Barkston Junction, Grantham

[adrock1976]

I've been meaning to post about the above location for a while.

I'm well aware that when the curve was built at nearby Allington Junction, the main purpose was to avoid having the Skegness services crossing the whole layout north of Grantham, with the Barkston curve being dismantled.

The question is did anybody thought about retaining the Barkston curve, and also adding a curve from the Nottingham direction so as to make that a triangular junction?

It could have been well useful for the present Liverpool - Norwich service to regularly use it, as the eastbound trains to Norwich would then continue from Allington underneath the GNR mainline and be on the southbound track heading towards Grantham. Furthermore, in combination with Allington Junction, it could also act as a balloon loop to turn trains round if the GNR mainline is blocked/severe disruption north of Grantham.

 

[Tomnick]

The layout that you describe wouldn't put Up trains (ex-Notts) under the GN before joining it - they'd still have to cross on the level. As for turning back in disruption - what's wrong with just changing ends?!

 

[Bald Rick]

The whole point of the project was to segregate the slower services to/from Nottingham and Skegness from the faster services on the ECML.

Retaining, and presumably using, the junction doesn't do that, and the timetable would have had to accommodate a short DMU crawling through the junction from the branch, then getting up to speed, then stopping (presumably) in the Up Main platform at Grantham. And for a train from Nottingham, it would have been the hell of a long way round. So to spend another £15m or so for a longer journey time and to use up capacity on the ECML doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[edwin_m]

To do what you suggest would have needed a curve starting east of where the Nottingham-Skegness direct line goes under the ECML, to join the (then) existing connecting curve towards Grantham. As the junction was quite compact this would have needed a curve of less than 100m radius (ie about half the minimum possible for passenger running) and probably on quite a steep gradient too.

 

[HSTEd]

The better, but more expensive solution, would be to quadrouple the last few miles between Stoke Bank and Grantham, probably involves skylighting Stoke Tunnel - then use the next resignalling to convert the lines between Peterborough and Grantham from Paired by Direction to Paired by Use.
Then the western two tracks would be the slows and there would be no need to cross the layout ever [the Norwich trains arrive on the western side of the lines at Peterborough thanks to the diveunder].
This might require a second platform on the current freight loop at Grantham however.

 

[snowball]

The better, but more expensive solution, would be to quadrouple the last few miles between Stoke Bank and Grantham, probably involves skylighting Stoke Tunnel

How many and how long closures would that be likely to require? Are there many previous examples of opening out tunnels on intensively used lines?

 

[HSTEd]

How many and how long closures would that be likely to require? Are there many previous examples of opening out tunnels on intensively used lines?

Honestly I have no idea.

The other option is to construct a slight realignment that passes through a cutting adjacent to the tunnel, then slew the tracks over and take the tunnel out of use.

It would be an expensive job, but it would essentially deconflict the Norwich Passenger trains from ECML traffic and provide slow lines from freight all the way from Peterborough to the Nottingham junction, where at least some freights leave the ECML (the oil trains if they still run?)

 

[edwin_m]

There's no regular freight over the Nottingham-Grantham section as far as I know, and the East Midlands Route Strategy doesn't envisage any in the future. De-conflicting one train per hour isn't going to justify anything quadrupling of multiple miles of track.

 

[HSTEd]

There's no regular freight over the Nottingham-Grantham section as far as I know, and the East Midlands Route Strategy doesn't envisage any in the future. De-conflicting one train per hour isn't going to justify anything quadrupling of multiple miles of track.

Then when did the trainload of tanks, whatever they are, stop?
Its been a regular feature of Grantham station for as long as I can remember.

It would also substantially relieve the timetabling problems that the Norwich-Liverpool train suffers on the ECML, and might even make it viable to get us a second train per hour.
Right now there is effectively one train per hour over Nottingham-Grantham due to timetabling constraints.
If the Norwich-Liverpool trains have absolutely no interaction with the ECML at all then those issues can be partially eliminated.

 

[class26]

Then when did the trainload of tanks, whatever they are, stop?
Its been a regular feature of Grantham station for as long as I can remember.

It would also substantially relieve the timetabling problems that the Norwich-Liverpool train suffers on the ECML, and might even make it viable to get us a second train per hour.
Right now there is effectively one train per hour over Nottingham-Grantham due to timetabling constraints.
If the Norwich-Liverpool trains have absolutely no interaction with the ECML at all then those issues can be partially eliminated.

Theres two trains per hour in each direction over Grantham - Nottingham. One to Skegness, the other to Norwich.
Also, in answer to a previous post there is a regular daily freight service to Boston docks.

 

[HSTEd]

Theres two trains per hour in each direction over Grantham - Nottingham. One to Skegness, the other to Norwich.
Also, in answer to a previous post there is a regular daily freight service to Boston docks.

Yes, which are at xx:45 and ~xx:58.
So we have 13 minutes and 47 minute gaps between trains.
That is hardly a functional half hourly service.

 

[edwin_m]

The tanks that go through Nottingham take the Newark line - to and from Immingham I think.

 

[LowLevel]

The tanks in question are to/from Rectory Junction/Colwick Oil Terminal.

 

[class26]

The tanks in question are to/from Rectory Junction/Colwick Oil Terminal.

Thats not what i am talking about. i live in Heckington, about 200 yards from the line and every weekday day evening they go through to Boston Docks about 18.00 about return about 20.45. You can set your watch by this.

 

[LowLevel]

I work trains through there on a regular basis and I'm well aware of the traffic patterns

I was referring to the fact some folk had missed the Rectory tanks out of Nottingham to Grantham and someone else was querying if they still run, which they do. The Boston steel train doesn't convey tanks

 

[class26]

I work trains through there on a regular basis and I'm well aware of the traffic patterns

I was referring to the fact some folk had missed the Rectory tanks out of Nottingham to Grantham and someone else was querying if they still run, which they do. The Boston steel train doesn't convey tanks

Apologies, confusion between different train then, I was merely pointing out that there WAS and IS regular freight down the Boston line

 

[Class 170101]

The better, but more expensive solution, would be to quadrouple the last few miles between Stoke Bank and Grantham, probably involves skylighting Stoke Tunnel - then use the next resignalling to convert the lines between Peterborough and Grantham from Paired by Direction to Paired by Use.
Then the western two tracks would be the slows and there would be no need to cross the layout ever [the Norwich trains arrive on the western side of the lines at Peterborough thanks to the diveunder].
This might require a second platform on the current freight loop at Grantham however.

However yopu would move the confliction to Peterborough where the tracks would need to tremain paired by direction and not by use because of missing platforms on the current fast lines between Peterborough and Kings Cross.

Stoke tunnel (and the rest of the two track section) remains a restriction on capacity due to differentials in speed between 90 and 125mph paseenger trains, though not as bad when most freight had to go this way too (speeds of 60 to 75mph) instead of via GE/GN Joint Line.

 

[edwin_m]

The working timetable for Nottingham to Bottesford West Junction shows two paths a day between Birmingham and Boston Docks in each direction. The Rectory Junction oil runs to and from Lindsay and arrives via run-round in Beeston (having presumably got there via Newark) but departs via Bottesford. There is also a Felixstowe-Burton freight on Saturdays.

So there is indeed some freight on the Nottingham-Grantham line but the only one that goes through Grantham itself is northbound so would not benefit from any measures designed to reduce conflict for southboud trains.

For completeness there is also a light engine path from Toton to Toton which does something peculiar that includes travelling from Bottesford to Bingham, but I can't work out without dredging through other WTTs.