Stevenage platform 5

Robert Carroll · 5 Feb 2018

malc-c said:
I'm curious as to how it works now. Looking at google maps I can't see any way a train from Hertford that terminates at Stevenage could get across the lines to south bound slow line so it can peel off at Langley junction, other than a cross-over on the Hertford loop just passed the B197 over-bridge. I presume that the North bound line between that cross over and Stevenage station is bi-directional running ?

If they did lay new track between Stevenage and langley junction it would involve reworking a dual carriage way bridge just south of the station to take five tracks. - but without five tracks it would be a bit pointless as you would otherwise still have a train movement in that short section on the NB slow lane between the junction and "siding" for platform 5

At present, Hertford Loop trains that terminate at Stevenage do so in the down slow platform then run back up the down slow to Langley Junction. The down Hertford Loop is bi-directional at the north end of the loop..

RailUK Forums

YorkshireBear · 6 Feb 2018

MarkyT said:
Here's a schematic of a possible track and signalling layout for the station including new platform #5.
View attachment 42377

That is indeed what is being taken forward. With passive provision for the turnback to extend and loop onto down slow.

infobleep · 6 Feb 2018

swt_passenger said:
It could have been - but as explained in the above linked article the Hendy Review deferred it...

So in other words they had to save money and now they must spend it but save it elsehwere instead.

The article states it was due to open in 2019 originally. That's still after the additional services start. Whilst I appreciate not everything can be done at once, other places have had platforms built or lengthened before services start and in some cases I believe the start of services was delayed due it rolling stock issues.

I think this just highlights how hard it is to run a railway and coordinate everything.

I don't know how well used these particular service are but will people use the replacement bus or will they just get in their cars instead.

malc-c · 6 Feb 2018

Thanks guys for the explanations, and that diagram was just how I envisaged the branch line to run. It will be interesting to see how they get on with the modifications to the station. Whilst it will reduce the amount of parking spaces in the leisure park it shouldn't involve any buildings to be removed. Talking of the leisure centre, I'm sure its privately owned as its parking is policed and heavily enforced (I got caught with a £60 fine yesterday as I "left the site"). If it is then I presume that some form of compulsory purchase order for the land would be required ?

Skimble19 · 6 Feb 2018

malc-c said:
Thanks guys for the explanations, and that diagram was just how I envisaged the branch line to run. It will be interesting to see how they get on with the modifications to the station. Whilst it will reduce the amount of parking spaces in the leisure park it shouldn't involve any buildings to be removed. Talking of the leisure centre, I'm sure its privately owned as its parking is policed and heavily enforced (I got caught with a £60 fine yesterday as I "left the site"). If it is then I presume that some form of compulsory purchase order for the land would be required ?

It shouldn't impact the parking in the Leisure Park, at least not permanently. It's going to be built in the grass / tree filled bank area between the existing lines and the parking.

Lee_Again · 6 Feb 2018

A simple solution would be to run a short siding off the end of existing platform 4.

i.e. Train arrives. Runs in to a siding just north of the station (and clearing the down slow). Driver swaps ends and reverses back in to platform 4. Train departs south along the down line.

Effectively exactly as now except that it 'holds' in a siding rather than taking up the down line. Not as effective as a bay platform, but provides much of the requirement but for a significantly smaller cost. Other than a siding no infrastructure is needed.

Lee_Again · 6 Feb 2018

I'm sure I've said this before...but...if money is not a problem...

How about taking a spur from Luton (from the north or south or both) running under Luton Airport and then continuing to Langley Junction and joining the ECML. Services would then continue through to Hitchin before taking the Cambridge branch. A new spur at the junction with GEML facing south would allow for a direct route to Stansted. With a spur south of Bedford you could have a Oxford > Bletchley > Luton > Stevenage > Stansted service with options (with reversing) to do Oxford>Milton Keynes>Bedford>Luton>Stevenage>Cambridge>Stansted.

MarkyT · 6 Feb 2018

Lee_Again said:
A simple solution would be to run a short siding off the end of existing platform 4.

i.e. Train arrives. Runs in to a siding just north of the station (and clearing the down slow). Driver swaps ends and reverses back in to platform 4. Train departs south along the down line.

Effectively exactly as now except that it 'holds' in a siding rather than taking up the down line. Not as effective as a bay platform, but provides much of the requirement but for a significantly smaller cost. Other than a siding no infrastructure is needed.

Pros: Cheaper. Less new track and earthworks. No new platform.
Cons: Has two platform occupancies for every reversing service in #4; an arrival - clear - shunt sequence, then a shunt - departure manoeuvre. Extents the time required for turnback and cycle time for traffic circuit, hence possible extra rolling stock and crew requirement. No completely new entirely dedicated platform facility to isolate normal Hertford loop operations completely from main line.

The size and complexity of the signalling alteration for a siding would be similar to that for a new bay platform, although the bay would have a few more track-side signal assets.

A0wen · 6 Feb 2018

Lee_Again said:
I'm sure I've said this before...but...if money is not a problem...

How about taking a spur from Luton (from the north or south or both) running under Luton Airport and then continuing to Langley Junction and joining the ECML. Services would then continue through to Hitchin before taking the Cambridge branch. A new spur at the junction with GEML facing south would allow for a direct route to Stansted. With a spur south of Bedford you could have a Oxford > Bletchley > Luton > Stevenage > Stansted service with options (with reversing) to do Oxford>Milton Keynes>Bedford>Luton>Stevenage>Cambridge>Stansted.

It would cost billions - there's a big hill behind Luton which screws that up. There's precious little capacity on either the MML or the ECML so running trains from EWR along either isn't going to happen. And if, by magic, some further paths were to appear to the MML or ECML, I suspect EMT and others would make a much better case for them.

And I don't for a second believe your suggestion even comes close to making a viable benefits case.

Fred26 · 6 Feb 2018

MarkyT said:
Pros: Cheaper. Less new track and earthworks. No new platform.
Cons: Has two platform occupancies for every reversing service in #4; an arrival - clear - shunt sequence, then a shunt - departure manoeuvre. Extents the time required for turnback and cycle time for traffic circuit, hence possible extra rolling stock and crew requirement. No completely new entirely dedicated platform facility to isolate normal Hertford loop operations completely from main line.

The size and complexity of the signalling alteration for a siding would be similar to that for a new bay platform, although the bay would have a few more track-side signal assets.

Another con is that platform staff would have to shut down every single train that is to be shunted into such a siding, which takes time. Once this has been taken into account we're probably not in a situation much different than we are now.

Ediswan · 6 Feb 2018

YorkshireBear said:
That is indeed what is being taken forward. With passive provision for the turnback to extend and loop onto down slow.

Far too sensible. Can't possibly be true

malc-c said:
Whilst it will reduce the amount of parking spaces in the leisure park it shouldn't involve any buildings to be removed. Talking of the leisure centre, I'm sure its privately owned as its parking is policed and heavily enforced (I got caught with a £60 fine yesterday as I "left the site"). If it is then I presume that some form of compulsory purchase order for the land would be required ?

I have never seen that section of the leisure centre parking full (but maybe I go at the wrong time). I have a recollection that the owners wanted to offer rail/commuter parking, but were declined planning permission. Moreover, told that they must enforce the prohibtion or be in trouble themselves.

Silver Cobra · 6 Feb 2018

Ediswan said:
Far too sensible. Can't possibly be true

I have never seen that section of the leisure centre parking full (but maybe I go at the wrong time). I have a recollection that the owners wanted to offer rail/commuter parking, but were declined planning permission. Moreover, told that they must enforce the prohibtion or be in trouble themselves.

During the school holidays and weekends, the leisure centre car park is nearly full to bursting by the afternoon/evening, with parents taking their kids to Cineworld or Hollywood Bowl. On working weekdays it's largely empty, particularly on that side of the car park.

Hadders · 6 Feb 2018

Ediswan said:
Far too sensible. Can't possibly be true

I have never seen that section of the leisure centre parking full (but maybe I go at the wrong time). I have a recollection that the owners wanted to offer rail/commuter parking, but were declined planning permission. Moreover, told that they must enforce the prohibtion or be in trouble themselves.

Years ago the Daily Hate ran a story because the leisure park clamped 200 commuters cars on the same day.

Class 170101 · 6 Feb 2018

Lee_Again said:
I'm sure I've said this before...but...if money is not a problem...

How about taking a spur from Luton (from the north or south or both) running under Luton Airport and then continuing to Langley Junction and joining the ECML. Services would then continue through to Hitchin before taking the Cambridge branch. A new spur at the junction with GEML facing south would allow for a direct route to Stansted. With a spur south of Bedford you could have a Oxford > Bletchley > Luton > Stevenage > Stansted service with options (with reversing) to do Oxford>Milton Keynes>Bedford>Luton>Stevenage>Cambridge>Stansted.

A0wen said:
It would cost billions - there's a big hill behind Luton which screws that up. There's precious little capacity on either the MML or the ECML so running trains from EWR along either isn't going to happen. And if, by magic, some further paths were to appear to the MML or ECML, I suspect EMT and others would make a much better case for them.

And I don't for a second believe your suggestion even comes close to making a viable benefits case.

A similar scheme was actually one of the routes for East West Rail which envisaged such a link between the ECML and MML between Luton and Stevenage with a view to improving connectivity to Luton Airport.

gazthomas · 6 Feb 2018

Hadders said:
Years ago the Daily Hate ran a story because the leisure park clamped 200 commuters cars on the same day.

I’m sure in the past they sold permits to commuters?

Bald Rick · 6 Feb 2018

Hadders said:
Years ago the Daily Hate ran a story because the leisure park clamped 200 commuters cars on the same day.

I was one of them, I think. The clamping bloke kindly gave me a lift to the cash point to withdraw the £90 to pay him. It was the least he could do in the circumstances.

Hadders · 6 Feb 2018

gazthomas said:
I’m sure in the past they sold permits to commuters?

I think you're right. The whole situation is ridiculous really. Huge car park right next to the station that is empty all day long while the official station car park and town centre car parks are full. The station car park was even made smaller a few years back so a bigger police station could be built.

jopsuk · 7 Feb 2018

Most station users from within Stevenage could cycle there (hills? e-bikes are a thing) on a nearly entirely separate cycle way network. Too few do because driving is so easy and the station has insufficient cycle parking...

Hadders · 7 Feb 2018

jopsuk said:
Most station users from within Stevenage could cycle there (hills? e-bikes are a thing) on a nearly entirely separate cycle way network. Too few do because driving is so easy and the station has insufficient cycle parking...

From some areas of the town perhaps but not everyone is physically able to do so. I live a 40 minute walk from the station. Often I will walk but that isn’t always convenient, particularly in the rain. There is a decent bus service but at busy times you often have to leave as early as walking to be sure to make the train.

What do you propose people who live outside of the town do. Walkern, Buntingford etc. They use Stevenage and can’t walk or cycle, there’s little in the way of buses either?

A0wen · 7 Feb 2018

Hadders said:
From some areas of the town perhaps but not everyone is physically able to do so. I live a 40 minute walk from the station. Often I will walk but that isn’t always convenient, particularly in the rain. There is a decent bus service but at busy times you often have to leave as early as walking to be sure to make the train.

What do you propose people who live outside of the town do. Walkern, Buntingford etc. They use Stevenage and can’t walk or cycle, there’s little in the way of buses either?

Well, knowing the attitude of some of the posters around here, presumably they should move away from their nice village areas and into one of the more delightful Stevenage estates instead.

Frankly the best thing about Stevenage is the station as it gets you out of there.

A0wen · 7 Feb 2018

Class 170101 said:
A similar scheme was actually one of the routes for East West Rail which envisaged such a link between the ECML and MML between Luton and Stevenage with a view to improving connectivity to Luton Airport.

And was dismissed in the early stages as costly and unviable.

Quite apart from capacity on the MML south of Bedford and capacity on the Hitchin - Cambridge line being an issue.

The latter is part of the reason why another option - re-opening the old Hitchin - Bedford line has fallen out of favour as well.

mr_jrt · 7 Feb 2018

Ironically, had they reopened the Leighton Buzzard to Luton line and added an additional pair of tracks alongside up to Bletchley the MML and WCML wouldn't have had an issue at all

MarkyT · 7 Feb 2018

A0wen said:
The latter is part of the reason why another option - re-opening the old Hitchin - Bedford line has fallen out of favour as well.

It's heavily built over too in the villages it passes through, and especially on its southerly approaches to Bedford.

adamedwards · 7 Feb 2018

Is there any merit in making this bay platform a through line to give more flexibility with trains going north if the up slow platform is occupied? I guess costs of the extra point and signals v likely use. As shown it's nice and simple, which is always good.

MarkyT · 7 Feb 2018

adamedwards said:
Is there any merit in making this bay platform a through line to give more flexibility with trains going north if the up slow platform is occupied? I guess costs of the extra point and signals v likely use. As shown it's nice and simple, which is always good.

YorkshireBear said earlier that NR are making 'passive provision' for the bay's future extension alongside the Down Slow to form a loop line. with a new turnout in parallel with the slow to fast crossover. I expect that means building the new track as close as possible to the Down Slow through the station. There is also an opportunity to add one further crossover at Langley Jn for more flexibility.

Silver Cobra · 7 Feb 2018

If the plan to extend the bay into a loop line does go ahead, the leisure centre will likely have wasted money setting up charging points for electric cars at parking spaces right next to the steps/ramp for the current footbridge (they installed them during the last week), as I imagine those spaces would have to be surrendered to provide enough room for the installation of the loop.

Ianno87 · 7 Feb 2018

Silver Cobra said:
If the plan to extend the bay into a loop line does go ahead, the leisure centre will likely have wasted money setting up charging points for electric cars at parking spaces right next to the steps/ramp for the current footbridge (they installed them during the last week), as I imagine those spaces would have to be surrendered to provide enough room for the installation of the loop.

Surely not the most difficult/costly thing to relocate should the need arise. I'd suspect the loop extension would be many years in the future anyway, if it ever happens at all.

malc-c · 7 Feb 2018

It was interesting to see the post about connecting the MML and ECML via Luton. Years ago there was the old Luton & Dunstable branch that effectively did that, although the link to the MML was added after the tracks were lifted back in the 1960's. Other than a few bridges, and a couple of housing estates built where Harpenden station and Wheathampsted goods yard was, most of the route still exist as a walk way. Of course the hardest obstacle to overcome would be the A1(M) which severed the original line when the motorway was extended back in the early '70s.

Regarding the car park of the leisure park. I've played about with a screen capture from google maps and whilst the boundary fence would need to be moved, adding an additional track and platform wouldn't impact on the infrastructure of the car park. However the footbridge would need modifications, as presumably the existing over bridge / lifts and some form of ticket barrier will be extended - something like this (sorry its so crude but my photoshop skills are limited

)

Skimpot flyer · 8 Feb 2018

MarkyT said:
It's heavily built over too in the villages it passes through, and especially on its southerly approaches to Bedford.

...and bridges around the junction with the ECML have been re-purposed to carry the Hitchin flyover, so trains to Cambridge can avoid crossing the ECML on the flat

Ediswan · 8 Feb 2018

Hadders said:
The station car park was even made smaller a few years back so a bigger police station could be built.

The building extensions are on the south side. The police wanted more parking space and it seems that the area in question was only on lease/loan for station parking. Same result.

Stevenage platform 5

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member