ECML Enhancements including Huntingdon-Peterborough 4-tracking

[Skimble19]

The flyover is far more complete than the picture above suggests

What's this obsession with closing the fast platforms off people have on here? You would end up extending the fast services by running them on the slows if you did that. Given the acceleration of a 365 compared to EC stock the stops on the fast line don't cause much of a hold up, if any.

Agreed. It really annoys me because in my opinion, all stations on the southern section (I.e. Sandy, Arlesey and Hitchin) should have 4 platforms - the operational flexibility it gives is always helpful in times of disruption. For example, the other day a 365 failed at Biggleswade on P1 (a door wouldn't close), so the 7:55 pulled up alongside as per usual and picked up the London pax, and the 08:10 then also went onto platform 2 to pick up everyone else. No major disruption caused.

 

[A-driver]

The 12 car extensions at Arlesy, sandy and Biggleswade are for the December 2012 timetable and apart from moving the signal on the up at sandy are on schedule.

I remember the east grinstead extensions went from the state the ECML stations are currently in to in service in about 3 or 4 weeks with intense weekend work. They could operate with the signal as it is at sandy but will obviously cause problems if it is ever at danger.

 

[D365]

The flyover is far more complete than the picture above suggests

Yep.

It really annoys me because in my opinion, all stations on the southern section (I.e. Sandy, Arlesey and Hitchin) should have 4 platforms - the operational flexibility it gives is always helpful in times of disruption. For example, the other day a 365 failed at Biggleswade on P1 (a door wouldn't close), so the 7:55 pulled up alongside as per usual and picked up the London pax, and the 08:10 then also went onto platform 2 to pick up everyone else. No major disruption caused.

As I said, I thought any platforms on the fast lines would have to be closed for 140mph running (something to do with turbulence and noise?). If need be, just gate them off for emergency use only.

Btw, Huntingdon also doesn't have fast platforms, but it does have an 8-car bay on the down line. I'm not certain about the size, but I have seen 180s parked in it before. I also see failed East Coast units on the mainline, or trains stacked up due to infrastructure problems.

It would be way too expensive and disruptive to add platforms there.

 

[jopsuk]

adding fast line platforms to the stations that don't have them would indeed be far too difficult.

I don't though understand the idea at Peterbrough of putting platforms on the fast lines? Wouldn't it be possible to change the points/trackwork north and south of the station to allow higher approach speeds, and retain the ability to have a non-stop service (especially the first-stop-York ones) overtake one that stops at Peterborough- especially if the latter is running a little late?

 

[LE Greys]

Yep.

I went under that twice on Sunday, does anyone know when it will see any rails?

As I said, I thought any platforms on the fast lines would have to be closed for 140mph running (something to do with turbulence and noise?). If need be, just gate them off for emergency use only.

Btw, Huntingdon also doesn't have fast platforms, but it does have an 8-car bay on the down line. I'm not certain about the size, but I have seen 180s parked in it before. I also see failed East Coast units on the mainline, or trains stacked up due to infrastructure problems.

It would be way too expensive and disruptive to add platforms there.

Well, the of increasing the speed on the slows would be to put the commuter fasts on them without losing time, clearing out the fast lines for potential 140 running. Biggleswade and St Neots would then end up a bit like Thirsk, with fences down the fast line side to close them off completely. The level crossings are a big problem, but they are a big problem anyway, especially Helpston (although that's further north) because it's closed for roughly 30 minutes every hour. I'd suggest a couple of bridges, roughly one bridge for every two crossings, and a bit of road-building/widening/modification to allow cars access to the bridges for alternative routes no matter what happens with rail speed limits. This also applies to Foxton.

 

[D365]

It would be expensive to 'bridge' the Offord level crossing, due to the proximity of the Great Ouse and a listed water mill. Ideally. a viaduct to the south of the Offords would be built to link the villages to Buckden without any obstacles.

Crossings between Huntingdon and Peterborough shouldn't be so much of a problem. Aside from flat crossings, fast line platforms and signalling, what else is stopping 140mph running on select areas?

 

[GNER 91128]

I went under that twice on Sunday, does anyone know when it will see any rails?



Well, the of increasing the speed on the slows would be to put the commuter fasts on them without losing time, clearing out the fast lines for potential 140 running. Biggleswade and St Neots would then end up a bit like Thirsk, with fences down the fast line side to close them off completely. The level crossings are a big problem, but they are a big problem anyway, especially Helpston (although that's further north) because it's closed for roughly 30 minutes every hour. I'd suggest a couple of bridges, roughly one bridge for every two crossings, and a bit of road-building/widening/modification to allow cars access to the bridges for alternative routes no matter what happens with rail speed limits. This also applies to Foxton.

More like 45 minutes in the peek!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The flyover is far more complete than the picture above suggests

Ah yes, I got the pic off an Architecture forum. http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6580&page=148&

A great website to see what's being built and following the progress on certain projects.

 

[Aictos]

adding fast line platforms to the stations that don't have them would indeed be far too difficult.

I don't though understand the idea at Peterbrough of putting platforms on the fast lines? Wouldn't it be possible to change the points/trackwork north and south of the station to allow higher approach speeds, and retain the ability to have a non-stop service (especially the first-stop-York ones) overtake one that stops at Peterborough- especially if the latter is running a little late?

Only the Up Fast at Peterborough is gaining a platform, the Down East Coast services will still use Platforms 4 & 5.

I think the reason for the lower speed limits south of Peterborough is to cater for the curves just before the bridges so don't think the speed limits can be increased unless TASS and Class 390s are used by East Coast!

 

[philjo]

I went under that twice on Sunday, does anyone know when it will see any rails?

As I understand it assuming they are still on the original schedule it will take about another few months to build & stabilise the embankment that connects the flyover across the fields to the line towards Letchworth and bring it up to the level of the existing line.

The construction of the new bridge under the flyover line to allow the farmer to access the fields between the 2 lines is almost complete. After that the embankment has to be built up to the level of the top of that bridge.

It can be seen in one of the photos on this site:

http://hitchingradeseparation.blogspot.co.uk/

I think that the contract for the chalk extraction (used to build the embankment foundations) & reinstatement of the top soil is due to run until the end of September.

 

[MK Tom]

I'm a bit perplexed by the idea that 140mph running requires platforms to be closed... the WCML upgrade was originally intended for 140mph running but they weren't going to close the fast platforms at Berkhamsted, Cheddington, MKC and all the rest were they?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm a bit perplexed by the idea that 140mph running requires platforms to be closed... the WCML upgrade was originally intended for 140mph running but they weren't going to close the fast platforms at Berkhamsted, Cheddington, MKC and all the rest were they?

It isn't a case of permanently 'closing' the platforms, but not allowing passengers on them when trains are passing. They don't think yellow lines and signs are good enough at speeds greater than 125 mph. It's mentioned in the group standard:

9.1 Aerodynamic effects of passenger trains passing at speeds greater than 125 mph
9.1.1 At station platforms where the permissible or enhanced permissible speed on the adjacent line is greater than 125 mph, people shall be prevented from gaining access to the parts of the platform exposed to the aerodynamic effects of trains passing at speeds exceeding 125 mph.

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...re/Railway Group Standards/GIRT7016 Iss 4.pdf

 

[D365]

OK, thanks for confirming that for us. I guess that if speeds over 125mph were permitted, the fast line platforms would be gated off.

 

[Skimble19]

Yep.



As I said, I thought any platforms on the fast lines would have to be closed for 140mph running (something to do with turbulence and noise?). If need be, just gate them off for emergency use only.

Btw, Huntingdon also doesn't have fast platforms, but it does have an 8-car bay on the down line. I'm not certain about the size, but I have seen 180s parked in it before. I also see failed East Coast units on the mainline, or trains stacked up due to infrastructure problems.

It would be way too expensive and disruptive to add platforms there.

Ironically Huntingdon did have a platform on the northbound fast until the 70s/80s when it was demolished and replaced by the current structure..

 

[Aictos]

Ironically Huntingdon did have a platform on the northbound fast until the 70s/80s when it was demolished and replaced by the current structure..

Hornsey and Harringay in London used to have platforms serving the fast lines until electrification came around as did Sandy when that used to be a bottleneck.

 

[Skimble19]

Don't forget Sandy also had platforms for the East-West line (as its now being referred to).

 

[LE Greys]

Don't forget Sandy also had platforms for the East-West line (as its now being referred to).

They were on the eastern side of the station, with the current platform on the down main, an island platform roughly where the up lines are today, the two LMS roads where the current up platform is and a final one just east of there. If the line ever goes back in (very big if) it will have to go down to single track to fit under the bridge without modifications. Presumably, the up platform would become an island.

 

[D365]

Ironically Huntingdon did have a platform on the northbound fast until the 70s/80s when it was demolished and replaced by the current structure..

It only had three through tracks back then, of which the outer two had platforms. This was a major bottleneck until the station was rebuilt and four-tracked to just north of the B1514 bridge and the present A14 viaduct.

As has been mentioned, a number of stations on the ECML have changed over time. Huntingdon used to be a junction, after all!

 

[Skimble19]

Very true! I think the next 10 or so years will be very interesting for this small section of route, with the four tracking, the additional thameslink services, the potential for the East-West rail line etc.

 

[RB-RailPhoto]

 Stevenage Down platform addition,

Could someone please explain what they are doing, are they adding a new platform or something else???

 

[A-driver]

I believe Stevenage is a new bay platform London end down side sort of like Woking or which ever station it is down that way.

 

[LE Greys]

I believe Stevenage is a new bay platform London end down side sort of like Woking or which ever station it is down that way.

I was under the impression that had been abandoned because of costs and the Hitchin flyover, replaced by a new loop at Letchworth.

 

[The Ham]

I believe Stevenage is a new bay platform London end down side sort of like Woking or which ever station it is down that way.

Woking does have a bay platform for Woking/London suburban services. It is located between the two inner (fast) lines to limit the number of lines it has to cross at any one time.

 

[Skimble19]

I was under the impression that had been abandoned because of costs and the Hitchin flyover, replaced by a new loop at Letchworth.

I believe that was just speculation on here

 

[Aictos]

I believe that was just speculation on here

All I know for sure is the platforms at Stevenage are being extended meaning the pointwork getting relocated, not sure how it affects the signals as I don't know yet if both ends of the platforms are being extended or if staggered platforms will be the finish result.

 

[Skimble19]

All I know for sure is the platforms at Stevenage are being extended meaning the pointwork getting relocated, not sure how it affects the signals as I don't know yet if both ends of the platforms are being extended or if staggered platforms will be the finish result.

That's certainly what appears to be happening at Biggleswade. Arlesey and Sandy are being extended at one end, whilst BIW seems to be getting extended here there and everywhere

I'm assuming Stevenage will be done for IEP, as opposed to Thameslink?

 

[LE Greys]

That's certainly what appears to be happening at Biggleswade. Arlesey and Sandy are being extended at one end, whilst BIW seems to be getting extended here there and everywhere

I'm assuming Stevenage will be done for IEP, as opposed to Thameslink?

Hopefully both.

Apart from Sandy, where they can only go one way because of the bridge, they are generally trying not to extend beyond signals to avoid having to move them and all their associated safety equipment. The result is staggered platforms in some places.

 

[Retorus]

They're certainly getting very build happy at Biggleswade, that and single handedly ensuring that the coffee shop stays in business!

 

[Aictos]

I'm assuming Stevenage will be done for IEP, as opposed to Thameslink?

I think Stevenage is intended for both as both IEP and Thameslink trains will be longer then existing rolling stock.

 

[jopsuk]

talking of longer rolling stock- do the platforms at Hitchin need lengthened at all? There's a "TGV" board just off the end of the Down platform, which is confusing- didn't think the NoL Class 373s ever served there?

 

[A-driver]

talking of longer rolling stock- do the platforms at Hitchin need lengthened at all? There's a "TGV" board just off the end of the Down platform, which is confusing- didn't think the NoL Class 373s ever served there?

Hitchin can take 12 cars on the down with platform dispatch provided as a 12 won't fit in the mirror. Currently the up won't take more that 8 as the end of the platform is disused but won't take much to open it again.

I don't think the TGV boards are stop markers-I think they were indicators of where the TGVs could run at line speed or something like that. There are also TGV boards away from stations and being that they are on the floor rather than at cab height I can't see them being stop markers.