AIUI, if the station development is cancelled now, then the entire (six million??) pounds from the developer of Wixams as Section 106 money is lost for good.
£13m of S106 and £26m from the council. I'd expect the station to have buildings on both sides of the line, one for Wixams and one for Universal, with the S106 contributions funding the Wixams building & car park and Universal/council deciding who funds the rest.
The Midland mainline runs 4 tracks without gaps in between. If 2 platforms are built you can just shove the slow lines to the side. But you cannot do that if it's 4 platform. If it's 4 platform the fast lines need realigning. So this means if they go ahead without park go ahead with 2 platforms they will have demolish it and start over again.
The current 2 platforms on the slows plan would only require 1 slow track to be moved. You could do this with 4 platforms on the slows but a platform on both slows and fasts for the EMR Corbys seems more likely.
EMR Corbys run on the fasts apart from Bedford-Bedford Jcn when running towards London.
I hope the platforms have lots of safety built in. Trains flying at 125mph through there.
125mph running at Nuneaton, Rugby, and other stations. They just need large enough platforms that people can keep away from the yellow line.
Surely you would just move the up slow out and build an island in the gap, leaving the other three lines untouched. If you later wanted to build a fast line island, you would move the down fast out as required and build the new island in the gap. No need to demolish anything?
That or move both slows, single centre island and platform either side attached to station buildings.
Is reduced two-track operation possible on the MML?
