• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Werrington grade separation updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crun

Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
697
Location
Werrington, Peterborough, England
YouTube film of the ECML courtesy of Trains on the ECML:


YouTube film courtesy of werrington junction of work on the Werrington Junction upgrade and traffic on the ECML:


YouTube film courtesy of werrington junction of work on the Werrington Junction upgrade and traffic using the new layout of the Stamford up and down lines:

 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

lancastrian

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
534
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Very interesting pictures. I know that only the line towards Stamford was electrified before the work, but surely with a new works done and the lines being moved, why didn't they electrify both the Stamford lines? I am sure that there are some good reasons, but to me it seem to be a basic way of extending the electrification in a quick and easy way.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
Very interesting pictures. I know that only the line towards Stamford was electrified before the work, but surely with a new works done and the lines being moved, why didn't they electrify both the Stamford lines? I am sure that there are some good reasons, but to me it seem to be a basic way of extending the electrification in a quick and easy way.

The Stamford Down line acts as the Down slow for the ECML. The ECML has a dedicated Up slow of its own.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Very interesting pictures. I know that only the line towards Stamford was electrified before the work, but surely with a new works done and the lines being moved, why didn't they electrify both the Stamford lines? I am sure that there are some good reasons, but to me it seem to be a basic way of extending the electrification in a quick and easy way.

The Stamford Down line acts as the Down slow for the ECML. The ECML has a dedicated Up slow of its own.
There would need to be a new ladder of crossovers at Helpston where the Stamford line separate, so that trains on the Up Slow or Up Fast could cross over onto the Up Stamford. This might be useful operationally, for example an EMR from Grantham heading to Norwich could be crossed over here if the signaler expected it would conflict with another movement at the crossovers used today just north of Peterborough station. But with the railway on a long curve in the Helpston area the junction would in practice not be very far north of Werrington. A more achievable but less beneficial alternative would be to allow bi-directional running on a couple of miles of the Down Slow north of Helpston, so Up trains could access it via existing crossovers at Tallington.
 

lancastrian

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
534
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
The Up Stamford is due to be moved again after the dive under works are complete. Little point in electrifying a line with a temporary alignment!

Fair point but when it is all finished, surely it would make sense to electrify both lines. It would certainly would be much cheaper than waiting until they realise it is needed, then spending possibly up to x4 more money to do the work.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The Stamford Down line acts as the Down slow for the ECML. The ECML has a dedicated Up slow of its own.

Fair point but when it is all finished, surely it would make sense to electrify both lines. It would certainly would be much cheaper than waiting until they realise it is needed, then spending possibly up to x4 more money to do the work.

The Up Stamford cannot be accessed from the ECML from the north at all. No point electrifying it.

The Up Stamford is due to be moved again after the diveunder works are complete. Little point in electrifying a line with a temporary alignment!

Especially when a large proportion of LNER trains have bi-mode capability.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
The Up Stamford cannot be accessed from the ECML from the north at all. No point electrifying it.

That's what I thought. If the line is ever electrified through to Leicester/Nuneaton/Birmingham, it shouldn't be difficult to wire the Up Stamford line.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
That's what I thought. If the line is ever electrified through to Leicester/Nuneaton/Birmingham, it shouldn't be difficult to wire the Up Stamford line.

To my untrained eye, the sepearation between the Up Stamford and Down ECML fasts between Peterborough and Helpston makes it pretty easy to come along and plonk the required extra masts alongside the Up Stamford. The only tricky bit is tying it in at either end and at New England ladder (which Werrington won't be making any difference to the difficulty of doing anyway)

The line gauge was enhanced a few years ago wasn't it?

Presumably a case of anything that was needed to be changed was gauge cleared for OLE at the same time, anything already in gauge wasn't changed (but gauge + OLE would require changing if and when it gets wired)?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Presumably a case of anything that was needed to be changed was gauge cleared for OLE at the same time, anything already in gauge wasn't changed (but gauge + OLE would require changing if and when it gets wired)?
Normally if a bridge is renewed for gauging purposes it's made big enough for OLE and vice versa.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Travelled on the re-routed Stamford lines the other day...a very odd sensation swinging off on the new alignment when you're so used to going straight.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
May I ask some questions (partially a bit off topic)?
Will the reinstated up Stamford be on the line of the old one, or to the East with the dive under on the old route?
Was the ECML 4 track along here, and if so which side was removed? Is there any capacity need to replace it to remove conflicts where slow downs have to cross the Stamford up to get back onto the ECML? The masts would have to be moved but if there was a general change to portals it could be done then.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
May I ask some questions (partially a bit off topic)?
Will the reinstated up Stamford be on the line of the old one, or to the East with the dive under on the old route?
Was the ECML 4 track along here, and if so which side was removed? Is there any capacity need to replace it to remove conflicts where slow downs have to cross the Stamford up to get back onto the ECML? The masts would have to be moved but if there was a general change to portals it could be done then.
The up Stamford will be moved back to its previous alignment once the ramp is built, so the diveunder lines will be between the Stamfords.

This isn’t off-topic, but has been asked and answered a few times in previous pages of this discussion.

The ECML wasn’t four track, as you note the down Stamford provided the functionality of an ECML down slow, which is why it was and is electrified - the electrification has been resited along with the track slews. Again, the need for any changes or improvements to this this has already been discussed in the last few pages...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I've an inkling the ECML was four-track at one time, which partly explains the wider interval between the Down Fast and the Up Stamford. Then as a WW2 measure the Down Slow was removed and trains used the Down Stamford instead. Can anyone confirm or correct this?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
The ECML wasn’t four track, as you note the down Stamford provided the functionality of an ECML down slow, which is why it was and is electrified - the electrification has been resited along with the track slews. Again, the need for any changes or improvements to this this has already been discussed in the last few pages

sorry, I have been keeping up with the thread as it goes along so must have forgotten reading such answers. If it wasn’t 4 track when was the third put in - seems odd if they used the Stamford down when the lines were GN v MR and LNER v LMS?

The up Stamford will be moved back to its previous alignment once the ramp is built, so the diveunder lines will be between the Stamfords
so the ramp will be on the site of the old Stamford down and a bit to the West, but not on the old Stamford up?
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
so the ramp will be on the site of the old Stamford down and a bit to the West, but not on the old Stamford up?

The "old Stamford up" will be reinstated, so that the junction at Cock Lane footbridge is also grade separated:

Di7x0q2WsAEdJTv.jpg:large
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
sorry, I have been keeping up with the thread as it goes along so must have forgotten reading such answers. If it wasn’t 4 track when was the third put in - seems odd if they used the Stamford down when the lines were GN v MR and LNER v LMS?
Don’t know the history. My understanding of the discussion earlier on this page suggests there’s been no necessity to have a separate ECML down slow in recent times, the down Stamford and the electrified crossover already provide what is needed.

But historic mapping suggests there were more tracks on both ECML and Stamford routes in the past. Perhaps it was rationalised at or before the ECML electrification.
 
Last edited:

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
The "old Stamford up" will be reinstated, so that the junction at Cock Lane footbridge is also grade separated:

Di7x0q2WsAEdJTv.jpg:large
If that map is a true map then the new up Stamford will be between the old one and the ECML with the diveunder on the line of the old up and down Stamfords
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
If that map is a true map then the new up Stamford will be between the old one and the ECML with the diveunder on the line of the old up and down Stamfords
There’s a Network Rail fly through video that shows how it all ends up, link to NR’s website is in post #10. Confirms at about 16 secs that the up Stamford will be nearer the ECML on completion, and shows it unelectrified as we’d expect.

There’s a much larger gap on the west side between the down Stamford and the down diveunder, I’d expect that means the down Stamford remains where it is now.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
891
Location
ECML
Don’t know the history. My understanding of the discussion earlier on this page suggests there’s been no necessity to have a separate ECML down slow in recent times, the down Stamford and the electrified crossover already provide what is needed.

But historic mapping suggests there were more tracks on both ECML and Stamford routes in the past. Perhaps it was rationalised at or before the ECML electrification.
I would of said before the ECML eletrification.

I travel Birmingham New Street - Peterborough in 1986 and can only remember the 2 Stamfords and 3 ECML lines.
To have a guess, I'd say at dieselisation.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I would of said before the ECML eletrification.

I travel Birmingham New Street - Peterborough in 1986 and can only remember the 2 Stamfords and 3 ECML lines.
To have a guess, I'd say at dieselisation.
The signaling and basic track layout around Peterborough has been in place since the 70s and I doubt the change would have been made since then. As I posted earlier I've an idea it was a WW2 measure, when the lines of the two companies would have been under the same control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top