

Lugton-Stewarton was redoubled in 2008 and that is all that was needed to allow Glasgow Central-Kilmarnock to go half-hourly in Dec 2008 I believe.

Correct and for there only being in the region of 7 miles double track it makes a great difference when you have late trains now, iirc up to 10 mins down was fine for not delaying the train coming off the single line either at the Lugton end or Lochridge Junction. Dynamic loops seem to me anyway to be the cost effective way forward as opposed to fully redoubling lines etc



Highland Mainline was doubled just as far as Daviot I'm sure, so Culloden Viaduct was built to accept double track but Slochd and Findhorn were both just for single. I am not sure exactly what phase 2 of the HML enhancements entail but hopefully more than the simple changing of speedboards that effectively happened for phase 1

 

[Trainfan344]

Why would you want to avoid Cromer - the curve's not seen a train for nearly 60 years (it was still there, derelict, in 1961)?

Because that way it makes it easier for the NNR to run charter trains to and from the railway

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm sure I read somewhere though that the crossing at Sheringham only have clearance to be used 6 times a year - you'd reopen a curve just for that?!

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the single line over Ribblehead Viaduct. Given the long block sections (even with the recent addition of signals at Selside) this must surely be an obstacle to improving line capacity?

 

[The Planner]

Because that way it makes it easier for the NNR to run charter trains to and from the railway

Then they would be expected to pay for it, it would never get off the back of a fag packet otherwise.

 

[jeemac]

Correct and for there only being in the region of 7 miles double track it makes a great difference when you have late trains now, iirc up to 10 mins down was fine for not delaying the train coming off the single line either at the Lugton end or Lochridge Junction. Dynamic loops seem to me anyway to be the cost effective way forward as opposed to fully redoubling lines etc



Highland Mainline was doubled just as far as Daviot I'm sure, so Culloden Viaduct was built to accept double track but Slochd and Findhorn were both just for single. I am not sure exactly what phase 2 of the HML enhancements entail but hopefully more than the simple changing of speedboards that effectively happened for phase 1

There is a section of about 5 miles of the HML between the former Culloden and Daviot stations which was built as double but is now single (including the Culloden Viaduct). In addition there are, I think 6, former passing loops, and apart from Murthly (which has a level crossing) and Kingswood (new overbridge) should be relatively easy to replace to improve capacity. Ironically, Newtonmore, Murthly and Ballinluig loops were only taken out ca. 1985, and I remember BR's story then was that was 'to improve journey times'!
I also agree with other comments that dynamic loops rather than full doubling is likely to be effective, especially in locations such as the HML. Kingussie - Newtonmore or Pitlochry - Ballinluig would make a big difference, as would Lentran - Clunes on the Far North line. And while it would be great to see serious infrastructure enhancements on the Inverness - Aberdeen line, surely doubling Aberdeen - Inverurie, and reinstating a loop between Elgin and Keith isn't too much to ask?

 

[MattRobinson]

I'm sure I read somewhere though that the crossing at Sheringham only have clearance to be used 6 times a year - you'd reopen a curve just for that?!

Why can it only be used 6 times a year?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tbtc]

I wonder what the potential frequency is of some routes (that were restricted by single lines)?

For example, you'd imagine that Glasgow - Kilmarnock could sustain roughly as good as service as Glasgow - Ayr gets (though the Ayr route passes through Paisley which is fairly busy).

Could Inverness sustain the same level of service from Edinburgh and Glasgow that Aberdeen gets?

I think that if Rotherham had a double track line west of the station, you'd see the current Sheffield - Hull/ Bridlington and Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes services diverting via "Central".

 

[eastwestdivide]

...I think that if Rotherham had a double track line west of the station, you'd see the current Sheffield - Hull/ Bridlington and Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes services diverting via "Central".

Anyone have a guesstimate for the corresponding time penalty, given the low line speeds over the Holmes Chord and along the GC line to Aldwarke?
I'd have guessed easily 5 mins including a stop at Rotherham. The chord is about 20mph, there's a 50 board somewhere, but also a lower restriction over the former canal arm bridge near Rotherham Road, plus Aldwarke Junction (20-ish northbound and 50-ish south). Compare that to the Midland route: 50(?) through the Masborough curve and 90-100 beyond.

Certainly doubling the chord would prevent delays in one direction propagating to services in the other, but would the time penalty count against stopping the faster services mentioned by tbtc above? It's always going to be a compromise.

 

[Buttsy]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the single line over Ribblehead Viaduct. Given the long block sections (even with the recent addition of signals at Selside) this must surely be an obstacle to improving line capacity?

I understand that it was singled to even out the loading stress on the viaduct and therefore keep the cost of repairs to the viaduct down rather than for any operational reasons. The only thing that seems to be annoying is that because of the lead needed to the junction, the signal protecting it is just beyond the down platform so trains can sit there for a while, yards short of Ribblehead platform. Is there no way a shunt signal could be used to allow the train to enter the station while waiting for the section to be cleared?

 

[yorksrob]

I understand that it was singled to even out the loading stress on the viaduct and therefore keep the cost of repairs to the viaduct down rather than for any operational reasons. The only thing that seems to be annoying is that because of the lead needed to the junction, the signal protecting it is just beyond the down platform so trains can sit there for a while, yards short of Ribblehead platform. Is there no way a shunt signal could be used to allow the train to enter the station while waiting for the section to be cleared?

Indeed. I think shortening some of the block sections would be a preferable way to increase line capacity to redoubling the viaduct. Bearing in mind the four short single track sections on the Tonbridge - Hastings route, don't in themselves preclude a fairly intensive commuter service over that section, the loss of maintenance savings on Ribblehead viaduct would probably outweigh any benefits of doubling.

 

[Rich_D3167]

I don't know for certain and currently I would say that it doesn't justify redoubling. My point was more aimed at those on the thread who just look at the passenger service and assume it wouldn't be worthwhile on that basis, totally ignoring any freight moves.

The only benefit from redoubling the Brigg line would be improved capacity during diversions off the busier Scunthorpe & Lincoln lines. On a normal day with no diversions, the Brigg line is more than sufficient for capacity with it's single lines, not being stretched at any point. Freight on Saturdays is usually quieter than during the week, so even with the extra 6 passenger services, capacity isn't an issue. I can see the Brigg line getting even quieter to be honest once the new flyover at Shaftholme Junction is opened in a few years, eliminating the need for coal trains to Drax/Eggborough/Ferrybridge to run via Gainsborough to access the Askern branch.

 

[route:oxford]

Stirling to Alloa

Providing capacity to accommodate a through Stirling-Dunfermline shuttle service.

 

[Aictos]

The Blackpool South branch ought to dual tracked and wired up so EMUs working the North branch could be used interchangely on the South branch as well.

Plus it would help deliver investment to the area for number of reasons, I'm sure local members can go into detail about

 

[The Planner]

I'll trot the stock answer out again, does it require complete re-doubling for a frequency enhancement ? I'll bet it doesn't.

 

[Buttsy]

I'll trot the stock answer out again, does it require complete re-doubling for a frequency enhancement ? I'll bet it doesn't.

I would say that it only needs redoubling if you were to close Blackpool North and divert everything to a new Blackpool Central. I would say a dynamic loop (St Annes - Lytham) to be the best answer for a frequency enhancement (allows for delays), though I would expect a loop at St Annes would be sufficient to allow 2tph.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

The Brigg line

I would say that the Brigg line should be re-doubled if the freight over the route would justify it, not the passenger service. With suitable links in certain places, it could be used as the main freight route from Immingham to the south.

You may laugh tbtc but as Buttsy 1288211 has said the " Brigg " line should be redoubled, the line is now the main route for freight traffic from Immingham travelling East
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stirling to Alloa

Im sure their was something about this line in the " Rail " magazine, was their not improvements on the cards for this line ?

 

[matchmaker]

I wonder what the potential frequency is of some routes (that were restricted by single lines)?

Could Inverness sustain the same level of service from Edinburgh and Glasgow that Aberdeen gets?

Not if you are only talking about passengers - but the HML carries a fair bit of freight.

 

[Eagle]

You may laugh tbtc but as Buttsy 1288211 has said the " Brigg " line should be redoubled, the line is now the main route for freight traffic from Immingham travelling East

West, surely?

And once the Shaftholme flyover is open that might take a lot of freight away from this route.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I would say that it only needs redoubling if you were to close Blackpool North and divert everything to a new Blackpool Central. I would say a dynamic loop (St Annes - Lytham) to be the best answer for a frequency enhancement (allows for delays), though I would expect a loop at St Annes would be sufficient to allow 2tph.

I think that is the best we can expect to get!! (Timings would be very tight - temptation for the service to terminate at Preston, instead of a direct service to Colne) Time it was put into the pipeline. Some double track from the junction would be a good move. It would save the South train blocking the North line while it is waiting to enter the single track branch - several times we have been at the stop signal, for the previous train to leave the branch!

 

[tbtc]

You may laugh tbtc but as Buttsy 1288211 has said the " Brigg " line should be redoubled, the line is now the main route for freight traffic from Immingham travelling East

Ignoring the fact that this freight will be diverted away in a couple of years (as Eagle points out), how much freight a week is that?

 

[Rich_D3167]

West, surely?

And once the Shaftholme flyover is open that might take a lot of freight away from this route.

Indeed, not a lot of freight travels east from Immingham. It would only get as far as Cleethorpes!

The Brigg line certainly isn't the main freight route from Immingham to the west. That honour will go to the Scunthorpe line. In terms of freight, the Brigg line is probably about equal with the Lincoln line. The Brigg line is best for getting coal from Immingham to West Burton & Cottam Power Stations, as it is the most direct route (via a reversal at Worksop Yard for Cottam).

The problem in going via Brigg to Drax/Ferrybridge/Eggborough isn't the Brigg line itself, or the Gainsborough to Doncaster line (both are nowhere near stretched for capacity), but the need to travel Down the East Coast Main Line from Bessacarr Junction to Shaftholme Junction, with the section between Marshgate Junction & Shaftholme Jn being double track (although there is a loop at Arksey for Down trains). Capacity is an issue here, & is only going to get worse as the timetables change over the coming years.