Suggestions for where new flyovers/diveunders should be built to replace 'flat' junctions

[Bigfoot]

There have been numerous trial bore holes in and around Woking station where the "platform 6" would run through in recent weeks. Coupled with the cp6/cp7 plans for it I'd say its on the horizon.

 

[keith1879]

I've read through all these comments now. Some interesting suggestions. I'm between Manchester and Leeds and the only flyover/diveunder nearby is at Heaton Lodge. There's also the disused viaduct route outside Leeds - there was a thread on this subject back in 2012. I see there are plans for a high-level walkway over it, surely a waste of a rail route. Would it make sense to reopen it for Wakefield-bound trains?

Isn't the problem there that it would bring Wakefield Westgate trains into Leeds on the wrong side of the layout ....and with two very sharp curves (one at each end)? The equivalent extra capacity was created years ago with the two extra tracks leading leading towards the site of Holbeck station .......the viaduct route doesn't have any obvious future now.

 

[30907]

Isn't the problem there that it would bring Wakefield Westgate trains into Leeds on the wrong side of the layout ....and with two very sharp curves (one at each end)? The equivalent extra capacity was created years ago with the two extra tracks leading leading towards the site of Holbeck station .......the viaduct route doesn't have any obvious future now.

It would be better reverting to a westbound Transpennine route, but ISTR there was an engineering problem about that.

 

[Bald Rick]

There have been numerous trial bore holes in and around Woking station where the "platform 6" would run through in recent weeks. Coupled with the cp6/cp7 plans for it I'd say its on the horizon.

Well I wouldn’t say it’s a certainty on the list, but it’s in the top one.

 

[Meerkat]

Woking flyover will be a tricky and very disruptive build. Think they need to move the Guildford lines over onto the sidings to make space, then build the ramp squeezed between the Guildford lines and some very adjacent houses. Also need to thread the footbridge through (closure would be very unpopular). The north east end will be easier as they at least have the yard there and if they time it right they can get into to the empty offices site after demolition and before new build starts. That building site would also be very useful place to build the new bridge over the A320 (which has desperately needed more road lanes, cycle lanes, and wider pavements for years).
I think the bridge replacement is a maintenance thing so a (hugely disruptive) long blockade might be inevitable and enable the flyover and new platform to not add that much more.

Ps someone asked what land got sold. I think if you look at the OS 1:25000 map you can see what land it was by the boundary between two housing developments in the v of the junction.

 

[HSTEd]

Rebuild the ECML to four tracks between Stoke Tunnel and Grantham.
Then during resignalling convert the line between Peterborough and Grantham from paired-by-direction to paired-by-use.

This would out the slow lines on the west side of the main lines, totally disentangling Nottingham-Norwich routed trains from the ECML, you could then add chords on the Grantham avoiding line to allow freight trains to rejoin the ECML.

 

[TheBigD]

Rebuild the ECML to four tracks between Stoke Tunnel and Grantham.
Then during resignalling convert the line between Peterborough and Grantham from paired-by-direction to paired-by-use.

This would out the slow lines on the west side of the main lines, totally disentangling Nottingham-Norwich routed trains from the ECML, you could then add chords on the Grantham avoiding line to allow freight trains to rejoin the ECML.

Or you could simply reroute the Nottingham-Norwich service via Loughborough to get it off the ECML.

 

[RLBH]

Hyndland is screaming out for it (and whilst we're at it, platforms at Jordanhill on the line to Anniesland) though the necessary space would be hard to find.

 

[Bigfoot]

What empty offices site after demolition are you referring to?

if they time it right they can get into to the empty offices site after demolition and before new build starts./

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s been covered in previous threads about Woking, but I’m not at all convinced it will be that difficult or long term disruptive to build. It ought to be much less complex to do than the modifications to Stockley on the GWML. Track slews to make working space should be doable during bank holiday weekends, with the usual diversions that normally happen a few times a year anyway.
Likewise for the station changes, look at what was achieved at Reading with a vastly more complex project. This is only going to be half an extra platform in line with the existing P6.

 

[Meerkat]

What empty offices site after demolition are you referring to?

Looking on Google maps - the C shaped block along the north side of the line and all buildings up to the bridge over Victoria Way will be replaced by yet more huge tower blocks. The offices have all been empty for ages. Would be a convenient worksite if you didn’t want to use active railway land to build new bridge spans, and backs onto where the London end ramp will start.
Can’t comment on how difficult Shockley was but the Guildford side ramp will be built on a narrow sliver between the slewed Portsmouth main line and housing, with no decent lorry access that side of the line in the ‘v’
Replacing Victoria Arch with a wider bridge will be an interesting task, it being a traffic bottleneck at the best of times....

 

[Aictos]

A couple of early votes for Newark, but the current service actually crossing over the ECML is only one passenger one per hour (generally a two coach DMU) plus a very small amount of daytime freight. Yes, a flying junction would permit more passenger services, but we have enough problems dealing with the practicalities of congestion at existing bottlenecks before we have money to spend on the "if you build it they will come" stuff.

Is it possible to design a underpass for the Lincoln to Nottingham services at Newark if possible so like at Retford where the ECML passes over the Lincoln to Sheffield line.

 

[InOban]

It would be below the level of the Trent.

 

[Meerkat]

Just go large and do it properly...
Loop the Nottingham line down to the south of the bypass and have platforms above a new replacement ECML station north of Lincoln Road (and redevelop the current site).
Grade separation plus massively improved connectivity.
Would need some demolition and doing when bypass is upgraded (and would cost a LOT of money)

 

[roberthaddon2@]

I do indeed.

Newark flat crossing also has a junction with the Nottingham - Lincoln line towards Lincoln and vice versa, Newark Castle can be reached with a reversal. To view the crossing is difficult but with a long lense camera or field classes can be seen from Lincoln Road railway bridge, or to get closer carry on towards Lincoln and take the first left at the traffic lights into Winthorpe Road then second left into Wolsey Road pass the ex school now the Hope Church, then first left into Quibbles Lane. A little further along on the left just before Rainbows depot both the ECML and the Lincoln line can be viewed across a field.

 

[InOban]

But the minimal services between Lincoln and Nottingham is an outrage. If rail is to be competitive along the NE/SW axis, as opposed to just routes to London, the frequency between Lincoln and Nottingham/Derby should be every 15 minutes. I was watching a YouTube video on the replacement of the flat crossing, which claimed that the road bridge 800m away was a problem. Why? No more than 1:100 gradient, I reckon. The only issue I can see would be getting foundations for the bridge in the Trent silt.

 

[Aictos]

But the minimal services between Lincoln and Nottingham is
an outrage. If rail is to be competitive along the NE/SW axis, as opposed to just routes to London, the frequency between Lincoln and Nottingham/Derby should be every 15 minutes. I was watching a YouTube video on the replacement of the flat crossing, which claimed that the road bridge 800m away was a problem. Why? No more than 1:100 gradient, I reckon. The only issue I can see would be getting foundations for the bridge in the Trent silt.

I disagree, to have a service every 15 minutes using the flat crossing will only mean worsen journey times for long distance services between London and Yorkshire, Tyneside and Scotland as there be less paths available.

It would be far more beneficial to instead have a hourly clockface service instead of the existing hourly service for part of the day then gaps of 2 to 3 hours between trains for example at Newark Castle have trains at XX:50 TO Lincoln and XX:20 TO Leicester now I know I'm no timetable expert nor do I claim to be but Network Rail with or without any flyover to replace the flat crossing should as minimum provide a hourly service in both directions.

A 15 minute frequency is just wishful thinking and shouldn't even be considered by Network Rail.

 

[InOban]

I disagree, to have a service every 15 minutes using the flat crossing will only mean worsen journey times for long distance services between London and Yorkshire, Tyneside and Scotland as there be less paths available.

It would be far more beneficial to instead have a hourly clockface service instead of the existing hourly service for part of the day then gaps of 2 to 3 hours between trains for example at Newark Castle have trains at XX:50 TO Lincoln and XX:20 TO Leicester now I know I'm no timetable expert nor do I claim to be but Network Rail with or without any flyover to replace the flat crossing should as minimum provide a hourly service in both directions.

A 15 minute frequency is just wishful thinking and shouldn't even be considered by Network Rail.

Of course you couldn't run a high frequency service using the flat crossing. That's the point. Timetabling a simultaneous gap on both North and South bound services on the ECML must be a nightmare.

 

[InOban]

I disagree, to have a service every 15 minutes using the flat crossing will only mean worsen journey times for long distance services between London and Yorkshire, Tyneside and Scotland as there be less paths available.

It would be far more beneficial to instead have a hourly clockface service instead of the existing hourly service for part of the day then gaps of 2 to 3 hours between trains for example at Newark Castle have trains at XX:50 TO Lincoln and XX:20 TO Leicester now I know I'm no timetable expert nor do I claim to be but Network Rail with or without any flyover to replace the flat crossing should as minimum provide a hourly service in both directions.

A 15 minute frequency is just wishful thinking and shouldn't even be considered by Network Rail.

Of course you couldn't run a high frequency service using the flat crossing. That's the point. Timetabling a simultaneous gap on both North and South bound services on the ECML must be a nightmare.

 

[lancastrian]

To my mind the major area that needs flat junction to be replaced by 'flyovers' is basically the Castlefield Corridor. There are least 4 junctions that need to be changed mainly Castlefiled Junction, Water Street Junction, Ordsall Lane Junction, and the Irwell Street/Deal Street Junctions. I know that these are all very close to each other but surely at least two of them, Castlefield & Ordsall Lane Junctions could be sorted out so that the services along the Castlefield Corridor could at least be made to run to time. I accept that you would also need to sort out both the new platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly to allow overtaking, plus you would also need to sort out Oxford Road station as well, so that the platforms would be long enough for 8 car Manchester Airport to Glasgow & Edinburgh Trains. Not forgetting it would make more sense to have the trains using this route longer, at least 6 car whether EMU or DMU.

The other junction that I know well that needs a flyover is Euxton Junction where the Manchester/Bolton to Preston line meets the WCML. This would enable the Manchester to Blackpool trains to be kept out of the way of the Fast Lines. I know that many will say that I am engaging in 'crayonist' ideas BUT what better ideas to get people working again than to improve our rail infrastructure around the country. I am sure that there are many other junction that could be done as well. After all just look at the improvements recently with the Hitchen Flyover, Stone Flyover and soon with the Werrington Dive Under. All being buit to improve services and to separate them, not forgetting the Nuneaton Loop off the flyover still badly underused.

 

[Peter0124]

Another vote for Hyndland East / Newton West in scotland

 

[Meerkat]

Is Euston even possible without impossibly long blockades?
The approaches from the south have all been hemmed in by new housing and there is less than 600m to get it all back together again to go under the M6.
I reckon there might just be 350m to build a ramp for the WCML fast lines without closing them for a long time. That’s similar to Reading westbound - is that restrictive in anyway?
i do note that the electrification compound to the north of the junction has been built well back as though leaving space??

 

[Aictos]

Of course you couldn't run a high frequency service using the flat crossing. That's the point. Timetabling a simultaneous gap on both North and South bound services on the ECML must be a nightmare.

Indeed which is why I explained that Network Rail should offer as a minimum a hourly path in both directions between Newark Castle and Lincoln and it's up to the TOC in this case East Midlands Railway to provide a service that takes full advantage of it and not have both provide a service which is poor with gaps of up to 3 hours between trains which is unacceptable.

I be interested to hear why if such paths are available then what is stopping EMR from using them????

 

[Elecman]

Is Euston even possible without impossibly long blockades?
The approaches from the south have all been hemmed in by new housing and there is less than 600m to get it all back together again to go under the M6.
I reckon there might just be 350m to build a ramp for the WCML fast lines without closing them for a long time. That’s similar to Reading westbound - is that restrictive in anyway?
i do note that the electrification compound to the north of the junction has been built well back as though leaving space??

Assume you mean Euxton not Euston? Plus of course it has only just all been renewed over Easter

 

[Halish Railway]

Why Euxton junction wasn't grade-separated I just find unbelievable, with a total of 6 Northern Blackpool to Manchester (and vice versa) trains per our crossing to and from the slow lines, there are so many different ways in which delays could be made.

 

[Whistler40145]

Why Euxton junction wasn't grade-separated I just find unbelievable, with a total of 6 Northern Blackpool to Manchester (and vice versa) trains per our crossing to and from the slow lines, there are so many different ways in which delays could be made.

How would you grade separate Euxton Junction?

 

[Ianno87]

Why Euxton junction wasn't grade-separated I just find unbelievable, with a total of 6 Northern Blackpool to Manchester (and vice versa) trains per our crossing to and from the slow lines, there are so many different ways in which delays could be made.

Not very many years ago, it was barely 1-2 trains per hour on/off the Bolton route.

How would you grade separate Euxton Junction?

Certainly not easily. Whilst there's obvious land to the north up to the M6 bridge, it's much trickier to find space for ramps on either route to the south.

Best bet might be to build a ramp on the line of the current Fast lines, working all WCML trains via the Slow Lines during construction....but stupendously disruptive and restricting on services for very many months (if not years).

Or transpose the Fasts and slows north of Balshaw Lane then fly them over each other in the Farington Jn area....

 

[Calum1]

i agree hyndland with everything going to from yoker/singer/milngavie its recipe for delays an unreliable service. not the first time ive sat at jordanhill waiting for a train going to anniesland to pass.
don't know how they would fix that without mass demolition in the area though

 

[bspahh]

Newark flat crossing also has a junction with the Nottingham - Lincoln line towards Lincoln and vice versa, Newark Castle can be reached with a reversal. To view the crossing is difficult but with a long lense camera or field classes can be seen from Lincoln Road railway bridge, or to get closer carry on towards Lincoln and take the first left at the traffic lights into Winthorpe Road then second left into Wolsey Road pass the ex school now the Hope Church, then first left into Quibbles Lane. A little further along on the left just before Rainbows depot both the ECML and the Lincoln line can be viewed across a field.

https://twitter.com/nrairops/status/1253598986759483392 is from National Rail Air Operations. It says:
"So yesterday whilst carrying out a survey of the ECML we passed Newark and as promised I managed to replicate the photo of the new formation. "

I posted it in this thread on ideas to replace the Newark Flat Crossing

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ideas-to-replace-the-newark-flat-crossing.187295/

 

[Meerkat]

How would you grade separate Euxton Junction?

From rough Google Maps measuring you might be able to build a ramp as steep as Reading westbound to the east of the WCML fast lines without blocking them (or at least put the pillars in and most of the decks) as the houses drift away a bit. Need to demolish the houses on the Wigan road to the east of the bridge. Then bring the fast lines down again before the M6.
its a tight site though, and the locals aren’t going to like the visuals or the increased noise from having all the fast trains up higher.