Doncaster could get additional platform in CP6. Any thoughts on what improvements could be made?

[Jorge Da Silva]

Network Rail looks as if it has planned an additional platform for Doncaster as part of CP6 (2019-2024). Any thoughts?


https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...an-London-North-Eastern-and-East-Midlands.pdf on Page 66:

The East Coast Programme contains a number of schemes which are at various stages of development. However, the only schemes which are post final investment decision are those that have started in the current control period (CP5). Others schemes are still subject to a final investment decision by the funder and are held in the System Operator plan. Provision has been made within the SOFA for these. In April 2017, DfT established the ECML Enhancement Programme that brings together the existing East Coast Connectivity Fund schemes, the IEP enabling projects on the ECML and phases of power supply upgrade between Wood Green and Edinburgh. Current projects to be delivered as part of the programme include: King’s Cross station throat enhancements (contribution to a renewal-funded remodelling project), Werrington – grade separated access to the GN/GE line (Figure 26), Peterborough – upgrade the Down Slow line between Fletton to Peterborough, Doncaster Station area enhancements, including an additional platform, IEP enabling projects covering gauging in England and Scotland, platform extensions and PSU1 related power infrastructure upgrades (see below) and Power Supply Upgrade Phase 1 Wood Green to Bawtry (PSU1)

 

[Harpers Tate]

If it was up to me, I'd bite the bullet and spend the money that's needed at Doncaster to solve a recurrent problem. I'd do it now and then it's done once and for all. Through trains between the Midlands (Sheffield and on) and the East Coast conflicting right across all North-South lines. Doncaster needs one or preferably two platforms either on a flyover or in a tunnel (whichever is cheapest/easiest) so such east/west services can pass through unencumbered by, and without encumbering, north/south traffic.

 

[yorkie]

Congestion and delays at Doncaster seem all too common so an additional platform (or more, preferably) is urgently needed.

If it was up to me, I'd bite the bullet and spend the money that's needed at Doncaster to solve a recurrent problem. I'd do it now and then it's done once and for all. Through trains between the Midlands (Sheffield and on) and the East Coast conflicting right across all North-South lines. Doncaster needs one or preferably two platforms either on a flyover or in a tunnel (whichever is cheapest/easiest) so such east/west services can pass through unencumbered by, and without encumbering, north/south traffic.

This may prove too expensive but something easy to do would be for all Leeds to London trains to avoid conflicts by using the west side platforms, and at least they would no longer conflict with the fast ECML trains between London and beyond York. (I'm sure we had a thread in which this was mentioned recently)

 

[VT 390]

This may prove too expensive but something easy to do would be for all Leeds to London trains to avoid conflicts by using the west side platforms, and at least they would no longer conflict with the fast ECML trains between London and beyond York. (I'm sure we had a thread in which this was mentioned recently)

Would the southbound services not need to still cross the fast lines south of Doncaster to get to the correct line anyway?

 

[yorkie]

Would the southbound services not need to still cross the fast lines south of Doncaster to get to the correct line anyway?

There is a flyover.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/106961#map=17/53.49665/-1.09167

It's not just my idea; one train per day used to do this but I think it no longer runs.

 

[Starmill]

Would the southbound services not need to still cross the fast lines south of Doncaster to get to the correct line anyway?

Yes. In the future fewer services from Leeds will call at Doncaster, and one every two hours will call but will not be coming from that way.

I'd do it now and then it's done once and for all. Through trains between the Midlands (Sheffield and on) and the East Coast conflicting right across all North-South lines. Doncaster needs one or preferably two platforms either on a flyover or in a tunnel (whichever is cheapest/easiest) so such east/west services can pass through unencumbered by, and without encumbering, north/south traffic.

I agree about how desirable this would be, but how many billion pounds do we have going on for just Doncaster? Since the stopping services from Scunthorpe were cut back to Doncaster, only 3 trains per hour need to cross the ECML on the flat here. The South TransPennine Cleethorpes service, the Hull or Yorkshire Coast fast service, and the Hull stopping service. Separation of these trains by tunnelling them under Doncaster would alleviate delays to them by mainline fast services and would cut performance risk on the mainline - but it would probably not allow any additional ECML services to run. At least, not without grade separation at Newark (not on the cards) and a four-track solution to the Digswell Viaduct (again, not on the cards). A number of other improvements of course are on the cards, including Kings Cross Station remodeling, improved overhead wire infrastructure, the Werrington grade separation and the possibility of four-tracking near Huntingdon. There also seem to be ideas floating around about new platforms to go with these at Dunbar and York, and the long-awaited power supply upgrades. Unfortunately I can't see how a huge new tunnel at Doncaster would be helpful without all of the rest of these ideas also.

Once the remodeling of Kings Cross is complete, with associated higher approach speeds, more capacity and longer platforms, I would have to ask too how many more long-distance trains will the station be able to actually accommodate? Finally, on the timescale that we could build a tunnel under Doncaster, most fast services will probably have been diverted to HS2 anyway.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Would the southbound services not need to still cross the fast lines south of Doncaster to get to the correct line anyway?

I would have thought so, yes.

 

[yorkie]

There are trains that use this route:

• 0756 BDI - KGX (weekdays)
• 1045 LDS - KGX (sundays)

Although both the above are booked for diesel traction, the route is electrified according to my third edition Quail map.

 

[MarkyT]

My suggestion for a north end grade separation that in conjunction with a new platform would allow Cleethorpes and Hull line trains to access Sheffield without conflict along with southbound XC services from York. Access to the works would have to altered as shown as the new line cuts across its current throat. Doesn't solve the up Leeds/down York conflicts though. The tight curve is approx 250m radius.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

My suggestion for a north end grade separation that in conjunction with a new platform would allow Cleethorpes and Hull line trains to access Sheffield without conflict along with southbound XC services from York. Access to the works would have to altered as shown as the new line cuts across its current throat. Doesn't solve the up Leeds/down York conflicts though. The tight curve is approx 250m radius.
View attachment 60913

How expensive would the link to Doncaster station be? It looks very difficult to do and expensive but would be beneficial if it could be done.

 

[VT 390]

Would it not be cheaper and easier to have the Trans Pennine Express and the Northern Hull services run along the current freight only line from Carcroft Junction (north of Adwick) to Stainforth Junction (west of Hatfield and Stainforth), this way they avoid conflicting ECML movements with only a slight increase in journey times made up for by the fact they will not have to wait to cross the main line. Kirk Sandall could then be served by the hourly Scunthorpe stopper and the slower Hull service which could also use platform 0 at Doncaster.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Deleted

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Would it not be cheaper and easier to have the Trans Pennine Express and the Northern Hull services run along the current freight only line from Carcroft Junction (north of Adwick) to Stainforth Junction (west of Hatfield and Stainforth), this way they avoid conflicting ECML movements with only a slight increase in journey times made up for by the fact they will not have to wait to cross the main line. Kirk Sandall could then be served by the hourly Scunthorpe stopper and the slower Hull service which could also use platform 0 at Doncaster.

Forget my last comment, now I know what you mean. It might be easier and much less expensive than the option proposed by MarkyT. However MarkeyT’s option would be better in terms of journey times but would be extremely expensive and difficult to do.

 

[Harpers Tate]

....only 3 trains per hour need to cross the ECML on the flat....

(at Doncaster)
Yes - but that is describing the situation now. Elsewhere on this forum, others are proposing increased frequencies (eg for the South Transpennine route) and, whilst I do not, personally, see the demand for that - my point was that such a (yes, very expensive) scheme would set Doncaster up for the long term to far greater a degree than leaving these conflicts in situ with a lesser scheme - in the same (theoretical) way that the major rebuild at Reading did there. The alternative suggestion above would theoretically achieve a similar outcome.

 

[Moodster020]

Doncaster used to have a second station about 200 yards south of the existing one at St James bridge, which used to be used for the races. Maybe have a look at that, for dedicated Sheffield bound services, with a connecting passageway between the two.

 

[Tracked]

I expect the fairly obvious choice this time would be to add something off Platform 8, the lines through there are a lot quieter these days.

I thought when they were doing the footbridge to platform 0 they were going to take the opportunity to put the entrance to the station through the 1st floor of the shopping centre. If they'd done that and put the entrances to the end of the platform they could've redone 1/3 and 4/8 to make more through platforms, seeings as 2 and 5 are fairly lightly used. Maybe even done a platform 0-style platform on the other side of the line for Don-Lds trains.

 

[Meerkat]

You could build a new island and then take the Hull line over the top of the York line north of the river and avoiding line. Could it even replace the avoiding line?
Could even have a flyover junction for the Leeds line north of there which would be longer but miss the two stations and level crossings.

 

[Ken H]

My suggestion for a north end grade separation that in conjunction with a new platform would allow Cleethorpes and Hull line trains to access Sheffield without conflict along with southbound XC services from York. Access to the works would have to altered as shown as the new line cuts across its current throat. Doesn't solve the up Leeds/down York conflicts though. The tight curve is approx 250m radius.
View attachment 60913

would it not be easier to build a short tunnel to take the through ECML lines under the junction north of the station? It would have to go deep cos of the water courses north of the stn. But it could be quite short - about a mile?

 

[MarkyT]

would it not be easier to build a short tunnel to take the through ECML lines under the junction north of the station? It would have to go deep cos of the water courses north of the stn. But it could be quite short - about a mile?

I think the Leeds junction at the north end is a little close to the station to allow that. A Crewe type solution could take the fast lines entirely under the station in tunnel however, avoiding all conflicts at north and south if HS2 Ph.2B(E) was diverted to follow the M18 into Doncaster and then took the existing route north to York and Newcastle (incorporating the Selby diversion which is allegedly good for 160mph running already).