Flyover costs

[59CosG95]

Evening all.
Would anybody happen to know how much grade-separated junctions, such as Weaver, Cogload and Worting, cost to construct when they were built? I'm planning a scenario as part of my university degree to design a new railway junction. This junction plans to have 14tph service across it; 4tph each way using the branch, and 3tph each way on the mains. Would it be worth constructing such a junction?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Evening all.
Would anybody happen to know how much grade-separated junctions, such as Weaver, Cogload and Worting, cost to construct when they were built? I'm planning a scenario as part of my university degree to design a new railway junction. This junction plans to have 14tph service across it; 4tph each way using the branch, and 3tph each way on the mains. Would it be worth constructing such a junction?

I would think the Bletchley flyover as part of the modernization programme in the 1960s if available would also be useful data for you - possibly?

 

[najaB]

This junction plans to have 14tph service across it; 4tph each way using the branch, and 3tph each way on the mains. Would it be worth constructing such a junction?

What's the linespeed on the main and the branch?

 

[The Ham]

The Wessex RUS has some prices penciled in for the conversion of Woking and Basingstoke to grade separate junctions. That could also provide you with some additional information.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The Hitchin Flyover was quoted as costing £47million in 2013. Actual costs are worth far more than estimates!
Whilst this might be considered to be relatively 'big' in terms of the new alignment to avoid built up areas it was in many ways fairly simple to construct on largely 'greenfield' land rather than complex demolitions, compensation costs, sub-optimal alignment to 'squeeze in' or difficulties in having to do a lot of work adjacent to operational lines.
The Norton Bridge scheme was a bit more complicated but also relatively 'efficient' in terms of being a greenfield site.

 

[59CosG95]

What's the linespeed on the main and the branch?

The branch is currently 30, and the mains are 90 (with HSTs/Voyagers able to go at 100).

 

[najaB]

The branch is currently 30, and the mains are 90 (with HSTs/Voyagers able to go at 100).

Can't speak to costs but with that big a speed differential a grade-separated junction would certainly help.

 

[The Planner]

Why does the branch have more than the mains? Make the branch the main route and you only have 3tph crossing instead of 4tph. Speed the branch up before you do anything.

 

[59CosG95]

Why does the branch have more than the mains? Make the branch the main route and you only have 3tph crossing instead of 4tph. Speed the branch up before you do anything.

Looking further down the sectional appendix, the line speeds up to 65mph. The branch only takes passenger traffic, while the mains are mixed-traffic.

 

[The Planner]

Is the growth going to be static or have you made an assumption on it? Where is the nearest station(s) to the junction?

 

[jopsuk]

The Hitchin Flyover (including the embankment to connect it to the branchline) cost £47 million. That's a single line flyover over a four track railway

 

[59CosG95]

Is the growth going to be static or have you made an assumption on it? Where is the nearest station(s) to the junction?

Well...cat's out the bag. I may as well spill the beans on the real life junction in question.

For my dissertation, I'm trying to discuss the Civil Engineering implications of 3tph (incorrectly posted as 4tph earlier) from Birmingham Moor Street to Worcester Shrub Hill via Kings Norton and the Bordesley Chords. Kings Norton will obviously need grade-separation (it has done for a while now). While referencing the West Midlands Franchise ITT, I discovered the following passage:
"Without limiting the above, the
Department is particularly interested to see credible commitments to:
ii) Enhance frequencies between Birmingham and Worcester;"
and saw in the TfWM plans for the Bordesley chords that 3tph serving Moseley, Kings Heath and Hazelwell (presumably rebuilt on their old sites) could be a feasible service frequency.

So, deciding to kill two birds with one stone, I decided to draw up plans for 3 trains an hour to Worcester, calling at all stations between Kings Norton and Moor St, Bromsgrove, Droitwich, and one of the Worcester stations (1tph would go to Foregate St to continue to Hereford; the other 2 to Shrub Hill).
However, I realised Stoke Works Jct would become a limitation, and searching for costs of junctions like Cogload and Weaver were fruitless, so I turned to you. The whole reason I kept the name quiet was to minimise the instantaneous shooting down of my suggestion!

 

[Bald Rick]

Although relatively long, the Hitchin flyover is about as simple as you can get, and was therefore cheap as chips.

Given the alterations to the existing railway you would need to do at Kings Norton, plus the neighbours (houses rather than fields), you'll be looking at £100m+

Stoke Works would be in the same range as Hitchin.

The Planner will have the definitive word on the subject, but I suspect Barnt Green would need a flyover as well.

 

[takno]

In addition to Kings Norton, I'd guess the single line to Droitwich and stopping on the mainline in Bromsgrove is going to give you more trouble than Stoke Works.

 

[59CosG95]

In addition to Kings Norton, I'd guess the single line to Droitwich and stopping on the mainline in Bromsgrove is going to give you more trouble than Stoke Works.

I had every intention of doubling the line to Droitwich anyway: Stoke Works just happened to be a pothole in the road, as it were.

I was talking to my diss supervisor, who happens to be a senior railways lecturer at uni, about the Wychavon dive-under, where the line passes under the M5; I had thoughts that a new line under would need to be built. He said that, at a guess, both lines could squeeze into the existing box. It will obviously need a detailed investigation.

 

[theageofthetra]

Still beyond me whilst when there was a once in a lifetime opportunity during the Bermondsey flyover/London Bridge works and the area around it was still a bit of a post-industrial wasteland North Kent East JCT wasn't completely rebuilt. Impossible now as the area is part of a regeneration project (corrupt if you are a Millwall FC suppporter!)

 

[The Planner]

Well...cat's out the bag. I may as well spill the beans on the real life junction in question.

For my dissertation, I'm trying to discuss the Civil Engineering implications of 3tph (incorrectly posted as 4tph earlier) from Birmingham Moor Street to Worcester Shrub Hill via Kings Norton and the Bordesley Chords. Kings Norton will obviously need grade-separation (it has done for a while now). While referencing the West Midlands Franchise ITT, I discovered the following passage:
"Without limiting the above, the
Department is particularly interested to see credible commitments to:
ii) Enhance frequencies between Birmingham and Worcester;"
and saw in the TfWM plans for the Bordesley chords that 3tph serving Moseley, Kings Heath and Hazelwell (presumably rebuilt on their old sites) could be a feasible service frequency.

Have you checked the WM&C route study, pretty sure its noted in there. You wont get a lot of change out of £150m Id bet at Kings Norton, its pretty constrained. Would argue that it needs it now, it is a pain but considering the amount that goes Camp Hills it isn't that much of a nightmare. Barnt Green would need it too as noted and thats in the route study I think too.

 

[superkev]

An interesting exercise would be to break down the costs between the actual construction costs and associated legal and other red tape.
K

 

[Bald Rick]

An interesting exercise would be to break down the costs between the actual construction costs and associated legal and other red tape.
K

That's done routinely. Legal costs are minimal.

But where do you draw the line between construction costs and "red tape"?

 

[mwmbwls]

Well...cat's out the bag. I may as well spill the beans on the real life junction in question.

For my dissertation, I'm trying to discuss the Civil Engineering implications of 3tph (incorrectly posted as 4tph earlier) from Birmingham Moor Street to Worcester Shrub Hill via Kings Norton and the Bordesley Chords. Kings Norton will obviously need grade-separation (it has done for a while now). While referencing the West Midlands Franchise ITT, I discovered the following passage:
"Without limiting the above, the
Department is particularly interested to see credible commitments to:
ii) Enhance frequencies between Birmingham and Worcester;"
and saw in the TfWM plans for the Bordesley chords that 3tph serving Moseley, Kings Heath and Hazelwell (presumably rebuilt on their old sites) could be a feasible service frequency.

So, deciding to kill two birds with one stone, I decided to draw up plans for 3 trains an hour to Worcester, calling at all stations between Kings Norton and Moor St, Bromsgrove, Droitwich, and one of the Worcester stations (1tph would go to Foregate St to continue to Hereford; the other 2 to Shrub Hill).
However, I realised Stoke Works Jct would become a limitation, and searching for costs of junctions like Cogload and Weaver were fruitless, so I turned to you. The whole reason I kept the name quiet was to minimise the instantaneous shooting down of my suggestion!

IIRC Stoke Works Junction to Droitwich Spa is single track. Are you considering redoubling some or all of the line to Droitwich Spa as a necessary condition of delivering your concept?.

 

[Class172]

The branch is currently 30, and the mains are 90 (with HSTs/Voyagers able to go at 100).

At this point I was pretty confident about exactly where you were talking about…

Looking further down the sectional appendix, the line speeds up to 65mph. The branch only takes passenger traffic, while the mains are mixed-traffic.

…and now I was certain.

I had every intention of doubling the line to Droitwich anyway: Stoke Works just happened to be a pothole in the road, as it were.

I was talking to my diss supervisor, who happens to be a senior railways lecturer at uni, about the Wychavon dive-under, where the line passes under the M5; I had thoughts that a new line under would need to be built. He said that, at a guess, both lines could squeeze into the existing box. It will obviously need a detailed investigation.

I don't know when the line from Droitwich to Stoke Works was singled, but I always assumed that the tunnel under the M5 had room for two tracks given it was built in 1962. It's hard to tell passing through because clearly the single line was realigned to the centre of the trackbed.

At minimum I would expect a proper junction at Stoke Works, allowing a 65mph diverge.

 

[Class172]

Another thing you probably need to consider is the signalling constraints. Given the area isn't planned for resignalling, would you be planning this as part of your upgrade, or would you be planning any additional IB signals etc.?

I hope The Planner doesn't mind, as I've dug up this post from the Bromsgrove Station thread you may find useful, which is relavent to the current limitations (given your proposal would result in 5tph between Droitwich Spa and Tunnel Junction).

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=107512&page=9

Worcester Shrub Hill to Worcester Tunnel Jn is absolute block, Tunnel Jn to Droitwich is absolute block. Droitwich to Stoke Works is timed as absolute block even if it is TCB. Because of all this it is the running times of the trains that cause the problems. It may take a passenger train 6 minutes to get from Tunnel Jn to Droitwich but you cannot send another train down until two minutes after its arrival (based on the tail lamp camera, it would be worse without it), so it is 8 minutes before another train can come from Tunnel Jn. Freight is around 9 minutes to clear the section so its 11 before you can send another. That doesn't leave you 10 paths an hour. The same applies for Droitwich to Stoke Works but without the 2 minute allowance for signaller duties for AB.

So simple back of a fag packet planning with a standard freight train per hour towards Stoke Works, which is what a FOC would expect, then from Worcester Tunnel Jn to Droitwich you could have xx.00 p, xx.08 f, xx.19 p, xx.27 p, xx.35 p, xx.43 p, xx.51 p, which is 7tph ignoring anything else such as conflicts at Droitwich and anything for robustness.

If we are generous and add a second freight (eg: one for Round Oak, another for Kings Norton) you could assume xx.00 p, xx.08 f, xx.19 p, xx.27 p, xx.35 f, xx.46 p, you would then struggle as an xx.54 wouldn't allow a standard hourly pattern. That gives you 6tph only 4 of which are passenger.