• 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!

ECML Enhancements including Huntingdon-Peterborough 4-tracking

Status
Not open for further replies.

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
I'd heard that the main announcement include plan for 'upgrading the ECML', so when I looked at the more detailed plans, I was slightly disappointed to see that they didn't include the Newark flyover or the Welwyn viaduct improvements.

And whilst we're on the East Coast, if the Valley lines can get electrified as part of a boost to an economically deprived region, then why isn't the North East (an equally deprived region if you ask me) not getting any real improvements?

Surely reopening the Newcastle to Ashington line isn't much to ask in terms of developing a former coalfield area.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I'd heard that the main announcement include plan for 'upgrading the ECML', so when I looked at the more detailed plans, I was slightly disappointed to see that they didn't include the Newark flyover or the Welwyn viaduct improvements.

And whilst we're on the East Coast, if the Valley lines can get electrified as part of a boost to an economically deprived region, then why isn't the North East (an equally deprived region if you ask me) not getting any real improvements?

Surely reopening the Newcastle to Ashington line isn't much to ask in terms of developing a former coalfield area.

Wales is suffering badly from the downturn. I walked into a central Cardiff pub last Friday at 6pm and it was practically empty! Times must be hard...
 

JohnCarlson

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
271
I'd heard that the main announcement include plan for 'upgrading the ECML', so when I looked at the more detailed plans, I was slightly disappointed to see that they didn't include the Newark flyover or the Welwyn viaduct improvements.

And whilst we're on the East Coast, if the Valley lines can get electrified as part of a boost to an economically deprived region, then why isn't the North East (an equally deprived region if you ask me) not getting any real improvements?

Surely reopening the Newcastle to Ashington line isn't much to ask in terms of developing a former coalfield area.

Yes although the leamside line could be used for passenger services as well as diverting freight. The line to Consett could be rebuilt, York could have parkway station to the south and Harrogate electrified.

the list just goes on and on:eek:
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
It's pretty flat and pretty straight - as long as you can sort out the Selby swing bridge (?) it should be fairly uncomplicated.

Similar arrangement to the one at Trowse, I would imagine. It might need a new bridge to do that, though, and that would be expensive.
 

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,487
Location
London
I'm glad PBO - HUN is finally being 4 tracked, shame about Welwyn still not being touched though.

I'm interested to know where this supposed Bay Platform at Stevenage is going to be put though, and how that's going to work.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I'm glad PBO - HUN is finally being 4 tracked, shame about Welwyn still not being touched though.

I'm interested to know where this supposed Bay Platform at Stevenage is going to be put though, and how that's going to work.

It was rumoured, only rumoured mind you to have it located next to the existing platform 4 but using land from the leisure centre.
 

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,487
Location
London
It was rumoured, only rumoured mind you to have it located next to the existing platform 4 but using land from the leisure centre.
That's where I'd assume it would go, although I suspect something would need to be done with the long sloping bridge that's currently in the way.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,502
Location
Reading
From what I understood when the idea was first mooted, this would actually be a seperate platform to the west of the existing platform 4.
this would enable Hertford loop terminators to layover and then return to Hertford without blocking the Down Slow (P4) line for a while, a practice which under the present timetable only takes place Mondays to Fridays in the peaks, and all day at weekends.

As good an idea as it was, the best outcome of wiring the "Electric Horseshoe" is the journey time improvements that can be given to the services that go beyond Leeds to Bradford, Skipton and Harrogate.
Yes some Leeds terminators could also operate that way, particularly peak time trains that do not need to serve Wakefield.
To operate through trains into Leeds via one route and straight back to London via the other would remove the layover and thence the opportunity to refresh the stock (catering restock, litterpick, reservations etc) and would also result in a great number of trains operating in reverse formation, which would causes a lot of inconvenience and confusion.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
To operate through trains into Leeds via one route and straight back to London via the other would remove the layover and thence the opportunity to refresh the stock (catering restock, litterpick, reservations etc) and would also result in a great number of trains operating in reverse formation, which would causes a lot of inconvenience and confusion.

A London - Leeds - London "through" service would probably have a complete journey time of less than some Edinburgh services (and considerably less than the Inverness/ Aberdeen/ Glasgow trips)
 

JohnCarlson

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
271
A London - Leeds - London "through" service would probably have a complete journey time of less than some Edinburgh services (and considerably less than the Inverness/ Aberdeen/ Glasgow trips)

Yes its really only one journey and the money saved by keeping the train in service longer and the reduced pressure on platform dwell time might make up for an extra line of print of the reservation card and a bloke walking the train with an extra plastic bag or so. :)

John
 

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,487
Location
London
From what I understood when the idea was first mooted, this would actually be a seperate platform to the west of the existing platform 4.
this would enable Hertford loop terminators to layover and then return to Hertford without blocking the Down Slow (P4) line for a while, a practice which under the present timetable only takes place Mondays to Fridays in the peaks, and all day at weekends.
Indeed. What with the disruption this evening it was fairly evident that not having a unit sitting there for around 10 minutes every half hour would definitely help.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
From what I understood when the idea was first mooted, this would actually be a seperate platform to the west of the existing platform 4.
this would enable Hertford loop terminators to layover and then return to Hertford without blocking the Down Slow (P4) line for a while, a practice which under the present timetable only takes place Mondays to Fridays in the peaks, and all day at weekends.

I think the general idea was to move the whole up slow over about twelve feet (right up against the fence), then extend the plaform southwards and cut out the bay from the south end with the buffer stops just short of the current lift shaft, a Woking-style solution. However, a combination of the Hitchin flyover and current plans to run 12-car trains have probably scuppered that one, and it might be easier to put in loops at Letchworth, where there has been passive provision for them since construction, and have all the Stevenage-terminators run through to there instead.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I think the general idea was to move the whole up slow over about twelve feet (right up against the fence), then extend the plaform southwards and cut out the bay from the south end with the buffer stops just short of the current lift shaft, a Woking-style solution. However, a combination of the Hitchin flyover and current plans to run 12-car trains have probably scuppered that one, and it might be easier to put in loops at Letchworth, where there has been passive provision for them since construction, and have all the Stevenage-terminators run through to there instead.

Not forgetting the platforms are being extended for IEP as well sometime between now and the introduction of IEP!
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
How much in terms of journey times savings will all the works at PBO,quadding, Hitchin, goods line to Ally Pally etc... create? As there are a few schemes, but fundamentally don't trains pretty much run at 125mph for most of that stretch, except through PBO itself? I'm not sure the savings are at the southern end.

And it sounds as if PBO is going to become less safe in terms of passengers being close to fast passing trains.

Also would Leeds via Hambleton be quicker? Currently a non-stop Doncaster run is 1h35. And you can have cleaners on board - like First Class serving people, or God forbid, have the ticket inspector do a run through with the bin bags once he's done.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
How much in terms of journey times savings will all the works at PBO,quadding, Hitchin, goods line to Ally Pally etc... create? As there are a few schemes, but fundamentally don't trains pretty much run at 125mph for most of that stretch, except through PBO itself? I'm not sure the savings are at the southern end.

And it sounds as if PBO is going to become less safe in terms of passengers being close to fast passing trains.

Also would Leeds via Hambleton be quicker? Currently a non-stop Doncaster run is 1h35. And you can have cleaners on board - like First Class serving people, or God forbid, have the ticket inspector do a run through with the bin bags once he's done.

Firstly, grade-separation is not about speed, it's about reducing conflicts and improving timekeeping. I can't count the number of times I've run bang on time all the way between Aberdeen and Cadwell Crossing and then sat still while a Cambridge train rolls accross in front of us. Also, if they are going to reopen Holme or Yaxley to serve any housing developments south of Peterborough, then it's not any good stopping trains on the fasts.

I'm not so keen on losing the through lines at Peterborough, I'd prefer to see the points at either end replaced to allow faster crossing speeds plus a new down slow out to Werrington. However, losing the throughs will mean less time slowing down and speeding up. The biggest problem is that Liverpool-Norwich trains and Felixsotwe-bound freightliners from Doncaster having to cross on the flat, which can only really be solved by grade-separation.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,264
I'd heard that the main announcement include plan for 'upgrading the ECML', so when I looked at the more detailed plans, I was slightly disappointed to see that they didn't include the Newark flyover or the Welwyn viaduct improvements.

Neither were in NR's initial proposals, indeed both were assessed as not necessary in the 2016 cpacity review. (I already explained that about Newark, on page 1 of this thread.)

So as far as I can see there was no realistic expectation of either.

By the way, for those wondering about the connection to the ECML at Hambleton Jn, it is very much implied in the HLOS text:
42.Yorkshire:The Secretary of State seeks electrification of the route between Micklefield and Selby with appropriate links to the East Coast Main Line.
 

PhilipW

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2008
Messages
756
Location
Fareham, Hants
I am aware that the Newark flyover was never part of Network Rail's submission and so its non-inclusion in the CP5 plans is not unexpected.

I still remain perplexed whenever I hear that it is not needed at the moment.

We are constantly being told that the ECML is "full up" and that there are no more paths for any extra services. Yet the ECML is effectively closed for 8 minutes in every hour to allow some Newark-Lincoln services to pass over it on the flat.

With a flyover the ECML could be open for 60 mins in the hour, not the current 52 mins. That is a 15% increase.

So one flyover has the ability to increase the ECML capacity by 15%. If the flyover is not needed, then it must follow that the ECML is not "full".

I think there is a bit of spin going on here and somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes
 

Stats

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2009
Messages
943
I am aware that the Newark flyover was never part of Network Rail's submission and so its non-inclusion in the CP5 plans is not unexpected.
I thought it was.

Potential initiatives for CP5
The ongoing development work will determine the most cost effective programme of
infrastructure works to robustly deliver an appropriate train service specification. However, as
part of the optioneering process, Network Rail is currently examining the following schemes that
have been identified through the RUS process, as it is anticipated that most will be identified as
being required to provide the outputs:
 capacity relief Huntingdon North Junction – Fletton Junction which may entail 4-tracking
for part or all of the distance;
 Peterborough station improvements;
 grade separated junction or other suitable means to allow freight trains from / to the March direction to access / egress the GN / GE joint line at Peterborough independently of the ECML up and down fast lines;
replacement of the existing flat crossing at Newark of the ECML and the Nottingham – Lincoln lines with grade separation;
 Doncaster station area improvements;
 Darlington station improvements;
 Ferryhill – Newcastle capacity enhancement; and
 Doncaster – Wakefield Westgate additional capacity.
 
Last edited:

PhilipW

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2008
Messages
756
Location
Fareham, Hants
I thought it was.

Oh, well I'm confused now. Others on this thread say it wasn't proposed, you say it is. Confusion reigns.

Whether it was proposed or not, there seems to be even more confusion as to whether it is required or not as I wrote above.

Ah well
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I am aware that the Newark flyover was never part of Network Rail's submission and so its non-inclusion in the CP5 plans is not unexpected.

I still remain perplexed whenever I hear that it is not needed at the moment.

We are constantly being told that the ECML is "full up" and that there are no more paths for any extra services. Yet the ECML is effectively closed for 8 minutes in every hour to allow some Newark-Lincoln services to pass over it on the flat.

With a flyover the ECML could be open for 60 mins in the hour, not the current 52 mins. That is a 15% increase.

So one flyover has the ability to increase the ECML capacity by 15%. If the flyover is not needed, then it must follow that the ECML is not "full".

I think there is a bit of spin going on here and somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes

There's also the issue of supressed demand on the Lincoln - Nottingham route to consider.

Lincoln lost its longer distance services (Birmingham etc), presumably part of the reason for this was to ensure the reliability of Lincoln - Nottingham services hitting their "slot" over the ECML?

With paths scarce on the ECML it means that there's no chance of improving the Lincoln - Nottingham frequency or of having longer distance links for Lincoln to the Midlands.
 
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
696
I am aware that the Newark flyover was never part of Network Rail's submission and so its non-inclusion in the CP5 plans is not unexpected.

I still remain perplexed whenever I hear that it is not needed at the moment.

We are constantly being told that the ECML is "full up" and that there are no more paths for any extra services. Yet the ECML is effectively closed for 8 minutes in every hour to allow some Newark-Lincoln services to pass over it on the flat.

With a flyover the ECML could be open for 60 mins in the hour, not the current 52 mins. That is a 15% increase.

So one flyover has the ability to increase the ECML capacity by 15%. If the flyover is not needed, then it must follow that the ECML is not "full".

I think there is a bit of spin going on here and somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes

I too have often wondered about that oft spokenand written statement. I think that it might refer to the line south of Peterborough which is pretty busy. Certainly when I've been visiting relations in the Retford/Worksop area I've sat on the platform at Retford and have seen only three trains (both up and down) in a thirty minute period. On four aspect signalling that is definately not "full up".
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I too have often wondered about that oft spokenand written statement. I think that it might refer to the line south of Peterborough which is pretty busy. Certainly when I've been visiting relations in the Retford/Worksop area I've sat on the platform at Retford and have seen only three trains (both up and down) in a thirty minute period. On four aspect signalling that is definately not "full up".

Five or six trains an hour on the line south of Doncaster doesn't sound *that* busy, but the high speed nature of these services means that there's little chance of squeezing slower trains (e.g. freight) onto the line.

But, yeah, I think that the real pinch points are further south (Welwyn)
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Platform 4 at Peterborough is NOT beng extended to be served by the Down Fast as some have incorrectly stated.

I have seen the plans for the final layout and can state that the following will happen:

Existing Platform 2 is having a extension at the south end which cuts across the pointwork to access the existing Platform 1.

Existing Platform 3 is also having a extension at the south end.

New Platform serving Up Fast, this is the new Platform 3.

New Platforms 6 and 7 which will serve the existing Cross Country, East Midlands Trains and Greater Anglia services.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
so grade separation at Newark would allow not only more trains along the ECML, but would allow longer-distance services into Lincoln? Could be a great benefit to Lincolnshire if the Cardiff-Nottingham XC service could be extended.
 

Fuzzy Logic

Member
Joined
26 Dec 2007
Messages
36
Location
Staffs
Platform 4 at Peterborough is NOT beng extended to be served by the Down Fast as some have incorrectly stated.

I have seen the plans for the final layout and can state that the following will happen:

Existing Platform 2 is having a extension at the south end which cuts across the pointwork to access the existing Platform 1.

Existing Platform 3 is also having a extension at the south end.

New Platform serving Up Fast, this is the new Platform 3.

New Platforms 6 and 7 which will serve the existing Cross Country, East Midlands Trains and Greater Anglia services.

So up ECML trains will stop on the through line but down ECML trains will have to come off to either 4 or 5 then. Will there be some form of grad separation so that down FCC services can use 2 and 3 without conflicting with the fast services?
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
So up ECML trains will stop on the through line but down ECML trains will have to come off to either 4 or 5 then. Will there be some form of grad separation so that down FCC services can use 2 and 3 without conflicting with the fast services?

There was no grade separation plans that I could see, mind you the plans were just for the station limits.

By looking at the plans, FCC will still be crossing both Up and Down Fasts to access Platforms 2 & 3, if there are plans to allow grade separation then it won't be happening within the station limits.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
So up ECML trains will stop on the through line but down ECML trains will have to come off to either 4 or 5 then. Will there be some form of grad separation so that down FCC services can use 2 and 3 without conflicting with the fast services?
There was no grade separation plans that I could see, mind you the plans were just for the station limits.

By looking at the plans, FCC will still be crossing both Up and Down Fasts to access Platforms 2 & 3, if there are plans to allow grade separation then it won't be happening within the station limits.

Hopefully, Platform 1 (currently 2) will still see a lot of use to allow an express to overtake a semi-fast. Grade-separation south of the station would be tricky, owing to the presence of the River Nene, the Great Eastern line, some historical buildings and the enormous Thorpe Road bridge. The original idea was a cutting north of the station with the fast lines in it and the crossovers going over the top, something like the Chalk Farm diveunder just outside Euston.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
so grade separation at Newark would allow not only more trains along the ECML, but would allow longer-distance services into Lincoln? Could be a great benefit to Lincolnshire if the Cardiff-Nottingham XC service could be extended.

You've potentially got a half hourly service from Birmingham to Nottingham (one an hour starting from Cardiff) that could run through to Lincoln (avoiding the need to tie up scarce platform space at Nottingham each hour), encouraging longer distance travel, but the disruption to ECML paths makes it hard to do currently.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,264
Oh, well I'm confused now. Others on this thread say it wasn't proposed, you say it is. Confusion reigns.

My mistake there - I looked up the 2016 ECML capacity report - but the CP5 proposals are later so must have superseded it...

What might have confused me is that in the Sep 2011 version of the CP5 proposals, the ECML stuff doesn't appear in the obvious 'Proposed projects - long distance' section, but under 'proposed funds'... :oops:
 

WestCountry

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Messages
280
Location
Cambridge, UK
Peterborough grade separation for access to GE/GN line
FCC will still be crossing both Up and Down Fasts to access Platforms 2 & 3
Hopefully, Platform 1 (currently 2) will still see a lot of use to allow an express to overtake a semi-fast.
Perhaps northbound terminators will be able to run into the west side (Platforms 4-7), then run ECS over the Werrington flyover, reverse on the Joint Line, and then back into Platform 1 or 2?
There should be the capacity on the west side with the new island, and it might reduce the dwell time in the east platforms to reduce the need for stopping on Platform 3.
There's even the space at Werrington to build a new station on the Joint Line, to serve north Peterborough and act as a parkway station adjacent to the A15, which would avoid the need to turf everyone out at PBO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top