Fast Lines through Stations

[Masboroughlad]

Why were some main lines built with high speed centre roads through stations? And why weren't some?

For example - do any MML main stations have high speed centre roads? I'm not sure they do?

Interesting how some companies chose to: when building their lines - Doncaster, Darlington (sort of), sure there are plenty of others.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Depends on whether the lines are paired by use or by direction. The latter is more amenable to fast lines in the middle of formations (and just occasionally - Jubilee and Metropolitan Lines north of Finchley Road) fast lines on the outside.

 

[Snow1964]

Generally it was the later lines that were built like that, not early lines. Although some were expanded later

Eg the GWR cut off line (Filton - Wooten Bassett via Badminton) had all its stations like that so important trains could overtake slow coal trains (coal from South Wales was big). Just happened to be easier to build loops that also had platforms for fairly infrequent local passenger services.

Heavy holiday passenger traffic resulted in expansion of number of stations in South and South West during 1930s with passenger loops, eg Seaton Junction, Pokesdown, Challow, etc. So different reasons on different lines, but ultimately all for extra capacity and ability to overtake slow trains.

 

[Magdalia]

Why were some main lines built with high speed centre roads through stations? And why weren't some?

Very few routes were built with more than two tracks. Additional tracks usually came later, with the requirement to modify an existing layout. How that was done depended on traffic priorities at the time.

Depends on whether the lines are paired by use or by direction.

Paired by direction (eg ECML) suited lines with passenger trains moving at different speeds, and, comparatively speaking, not much freight. Paired by use (eg MML) suited routes with lots of heavy freight, usually with no platforms on the goods roads because they were not passed for passenger traffic.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Some lines gained through roads at certain stations as a result of demand for increased services. The L&SWR quadrupled the SWML as far as Woking (not sure of the exact extent at the time?) in the 1880's I believe, and pushed West with quadrupling towards Basingstoke round about 1904. Some stations gained an extra platform (the current Down platforms) whilst the old Down platforms became island platforms, later to be disused (ie: Walton on Thames) or demolished (ie: Farnborough) hence you now have quite a few stations with Through roads.

 

[The Crab]

Very few routes were built with more than two tracks. Additional tracks usually came later, with the requirement to modify an existing layout. How that was done depended on traffic priorities at the time.


Paired by direction (eg ECML) suited lines with passenger trains moving at different speeds, and, comparatively speaking, not much freight. Paired by direction (eg MML) suited routes with lots of heavy freight, usually with no platforms on the goods roads because they were not passed for passenger traffic.

Do you mean MML paired by use?

 

[30907]

Some lines gained through roads at certain stations as a result of demand for increased services. The L&SWR quadrupled the SWML as far as Woking (not sure of the exact extent at the time?) in the 1880's I believe, and pushed West with quadrupling towards Basingstoke round about 1904. Some stations gained an extra platform (the current Down platforms) whilst the old Down platforms became island platforms, later to be disused (ie: Walton on Thames) or demolished (ie: Farnborough) hence you now have quite a few stations with Through roads.

An important factor here - you would need to keep the existing station open while the additional tracks were being laid. So very few stations on quadrupled lines were 2-platform only (as always, there were exceptions!).
The two routes out of London that were extensively paired by direction, the GN and the LSW, were quadrupled in stages, and therefore had very few stations with platformless fast lines in the centre.

Generally it was the later lines that were built like that, not early lines. Although some were expanded later

Eg the GWR cut off line (Filton - Wooten Bassett via Badminton) had all its stations like that so important trains could overtake slow coal trains (coal from South Wales was big). Just happened to be easier to build loops that also had platforms for fairly infrequent local passenger services.

The same applies to the GW&GC route through High Wycombe - in this case, even more than via Badminton, high-speed expresses were the raison d'etre of the line.
(Incidentally, the Castle Cary-Cogload cut-off didn't have platform loops, but then there was little local passenger traffic or heavy freight.)

The OP's original question mentioned Doncaster - one of relatively few major stations where the centre fast lines still see high-speed expresses in quantity (contrast Cardiff Central with a similar layout!).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Paired by direction (eg ECML) suited lines with passenger trains moving at different speeds, and, comparatively speaking, not much freight. Paired by direction (eg MML) suited routes with lots of heavy freight, usually with no platforms on the goods roads because they were not passed for passenger traffic.

Then why is the LBSCR paired by use to Victoria? A route with very little freight traffic. And to add to the mystery, why is the London Bridge route paired by direction?

 

[Helvellyn]

The SWML is paired by direction until Wimbledon Depot where the flyover switches it to paired by use to allow platform separation at Waterloo.

The Great Central had fast lines at stations nearer London (many removed with early 1990s route modernisation by NSE) but on the main London extension many of it's rural stations were built as island platforms with the intention, I believe, that if the route was quadrupled the fast lines would be on the outside to avoid having to rebuild the stations as other companies had to do.

 

[Magdalia]

Do you mean MML paired by use?

Thanks, I do. And I've corrected it.

Then why is the LBSCR paired by use to Victoria? A route with very little freight traffic. And to add to the mystery, why is the London Bridge route paired by direction?

Interesting question, particularly Victoria and London Bridge being different. But Clapham Junction-Selhurst did have lots of freight traffic in the past, particularly cross-London workings going to or from Norwood. There was also freight to and from Surrey Docks, Battersea Wharf and Chelsea Basin.

Intensive suburban operations do seem to prefer paired by use: Waterloo and Kings Cross both start paired by use but switch to paired by direction not far from the terminus.

 

[Rescars]

Thanks, I do. And I've corrected it.

Interesting question, particularly Victoria and London Bridge being different. But Clapham Junction-Selhurst did have lots of freight traffic in the past, particularly cross-London workings going to or from Norwood. There was also freight to and from Surrey Docks, Battersea Wharf and Chelsea Basin.

Intensive suburban operations do seem to prefer paired by use: Waterloo and Kings Cross both start paired by use but switch to paired by direction not far from the terminus.

Does anyone know if the arrangement between Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate has anything to do with the additional line laid by the London and Croydon for atmospheric working?

An interesting example of fast lines through a station is at Cheam. This was laid out as a turn round point for LBSC overhead electric suburban services. However the overhead electric wiring never reached this far because the scheme (which relied on German equipment) was put on hold with the advent of WW1. So Cheam remained just a regular calling point for local trains to and from Epsom etc. The main line trains used the centre roads, but as these never stopped, the planned platforms were never constructed. Needless to say the centre roads were consigned to history a long time ago, but the space for them remains.

The GW main line from Paddington is paired by use, but this dates from the quadrupling in the 1890s and the pairs of lines are labelled Main and Relief.

 

[30907]

Does anyone know if the arrangement between Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate has anything to do with the additional line laid by the London and Croydon for atmospheric working?

Intriguing thought. It's not obvious why the LBSC - spent a great deal on its network in South London, with flying junctions and the complex layout at Selhurst - opted for paired by direction on the L and C section; arguably paired by use might have been better, given that the junctions were predominantly on one side of the line.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

The history of paired by use vs paired by direction between Selhurst and Victoria (and especially through Clapham Jct) feels quite obscure. There certainly was a time when it looks very much like there was a section paired by direction. If the fast lines were in the middle Selhurst Jct could operate paired by direction (the down line uses the current connection to West Croydon, the up line uses the now closed emergency spur (which was the original line - the quadrupling being on what’s now the slow line side). Streatham Jct could also function but Balham is a big problem as is the West London line.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Intriguing thought. It's not obvious why the LBSC - spent a great deal on its network in South London, with flying junctions and the complex layout at Selhurst - opted for paired by direction on the L and C section; arguably paired by use might have been better, given that the junctions were predominantly on one side of the line.

Between Victoria and Balham Junction, paired by use makes sense considering the "cut-off" via Thornton Heath was built and a later point to the Crystal Palace route. Otherwise you'd need to do some awkward earthworks at Balham in order to separate the lines into PBD for the last few miles into Victoria, which would be pointless. There is perhaps more of an argument pairing by direction south of Balham, especially when the Mitcham Junction route was used by both fast and slow trains.

I went on the Chatham the other day and wondered what it would be like if the route was quadrupled from Shortlands to Brixton. Considering there's a flat crossing at Herne Hill and the junction to the Hayes line at Beckenham.

Intriguing thought. It's not obvious why the LBSC - spent a great deal on its network in South London, with flying junctions and the complex layout at Selhurst - opted for paired by direction on the L and C section; arguably paired by use might have been better, given that the junctions were predominantly on one side of the line.

I also note that there seems to be no grade seperation on the approach into London Bridge pre-Thameslink to sort the lines back into PBU

 

[Cricketer8for9]

My imaginary infrastructure would have the Stewart’s Lane low level route as the way to get trains over the right side of the formation, with right hand running over Grosvenor Bridge. Clearly not going to happen, and something for a different thread, but one can have dreams. If only the Southern had sorted out Woking the LSWR line would have been almost perfect - for passenger services at least.

 

[30907]

I went on the Chatham the other day and wondered what it would be like if the route was quadrupled from Shortlands to Brixton. Considering there's a flat crossing at Herne Hill and the junction to the Hayes line at Beckenham.

It is of course quadrupled, only the second pair of tracks go via Catford

The Mid-Kent junction is an accident of history - Herne Hill is more of a problem

 

[AndrewE]

The GCR did it the other way to most of what we see now (e.g. at Levenshulme, with the slow lines and platforms on the outside): They bought the land they needed for 4 tracks and laid the first 2 either side of the station (island) platforms with a view to putting the fast lines up the outside if the business developed to the point where fast lines were justified.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It is of course quadrupled, only the second pair of tracks go via Catford

The Mid-Kent junction is an accident of history - Herne Hill is more of a problem

I have tried to use Google Earth to route a theoretical LCDR fast line through Herne Hill. The only way I could see it happening is if you moved the Tulse Hill spur to the north side of Knights Hill Tunnel and move the north junction closer to Brixton to grade separate.

 

[30907]

I have tried to use Google Earth to route a theoretical LCDR fast line through Herne Hill. The only way I could see it happening is if you moved the Tulse Hill spur to the north side of Knights Hill Tunnel and move the north junction closer to Brixton to grade separate.

OT, but one of the London-based rail sites has discussed the topic of Herne Hill - I can't recall what thu came up with

 

[Sad Sprinter]

OT, but one of the London-based rail sites has discussed the topic of Herne Hill - I can't recall what thu came up with

I think that might have been London Recconections a long time ago, one of the ideas was to extend the Victoria Line to Herne Hill and route the Orpington services to Blackfriars

 

[Helvellyn]

If only the Southern had sorted out Woking the LSWR line would have been almost perfect - for passenger services at least.

Basingstoke would still be an issue, but given that in SR days that was a link from the GWR it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. Given the land had been acquired at Woking always thought it a shame it just never got completed.

 

[Rescars]

Intriguing thought. It's not obvious why the LBSC - spent a great deal on its network in South London, with flying junctions and the complex layout at Selhurst - opted for paired by direction on the L and C section; arguably paired by use might have been better, given that the junctions were predominantly on one side of the line.

IIRC the first flying junction in the world was at Norwood Junc (then called Jolly Sailor) to enable the atmospheric L&C line to cross the London and Brighton to reach West Croydon.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Eg the GWR cut off line (Filton - Wooten Bassett via Badminton) had all its stations like that so important trains could overtake slow coal trains (coal from South Wales was big). Just happened to be easier to build loops that also had platforms for fairly infrequent local passenger services.

Not so at Winterbourne Stoke or Brinkworth.

 

[contrex]

OT, but one of the London-based rail sites has discussed the topic of Herne Hill - I can't recall what thu came up with

Didn't it involve a 'fly-up' from the Down Chatham line to the Down Portsmouth, so that trains from Loughborough Junction could get to Tulse Hill without crossing the Up Chatham?

 

[Falcon1200]

The GWR 'New Line' from Old Oak Common to Aynho Junction, joint with the GCR between Northolt and Ashendon Junction, had multiple stations with platforms on loops and fast lines through the middle; IIRC the only remnants now are at South and West Ruislip, and Princes Risborough, one through line in each case.

Also on the GWR, Oxford had, and still has, platforms on loops with through lines, although very few if any regular passenger trains have not been booked to stop there.

 

[Magdalia]

Also on the GWR, Oxford had, and still has, platforms on loops with through lines, although very few if any regular passenger trains have not been booked to stop there.

I have a 1965 WTT that includes Oxford.

On summer Saturdays 1138 Poole-Wolverhampton and 1311 Portsmouth-Wolverhampton passenger trains were booked not to stop at Oxford and shown TL for through line in the WTT.

 

[Falcon1200]

On summer Saturdays 1138 Poole-Wolverhampton and 1311 Portsmouth-Wolverhampton passenger trains were booked not to stop at Oxford and shown TL for through line in the WTT.

Interesting, thanks (but those were a tiny fraction of the overall passenger service through Oxford!)

 

[AndrewE]

Interesting, thanks (but those were a tiny fraction of the overall passenger service through Oxford!)

There is a video on youTube of the last slip coach working (at a small station, not Oxford!)... It shows the express going through on the middle road then the local train engine leaving its train to go to fetch the slip coach off the fast line. Presumably the slip gets put on the front of the local to go forward on the slow line (or out of the platform loop onto the main line.)

 

[Magdalia]

There is a video on youTube of the last slip coach working (at a small station, not Oxford!)... It shows the express going through on the middle road then the local train engine leaving its train to go to fetch the slip coach off the fast line. Presumably the slip gets put on the front of the local to go forward on the slow line (or out of the platform loop onto the main line.)

The last slip coach was at Bicester North off the 1710 Paddington -Wolverhampton on 9 September 1960.

 

[AndrewE]

The last slip coach was at Bicester North off the 1710 Paddington -Wolverhampton on 9 September 1960.

This seems to get an airing about every couple of years (I went back to find the video link!)