The history of Bletchley flyover.

[mwmbwls]

Can somebody fill me in on the history of the flyover at Bletchley. It was built for post war freight flows that never materialised and became a white elephant. What were the pre viaduct arrangements whereby the old Varsity line crossed the West Coast Main Line, both of which were operated by the L&NWR? Was the track layout at Bletchley significantly changed by WCML electrification?

 

[swt_passenger]

Can somebody fill me in on the history of the flyover at Bletchley. It was built for post war freight flows that never materialised and became a white elephant. What were the pre viaduct arrangements whereby the old Varsity line crossed the West Coast Main Line, both of which were operated by the L&NWR? Was the track layout at Bletchley significantly changed by WCML electrification?

There was a double track flat junction on the west side of the layout joining the fast line side just south of the station.

Looking at an old map on the NLS website, I think the original low level formation was just to the east side of the flyover approach position, or put another way the flyover ramp and viaduct was built just inside the existing curve:

Side by side georeferenced maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[mwmbwls]

There was a double track flat junction on the west side of the layout joining the fast line side just south of the station.

Looking at an old map on the NLS website, I think the original low level formation was just to the east side of the flyover approach position, or put another way the flyover ramp and viaduct was built just inside the existing curve:

Side by side georeferenced maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

Many thanks - as a steam operated railway it all makes sense now. The steam railway did not need an east to north link. Most if not all steam hauled passenger trains will have stopped for water and passenger interchange. Milton Keynes did nor exist so the next station north was Wolverton. The link between the new platforms and the main line is, albeit shorter, analogous to the link to Merseyrail at Liverpool South Parkway

 

[Wyrleybart]

Can somebody fill me in on the history of the flyover at Bletchley. It was built for post war freight flows that never materialised and became a white elephant. What were the pre viaduct arrangements whereby the old Varsity line crossed the West Coast Main Line, both of which were operated by the L&NWR? Was the track layout at Bletchley significantly changed by WCML electrification?

Not sure you could describe it as a "white elephant". The St Blazey - Stoke china clay train ran that way for a while and I am guessing the stone trains from the Western Region also use the flyover.

Back in 1976 in the school holidays my parents sent me to stay with some friends of theirs in Northampton. "Uncle Charlie" was a signalman and was on late turn at Northampton No 4 on this particular week so I had four or five days of enjoying trains from the lofty views in the box. One of the trains was the Aylesbury tripper which he called the "ducks". It ran into the yard on the Downside, then reappeared heading back towards Roade and Bletchley, so presume was another user of the viaduct in each direction.

 

[mr_jrt]

Any help?

Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[Merle Haggard]

Can somebody fill me in on the history of the flyover at Bletchley. It was built for post war freight flows that never materialised and became a white elephant. What were the pre viaduct arrangements whereby the old Varsity line crossed the West Coast Main Line, both of which were operated by the L&NWR? Was the track layout at Bletchley significantly changed by WCML electrification?

The plan was to relieve congestion on cross-London lines by diverting freight trains on an 'outer circle' route via Oxford. A marshalling yard was built at Swanbourne (about 2 miles further West) as part of the scheme, but I am uncertain that it was ever commissioned.

Bearing in mind that the Bletchley flyover was built at about the same time as, and looks similar in design to, the one at Rugby, and was used much less, I am intrigued that structural problems have only been found in the former.

 

[The Planner]

Bearing in mind that the Bletchley flyover was built at about the same time as, and looks similar in design to, the one at Rugby, and was used much less, I am intrigued that structural problems have only been found in the former.

You don't inspect and maintain something that gets a train once in a blue moon as much compared to something that gets at least 5tph.

 

[zwk500]

Bearing in mind that the Bletchley flyover was built at about the same time as, and looks similar in design to, the one at Rugby, and was used much less, I am intrigued that structural problems have only been found in the former.

Did Rugby get some remedial attention at WCRM?

 

[Tester]

Bearing in mind that the Bletchley flyover was built at about the same time as, and looks similar in design to, the one at Rugby, and was used much less, I am intrigued that structural problems have only been found in the former.

I recall many years ago hearing that Rugby flyover had a limited life ahead. It would be interesting to know the current position.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Did Rugby get some remedial attention at WCRM?

There were some concerns about Rugby , and yes it did get attention.

 

[Merle Haggard]

You don't inspect and maintain something that gets a train once in a blue moon as much compared to something that gets at least 5tph.

Yours is a fair comment but I thought that some defects were very difficult to rectify/maintain - for example, the use of sea dredged aggregate used in steel-reinforced concrete (sea salt advances corrosion and both weakens the steel and causes it to expand and split the concrete ) or the use of high alumina cement (about which I can only vaguely remember the problems). Both of which were in widespread use about the time the viaducts were constructed although, of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were actually employed.

 

[Dunnyrail]

The plan was to relieve congestion on cross-London lines by diverting freight trains on an 'outer circle' route via Oxford. A marshalling yard was built at Swanbourne (about 2 miles further West) as part of the scheme, but I am uncertain that it was ever commissioned.

Bearing in mind that the Bletchley flyover was built at about the same time as, and looks similar in design to, the one at Rugby, and was used much less, I am intrigued that structural problems have only been found in the former.

You are in part correct, Swanbourne was to be a major marshalling yard along the lines of Healey Mills, Stratford, Tyne, Carlisle and others. It was cancelled in time to prevent the existing Swanbourne yard from being upgraded to a mega yard but not before the flyover was built. See post 4 link below.

What were the 1955 Modernisation Plan Marshalling Yards?

Hi all. I was looking at the 1955 Modernisation Plan report and it mentioned updating or building 55 marshalling yards. I think I've found most of them after trawling the internet, but I was wondering if anyone could add to my list or correct any errors in it? Temple Mills (Stratford) Barking...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Snow1964]

The plan was to relieve congestion on cross-London lines by diverting freight trains on an 'outer circle' route via Oxford. A marshalling yard was built at Swanbourne (about 2 miles further West) as part of the scheme, but I am uncertain that it was ever commissioned.

I think I have read in a book that there was also a flyover planned near Didcot (but nothing ever came of it). Presumably to divert freight to Southampton via the (now closed) Didcot, Newbury and Winchester line.

Some freight would have used the diveunder constructed just east of Reading to access line to Wokingham, which I think was built during WW2

I assume this freight outer circle was a development of the extra spurs and signalling put in during WW2 which made it viable to route trains via Oxford and Didcot. So to fully understand the Bletchley flyover probably need to work back to the wartime spurs and treat it as part of bigger scheme.

 

[Gloster]

I think I have read in a book that there was also a flyover planned near Didcot (but nothing ever came of it). Presumably to divert freight to Southampton via the (now closed) Didcot, Newbury and Winchester line.

Some freight would have used the diveunder constructed just east of Reading to access line to Wokingham, which I think was built during WW2

I assume this freight outer circle was a development of the extra spurs and signalling put in during WW2 which made it viable to route trains via Oxford and Didcot. So to fully understand the Bletchley flyover probably need to work back to the wartime spurs and treat it as part of bigger scheme.

I think that the line under the GWR mainline just east of the General only connected the SR with the GWR goods depot and could not be used for through trains. Trains to the SR from the GWR used a double-line connection from the Fast Lines just to the east of the platforms at General. In 1941 a second double-line connection was built down to the SR a little further east: this had the advantage that trains could pass through the station on the Relief Lines before crossing over to the Fasts to gain access to the SR. (Source: my incomplete collection of Cooke and Pryer diagrams.)

Improving the lines to Southampton and the central part of the South Coast was not that high a priority as, because it was within the reach of the Luftwaffe, it was not a major location for manufacturing, storage or training until the build up to D-Day. It was therefore possible to manage with the existing lines, with some strategically placed small improvements, rather than go to the extent of carrying out the almost complete rebuilding of the DN&SR. Yes, there were improvements to the line, but a difficult to construct and disruptive to traffic (when under construction) flyover at Didcot could only have been worthwhile if the line‘s capacity had been massively increased.

 

[Ken H]

Did the flyover or its approaches ever have platforms on it?

 

[coppercapped]

I think I have read in a book that there was also a flyover planned near Didcot (but nothing ever came of it). Presumably to divert freight to Southampton via the (now closed) Didcot, Newbury and Winchester line.

Some freight would have used the diveunder constructed just east of Reading to access line to Wokingham, which I think was built during WW2

A minor point. There was an additional connection put in during WW2 at Reading, but it was further east than the diveunder and connected the Southern to the GW Mains allowing west bound traffic off the Southern to join the GW and eastbound traffic off the GW to join the Southern towards Wokingham. There was a loop off each track between the junctions at each end; the link was not very long, guesstimating off an old map I reckon about 300 yards.

The diveunder existed in Victorian times and predates the widening of the GW to four tracks.

I assume this freight outer circle was a development of the extra spurs and signalling put in during WW2 which made it viable to route trains via Oxford and Didcot. So to fully understand the Bletchley flyover probably need to work back to the wartime spurs and treat it as part of bigger scheme.

 

[Bevan Price]

Did the flyover or its approaches ever have platforms on it?

No.

 

[RT4038]

Not sure you could describe it as a "white elephant". The St Blazey - Stoke china clay train ran that way for a while and I am guessing the stone trains from the Western Region also use the flyover.

A 'White Elephant' in the sense that the traffic which actually used it would never have financially justified its construction.

 

[70014IronDuke]

A 'White Elephant' in the sense that the traffic which actually used it would never have financially justified its construction.

Indeed.

It is deeply ironic that, 65 years or so after it was built, it is only now being put to 'proper' use.

It does beg the question, though, as to what would have happened had it not been built. For sure, BR would have wanted to take out the junction at the south end of Bletchley on the fasts. And I suspect that without it, E-W Railway would have never got off the ground.

Perhaps somewhere in LMR planning department in the sky, the senior manager of the 1950s who actually signed off constructing it is purring quietly to himself with satisfaction.

 

[SargeNpton]

Did the flyover or its approaches ever have platforms on it?

It didn't, but of course it does now.

One other thing about the flyover was that it seems to have been built with electrification in mind, as about one in four of the supporting pillars are wider - with fixings to which the OLE masts could be attached.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed.

It is deeply ironic that, 65 years or so after it was built, it is only now being put to 'proper' use.

It does beg the question, though, as to what would have happened had it not been built. For sure, BR would have wanted to take out the junction at the south end of Bletchley on the fasts. And I suspect that without it, E-W Railway would have never got off the ground.

Perhaps somewhere in LMR planning department in the sky, the senior manager of the 1950s who actually signed off constructing it is purring quietly to himself with satisfaction.

I see what you did there...

With no flyover, the line might have continued to exist for empty DMU movements to Bletchley depot, as it actually did into the 1990s. These could probably have been pathed across the fasts with relatively little difficulty when traffic was much less than it later became. Meanwhile though, it's quite possible that development around the station would have made it impossible to add the flyover later, in which case I think you're right that EWR as we now know it would have become impossible. However, in money terms, if it had been possible and necessary to build a new flyover, I'm not convinced that it would have been much more expensive than what they actually had to do to reinstate the old one.