Trivia: Examples of avoiding lines used by (in service) passenger trains to bypass a major station...

[6Gman]

Are the independent lines going to be used for passenger trains?

Given how few passenger trains pass through Crewe without stopping and that the Up and Down Fast will undoubtedly be faster than meandering via Salop Goods Junction I think any passenger purpose would be minimal.

(There are, of course, suggestions that the throats at Crewe could be eased by sending the Cardiff*-Manchesters via the Independents, but beyond that . . .)

* Other starting points are available.

 

[The Planner]

Are the independent lines going to be used for passenger trains?

They will be when the station area is ripped up and remodeled.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2022 ==

There was talk a couple of years ago of putting a platform on them as part of the changes resulting from HS2, but I think that has now been dropped. Whether it's still planned to use them for passenger trains, I don't know, but others will.

No platform on the Independents.

 

[D6975]

May 2018:
1P21 10:19 Manchester Airport to Newcastle
1P27 13:19 Manchester Airport to Newcastle
1P31 15:19 Manchester Airport to Newcastle
1E01 05:40 Edinburgh to King's Cross
9M05 07:08 Newcastle to Liverpool
1P22 10:15 Newcastle to Manchester Airport
1P24 11:18 Newcastle to Manchester Airport
all bypassed Darlington

No, they didn't stop at Darlington, which is not the same thing as bypassing Darlington.
The Northbound ones didn't stop, but usually ran through the down platform.

 

[Efini92]

They will be when the station area is ripped up and remodeled.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2022 ==


No platform on the Independents.

Is that going to be done when HS2 reaches there?

 

[6Gman]

No platform on the Independents.

Good!

 

[The Planner]

Is that going to be done when HS2 reaches there?

Plan is before phase 1 opens, yes.

 

[thenorthern]

There used to be the occasional timetabled service that used the Sheetstores Junction to Stenson Junction line that avoided Derby. Obviously the line is used for diverted trains.

Not sure if it's been mentioned but Wrexham and Shropshire used to use the complex avoiding lines in the West Midlands to avoid Birmingham New Street although that was more for contractual reasons rather than they didn't want to call at New Street.

 

[xotGD]

When the sleepers are diverted via the ECML, do they use the platform roads at Newcastle or the freight line 'round the back'?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

That is an interesting line and I can't understand how it has survived seeing as it is almost totally redundant, or how it will survive post-HS2 when the slightly faster conventional route to Manchester is no longer required. 2 Pendolinos an hour seem to be the only traffic on it.

re Colwich to Stoke you have answered your own question, the fastest route from London to Stoke and Macclesfield hence the used by those Manchester Pendolinos not routed via Crewe, although the improvements at Norton Bridge some years ago will have reduced the time saving.

Returning to the subject of trains not stopping at Stockport, in the 80s (and probably before that) there were peak Manchester to Buxton trains which were first stop Davenport, and for a few years not long ago one from Buxton in the morning non stop Hazel Grove to Piccadilly.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Returning to the subject of trains not stopping at Stockport, in the 80s (and probably before that there were peak Manchester to Buxton trains which were first stop Davenport.

Is that currently still the case?

 

[paulb1973]

Mention was made of Rugby on page 2 - was there not a 'run round' line (if not an avoiding line) here between 1964 and circa 1970. Part of the Rugby to Market Harborough line, two running lines between Rugby and Clifton Mill, in an up-side-down heart shape, existed. Electrified in both directions (but only as far as Clifton Mill) this allowed EMU's/electric locomotives to access Rugby DED and and run back to the eastern end of the station area without conflicting with WCML movements.

This facility only existed for about 6 years - with some track lifting and OHLE removal occurring as early as 1971. Today only a short stub to Butlers Leap/the canal exists although one road remains wired up to about this point. Presumably there was over-provision of Electric depots in the early 1970's and Rugby DED was considered unnecessary, although the building itself remains standing - and now used by Colas.

 

[Efini92]

It was a very late line, designed to relieve severe congestion through Stockport, although a small oversight was that an act of parliament from 1840 required that all trains continue serve Stockport given the disrupton caused there during the construction of the viaduct, so it was mainly used by freight and there wasn't much traffic on it until housing built up around the stations on it and their electric passenger service, but it only became extremely busy following the opening of the airport rail link in 1993. Ordnance Survey maps at maps.nls.uk show it as "Railway in course of construction"

This would have the same problem, that trains are not allowed to omit Stockport, although I have been through it illegally without stopping on a Sunday diversion.

That is an interesting line and I can't understand how it has survived seeing as it is almost totally redundant, or how it will survive post-HS2 when the slightly faster conventional route to Manchester is no longer required. 2 Pendolinos an hour seem to be the only traffic on it.

I also don't understand how the Weston-super-Mare avoiding line survived. Beeching could have just sent all trains via Weston-super-mare, some non-stop and closed the main line.

Didn’t it turn out there was no such act of Parliament?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2022 ==

Given how few passenger trains pass through Crewe without stopping and that the Up and Down Fast will undoubtedly be faster than meandering via Salop Goods Junction I think any passenger purpose would be minimal.

(There are, of course, suggestions that the throats at Crewe could be eased by sending the Cardiff*-Manchesters via the Independents, but beyond that . . .)

* Other starting points are available.

I couldn’t think of any services that would benefit from using them, but I suppose they could introduce new ones.

 

[507020]

If an XC Southampton or Bournemouth train has cab issues, Reading is sometimes skipped and the trains are run round Southcote Jn and Scours Lane Jn to avoid Reading. Doesn't happen so often since the Newcastle - Soton services don't run anymore

I’d been wondering if it was possible to go that way. Do they then stop at Reading West for connections to Reading and the GWML?

There are plenty of trains that take obscure routes in order for crews to retain knowledge of diversionary routes - I imagine this is one?

I should rephrase that. I meant is that the only Victoria - Salford Crescent train that goes via the Windsor Link, an illogical route when a direct line exists. I am aware of plenty of obscure routes and have been on all but 2 in the north west, but some tend to be more logical than the alternatives which have regular service e.g. Clitheroe - Hellifield.

re Colwich to Stoke you have answered your own question, the fastest route from London to Stoke and Macclesfield hence the used by those Manchester Pendolinos not routed via Crewe, although the improvements at Norton Bridge some years ago will have reduced the time saving.

Returning to the subject of trains not stopping at Stockport, in the 80s (and probably before that) there were peak Manchester to Buxton trains which were first stop Davenport, and for a few years not long ago one from Buxton in the morning non stop Hazel Grove to Piccadilly.

Not only Stoke and Macclesfield (which not all trains serve) but the fastest conventional route to Manchester and Stockport. I believe it is over 5 miles shorter. Why would improvements reduce the time saving? Did the conflicts at the previous flat Norton Bridge junction not affect the journey time more?

I understand why the North Staffordshire Railway was built. It obviously greatly relieves capacity through Crewe and Stafford through which other services have to go as they have no alternative route, but why would Beeching/Marples etc retain a route like Colwich - Stone and the maintenance liability along with it, when all trains could simply have been sent via Crewe/Stafford, or the Euston - Manchester frequency cut to 1tph? Surely the MML Bakewell route giving access to Derby and St Pancras should have been preferred to keep open giving access to a different range of destinations.

Trains first stop Davenport for passengers travelling all the way to Buxton sounds like a perfect example of a one that could legitimately omit Stockport. I’m sure Buxton passengers don’t want their only train to fill up with Stockport - Piccadilly passengers making their journey less comfortable, when other more suitable Stockport - Piccadilly trains exist, unless of course they want to travel from Buxton to Stockport in which case trains should stop.

At Stockport there appear to have been 2 through lines between platforms 2 and 3, so why were these lifted? Freight for example could do with being sent through non-platform lines.

Didn’t it turn out there was no such act of Parliament?

I don’t think we can ever be sure that there wasn’t such an act of parliament now that it was over 180 years ago.

 

[Efini92]

I’d been wondering if it was possible to go that way. Do they then stop at Reading West for connections to Reading and the GWML?

I should rephrase that. I meant is that the only Victoria - Salford Crescent train that goes via the Windsor Link, an illogical route when a direct line exists. I am aware of plenty of obscure routes and have been on all but 2 in the north west, but some tend to be more logical than the alternatives which have regular service e.g. Clitheroe - Hellifield.

Not only Stoke and Macclesfield (which not all trains serve) but the fastest conventional route to Manchester and Stockport. I believe it is over 5 miles shorter. Why would improvements reduce the time saving? Did the conflicts at the previous flat Norton Bridge junction not affect the journey time more?

I understand why the North Staffordshire Railway was built. It obviously greatly relieves capacity through Crewe and Stafford through which other services have to go as they have no alternative route, but why would Beeching/Marples etc retain a route like Colwich - Stone and the maintenance liability along with it, when all trains could simply have been sent via Crewe/Stafford, or the Euston - Manchester frequency cut to 1tph? Surely the MML Bakewell route giving access to Derby and St Pancras should have been preferred to keep open giving access to a different range of destinations.

Trains first stop Davenport for passengers travelling all the way to Buxton sounds like a perfect example of a one that could legitimately omit Stockport. I’m sure Buxton passengers don’t want their only train to fill up with Stockport - Piccadilly passengers making their journey less comfortable, when other more suitable Stockport - Piccadilly trains exist, unless of course they want to travel from Buxton to Stockport in which case trains should stop.

At Stockport there appear to have been 2 through lines between platforms 2 and 3, so why were these lifted? Freight for example could do with being sent through non-platform lines.

I don’t think we can ever be sure that there wasn’t such an act of parliament now that it was over 180 years ago.

The lines between 2 & 3 were the slums. They were sidings.
The doomsday book is over 1000 years old yet still exists. You’d think we’d still have parliament documents after 180 years.

 

[Bill57p9]

Wolverhampton/Rugeley - Birmingham International/Coventry (avoiding New Street) via Bescot/Aston South Junction (to Stechford) is often used for WCML diversions if there's an issue on the Trent Valley. (Wrexham and Shropshire use to regularly use that route.)

The Sunday night lowland sleepers are usually routed that way - however currently they seem to be using the ECML each Sunday.

 

[507020]

The lines between 2 & 3 were the slums. They were sidings.
The doomsday book is over 1000 years old yet still exists. You’d think we’d still have parliament documents after 180 years.

There are films from the 1930s, doctor who episodes from the 1960s, videos from the 1980s and websites from the 1990s which have been lost, not to mention what was lost in the war. The 1931 census no longer exists because an ash tray fell over. In 180 years do you think future generations will be able to look back at what was said on this forum?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

There is a curve used by freight that allows you to come off the GWML after Tilehurst and join the Berks and Hants at Reading West, avoiding Reading. I highly doubt it's still used by passenger trains these days though; possibly XC could use it if Reading has to close for emergency reasons or something.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

40 years ago, no one signs them and I don't believe they are passed for passenger use currently. If they were available do you not think there would be trains over them?

In 1986 BR restored the fast lines through Crewe (80mph), after decades of use as stock storage.
There was then no real need for passenger avoiding lines.
The Chester Independent line was downgraded too.

 

[The Planner]

The Sunday night lowland sleepers are usually routed that way - however currently they seem to be using the ECML each Sunday.

That is normal for weeks 1 - 12 as it allows longer blocks north of Preston.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Not only Stoke and Macclesfield (which not all trains serve) but the fastest conventional route to Manchester and Stockport. I believe it is over 5 miles shorter. Why would improvements reduce the time saving? Did the conflicts at the previous flat Norton Bridge junction not affect the journey time more?

I believe traditionally via Crewe was the fastest route to Manchester but with no EPS speeds between Cheadle Hulme and Crewe the balance has tipped.

Yes, of course the previous layout at Norton Bridge with the severe speed restriction and conflicts towards Stone had a greater effect on the journey time than the revised layout thus the revised layout reduces the journey time for trains to Stoke if routed via Stafford Norton Bridge Stone thereby effectively reducing the time saving by using the direct route - perhaps I could have expressed it better in that the timing by the direct route remains the same but the alternative route is not quite as slow as it used to be.

 

[Ken H]

They don't.
Until a few years ago there was an hourly Manchester-Birmingham service which didn't call at Stockport.
There were years when the Manchester Pullman ran that it ran through Stockport, for example in 1977-78 1H05 08:00 Euston-Piccadilly was booked to pass through Stockport at 10:21.5 (FL). Its route depended on its timing and conflicts with the stopper every 30 minutes on the Styal line; that year the up afternoon working at 16:43 went via Styal but the down morning working went via Stockport without stopping.
The hourly Birmingham service gained a call for two reasons I think - firstly because it could and secondly because it made the services more consistent.
There was also an up morning service 2H18 07:32 Piccadilly-Macclesfield non-stop in 2015 which was essentially a former ECS working that was advertised, and had no intermediate stops including passing Stockport 07:40.5 (SL).
It's a myth, or it's like the law requiring drivers to carry their licenses on them, in other words one that's never enforced even if it exists. [Not quite the same, I admit, it's an offence not to produce a license when asked by an appropriate person but it's a valid defence to show the license at a police station within 7 days, but this is very off-topic now!]
EDIT However none of these non-stop services through Stockport were booked to use the down main or up main, which are (were in the case of the up main which is now platform 0) the avoiding lines, neither were the other Stoke-Manchester and Alderley Edge-Manchester services after the 2018 timetable, none of which means that they couldn't have done so on any particular day. I myself have never used either line, despite once travelling on an ECS Longsight-Macclesfield which I hoped would use the up main (before platform 0).

In the mid 70's i went for an interview for college on stafford (from Leeds) i got to Crewe and thinking all trains went to Stockport cot a stopper bound for Altrincham. But it went round the Styal loop. Had to bus it Picc - vicc then Trans Pennine home. Seems that route was allowed despote Stockport - Staylebridge shuttle still running.

 

[route101]

There is a curve used by freight that allows you to come off the GWML after Tilehurst and join the Berks and Hants at Reading West, avoiding Reading. I highly doubt it's still used by passenger trains these days though; possibly XC could use it if Reading has to close for emergency reasons or something.

I am sure some XC services used to use it but call at Reading West.

 

[jfollows]

I believe traditionally via Crewe was the fastest route to Manchester but with no EPS speeds between Cheadle Hulme and Crewe the balance has tipped.

OT I know, but I tried to do some analysis in https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-really-necessary.209508/page-5#post-4808427 in which I concluded that it's now 1 minute faster to London via Stone-Hixon-Colwich than it is via Crewe and Stafford. For Manchester-Stafford-Birmingham it's now about 1 minute faster via Crewe than Stoke; it used to be slightly faster via Crewe because of Norton Bridge.
My analysis may be flawed!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2022 ==

No, they didn't stop at Darlington, which is not the same thing as bypassing Darlington.
The Northbound ones didn't stop, but usually ran through the down platform.

Good call, thanks!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2022 ==

At Stockport there appear to have been 2 through lines between platforms 2 and 3, so why were these lifted? Freight for example could do with being sent through non-platform lines.

The diagrams I posted at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/platforms-at-stockport.222356/#post-5313728 are essentially accurate from 1976; the changes now are that the mechanical points and ground signals were replaced by motorised points and colour light ground signals, and bay 2A was removed along with the "slums" shown as "carriage sidings". The "main" lines go round the outside of the station, as today, although the up main is now platform 0.

 

[mrcheek]

Now that would make an interesting new thread -- constantly reoccurring 'railway myths'.

it's been done a few times!

 

[Kite159]

I am sure some XC services used to use it but call at Reading West.

When Reading was getting rebuilt some XC services did go that way, calling at Reading West instead of Reading. I've even had a GWR 16X that way back in the past which reversed at Tilehurst

 

[THC]

I don’t think we can ever be sure that there wasn’t such an act of parliament now that it was over 180 years ago.

We can. What is now known as "Hansard" has been in evolution since the early 19th century and carries a comprehensive record if not a true transcript of Parliamentary proceedings. It should therefore be relatively straightforward to identify the relevant Act of Parliament and its content should it exist at all.

THC

 

[sjpowermac]

Does the Lumo use the Down Slow / Up Slow lines to avoid York, thus not running through the station?

Lumo uses the York avoiding lines and run:

Holgate Junction
York Yard South Junction
Skelton Junction
Skelton Bridge Junction (where they regain the fast line).

So, they completely avoid the station.

I’ve attached a map from Traksy and photo to help you.

The trains that avoid York station are:
1S91 0545 King’s Cross-Edinburgh
1S93 1045 King’s Cross-Edinburgh
1S97 1448 King’s Cross-Edinburgh

Lumo services in the south bound direction run through York station. Using the avoiding lines south bound would involve crossing the down mainline.

Hope that helps, if you need anything more then please just ask

 

[507020]

I believe traditionally via Crewe was the fastest route to Manchester but with no EPS speeds between Cheadle Hulme and Crewe the balance has tipped.

Yes, of course the previous layout at Norton Bridge with the severe speed restriction and conflicts towards Stone had a greater effect on the journey time than the revised layout thus the revised layout reduces the journey time for trains to Stoke if routed via Stafford Norton Bridge Stone thereby effectively reducing the time saving by using the direct route - perhaps I could have expressed it better in that the timing by the direct route remains the same but the alternative route is not quite as slow as it used to be.

It was not your expression it was me forgetting that Norton Bridge is not on the route from Colwich to Stone so obviously the Norton Bridge improvements will only benefit trains routes via Stafford.

OT I know, but I tried to do some analysis in https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-really-necessary.209508/page-5#post-4808427 in which I concluded that it's now 1 minute faster to London via Stone-Hixon-Colwich than it is via Crewe and Stafford. For Manchester-Stafford-Birmingham it's now about 1 minute faster via Crewe than Stoke; it used to be slightly faster via Crewe because of Norton Bridge.
My analysis may be flawed!

It is over 5 miles further from Manchester Piccadilly to Colwich Junction (where the lines diverge when coming from the Trent Valley) via Crewe and Stafford than Macclesfield and Stoke, so given that you need to be travelling in excess of 300mph to cover over 5 miles in the space of 1 minute, I believe this analysis may be flawed. Of course the services may not have identical paths on the Trent Valley or further south on the WCML.

The diagrams I posted at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/platforms-at-stockport.222356/#post-5313728 are essentially accurate from 1976; the changes now are that the mechanical points and ground signals were replaced by motorised points and colour light ground signals, and bay 2A was removed along with the "slums" shown as "carriage sidings". The "main" lines go round the outside of the station, as today, although the up main is now platform 0.

I remember that thread. How bad really is the signalling in the Stockport area, which remains Absolute Block despite these colour lights and motorised points?

We can. What is now known as "Hansard" has been in evolution since the early 19th century and carries a comprehensive record if not a true transcript of Parliamentary proceedings. It should therefore be relatively straightforward to identify the relevant Act of Parliament and its content should it exist at all.

THC

If it is the case that we can know for certain that such an act of parliament has never existed, then how can we have reports of one dating from the early to mid 19th century up to the present day?

 

[Western Lord]

In France there are a few places where through lines by-pass the major station, such as Orleans and Tours (both termini), with outstations on the main line at Les Aubrais and Saint Pierre-des-Corps respectively with shuttles to the main station. A similar situation existed at Amiens with through trains from Paris to Lille bypassing the station, calling at Longueau instead, again with a shuttle to the main station. I can't think of anything similar in the UK except maybe Yeovil Junction with a shuttle to Yeovil Town (Stourbridge Junction to Town would be stretching the definition of major station a bit).

 

[jfollows]

I remember that thread. How bad really is the signalling in the Stockport area, which remains Absolute Block despite these colour lights and motorised points?

The signalling at Stockport is brilliant and hyper-efficient, probably from many years of experience, and manages train throughput in a way that any replacement system probably won't. And that's even now that permissive working for passenger trains is no longer allowed; when it was I remember arriving into platform 2 with something like 86+5xMark 1 at the same time an AM4 EMU was leaving at the up end.
If trains are held up at Stockport, it's because there are other trains in front of them, and the signalling allows the following train to be as close as possible to the front train.
The signalling is also flexible in that all platforms can be accessed from all lines: no, that's an untrue statement now that "platform 0" has been introduced which is seriously compromised in only being accessible from the up slow and only having a route back out to the up slow. So that's the weak point in the layout, and hence the reason why it's not used much and only when the services have ramped up to pre-Covid levels.
I'll be sorry when the old signalling goes, not for nostalgic reasons but simply because I don't think any replacement will work as well, although of course any replacement will require much less manpower.