Railway lines crossing at right angles

MotCO · 30 Jun 2021

APT618S said:
That was Pontop crossing:

I think that this picture depicts the type of crossing the OP was referring to.

BR British Railways Signal Box at Pontop Crossing in Undated - Neville Stead Collection

thetransportlibrary.co.uk

(Picture shows two rail lines crossing at 90 degrees)

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick · 30 Jun 2021

Aictos said:
The river can always be diverted using a new course so that isn't as much a issue as it could be.

It’s the River Trent, just before it becomes tidal. Diversion would be a massive undertaking.

Peter Mugridge · 1 Jul 2021

Bald Rick said:
It’s the River Trent, just before it becomes tidal. Diversion would be a massive undertaking.

Agreed. A flyover would be by far the cheaper and easier option than diverting the river!

mike57 · 1 Jul 2021

Aictos said:
The river can always be diverted using a new course so that isn't as much a issue as it could be.

Or could they do an ECML flyover for nonstop trains, and keep the flat crossing for trains calling at Newark Northgate. Linespeed at the crossing would then not be an issue

zwk500 · 1 Jul 2021

mike57 said:
Or could they do an ECML flyover for nonstop trains, and keep the flat crossing for trains calling at Newark Northgate. Linespeed at the crossing would then not be an issue

Only by building a complete new line avoiding Newark. Which is unlikely, given that the crossing is 100mph anyway and not really a constraint, as there's bigger issues on the ECML.

mike57 · 1 Jul 2021

zwk500 said:
Only by building a complete new line avoiding Newark. Which is unlikely, given that the crossing is 100mph anyway and not really a constraint, as there's bigger issues on the ECML.

Is maintaining a 100mph flat crossing an issue? I agree that there other places on ECML that would have a better claim to funding to improve.

swt_passenger · 1 Jul 2021

mike57 said:
Or could they do an ECML flyover for nonstop trains, and keep the flat crossing for trains calling at Newark Northgate. Linespeed at the crossing would then not be an issue

That would also require avoiding a couple of road overbridges between station and river, and a new major river crossing, which would now have to be on two levels - just how complicated does this have to be?

edwin_m · 1 Jul 2021

mike57 said:
Is maintaining a 100mph flat crossing an issue? I agree that there other places on ECML that would have a better claim to funding to improve.

I believe it's a short 100mph restriction on an otherwise 125mph railway, which suggests that there would be issues with making it faster.

However the main concern is probably capacity - only one path available each hour between Castle and Lincoln, and it has to be at specific times to tie in with a gap on the ECML. If either route is suffering delays, this is likely to exacerbate them or transfer to the other.

D6975 · 1 Jul 2021

There used to be a flat crossing just South of Dundalk where the Dundalk & Greenore railway crossed the main Great Northern Railway's Dublin to Belfast line on the level.

Helvellyn · 1 Jul 2021

There was talk of a flyover at Newark in the 1990s when the A46 bypass was built, which runs pretty much parallel to the Notts-Lincoln Line to cross the ECML. For various reasons it never happened. I assume the plan would have been to build the A46 viaduct wider to accommodate the railway, with shared costs.

I also wonder if it wasn't looked at in the 1960s because there remained the threat the Notts-Lincoln line was to close, with the ECML connection to Lincoln being via Grantham. In the end the latter closed.

swt_passenger · 1 Jul 2021

Bald Rick said:
It’s the River Trent, just before it becomes tidal. Diversion would be a massive undertaking.

Indeed, and the river splits into two in that area, so whatever the huge costs of altering the levels they’d be doubled. And before it’s suggested can anyone seriously see the locals accepting the diversion of a river course that’s part of their town’s name?

lincolnshire · 1 Jul 2021

There used to be a 90 o crossing on the Hull to Beverley line close to Botanic Gardens depot where the line used by goods trains going towards the Hornsea & Withernsea crossed over the Hull to Beverley line.
After closure of the line to Hornsea & Withernsea line and the close of any goods traffic in the 1960,s the crossing and lines was removed.

eastdyke · 1 Jul 2021

swt_passenger said:
Indeed, and the river splits into two in that area, so whatever the huge costs of altering the levels they’d be doubled. And before it’s suggested can anyone seriously see the locals accepting the diversion of a river course that’s part of their town’s name?

You couldn't divert the course of the Newark arm of the river without also diverting the functional floodplain and there is nowhere else for it to go!

In flood, the river level rises around 8 feet in the Newark area (it did last winter) and you end up with something like this (from The Guardian in 2000):

The picture shows the A46 Newark by-pass to the left side, the Kelham Road snaking to the right and the Newark-Nottingham line on the embankment crossing the top left corner.
You get the drift .....

Springs Branch · 1 Jul 2021

OVS Flatbottom said:
Yes - it's also found on various French and other new-build light rail systems, though not anywhere I know of on light rail/tram in the UK.

In Australia, Melbourne has a very extensive & long-standing street tramway network. Melbourne's city centre is laid out in a regular rectangular grid, with double-track tram lines running the length of many major streets.

Since the various tram routes intersect with each other at 90° angles, there is a good number of flat crossings throughout the CBD, controlled by normal street traffic lights.

The older types of trams (especially the mostly withdrawn W-class ) used to make a terrific clatter passing over these crossings at any sort of speed.

I have happy memories of sunny mornings sitting at an al-fresco table outside a Greek cafe* on Swanston Street (the busiest for tram traffic) enjoying a hearty breakfast and cappuccino, watching the almost constant procession of trams rumble and clatter over the nearby flat crossing.

Outside Melbourne CBD, there are about three locations where the 4ft 8½" tram tracks make flat crossings at 90° with the 5ft 3" suburban rail system, known locally as Tram Squares. They occur at level crossings on busy suburban roads, usually next to the local rail station, so they're easily accessible to the interested observer.

These are doubly-complicated by needing insulated and switchable crossings on the overhead between the 600V DC tramway wires and the 1500V DC heavy rail electrification. The switching between the tramway and railway overhead used to be done manually from an adjacent signalbox to allow pantograph-equipped trams or trains to pass over the crossing without short-circuiting the system. Not sure whether this is still the case.

* - Unfortunately the elderly, friendly owners of those family-run Greek or Italian cafes now seem to have retired, with their establishments becoming Asian businesses. Fine if you're looking for noodles or bubble tea (whatever that is) in a garish environment, but not good for leisurely tram-watching breakfasts over a second cup of coffee. The W-class trams' replacements are also more generic, less "robust" and quieter passing over the crossings.

snowball · 1 Jul 2021

I'm amazed that nobody has yet mentioned that at Cae Pawb, just north of Porthmadog, there's the UK's only mixed-gauge diamond crossing: between Network Rail's Cambrian line and the narrow-gauge Welsh Highland Railway. Built in the 21st century but recreating one that existed decades ago. The angle is about 80 degrees.

pdeaves · 1 Jul 2021

snowball said:
I'm amazed that nobody has yet mentioned that at Cae Pawb, just north of Porthmadog, there's the UK's only mixed-gauge diamond crossing: between Network Rail's Cambrian line and the narrow-gauge Welsh Highland Railway. Built in the 21st century but recreating one that existed decades ago. The angle is about 80 degrees.

See post 4

snowball · 1 Jul 2021

Oops, sorry!

edwin_m · 1 Jul 2021

Springs Branch said:
These are doubly-complicated by needing insulated and switchable crossings on the overhead between the 600V DC tramway wires and the 1500V DC heavy rail electrification. The switching between the tramway and railway overhead used to be done manually from an adjacent signalbox to allow pantograph-equipped trams or trains to pass over the crossing without short-circuiting the system. Not sure whether this is still the case.

* - Unfortunately the elderly, friendly owners of those family-run Greek or Italian cafes now seem to have retired, with their establishments becoming Asian businesses. Fine if you're looking for noodles or bubble tea (whatever that is) in a garish environment, but not good for leisurely tram-watching breakfasts over a second cup of coffee. The W-class trams' replacements are also more generic, less "robust" and quieter passing over the crossings.

At Piazza Maggiore in Rome there's a "tram roundabout" with a narrow-gauge interurban line running across the middle, and judging by the OLE arrangements at the two right-angle crossings they are also at different voltages. Also crossing over, roughly at right angles to the interurban, is a a ruined adqueduct.

Merthyr Imp · 1 Jul 2021

Helvellyn said:
I also wonder if it wasn't looked at in the 1960s because there remained the threat the Notts-Lincoln line was to close, with the ECML connection to Lincoln being via Grantham. In the end the latter closed.

Yes, I think it was in the Beeching Report that the Nottingham-Lincoln line would close (whether the cost of the crossing was a factor I don't know) and the Lincoln-Grantham line remain open for Lincoln to London traffic.

However, it was decided instead to construct the spur from the Lincoln line to the main line at Newark so London traffic could go that way. So the Nottingham line remained open and the Grantham line closed.

There was also a plan - I think in the 1980s - for the Nottingham line to be terminated at Newark Castle and for Nottingham to Lincoln services to run via Bingham then by way of the then freight-only line from Bottesford West Junction to Newark North Gate, then over the spur to the Lincoln line. That would still have involved Nottm-Lincoln trains crossing the main line of course, but not over the crossing. I don't have any knowledge of why it didn't happen.

swt_passenger · 1 Jul 2021

eastdyke said:
You couldn't divert the course of the Newark arm of the river without also diverting the functional floodplain and there is nowhere else for it to go!

In flood, the river level rises around 8 feet in the Newark area (it did last winter) and you end up with something like this (from The Guardian in 2000):

The picture shows the A46 Newark by-pass to the left side, the Kelham Road snaking to the right and the Newark-Nottingham line on the embankment crossing the top left corner.
You get the drift .....

Yes, that’s more good evidence that it has to be looked at as a whole “river system” over a wide area, not just what’s visible near the rail viaduct.

Pinza-C55 · 1 Jul 2021

alistairlees said:
There used to be one at Boldon, and I’m sure there were others in the north east of England.

There was one at Earsdon on the Newcastle - Ashington line. It was a colliery line that crossed the main line.

Harvester · 2 Jul 2021

Merthyr Imp said:
There was also a plan - I think in the 1980s - for the Nottingham line to be terminated at Newark Castle and for Nottingham to Lincoln services to run via Bingham then by way of the then freight-only line from Bottesford West Junction to Newark North Gate, then over the spur to the Lincoln line. That would still have involved Nottm-Lincoln trains crossing the main line of course, but not over the crossing. I don't have any knowledge of why it didn't happen.

I think one of the reasons at that time, was that the proposed coal mining development in the Vale of Belvoir would require rail links to the Nottingham-Grantham line, then north from Bottesford West Junction to the ECML at Newark. As the branch to Newark had been singled there would have been serious pathing problems.

Bald Rick · 2 Jul 2021

Harvester said:
I think one of the reasons at that time, was that the proposed coal mining development in the Vale of Belvoir would require rail links to the Nottingham-Grantham line, then north from Bottesford West Junction to the ECML at Newark. As the branch to Newark had been singled there would have been serious pathing problems.

That’s caused me to look a few things up - I had no idea that Bottesford - Newark remained open until 1988. What used it?

BrianW · 2 Jul 2021

Harvester said:
I think one of the reasons at that time, was that the proposed coal mining development in the Vale of Belvoir would require rail links to the Nottingham-Grantham line, then north from Bottesford West Junction to the ECML at Newark. As the branch to Newark had been singled there would have been serious pathing problems.

With Newark and coalfields in mind, the ECML was diverted away from Selby for the sake of coal below. Where there's a will and enough gain there's a way to be found. In the same way that Werrington was deemed worth it- not 'flat crossings' maybe but not irrelevant, to my mind.
Is pathing of Lincoln-bound trains a concern, needing a timely gap in southbound ECML services?
I would imagine that HS2+ and loss of coal traffic will take pressure off the ECML so taking any work at Newark off the agenda, if it were ever on it. I could only imagine a horrendous crash there changing that.

eastdyke · 2 Jul 2021

Bald Rick said:
That’s caused me to look a few things up - I had no idea that Bottesford - Newark remained open until 1988. What used it?

Possibly to provide for tanker train deliveries to the Redmile PSD's? Whether many (or any) actually ran in latter years I have no idea!

edwin_m · 2 Jul 2021

BrianW said:
With Newark and coalfields in mind, the ECML was diverted away from Selby for the sake of coal below. Where there's a will and enough gain there's a way to be found. In the same way that Werrington was deemed worth it- not 'flat crossings' maybe but not irrelevant, to my mind.
Is pathing of Lincoln-bound trains a concern, needing a timely gap in southbound ECML services?
I would imagine that HS2+ and loss of coal traffic will take pressure off the ECML so taking any work at Newark off the agenda, if it were ever on it. I could only imagine a horrendous crash there changing that.

In recent years they've done the Allington curve, taking the Nottingham-Skegness trains off the ECML. Now they're doing Werrington, which allows freight to be diverted off the ECML without having to cross it on the flat, and Kings Cross which I believe also increases capacity. So ECML capacity improvements have certainly continued even after HS2 was planned.

I don't think there's ever been significant coal traffic on the ECML south of Doncaster, at least since the London domestic coal traffic disappeared in the 1960s, and even then it probably went by the Joint line instead. So it's disappearance doesn't make much difference to the ECML.

I've posted above that the Newark crossing is a constraint on Nottingham-Lincoln services, but at some stage someone will decide the ECML has "enough" capacity.

Merthyr Imp · 3 Jul 2021

eastdyke said:
Possibly to provide for tanker train deliveries to the Redmile PSD's? Whether many (or any) actually ran in latter years I have no idea!

The line south of Bottesford in the Redmile direction was closed completely in the early 1970s.

The line from Bottesford West Junction to Newark remained in use until 1987 mainly for oil trains from Immingham to the oil terminal at Rectory Junction, Colwick. After closure these trains then ran via Nottingham or Grantham.

2392 · 3 Jul 2021

alexl92 said:
Not on the National Network but there is one on the Tanfield Railway.

Actually the now preserved Tanfield was a "freight only" [coal trains] part of the National network and had a flat crossing of the NCB Bowes railway at Marley hill. The sheds they use were part of the Bowes outfit, hence the cord they use to access the Tanfield branch. The car park at Marley is built on the now filled in Bowes cutting towards Kibblesworth.

Statto · 3 Jul 2021

There was one on the St Helens & Runcorn Gap Railway known as Widnes Dock Junction

Disused Stations: Widnes Dock Junction

chorleyjeff · 3 Jul 2021

Eyersey468 said:
Just north of Newark there is a crossing on the ECML where 2 separate lines cross each other at 90 degrees to each other. Are there any other similar crossings on the UK rail network and were there any others that are not there now?

The Longridge Preston line and the Preston Lancaster line crossed N of Preston Station

Railway lines crossing at right angles

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member