"A Flyover at Woking could be reality in the next 5 years"

GW43125 · 2 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
But why would you keep the Up Guildford where on the diagram (in the attached link) it runs parallel to the flyover?

It allows more flexibility (think the Hitchin layout) for engineering or whatever, also allows trains to run wrong road on the down fast into platform 4 whilst a down train is coming through 5, if it becomes necessary. Minimal extra cost for a fair amount of flexibility.

RailUK Forums

Class 170101 · 2 Nov 2019

GW43125 said:
It allows more flexibility (think the Hitchin layout) for engineering or whatever, also allows trains to run wrong road on the down fast into platform 4 whilst a down train is coming through 5, if it becomes necessary. Minimal extra cost for a fair amount of flexibility.

Very true, but knowing NRs fascination with removing infrastructure, especially points, so they don't have to maintain them...

Not that NR then appreciate their value for Bi-Directional Working when the need arises - ref removing late night trains on SWR network discussion.

The Ham · 2 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
It’s +7 paths enabled by Crossrail 2.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Deepgreen · 5 Nov 2019

Within five years seems amazingly naive - it's in the 'pie in the sky' category.

coppercapped · 5 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
Very true, but knowing NRs fascination with removing infrastructure, especially points, so they don't have to maintain them...

Not that NR then appreciate their value for Bi-Directional Working when the need arises - ref removing late night trains on SWR network discussion.

Eh?

NR added a flyover at Reading and designed and installed a track layout which uses a fair number of turnouts for flexibility of operation. Try counting the number of points before and after.

NR added a flyover at Hitchin and left the flat crossings in situ. NR has just rebuilt Derby station and added platforms and modified the track layout to permit more parallel operation.

NR isn't all bad.

(BR - not NR - had the fascination with removing infrastructure - there were grants to help them do it).

MarkyT · 5 Nov 2019

coppercapped said:
(BR - not NR - had the fascination with removing infrastructure - there were grants to help them do it).

In the early 1980s BR were put under extraordinary Treasury pressure to cut back on capital expenditure, and new layouts for Newton Abbot and Taunton were cut back extensively from what was originally proposed for the Exeter resignalling. These layouts now struggle with today's traffic levels. At around the same time on the Southern, the rather old-fashioned and over-complex layout at Redhill had to be retained in full for the 1980s Brighton Line resignalling because all the associated track renewal money allocation disappeared in the funding crisis.

Personally I think new layouts simply have to be fit for purpose. In some cases a remodelling can remove certain points because they are not required for services planned today or in the foreseeable near future. In other cases an increase in point numbers, for parallel movements etc, may be justified, as at Reading. Its not a straightforward issue and a careful iterative design process must optimise layouts in consultation with all stakeholder. Simply increasing the numbers of points in a route is expensive in both capital and maintenance terms, and may in fact decrease reliability as every additional turnout limit switch is an additional failure point that can cause a signal to revert or fail to clear for a train and result in delay.

swt_passenger · 5 Nov 2019

Deepgreen said:
Within five years seems amazingly naive - it's in the 'pie in the sky' category.

It was possibly a reasonable thing to say in early 2018 though, when this thread was started.

It was in the Wessex route study as a CP5 development project for building in CP6, ie the next 5 year plan. There was presumably a belief at NR that a HLOS & SOFA for a list of CP6 enhancements was about to be published...

The Ham · 5 Nov 2019

swt_passenger said:
It was possibly a reasonable thing to say in early 2018 though, when this thread was started.

It was in the Wessex route study as a CP5 development project for building in CP6, ie the next 5 year plan. There was presumably a belief at NR that a HLOS & SOFA for a list of CP6 enhancements was about to be published...

Indeed, and in another 15 months time it could well be that it goes to back being likely that it's built within 5 years (of course it could not).

One reason it may is depending on the result of the election. In that if the Tories do badly in the locality (which has almost always been a safe part of the country for them, but was more remain than other areas, so may opt to support Lib Dems given that the Tories have had two fairly good chances to "get Brexit done" and have failed) then they may need to actually commit to doing something to improve rail services for the SWR franchise. The Woking junction and Heathrow Southern Approach schemes would be two which are fairly cheap (Business is willing to fund the Southern Approach) whilst providing something tangible.

Of course the above may not happen and it could be another 10 years before it's built.

Diplodicus · 6 Nov 2019

The Up Fast and slow platforms are pretty wide. Why not slice a bit off each and drive an up relief through in the gap?

The Ham · 6 Nov 2019

Diplodicus said:
The Up Fast and slow platforms are pretty wide. Why not slice a bit off each and drive an up relief through in the gap?

They aren't that wide as you go pass the stairs, you may gain a meter or maybe a bit more, but not enough for an extra track through.

Look at the space which the platform 3 has compared to the track next to it, you certainly couldn't have a double platform that wide all the way through.

Even though the stairs are fairly wide, they need to be for the numbers of people using them at peak times.

Bald Rick · 6 Nov 2019

The Ham said:
The Woking junction and Heathrow Southern Approach schemes would be two which are fairly cheap (Business is willing to fund the Southern Approach) whilst providing something tangible.

I wouldn’t say they were fairly cheap.

On the last point - ‘business’ (the private sector) is willing to finance the Heathrow Southern Link, but needs Government help to fund it. That is a crucial distinction. HSL also requires The Woking flyover, which it assumes will be paid for by Government.

The Ham · 6 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
I wouldn’t say they were fairly cheap.

On the last point - ‘business’ (the private sector) is willing to finance the Heathrow Southern Link, but needs Government help to fund it. That is a crucial distinction. HSL also requires The Woking flyover, which it assumes will be paid for by Government.

Depends on what you are comparing it to, the last estimate I saw of £100 million for the Woking junction is fairly low cost for rail improvements.

Bald Rick · 6 Nov 2019

I’d be interested to see where that estimate came from.

Also HSL is well over a billion, and in my opinion is an under estimate.

The Ham · 6 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
I’d be interested to see where that estimate came from.

Also HSL is well over a billion, and in my opinion is an under estimate.

I'm fairly sure that it came from one of the Wessex RUS, so there's likely to be some increase in costs in the 5 years (?) Since it was published.

swt_passenger · 6 Nov 2019

The Ham said:
I'm fairly sure that it came from one of the Wessex RUS, so there's likely to be some increase in costs in the 5 years (?) Since it was published.

The Wessex route study of 2015, section 5.4.44, reckoned £50 - £100 million “based on 2014 prices”.

Class 170101 · 6 Nov 2019

coppercapped said:
Eh? NR added a flyover at Reading and designed and installed a track layout which uses a fair number of turnouts for flexibility of operation. Try counting the number of points before and after.

NR added a flyover at Hitchin and left the flat crossings in situ. NR has just rebuilt Derby station and added platforms and modified the track layout to permit more parallel operation.

NR isn't all bad.

(BR - not NR - had the fascination with removing infrastructure - there were grants to help them do it).

NR still do it to save maintaining it. Shenfield C/End no longer has parallel running from the electric lines towards Chelmsford.

Will Kings Cross be as flexible when NR have remodelled it in 2020/2021 as it is today?

Bald Rick · 6 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
NR still do it to save maintaining it. Shenfield C/End no longer has parallel running from the electric lines towards Chelmsford.

Will Kings Cross be as flexible when NR have remodelled it in 2020/2021 as it is today?

Re Shenfield. I know all about that. A good job it was too, even if it did overrun (sorry).

But it absolutely was not to save money on maintenance. It was because it was hardly ever used, and post Crossrail was going to be used even led. It saved a load of money on renewing them (millions). It also made the wiring more simple. And guess what? The points removed have never, ever failed since, and Shenfield has become more reliable. Saved millions for taxpayers, and better journeys for passengers. Am I missing something?

Class 170101 · 6 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
Re Shenfield. I know all about that. A good job it was too, even if it did overrun (sorry).

But it absolutely was not to save money on maintenance. It was because it was hardly ever used, and post Crossrail was going to be used even led. It saved a load of money on renewing them (millions). It also made the wiring more simple. And guess what? The points removed have never, ever failed since, and Shenfield has become more reliable. Saved millions for taxpayers, and better journeys for passengers. Am I missing something?

Allowed parallel running over said junction especially when NR wanted MLs closed Shenfield C/End towards London all day Sunday which has only just been abolished.

Bald Rick · 6 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
Allowed parallel running over said junction especially when NR wanted MLs closed Shenfield C/End towards London all day Sunday which has only just been abolished.

Yes I know what you could do - but the remodelling just meant that the two track railway started L/E, indeed it’s only the DM through P3 that has to stay open IF you want parallel running. And because there’s fewer troublesome points to maintain, you don’t need to take it through to the C/E anyway.

It’s really not a problem.

Class 170101 · 6 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
Yes I know what you could do - but the remodelling just meant that the two track railway started L/E, indeed it’s only the DM through P3 that has to stay open IF you want parallel running. And because there’s fewer troublesome points to maintain, you don’t need to take it through to the C/E anyway.

It’s really not a problem.

Correct now but it was more disruptive until NR reduced their two track access requirement from May 2019 to before 09:00 and from 23:45 on Sundays.

Bald Rick · 6 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
Correct now but it was more disruptive until NR reduced their two track access requirement from May 2019 to before 09:00 and from 23:45 on Sundays.

Maybe, but not worth several million pounds and disruption whenever those point failed (and they were a right pain, IIRC).

"A Flyover at Woking could be reality in the next 5 years"

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member