civ-eng-jim
Member
That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?
It's approximately 1 in 110 and reduces to 1 in 260 in the middle of the new platforms.
That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?
So a 123 page Environmental Impact Assessment report to rebuild part of an existing flyover because it needs repair after 60 years. A good example when faced with the "why does everything cost so much" question that regularly comes up.The section of the flyover that crosses the West Coast Mainline is being completely demolished and replaced with a simple portal structure, as set out in the (now approved) screening opinion application.
That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?
It's the same angle as it is now, which means trains have got up it
I suspect perspective is causing it to look steeper.
So a 123 page Environmental Impact Assessment report to rebuild part of an existing flyover because it needs repair after 60 years. A good example when faced with the "why does everything cost so much" question that regularly comes up.
Not sure where that one has come from, always been two.I thought there was only going to be a single platform now?
When there was talk for a high-level platform on the bridge itself, is that line to be singled (and maybe the confusion is that?)
There was a discussion in this thread a couple of years ago that became confused between the double track on the flyover route and the remaining single track section towards Bedford. But I haven’t looked for it again. I tend to stick with what I read in published documentation, and I’m sure The Planner is right on this, it’s always been described as a two platform station in anything official...When there was talk for a high-level platform on the bridge itself, is that line to be singled (and maybe the confusion is that?)
There was a discussion in this thread a couple of years ago that became confused between the double track on the flyover route and the remaining single track section towards Bedford. But I haven’t looked for it again. I tend to stick with what I read in published documentation, and I’m sure The Planner is right on this, it’s always been described as a two platform station in anything official...
I'm almost certain I saw an official drawing very early on showing a single platform on one trackbed and the track on the other, but it was a long time ago and I might be remembering wrongly.
Definitely two tracks going back in - The double junction with the lines towards Fenny Stratford is being moved about 150-200metres north and the handing of it switched round so the normal route is towards Milton Keynes. At present, the EWR design ties into the twin track towards Fenny Stratford just before it singles at the bridge over Saxon Street. There are no doubt studies happening for twin tracking between both Bletchley Low Level and High Level towards Bedford.
Does this mean that the platforms go where it was previously four tracks and therefore the viaduct doesn't need widening so much?Definitely two tracks going back in - The double junction with the lines towards Fenny Stratford is being moved about 150-200metres north and the handing of it switched round so the normal route is towards Milton Keynes. At present, the EWR design ties into the twin track towards Fenny Stratford just before it singles at the bridge over Saxon Street. There are no doubt studies happening for twin tracking between both Bletchley Low Level and High Level towards Bedford.
What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?
Does this mean that the platforms go where it was previously four tracks and therefore the viaduct doesn't need widening so much?
Thanks for the responses. Good outcome.
Will the platform 7 face be used for anything? Assuming that a Marston service continues as is (vs a reversal to MKC), it'd still only need one. More WCML inners?
Well BR Std 9F's managed it with heavy Iron Ore Trains.That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?
what do you mean? Marston vale services will run to the existing platforms as at present. Platform 7 and 8 will be used for the New EWR services
Well, I’d definitely go with error, because the proper engineering drawings clearly use 7 and 8 for the new platform numbers...The artist's impression shows a "platform 7" on the presently disused side of the present platform 6 island (making the flyover 8 and 9). May well be just an artist's error though.
What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?
What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?
There seems to be three separate videos of the various moves and part 3 of 3 includes shots of the units taken from the ballast with a 153 at the south end of a mixed train. (153 + 150 I expect?)Is it footage off the 950?
And a few single-track bridges replaced - Saxon Street, River Ouzel and the A5. (I think some of this is covered in a Marston Vale thread....)
IF the section from Bletchley / Fenny to Bow Brickhill is to be doubled tracked the Saxon Street & A5 bridges need replacing. The old stone bridge over the Ouzel is a double width bridge as is the canal bridge. Are these up to modern standards is the question!
And it’s been confirmed many times that no redoubling of that section is intended. We’re getting into speculation territory here...OK, so a bit more expensive than I thought!
Don't know if it's needed, anyway. We're only talking adding one more TPH each way to that section - there must be loads of lines like that with one fast and one slow per hour that manage perfectly fine.