Govenment Briefing 23rd May - Reversing Beeching Cuts

[ChiefPlanner]

The reversal is not signalled for passenger train movements, additional signalling would be needed. AIUI reversals can be made under local signaller control, but not on a regualr basis, but I am not an industry professional.

That would make sense - a set of point clips and scotches as a one off (and handsignalling over a shunt signal) - whereas as mentioned a "proper" running signal and facing point locks would do the job.

I recall a similar situation applied at Pf 3 at Shrewsbury where some simple changes made it fully functional.

 

[cle]

I believe the plans are for a Penryn style loop set up too which should be good - and will of course save them having to re-instate a second platform & all the associated costs of that.

So just a platform extension? Is the aim for moving from 45/60 min frequencies to 30 min?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So just a platform extension? Is the aim for moving from 45/60 min frequencies to 30 min?

Be nice to see in detail what all the proposals are - we seem to be having to work a lot from guesswork here But yes, a 30 min frequency would sound right. Anything more than that would probably require more than one loop (not sure if a 20 min frequency might just be do-able with one loop, but the timings would be incredibly tight).

I'm guessing new signalling infrastructure would form a significant part of the costs - as the branch is currently one long siding which presumably relies on only ever having one train at a time on it, so not requiring any signalling beyond Watford. Also, you'd need to dig out an extra train from somewhere. Seems a pretty worthwhile project to me though.

 

[Parallel]

Pleased to see that a new station on the outskirts of Devizes is being considered. The town is rather isolated in the centre of Wiltshire and the transport links leave a little to be desired. It would open more journey opportunities for younger people, as well as those making longer distance journeys if a sizeable carpark could be situated nearby. You would also need some kind of connecting bus service, considering it’s about an hour walk from where the line crosses the road to the town centre, but, I guess anything is an improvement on now.

I don’t think the DfT have been making the most of the Berks & Hants Line. It largely conveys long distance traffic, passing through many local
communities that had their stations closed years ago. If traffic eventually increases, maybe it will see local stations (re)opened such as Lavington, Edington/Bratton, Somerton and Langport. Some kind of Taunton/Exeter to Newbury stopping service would probably need to stop there as it’d slow down the semi fast trains too much.

 

[Chingy]

I don’t think the DfT have been making the most of the Berks & Hants Line. It largely conveys long distance traffic, passing through many local
communities that had their stations closed years ago. If traffic eventually increases, maybe it will see local stations (re)opened such as Lavington, Edington/Bratton, Somerton and Langport. Some kind of Taunton/Exeter to Newbury stopping service would probably need to stop there as it’d slow down the semi fast trains too much.

The B&H line has quite a concentrated amount of stations on its Eastern side (RDG - Newbury).

The trouble is, the B&H (with the exception of Newbury) has no passenger loops so more stations between Westbury and Newbury would likely cause pathing issues with long distance IET services.

Add to the fact there is a large amount of slow moving freight traffic on the line (namely Stone), which only just make it to Woodborough loop before the fast passenger is up its arse.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm guessing new signalling infrastructure would form a significant part of the costs - as the branch is currently one long siding which presumably relies on only ever having one train at a time on it, so not requiring any signalling beyond Watford. Also, you'd need to dig out an extra train from somewhere. Seems a pretty worthwhile project to me though.

Ignoring the high liklihood that a single-platform solution will be used, it does seem strange why a simple token system can't be put in place though to avoid full signalling. I hope it's painfuly apparent that I don't know anything beyond basics when it comes to rail signalling, but could you not just have two single line sections with an overlapping loop connected by sprung points? Setting the points (and getting the green signal) would require both the correct token and the track circuit occupied, which you would only have when you're sitting in the platform at Bricket Wood after the driver of the other train gave it to you?

Please forgive the crayoning!



...or would you also need something to protect each section should (for whatever reason) the train somehow end up reversing back into a section after handing over the token? i.e. another set of trap points, or full track circuits for the entire length of the unsignaled section?

 

[mwmbwls]

There is certainly no case for both that would be crazy, I'm not convinced there is a strong case for either, a curve at Hellifield I imagine would be very expensive and I very much doubt would be justified on a passenger basis alone, when reversal at Hellifield could likely be achieved for a much cheaper cost, calling it a link line rather than a curve might be a more accurate description unless you want to destroy half the village.

It all depends what is in the business case - in the case of Skipton Colne - if all we are talking about is restoring a single line branch from Skipton to Colne - forget it. If we are talking of a double track line that runs from Skipton to Rose Grove then that would be a step change improvement. In timetabling terms all three of the single track route sections out of Preston (Blackpool South*. Ormskirk, Colne) are a disaster. There is no opportunity for trains to recover from perturbation - once redoubled linking those routes into some form of Preston/Lancashire Metro would make sense - especially if the Burscough Curves to Southport are reinstated. This piecemeal approach is bound to end in non operational pieces unless a full network analysis is undertaken. As for Hellifield - through services from Preston to Carlisle should fill in with Leeds Carlisle services increasing the baseline frequency on the S&C to a clockface service. Now it might not work but the only reliable way to test demand is to test the market. As long as the Government does not take a network rather than a someone's favourite route based approach I fear that we will end up with a political squib of the damp variety. (* If Blackpool South, because an improved tram train link, does not want to play - there is always Fleetwood)

 

[Rational Plan]

Wrox

Wroxall is only a small place, it looks like you could fairly easily skirt round the edge via farmland to the East; the station wouldn't be ideally sited but it would only be 300m or so from the original central site. Of course, the terrain may make this a bit difficult but it seems pretty flat.

Wroxall is built on a steep hillside, it bulldoze through the old route or build brand new tunnels. Plus the I assume that means loss of the car park opposite the community centre and that is used by residents to park their cars, who live on the main road. A lot of the older house have no off street parking and the main road is double yellow lined, along that stretch. Losing that car park will be very unpopular, as like most of the Isle of Wight, parking is poor and most roads very narrow.

 

[HSTEd]

What it needs is a high performance unit, much shorter dwells (ie DOO), 2 minute turnarounds, and the speed restrictions on both level crossings removed. That would easily get you a half hourly service. Dare I say a tram?

Heresy!

 

[onlinespotting]

Does anybody actually live near the Etruria station site these days?

Etruria has new housing near it. It also has Festival Park retail park nearby and Etruria Valley business park by it (Bet365, Vodafone, Royal Mail, NHS among others) AND the Holy Inadequate pub (real ales etc) formerly the station pub

 

[YorksLad12]

On a quick look at Google maps, you'd have to build it to the SouthEast of the village, which would imply trains wouldn't be able to serve - or even go anywhere near - Hellifield. I wonder if the phrase 'new link' doesn't mean a chord, but simply facilities for trains to reverse at Hellifield station?

Unless they're also building Hellifield South and bridging the A65 (and crossing another local road)... I'm going with updated signalling and trackwork to allow reversals. I've only ever passed through Hellifield, but Google Maps shows plenty of room to do pretty much anything you wanted at the site.

 

[cle]

It's a bit pitiful that a very local improvement like getting Watford-St Albans to 2tph with a loop is conflated into a grandiose 'Undoing Beeching' scheme. Which is explicitly associated with closings/reopening. Pathetic.

It's an admirable improvement in itself, as are most of these, but they're pretty modest in relation to the description. A second tph to Clitheroe is a simple extension AND frequency add, which should barely register outside of a local announcement - what that has to do with Beeching I have no idea.

 

[Glenn1969]

Maybe the idea is the 2nd Clitheroe going on to Hellifield? Who knows?

 

[si404]

Maybe the idea is the 2nd Clitheroe going on to Hellifield? Who knows?

Which still isn't a reopening, merely making a Summer Saturday only service into a full time one.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Ah, just found the link. It's here

Thanks for posting. Reading that it sounds more ambitious than I had first thought.

 

[30907]

A cursory glance at Hellifield signalling arrangements would seem to indicate that a passenger reversing move off the Clithero line ought to be achievable by the simple addition of a running signal towards Skipton and the installation of proper points detection (ideally mechanical ! - it may still be on the frame) , perhaps some local experts /operators can advise if this is possible.

Effectively two facing point locks and two running signals (are you allowed simply to replace the existing discs?). The question is, could you accommodate all these reversing trains in the down platform on top of the existing service?

 

[YorksLad12]

Effectively two facing point locks and two running signals (are you allowed simply to replace the existing discs?). The question is, could you accommodate all these reversing trains in the down platform on top of the existing service?

*cough* Third platform *cough*

Semi-seriously, that would allow the through platforms to be kept clear while crew changed ends, etc. But it's only around 70m long - long enough for a two-carriage 158 or 195 but not quite three. Not to mention cost of the work. Forget I mentioned it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's a bit pitiful that a very local improvement like getting Watford-St Albans to 2tph with a loop is conflated into a grandiose 'Undoing Beeching' scheme. Which is explicitly associated with closings/reopening. Pathetic.

Why is it pathetic? The political context is that the Government have apparently decided they want to improve/expand the railway network, including re-opening old lines where appropriate - and they have provided funding to develop business cases in accordance with that. The branding they've stuck on the funding is 'reversing Beeching,' which is not strictly 100% accurate as a description because clearly the scope is not limited to the Beeching cuts. But given the historical context, that's perhaps an understandable mis-branding. I don't see anything pathetic about groups who want to improve the Abbey Line taking advantage of this funding, or the Government selecting for further investigation a line in a built up area that serves a lot of people and which could be significantly enhanced without having to add that much additional infrastructure. It all seems pretty sensible and potentially very good news to me.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Effectively two facing point locks and two running signals (are you allowed simply to replace the existing discs?). The question is, could you accommodate all these reversing trains in the down platform on top of the existing service?

One would have thought so - 2 hourly S+C , much less towards Lancaster / Morecombe , - not a lot of freight now the coal has ceased. A reversing move is attainable in 3 to 4 mins , - just a bit of careful timetabling.

I am sure someone wold make it difficult in terms of performance risk , but older generations of operators would laugh at that !

 

[vlad]

Does anybody actually live near the Etruria station site these days?

Plenty. There aren't many within five minutes' walk (just as there weren't in the 1990s) but if you class "near" as within half a mile then the demand is certainly there. Remember that when it was closed it was only served by a couple of trains a day.

 

[yorkie]

Honestly it might be cheaper to improve the service on the abbey line by trying to procure an ultra-high performance unit.
But you would probably struggle to go half hourly on that basis.

Line speed improvements would probably be necessary, but at the end of the day it is only 10,300m.

Wonder what a Class 700 could manage with the limiters off.

Just a gentle reminder that any suggestions/ideas belong in the Speculative Ideas section please

The following thread is particularly relevant: Restoring Your Railway Fund: what ideas would you suggest?

 

[Wharfe106]

Maybe the idea is the 2nd Clitheroe going on to Hellifield? Who knows?

Yes indeed, but as noted earller, passenger trains cannot reverse at Hellifield, so they need to find somewhere they can!!

 

[Glenn1969]

Think the plan maybe for them to use a new "right turn" at the junction and carry on to Skipton or Leeds

 

[30907]

Think the plan maybe for them to use a new "right turn" at the junction and carry on to Skipton or Leeds

Or simply some minor resignalling, as suggested upthread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding Hellifield

Effectively two facing point locks and two running signals (are you allowed simply to replace the existing discs?). The question is, could you accommodate all these reversing trains in the down platform on top of the existing service?

Given the low frequencies, it seems unlikely to be a problem at Hellifield. But I wonder about further down the line. What is going to happen to the trains after they've headed off towards Skipton? I can see three possibilities.

1. They terminate at Skipton. Is the infrastructure there at Skipton to allow that, or would that need more work?
2. They merge with some of the existing Skipton-Leeds trains. This is probably the easiest solution from a pathing point of view, but faces the problem that (I believe) the Leeds-Skipton trains are electric - so you'd need to replace some of them with (presumably) bi-modes.
3. They carry on to Leeds (or maybe Bradford) as an additional service. But is there capacity for that at Leeds (or Bradford)?

 

[Wtloild]

Regarding a chord south of Hellifield - would that open up a viable transpennine freight route, freeing up capacity on existing transpennine routes? (as a cheaper alternative to the proposed freight traffic on Skipton-Colne).
It would already be double-track all the way, unlike Rose Grove to Skipton.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Did anyone see the Gareth Dennis and Dr David Turner presentation about reversing Beeching cuts on YouTube? Interesting to say the least

 

[The Planner]

Hythe also presumes everyone wants to go to or via Southampton. A better (cheaper) way forward would be to improve the services at Beaulieu Road which is about 5 miles away and could offer direct services not just to Southampton but also London but Bournemouth and Weymouth as well.

Don't fancy getting that past the New Forest verderers.

This is all before you get onto the aspirations to increase the Manchester - Birmingham to 2tph and increase Crewe - Derby to 2tph.

Manchester Brum is already 2tph.

 

[A0wen]

Don't fancy getting that past the New Forest verderers.

I dunno - it's an existing station and provides a useful link to Lyndhurst as well. Reality is there's an existing station which could be put to better use at much lower cost than the reinstatement which is being suggested.

Manchester Brum is already 2tph.

My bad - I didn't check properly - though it reinforces my point still further in that you have 4 'fast' trains heading to / from Stoke an hour and 3 slows which need to 'fit around' those all on a 2 track railway. Adding in another station just over a mile to the north of Stoke which at least one of those slows will need to stop at, really isn't going to help matters.

 

[30907]

Regarding Hellifield

Given the low frequencies, it seems unlikely to be a problem at Hellifield. But I wonder about further down the line. What is going to happen to the trains after they've headed off towards Skipton? I can see three possibilities.

1. They terminate at Skipton. Is the infrastructure there at Skipton to allow that, or would that need more work?
2. They merge with some of the existing Skipton-Leeds trains. This is probably the easiest solution from a pathing point of view, but faces the problem that (I believe) the Leeds-Skipton trains are electric - so you'd need to replace some of them with (presumably) bi-modes.
3. They carry on to Leeds (or maybe Bradford) as an additional service. But is there capacity for that at Leeds (or Bradford)?

There's a facing connection at Skipton onto the down main. The Down Loop, though, is the run-round for the Swinden Quarry trains and often blocked for some time, so it would require careful timetabling (on top of the same at Hellifield and between there and Skipton). There's also Broughton Road sidings which are a shunt move from the mains.
m
Running through to Leeds seems highly unlikely IMO. The most likely would be 2-hourly with a comfortable layover at Skipton, or possibly hourly with reversal at Settle Jn or double shunt at Hellifield (requiring no signalling alterations).

Regarding a chord south of Hellifield - would that open up a viable transpennine freight route, freeing up capacity on existing transpennine routes? (as a cheaper alternative to the proposed freight traffic on Skipton-Colne).
It would already be double-track all the way, unlike Rose Grove to Skipton.

Yes, mentioned upthread.