East Coast Main Line - List of planned upgrades?

[flypie]

Is there a list of planned East Coast Main Line upgrades anywhere?

I was not aware of the bottleneck at Stoke Tunnel and the effect it has on traffic from Nottingham to East Anglia. While a 1 km tunnel is not going to be cheap it seems that at the moment Nottingham through Peterborough and out east is limited to 1 TPH, that being the Liverpool to Norwich train.

 

[Mollman]

Might be worth waiting for the Integrated Rail Plan tomorrow. HS2b was meant to be the answer to a lot of ECML issues (Welwyn Viaduct, Newark flat crossing etc.) Most current ECML upgrades are coming to an end with King's Cross re-modelling and Werrington dive under the main improvements - some OHLE power supply related work is ongoing.

 

[flypie]

If it happens.

 

[Bald Rick]

Here’s the list of planned upgrades beyond what is already funded:

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Here’s the list of planned upgrades beyond what is already funded:

I guess as you've not shown anything there is no more to come!

 

[adamedwards]

Just been reading the IRP and aside from, power supplies, digital signalling and flat crossings, I assume Newark but doubtless spinning Hitchin and Werrington in to this, the only other thing appears to be level crossings. Do the large number of level crossings e.g. from Hitchin to Peterborough reduce the speed potential? I assume yes, and if removed would that increase the number of 140 mph sections? There's no mention of Digswell as I assume the local MP will see that as a votes loser. The MP is of course Grant Shapps.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Is there a list of planned East Coast Main Line upgrades anywhere?

I was not aware of the bottleneck at Stoke Tunnel and the effect it has on traffic from Nottingham to East Anglia. While a 1 km tunnel is not going to be cheap it seems that at the moment Nottingham through Peterborough and out east is limited to 1 TPH, that being the Liverpool to Norwich train.

I'm fairly certain that they used to be routed via Loughborough and Melton Mowbray because I travelled on one once to trackbash the north curve at Syston. Is there any reason they couldn't be routed that way again? Loughborough is surely a bigger trafficgenerator than Grantham, and ECML connections would still be available at Peterborough.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just been reading the IRP and aside from, power supplies, digital signalling and flat crossings, I assume Newark but doubtless spinning Hitchin and Werrington in to this, the only other thing appears to be level crossings. Do the large number of level crossings e.g. from Hitchin to Peterborough reduce the speed potential? I assume yes, and if removed would that increase the number of 140 mph sections? There's no mention of Digswell as I assume the local MP will see that as a votes loser. The MP is of course Grant Shapps.

Why would they possibly spin anything about Hitchin, it’s been open quite a few years? I even doubt they’d be stupid enough to include Werrington…

 

[WiredUp]

Welwyn (Digswell) is a funny one. You could close Welwyn North station and relocate it south of Digswell viaduct but that would undoubtedly lose the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP his seat in the Commons.

Were I the route director for East Coast basing the decision solely on the needs of the ECML - with no regard for him - a compromise which might squeeze more capacity through Digswell and Welwyn area would be to close or relocate Welwyn North Station and increase the line speed on the Slow Lines either side of the two-track bottleneck section (from perhaps Welwyn Garden City - Digswell South, and from Woolmer Green to Knebworth) to 100mph with 'top-of the-range' turnouts of the same speed - for non-stopping trains this would help to reduce the differential in Slow and Fast Line Speeds (75mph vs 105/115mph) as well as time lost slowing for the 70mph crossovers at each end of the bottleneck and maybe squeeze a few more paths out of it for LDHS. The 100mph on the Slow Lines at each end would allow acceleration/deceleration to/from the stations at each end.) It's more complex that that however (!) The speed through the tunnels is limited I believe due to a combination of aerodynamic effects, gradient and the curvature north of Welwyn North Tunnel which is why the DM reduces to as low as 105mph (115mph south of Welwyn South Tunnel) whereas the UM is 115mph throughout. There is no solution in isolation hence why timetable allowances are made to squeeze both local stopping services and LHDS through the area, which always seems to come up when open operators are trying to get track access rights. I think the solution is simply to manage it via ETCS and route any freight via the Hertford Loop.

On the topic of level crossings south of Peterborough - yes they do but the gain at running at 140mph is only around 1.5 minutes vs 125mph (still worth doing in my opinion when you add the improved performance from any 80X stock). Were it me I would close 10 crossings (in bold) of the 17 currently in place between Hitchin and Peterborough (though there may be 'sleeping dog' ones not listed.) 7 could be left open based solely on the future attainable speed, though there would certainly be risk reduction benefits to closing them (google ALCRM) which the route might factor into the equation. The following list is taken from April 2021's Level Crossing Data, filtered to ECM1, note that some crossings have official and local names:

• Jiggs Lane - 38m 1345yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• East Lane - 39m 0754yds (recently downgraded I believe): Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Langford Road - 39m 1574yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Holme Green - 40m 0144yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Primrose - 40m 0313yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Smarts - 40m 0915yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Lindsells - 42m 0234yds: This is funded to be closed by the Biggleswade HIF and replaced by a £5m footbridge.
• Everton - 46m 0671yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Tempsford - 47m 0835yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Love Lane/Marston Road - 50m 1546yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close. I believe NR have an undertaking from the developers (as non-objectors) to close (i.e. stop-up) this eventually as part of the Wintringham Park planning application.
• Firbanks No.1/No.66 - 54m 1545yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds.
• Gills /No.71 - 55m 1396yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds.
• Offord - 55m 1603yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds. I assume the 'cut-in' times for the barrier to lowers would need to be revised upwards.
• Connington North - 68m 0618yds: Technically the line here could be raised from 125mph to 140mph -however this would be unobtainable speed wise due to the acceleration/deceleration WRT to the 125mph section just further north. I would simply start the 140mph section a few chains south of the crossing and Connington South Jn (say at 67m 15ch) to cheekily save several £m both on S&C and the crossing. I assume the 'cut-in' times for the barriers to lower would (in theory) need to be revised upwards.
• Holme 69m 0571yds Currently a theoretical 125mph, no need to close it based on current/future line speed (125mph).
• Holme Lode - 70m 0044yds no need to close it based on current/future line speed (105mph).
• Yaxley Lode 71m 1209yds - no need to close it based on current/future line speed (100mph) but it could be a quick win as it is only a UWC.

Note that not all of these are shown in the LN2 module of the LNE sectional appendix, Yaxley Lode is certainly missing. NR's East Coast Study of 2017 (page 22) similarly gives a figure of ten to close which appears incorrect as at the time Abbots Ripton (in a potential 140mph area) was still open. All of the crossings were examined by WSP as part of the ECML Level Crossings Programme. Some of those listed in the 2014 ECML Level Crossing Closure Programme have since been closed (Cardells & Abbots Ripton, and also possibly Great Paxton).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is there a list of planned East Coast Main Line upgrades anywhere?

The power supply upgrades are of course posted elsewhere. I will link the post later on.

 

[TheBigD]

I'm fairly certain that they used to be routed via Loughborough and Melton Mowbray because I travelled on one once to trackbash the north curve at Syston. Is there any reason they couldn't be routed that way again? Loughborough is surely a bigger trafficgenerator than Grantham, and ECML connections would still be available at Peterborough.

They did. Services were rerouted that way for a good few years in the mid 1990s. Most services were non stop Loughborough to Peterborough, but a few variations over the years saw a morning Cambridge-Liverpool stop at Stamford, and an evening Liverpool-Norwich stop at Melton Mowbray and Oakham. The services had reverted to the route via Grantham by the early 2000s.

Journey times via Loughborough were very slightly longer, around 70 minutes, give or a take a few minutes either way, compared to the current 65-70 via Grantham, with most services booked on the slow lines south of Stoke Tunnel.

You "could" do via Grantham in about 55 minutes if they were routed on the fast lines, but there's no way you'd path them.

 

[WiredUp]

Here is the full list of Level Crossings south of Doncaster page 3 is most relevant: LX. I knew it was somewhere. There are another pair of level crossings to the list above in the 36 - 38 mile area which are 'Sleeping Dogs' i.e. legally on the books but long forgotten about user wise.

Some of the Level Crossings get also temporary closures on them. Smarts is temporarily closed for certain users until December next year. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an attempt to shut it permanently or at least downgrade it.

Other than the Power Supply Upgrades, prior to today's IRP report, there wasn't much which was either publicly announced and/or funded a number of schemes from the ECML Connectivity fund were descoped in the past few years or casualties of the Hendry review.

PSU2 seems to be ticking along with planning applications going in between York and Darlington, and I know NR are looking at reinforcing the power supply in the Grantham area which is listed in their procurement pipeline: 172918 Design and build of power defecit solution in the Grantham area on the East Coast Mainline - potentially dual Static Frequency Convertor or RAB subject to conclusion of GRIP 3 Option Selection which is strange as I thought PSU1 had already been through the area.

The PSU thread is here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ecml-power-supply-upgrade.190071/

 

[Class 170101]

Welwyn (Digswell) is a funny one. You could close Welwyn North station and relocate it south of Digswell viaduct but that would undoubtedly lose the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP his seat in the Commons.

Were I the route director for East Coast basing the decision solely on the needs of the ECML - with no regard for him - a compromise which might squeeze more capacity through Digswell and Welwyn area would be to close or relocate Welwyn North Station and increase the line speed on the Slow Lines either side of the two-track bottleneck section (from perhaps Welwyn Garden City - Digswell South, and from Woolmer Green to Knebworth) to 100mph with 'top-of the-range' turnouts of the same speed - for non-stopping trains this would help to reduce the differential in Slow and Fast Line Speeds (75mph vs 105/115mph) as well as time lost slowing for the 70mph crossovers at each end of the bottleneck and maybe squeeze a few more paths out of it for LDHS. The 100mph on the Slow Lines at each end would allow acceleration/deceleration to/from the stations at each end.) It's more complex that that however (!) The speed through the tunnels is limited I believe due to a combination of aerodynamic effects, gradient and the curvature north of Welwyn North Tunnel which is why the DM reduces to as low as 105mph (115mph south of Welwyn South Tunnel) whereas the UM is 115mph throughout. There is no solution in isolation hence why timetable allowances are made to squeeze both local stopping services and LHDS through the area, which always seems to come up when open operators are trying to get track access rights. I think the solution is simply to manage it via ETCS and route any freight via the Hertford Loop.

On the topic of level crossings south of Peterborough - yes they do but the gain at running at 140mph is only around 1.5 minutes vs 125mph (still worth doing in my opinion when you add the improved performance from any 80X stock). Were it me I would close 10 crossings (in bold) of the 17 currently in place between Hitchin and Peterborough (though there may be 'sleeping dog' ones not listed.) 7 could be left open based solely on the future attainable speed, though there would certainly be risk reduction benefits to closing them (google ALCRM) which the route might factor into the equation. The following list is taken from April 2021's Level Crossing Data, filtered to ECM1, note that some crossings have official and local names:

• Jiggs Lane - 38m 1345yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• East Lane - 39m 0754yds (recently downgraded I believe): Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Langford Road - 39m 1574yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Holme Green - 40m 0144yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Primrose - 40m 0313yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Smarts - 40m 0915yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Lindsells - 42m 0234yds: This is funded to be closed by the Biggleswade HIF and replaced by a £5m footbridge.
• Everton - 46m 0671yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Tempsford - 47m 0835yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Love Lane/Marston Road - 50m 1546yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close. I believe NR have an undertaking from the developers (as non-objectors) to close (i.e. stop-up) this eventually as part of the Wintringham Park planning application.
• Firbanks No.1/No.66 - 54m 1545yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds.
• Gills /No.71 - 55m 1396yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds.
• Offord - 55m 1603yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds. I assume the 'cut-in' times for the barrier to lowers would need to be revised upwards.
• Connington North - 68m 0618yds: Technically the line here could be raised from 125mph to 140mph -however this would be unobtainable speed wise due to the acceleration/deceleration WRT to the 125mph section just further north. I would simply start the 140mph section a few chains south of the crossing and Connington South Jn (say at 67m 15ch) to cheekily save several £m both on S&C and the crossing. I assume the 'cut-in' times for the barriers to lower would (in theory) need to be revised upwards.
• Holme 69m 0571yds Currently a theoretical 125mph, no need to close it based on current/future line speed (125mph).
• Holme Lode - 70m 0044yds no need to close it based on current/future line speed (105mph).
• Yaxley Lode 71m 1209yds - no need to close it based on current/future line speed (100mph) but it could be a quick win as it is only a UWC.

Note that not all of these are shown in the LN2 module of the LNE sectional appendix, Yaxley Lode is certainly missing. NR's East Coast Study of 2017 (page 22) similarly gives a figure of ten to close which appears incorrect as at the time Abbots Ripton (in a potential 140mph area) was still open. All of the crossings were examined by WSP as part of the ECML Level Crossings Programme. Some of those listed in the 2014 ECML Level Crossing Closure Programme have since been closed (Cardells & Abbots Ripton, and also possibly Great Paxton).

How many minutes and seconds would these changes listed above actually achieve?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Interesting to mention the routing of trains via Melton. Theoretically diverting the Norwich - Nottingham non-stop to East Mids Parkway via that route would be a potential driver of traffic to connect with stuff to Leeds, Sheffield and such. And even Nottingham. So it could divert to Derby instead...

 

[JonathanH]

Interesting to mention the routing of trains via Melton. Theoretically diverting the Norwich - Nottingham non-stop to East Mids Parkway via that route would be a potential driver of traffic to connect with stuff to Leeds, Sheffield and such. And even Nottingham. So it could divert to Derby instead...

Depends whether running 1tph between Grantham and Nottingham is acceptable or not.

 

[IanXC]

Didn't Network Rail consult on plans to close all of the level crossings south of Doncaster on the ECML a couple of years ago?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Didn't Network Rail consult on plans to close all of the level crossings south of Doncaster on the ECML a couple of years ago?

I certainly remember read that yes.

 

[Noddy]

Welwyn (Digswell) is a funny one. You could close Welwyn North station and relocate it south of Digswell viaduct but that would undoubtedly lose the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP his seat in the Commons.

Were I the route director for East Coast basing the decision solely on the needs of the ECML - with no regard for him - a compromise which might squeeze more capacity through Digswell and Welwyn area would be to close or relocate Welwyn North Station and increase the line speed on the Slow Lines either side of the two-track bottleneck section (from perhaps Welwyn Garden City - Digswell South, and from Woolmer Green to Knebworth) to 100mph with 'top-of the-range' turnouts of the same speed - for non-stopping trains this would help to reduce the differential in Slow and Fast Line Speeds (75mph vs 105/115mph) as well as time lost slowing for the 70mph crossovers at each end of the bottleneck and maybe squeeze a few more paths out of it for LDHS. The 100mph on the Slow Lines at each end would allow acceleration/deceleration to/from the stations at each end.) It's more complex that that however (!) The speed through the tunnels is limited I believe due to a combination of aerodynamic effects, gradient and the curvature north of Welwyn North Tunnel which is why the DM reduces to as low as 105mph (115mph south of Welwyn South Tunnel) whereas the UM is 115mph throughout. There is no solution in isolation hence why timetable allowances are made to squeeze both local stopping services and LHDS through the area, which always seems to come up when open operators are trying to get track access rights. I think the solution is simply to manage it via ETCS and route any freight via the Hertford Loop.

On the topic of level crossings south of Peterborough - yes they do but the gain at running at 140mph is only around 1.5 minutes vs 125mph (still worth doing in my opinion when you add the improved performance from any 80X stock). Were it me I would close 10 crossings (in bold) of the 17 currently in place between Hitchin and Peterborough (though there may be 'sleeping dog' ones not listed.) 7 could be left open based solely on the future attainable speed, though there would certainly be risk reduction benefits to closing them (google ALCRM) which the route might factor into the equation. The following list is taken from April 2021's Level Crossing Data, filtered to ECM1, note that some crossings have official and local names:

• Jiggs Lane - 38m 1345yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• East Lane - 39m 0754yds (recently downgraded I believe): Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Langford Road - 39m 1574yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Holme Green - 40m 0144yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Primrose - 40m 0313yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Smarts - 40m 0915yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Lindsells - 42m 0234yds: This is funded to be closed by the Biggleswade HIF and replaced by a £5m footbridge.
• Everton - 46m 0671yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Tempsford - 47m 0835yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close.
• Love Lane/Marston Road - 50m 1546yds: Currently 125mph, raise to 140mph - Close. I believe NR have an undertaking from the developers (as non-objectors) to close (i.e. stop-up) this eventually as part of the Wintringham Park planning application.
• Firbanks No.1/No.66 - 54m 1545yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds.
• Gills /No.71 - 55m 1396yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds.
• Offord - 55m 1603yds: Currently 120mph, raise to 125mph, track curvature would prevent higher speeds. I assume the 'cut-in' times for the barrier to lowers would need to be revised upwards.
• Connington North - 68m 0618yds: Technically the line here could be raised from 125mph to 140mph -however this would be unobtainable speed wise due to the acceleration/deceleration WRT to the 125mph section just further north. I would simply start the 140mph section a few chains south of the crossing and Connington South Jn (say at 67m 15ch) to cheekily save several £m both on S&C and the crossing. I assume the 'cut-in' times for the barriers to lower would (in theory) need to be revised upwards.
• Holme 69m 0571yds Currently a theoretical 125mph, no need to close it based on current/future line speed (125mph).
• Holme Lode - 70m 0044yds no need to close it based on current/future line speed (105mph).
• Yaxley Lode 71m 1209yds - no need to close it based on current/future line speed (100mph) but it could be a quick win as it is only a UWC.

Note that not all of these are shown in the LN2 module of the LNE sectional appendix, Yaxley Lode is certainly missing. NR's East Coast Study of 2017 (page 22) similarly gives a figure of ten to close which appears incorrect as at the time Abbots Ripton (in a potential 140mph area) was still open. All of the crossings were examined by WSP as part of the ECML Level Crossings Programme. Some of those listed in the 2014 ECML Level Crossing Closure Programme have since been closed (Cardells & Abbots Ripton, and also possibly Great Paxton).

Following yesterdays announcement I’ve seen quite a bit of talk on various threads about increasing the ECML to 140mph, followed by others pointing out that 125>140 only saves a few minutes here and there and in order to get to 140 you need in cab signalling, new points/fencing, improved track, four tracking, closing level crossings, improved overheads and power supply etc etc and it’s all very expensive for a marginal gain. You know, the same old arguments!

However, why is 140mph always the target? I could understand this back in the days of trying to use conventional signalling. However, we now know we must have in cab signalling to get above 125. If you’re doing in can signalling and the infrastructure upgrades (which potentially could happen following yesterdays announcement) why not have stretches up to 145, 150, 155 or even 160? We know the alignment of the Selby bypass was designed for 160 and there other stretches of the ECML (and GWML) that could be suitable for sections of 140+ speeds. Why is it always 140mph? I appreciate the 800s have a design limit of 140mph, but the class 360s had a design limit of 100 and they’ve been increased by 10% to 110. If you could do the same with the 800s that would get you to 154mph.

 

[Ianno87]

Interesting to mention the routing of trains via Melton. Theoretically diverting the Norwich - Nottingham non-stop to East Mids Parkway via that route would be a potential driver of traffic to connect with stuff to Leeds, Sheffield and such. And even Nottingham. So it could divert to Derby instead...

Ticks a few boxes:
-Gives Oakham etc 2tph
-Gives connections to HS2 services in the East Midlands
-Takes a conflicting service off the ECML through Stoke Tunnel.

Depends whether running 1tph between Grantham and Nottingham is acceptable or not.

But could easily be back-filled by a Grantham- Nottingham shuttle service to keep 2tph.

 

[Bald Rick]

Were I the route director for East Coast basing the decision solely on the needs of the ECML - with no regard for him

The Route Director for East Coast is currently a ‘her’. And she’s very good!

However, why is 140mph always the target?

Above 140mph you start getting into issues about track separation, ie they need to be further apart. That means BIG money.

 

[WiredUp]

The Route Director for East Coast is currently a ‘her’. And she’s very good!

-


Above 140mph you start getting into issues about track separation, ie they need to be further apart. That means BIG money.

It’s definitely a he - Paul Rutter. Ellie Burrows is a ‘She’ for Anglia.

140mph seems to have been the post APT-P speed which then defined IC225 and being the design speed of the 390’s I guess stuck in the popular perception as an attainable speed on upgraded main lines. It was also until recently a figure present in NR standards so represents an upper limit of what could be achieved with some current UK equipment (CEN60 rails, G44 sleepers, Series 1/UK1 OLE) and track spacings before a much higher spec.of lines - new HSL’s are needed. Personally I think 140mph is latched onto by various people (anti-HS2 etc.) as we have tried for it twice and failed.

As someone asked earlier the difference per mile is: 125mph = 28.8s/mile, 140 = 25.7s/mile so the increase - ignoring acceleration and deceleration reduces each mile by 3.1s. As about 35 odd miles south of Peterborough could be upgraded this is where I guess 1.5 minutes comes fro. Why is it not 155mph? I thought BR worked out that the energy costs vs increases in revenue ruled it out, certainly for APT. There were several business studies by BR in the 80’s that found the commercial case even for 140mph on the ECML difficult and only recommended it quite logically south of Darlington. Hence the caveat in the ECML electrification certificate (page 4) to that effect.

 

[Ken H]

I assume someone has done the sums on the elasticity of speed/revenue (how much more revenue you get from saving X minutes in journey time) and set that against the additional costs (fuel, additional equipment, maintenance) of the higher speed.
Of course, you get reduced journey times by removing speed reductions. 125 all the way from Hitchin to Newcastle should be the aim. Time to get the bulldozers out. Like the old Eastern Region used to do.

 

[Noddy]

Above 140mph you start getting into issues about track separation, ie they need to be further apart. That means BIG money.

Ok now that does make sense. Cheers!

 

[WiredUp]

T

Ok now that does make sense. Cheers!

The separation between running rails is a set at a minimum of 1970mm (or 3405mm from centrelines) as mandated by NR/L3/TRK/2049. Higher speed lines increase this to reduce aerodynamic effects (mainly sudden pressure pulses) when two trains pass. This paper from the PWI is informative. I believe the University of Birmingham are quite involved in this work. This spiel from the 'Broad options for upgraded and high speed railways to the North of England and Scotland' report covering the northern ends of the WCML and ECML explains some of the issues:

For upgrade options within the footprint of the existing line, 140mph (225kph) was used as the maximum potential speed. Railway Group Standards for the UK do not cover speeds faster than this for running on conventional railway alignments, and a considerable study would be necessary to assess the implications of higher speed on the current railway. European high speed standards do cover faster speeds, but this is for a set of circumstances different from those prevailing in the UK. There is a risk that running at speeds above 140mph (225kph) would require significant changes to the existing infrastructure, including increased separation between tracks, a need to widen the track formation and the consequent extensive civil engineering works to widen earthworks, bridges, etc. Therefore, it was deemed not to be economic at this stage. For these reasons, speeds have been limited to 140mph (225kph) for the purposes of this study.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s definitely a he - Paul Rutter.

Paul is off doing other stuff, Sarah Reid is doing the job now.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Digswell: if quadrupling alongside the existing viaduct is not acceptable, is it worth looking at a new alignment for the extra two tracks? I note that the ECML is quite close to the A1(M) just north of Hatfield and again at Woolmer Green. Would building a two-track railway alongside be feasible? (About 5 miles) Or, as I have suggested before, a tunnel diving under the valley - length would depend on what gradients an IEP can cope with,

As for Newark - an opportunity was missed when the A46 bypass was built. This runs alongside the Nottingham line and crosses the ECML on an overpass. With more co-operation a railway overpass could have been built alongside.
Highways England is now proposing to dual the A46 and improve its junction with the A1 - again without reference to the ECML.

 

[HSTEd]

T

The separation between running rails is a set at a minimum of 1970mm (or 3405mm from centrelines) as mandated by NR/L3/TRK/2049. Higher speed lines increase this to reduce aerodynamic effects (mainly sudden pressure pulses) when two trains pass. This paper from the PWI is informative. I believe the University of Birmingham are quite involved in this work. This spiel from the 'Broad options for upgraded and high speed railways to the North of England and Scotland' report covering the northern ends of the WCML and ECML explains some of the issues:

For upgrade options within the footprint of the existing line, 140mph (225kph) was used as the maximum potential speed. Railway Group Standards for the UK do not cover speeds faster than this for running on conventional railway alignments, and a considerable study would be necessary to assess the implications of higher speed on the current railway. European high speed standards do cover faster speeds, but this is for a set of circumstances different from those prevailing in the UK. There is a risk that running at speeds above 140mph (225kph) would require significant changes to the existing infrastructure, including increased separation between tracks, a need to widen the track formation and the consequent extensive civil engineering works to widen earthworks, bridges, etc. Therefore, it was deemed not to be economic at this stage. For these reasons, speeds have been limited to 140mph (225kph) for the purposes of this study.

Couldn't we reduce the aerodynamic effects using the Japanese model of giant noses on our trains?

 

[snowball]

As for Newark - an opportunity was missed when the A46 bypass was built. This runs alongside the Nottingham line and crosses the ECML on an overpass. With more co-operation a railway overpass could have been built alongside.
Highways England is now proposing to dual the A46 and improve its junction with the A1 - again without reference to the ECML.

That was discussed in this thread earlier this year (posts #93 onwards).

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ideas-to-replace-the-newark-flat-crossing.187295/page-4#post-4989809

The road will take up the space between the present road and the Nottingham-Lincoln line, where I would have expected any future rail flyover to be, but others who knew the history said a rail flyover had previously been looked at on the other side of the N-L line and still could be built there.

 

[WiredUp]

Paul is off doing other stuff, Sarah Reid is doing the job now.

Fair enough, they need to update some of the internal info. I've just looked up Sarah Reid and her current job title looks about right for a new Route Director.

Couldn't we reduce the aerodynamic effects using the Japanese model of giant noses on our trains?

There comes a point where using giant long noses has an effect on gauging when traversing low radius curves . A lot of the Shinkansen design is also geared towards external sound receptors - i.e. lineside noise.

That was discussed in this thread earlier this year (posts #93 onwards).

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ideas-to-replace-the-newark-flat-crossing.187295/page-4#post-4989809

The road will take up the space between the present road and the Nottingham-Lincoln line, where I would have expected any future rail flyover to be, but others who knew the history said a rail flyover had previously been looked at on the other side of the N-L line and still could be built there.

That's quite correct you can squeeze in a flyover but it involves a couple of reverse curves at each end.

 

[flypie]

They did. Services were rerouted that way for a good few years in the mid 1990s. Most services were non stop Loughborough to Peterborough, but a few variations over the years saw a morning Cambridge-Liverpool stop at Stamford, and an evening Liverpool-Norwich stop at Melton Mowbray and Oakham. The services had reverted to the route via Grantham by the early 2000s.

Journey times via Loughborough were very slightly longer, around 70 minutes, give or a take a few minutes either way, compared to the current 65-70 via Grantham, with most services booked on the slow lines south of Stoke Tunnel.

You "could" do via Grantham in about 55 minutes if they were routed on the fast lines, but there's no way you'd path them.

That would be via Syston? The Birmingham Peterboirugh line needs so serious upgrading but though now the Peterborough Ely section is even slower. The route will only have become problematic when the Old Dalby Test Track was cut at the Nottingham end.