ECML Enhancements including Huntingdon-Peterborough 4-tracking

[Aictos]

There just isn't the time available to terminate at Peterborough, run ECS to Werrington Junction to reverse then come back into service - if this HAS to be done then FCC or their successors will have to extend their services to Werrington Junction and terminate there instead.

This is something I can't see happening though!

 

[LE Greys]

There just isn't the time available to terminate at Peterborough, run ECS to Werrington Junction to reverse then come back into service - if this HAS to be done then FCC or their successors will have to extend their services to Werrington Junction and terminate there instead.

This is something I can't see happening though!

That's one reason why the cutting idea was so appealing. It would mean there would be no need for a Werrington flyover, and that trains could use one road at New England as a turnback siding. Obviously, having both fast lines out of commission for a year or more is not so appealing. I like the idea of a station at Werrington, though, especially as it might confuse passengers to set off in the wrong direction, sit on the up slow for a minute or so, watch the driver run from one end to the other, then finally head in the right direction (the flyover runs NE-SW).

 

[Bald Rick]

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 is a difference between capacity of a network, capacity of a route, and capacity at a node point.

Whilst a flyover at Newark crosing would unquestionably increase capacity at Newark crossing, it wouldn't increase capacity on the ECML because of the network effects. The current main capacity constraints on the ECML south of Doncaster are, in no particular order: 1) Hitchin Cambridge Jn (flyover June 2013), 2) Peterboro - Huntingdon 2/3 track sections (CP5) 3) Welwyn North station / tunnels / viaduct, 4) Peterboro station (CP4/5), 5) freight / Intercity mix north of Grantham (CP4/5 GN/GE line).

As all bar 3) are to be sorted over the next 7 years, the capacity of the ECML will increase. The December 2018 timetable is being constructed around Welwyn North as the constraint. Metaphorically it's like pushing the bubble along freshly hung wallpaper.

 

[philjo]

Hopefully the new slow lines will be 100mph to allow all FCC services to use them to clear the fast lines for long distance services. Extending this down to Woolmer Green would be good the slows are mainly 75mph at the moment

 

[WestCountry]

...might confuse passengers to set off in the wrong direction, sit on the up slow for a minute or so, watch the driver run from one end to the other, then finally head in the right direction (the flyover runs NE-SW).

I was thinking of a station actually on the Joint Line, i.e. beyond the flyover where the line curves round to the east - this would allow for a reversal in the station.
Admittedly, one on the slows south of the junction would be serve more residential areas, but would have the problem you mentioned .
It would also allow trains heading toward Grantham/Stamford to call, unlike my idea, but I can't see any of the current XC, EMT or EC services calling there TBH.

 

[Skimble19]

Hopefully the new slow lines will be 100mph to allow all FCC services to use them to clear the fast lines for long distance services. Extending this down to Woolmer Green would be good the slows are mainly 75mph at the moment

I totally agree. Sooner or later somebody will come up with the idea of upgrading the slows to 100mph. Having to upgrade a new section would be ridiculous.

 

[GNER 91128]

Living in Werrington I could never see a station here, but it is something that crops up every now and then. If they decide to build homes in the gap between Werrington and Glinton (god forbid) then I think we might see a Werrington Parkway station.

I think a lot of people in Hampton are still waiting for their parkway station to be built too.

 

[LE Greys]

I was thinking of a station actually on the Joint Line, i.e. beyond the flyover where the line curves round to the east - this would allow for a reversal in the station.
Admittedly, one on the slows south of the junction would be serve more residential areas, but would have the problem you mentioned .
It would also allow trains heading toward Grantham/Stamford to call, unlike my idea, but I can't see any of the current XC, EMT or EC services calling there TBH.

This is the general idea in a Quail-style diagram. The idea is to improve access to the Spalding lines from the Lincoln lines and the up slow. This would allow EMT to serve the new station (unlikely) and freight traffic to/from Whitemoor and Felixstowe easier access to Lincoln, keeping it off the ECML. Adding a down slow is just a bonus, but a useful one in building capacity. The turnback siding could also be useful for light engine moves from New England as well as a potential FCC service. All lines would be electrified.

 

[LE Greys]

I totally agree. Sooner or later somebody will come up with the idea of upgrading the slows to 100mph. Having to upgrade a new section would be ridiculous.

As do I.

 

[WestCountry]

This is the general idea in a Quail-style diagram. The idea is to improve access to the Spalding lines from the Lincoln lines and the up slow. This would allow EMT to serve the new station (unlikely) and freight traffic to/from Whitemoor and Felixstowe easier access to Lincoln, keeping it off the ECML. Adding a down slow is just a bonus, but a useful one in building capacity. The turnback siding could also be useful for light engine moves from New England as well as a potential FCC service. All lines would be electrified.

Interesting. Is that the actual proposal then? I assume the entrance to the turnback siding would be back-to-back turnouts, rather than a diamond (wouldn't make sense) or slip (NR don't seem to like them)?

Just thought - where are EMT's Lincoln services intended to terminate? The current use of Platform 2/3 and then running out via the Down Fast would seem rather inefficient, will these instead use the flyover and reverse in Platforms 4-7?

 

[Aictos]

Interesting. Is that the actual proposal then? I assume the entrance to the turnback siding would be back-to-back turnouts, rather than a diamond (wouldn't make sense) or slip (NR don't seem to like them)?

Just thought - where are EMT's Lincoln services intended to terminate? The current use of Platform 2/3 and then running out via the Down Fast would seem rather inefficient, will these instead use the flyover and reverse in Platforms 4-7?

One thing you need to remember is the Up Slow between Peterborough station and Werrington Junction is already signalled for Bi Directional Signalling as the Lincolns usually use Platform 2 at Peterborough and then run in the Down direction towards Lincoln on the Up Slow.

They used to run in the Down direction towards Lincoln on the Down Fast but not any more.

If such a flyover does go in, I can't see why the Lincolns either continue as they are or use the flyover to access the Stamford lines then use Platforms 5, 6 or 7 at Peterborough.

I rather see the unwired Stamford line being wired up between Helpston and Peterborough as it would be useful for East Coast to use if the Up/Down Mains are unavailable.

 

[LE Greys]

Interesting. Is that the actual proposal then? I assume the entrance to the turnback siding would be back-to-back turnouts, rather than a diamond (wouldn't make sense) or slip (NR don't seem to like them)?

Just thought - where are EMT's Lincoln services intended to terminate? The current use of Platform 2/3 and then running out via the Down Fast would seem rather inefficient, will these instead use the flyover and reverse in Platforms 4-7?

It is not the proposal, this is just a guess as to what it might look like (done on MS Paint). You're right about the diamond/two turnouts thing, I really ought to alter that. There really ought to be a platform on the new down slow as well, allowing FCC to use it. I also missed the bi-di signalling, thank you HLE 13 for pointing that out. And about the new route for the Lincoln line stoppers and wiring the remaining Stamford route.

My guesswork was based on trying to use as much of the existing track layout as possible, to reduce the number of line closures. One the flyover and ramps are in place, followed by the complete down slow and other new track, it ought to be possible to do all the Stamford line trackwork (inserting six turnouts) in one go, then all the Lincoln line and up slow work (inserting the remaining five turnouts) over a Christmas posession. I left the fast lines alone so that a normal service could continue except for the flyover placement itself. Not sure when the wiring would happen, but it strikes me as a good way to test the HOOP train under working conditions.

<EDIT> Changes made, new attachment below. Both slows are now bi-di (it's new signalling after all).

 

[WestCountry]

It is not the proposal, this is just a guess as to what it might look like

Ok. Looks rather neat, anyway . I drew my own version, with a different layout on the Lincoln side and the station moved across .

The Lincoln-bound platform would be signalled to allow southbound departures, while there would be signalled routes from the flyover into all three. FCC trains would mainly reverse in the bay, although the other two could be used if needed. EMT's Lincoln services would also call.

Thoughts?

 

[Retorus]

100mph slows are a must. I seriously cannot think of a good reason why they aren't in place already.

 

[Tomnick]

I rather see the unwired Stamford line being wired up between Helpston and Peterborough as it would be useful for East Coast to use if the Up/Down Mains are unavailable.

No point at the moment - there's no access from the Up Fast to Up Stamford at Helpston.

 

[LE Greys]

Ok. Looks rather neat, anyway . I drew my own version, with a different layout on the Lincoln side and the station moved across .

The Lincoln-bound platform would be signalled to allow southbound departures, while there would be signalled routes from the flyover into all three. FCC trains would mainly reverse in the bay, although the other two could be used if needed. EMT's Lincoln services would also call.

Thoughts?

That makes sense, fewer turnouts required and better than having trains for London set off in the wrong direction, although it wouldn't allow up slow -> up Stamford moves.

 

[WestCountry]

It wouldn't allow up slow -> up Stamford moves.

Oops . That's probably essential, for boxes coming down the ECML and then across to Felixstowe. Added a crossover, now it does .

EDIT: The Down Fast - Up Fast facing crossover can probably go, actually. A pair of 125mph facing points must be expensive to maintain, and the flyover replaces them anyway.

 

[Skimble19]

100mph slows are a must. I seriously cannot think of a good reason why they aren't in place already.

Its such a waste - all FCC stock (except 313s) can hit 100mph - would be interesting to see what time savings could be made..

 

[jon0844]

Quite a bit for the semi fast services which could actually reach 100mph quite regularly.

 

[Aictos]

Quite a bit for the semi fast services which could actually reach 100mph quite regularly.

Mmm, let's take Peterborough to Stevenage as a example shall we?

East Coast run at 125mph for most of the journey and it takes 30 minutes.
FCC run between 75mph and 100mph and the journey takes 50 minutes calling all stations.

If the slow lines from Welwyn Garden City to Peterborough were 100mph only then this would certainly mean some time saving of maybe 10 minutes so FCC could do the trip in 40 minutes rather then 50 mins.

I don't wish the slow lines between Welwyn Garden City and London to be upgraded as they are used quite a lot by FCC metro services and it would mean the faster services chasing the locals!

 

[philjo]

Not worth it south of WGC at the moment. Stations are too close together and the 313s operating the stoppers are limited to 75mph. However, certain sections could be increased say to 80 or 90 and maybe the 55 limit through brookmans Park could be eased.

North of Woolmer Green the stations are further apart and the slows need a minimum line speed of 90mph.

 

[Aictos]

Not worth it south of WGC at the moment. Stations are too close together and the 313s operating the stoppers are limited to 75mph. However, certain sections could be increased say to 80 or 90 and maybe the 55 limit through brookmans Park could be eased.

North of Woolmer Green the stations are further apart and the slows need a minimum line speed of 90mph.

That's my view exactly, same applies for the Hertford Loop as well.

 

[LE Greys]

Not worth it south of WGC at the moment. Stations are too close together and the 313s operating the stoppers are limited to 75mph. However, certain sections could be increased say to 80 or 90 and maybe the 55 limit through brookmans Park could be eased.

North of Woolmer Green the stations are further apart and the slows need a minimum line speed of 90mph.

It would also give a bit more flexibility with the Peterborough commuter fasts. Putting them on the slows to allow an express to overtake would not result in that much lost time. Assuming these are 12-car and FCC still charge lower fares, this sounds like a good deal for commuters and takes a lot of pressure off peak-time expresses. 100 would also reduce time loss because of slow line excursions by expresses as well, losing 7 seconds a mile is a lot better than losing 15 seconds a mile.

The most crucial bit for time-saving also happens to be the new section, the 16.75 miles between Huntingdon and Fletton Junction. Anything stopping at Huntingdon would be on the slows anyway, so it's important to give it a clear run between the two.

I agree with you about the section south of Welwyn, not much point there.

 

[Retorus]

Yeah south of WGC doesn't really need to change. The FCC services are either stopping or have enough acceleration (especially 365s) to not clog up the fasts between Kings Cross and Welwyn.

 

[Aictos]

It would also give a bit more flexibility with the Peterborough commuter fasts. Putting them on the slows to allow an express to overtake would not result in that much lost time. Assuming these are 12-car and FCC still charge lower fares, this sounds like a good deal for commuters and takes a lot of pressure off peak-time expresses. 100 would also reduce time loss because of slow line excursions by expresses as well, losing 7 seconds a mile is a lot better than losing 15 seconds a mile.

The most crucial bit for time-saving also happens to be the new section, the 16.75 miles between Huntingdon and Fletton Junction. Anything stopping at Huntingdon would be on the slows anyway, so it's important to give it a clear run between the two.

I agree with you about the section south of Welwyn, not much point there.

Slight error there, there are a number of FCCs which use the Down Fast between Huntingdon and Peterborough as well as a few peak services use the Down Fast from London all the way to Peterborough except of course when they use the Down Slow to access Huntingdon station

I think there's a number of FCC services which after Huntingdon use the Up Fast to London ie the 12 cars.

 

[LE Greys]

Slight error there, there are a number of FCCs which use the Down Fast between Huntingdon and Peterborough as well as a few peak services use the Down Fast from London all the way to Peterborough except of course when they use the Down Slow to access Huntingdon station

I think there's a number of FCC services which after Huntingdon use the Up Fast to London ie the 12 cars.

Well, yes, most of them 'launch' themselves onto the down fast, allowing them up to 100 so that they generally arrive on-time or slightly early. However, they are timed to use the down slow, just in case they have to let something past. And of course after Holme they don't have much choice.

South of Huntingdon, the Peterborough commuter trains tend to stick to the fasts, making them the only trains using P2 and P3 at St Neots (I should know, I've been on them a few times after misreading boards at King's Cross). What I meant was that up trains could now stick to the slows all the way to Woolmer Green if need be, or use the crossovers at Cadwell (with down trains using the crossovers just north of Hitchin). This would allow a lot more flexibility and mean that FCC could tighten up the timetable a bit. Also, in the unlikely even that we ever get 140mph running, it would be possible to close the fast line platforms at Biggleswade and St Neots without any real loss.

 

[philjo]

Some of the current 12 car evening services have Hitchin as their first stop (fast line to Hitchin) then I think they use the slow line to St Neots as the next stop. I have seen these leave Hitchin on the down slow. Presumably some of these will also call at Biggleswade after December when the platfrom extentions are completed.

The morning up fast services from Peterborough call at Stevenage on the fast line but these are about the same time as a train from Royston/Cambridge is calling on the slow at platform 1

 

[Fred26]

Mmm, let's take Peterborough to Stevenage as a example shall we?

East Coast run at 125mph for most of the journey and it takes 30 minutes.
FCC run between 75mph and 100mph and the journey takes 50 minutes calling all stations.

If the slow lines from Welwyn Garden City to Peterborough were 100mph only then this would certainly mean some time saving of maybe 10 minutes so FCC could do the trip in 40 minutes rather then 50 mins.

I don't wish the slow lines between Welwyn Garden City and London to be upgraded as they are used quite a lot by FCC metro services and it would mean the faster services chasing the locals!

Stevenage to Kings Cross takes:

20 Minutes by East Coast
30 Minutes by FCC (stopping FPK, KGX)
40 Minutes by FCC (stopping KBW, WLW, WGC, HAT, PBR, FPK, KGX)
60 Minutes by FCC (via Hertford)

Those times are approximate and fluctuate a little bit during the peaks.

Some of the current 12 car evening services have Hitchin as their first stop (fast line to Hitchin) then I think they use the slow line to St Neots as the next stop. I have seen these leave Hitchin on the down slow. Presumably some of these will also call at Biggleswade after December when the platfrom extentions are completed.

Some of the twelve car services will remain at the same times, (from origin station), whilst some will be changed completely. FCC are considering two options for AM 12-car services, both of which have 6 PBO-KGX services. These are more or less the three that run now plus three new trains stopping all stops to SVG then FPK and KGX.
In the PM peak, FCC seem to have made a decision as I have only seen one option. SVG is set to gain two twelve car services, both of which already call (1809 and 1839 at SVG), the latter of which is chronically over loaded. As far as I can remember the other 12-car trains are those already running.

Take that with a pinch (or a bucket) of salt though as there's still months to go and it's entirely possible that it could all change.

 

[Skimble19]

Put it this way, in the evening peak it's possible for an 8 car 365 to do KGX to BIW in 27 minutes non stop.. So of it takes 20 mins for EC to do SVG to KGX it must be around 8-9 mins for BIW to SVG non stop on a 365.

As for 12 car services, as far as I'm aware BIW will have 3 in the morning and evening. Hopefully it'll be the existing fast services - I just hope they don't start stopping at arlesey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The morning up fast services from Peterborough call at Stevenage on the fast line but these are about the same time as a train from Royston/Cambridge is calling on the slow at platform 1

The one that arrives at SVG at around 8am usually arrives alongside another PBO service.

 

[jon0844]

When the new (ex-goods) lines are reinstated from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace, I wonder if the semi fasts that can already catch up on the slows will be able to get ahead earlier on, and then take advantage of the higher speeds even to WGC? FCC already has some interesting calling patterns to add in delays that allow the slow to avoid holding up the semi-fast trains until at least Welham Green or Hatfield (by then, I doubt it matters too much if they've slipped 2-3 minutes).

Of course, if we ever get 15-minute service frequency all day on the slows from Moorgate, that would make it hard to use the slows for semi-fast services at all, at any speed.