Junctions in need of a Carstairs style speed up to improve services

[Bald Rick]

Out of curiosity, what speeds would be possible given the junction with the line from Kingsbury Jn to consider?

Dunno, I’ve never looked at that one. Just been round it a few hundred times. But with some land take, I’d expect 60 or 70 would be Possible.

 

[Falcon1200]

Regarding law junction, the solution is likely to be a high speed bypass from Rutherglen post 2050

That will be something to see! In the meantime, the route from Uddingston Jc to Law Jc via Bellshill and Holytown avoids the congestion at Motherwell, although I doubt whether it is actually any faster.

 

[Mag_seven]

Was it just my imagination but was there not a proposal to grade separate Colwich Junction as part of the original WCML upgrade programme?

 

[jfollows]

Was it just my imagination but was there not a proposal to grade separate Colwich Junction as part of the original WCML upgrade programme?

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/wcml-upgrade.210140/

There were initial studies to grade separate Colwich, but a little south. This was as much about journey time gain as removing the conflict.

There was never any study into doing Shugborough, and no real need to. If you can’t get 6 passenger and a couple of freights an hour on a short two track section we may as well give up!

 

[The Planner]

Bushbury is awkward - I looked at that too. Water Orton is a good shout, as is Whitaker towards Nuneaton.

I have been told its also being looked at as well since as it needs renewing soon, the space is there apparently.

 

[brad465]

The constraint is not the junctions but the severity of the curves. I’ve looked at that personally.

Are you referring to Herne Hill, Lewisham, or both?

 

[adamedwards]

I would add Bushbury, Stone (though that would be a nightmare to do), ...

Stone would need the station moving to the straight tracks slightly further north, the disadvantage being it's then further out from the middle of the village, but it would also then enable it to be a Parkway just off the A34 and be served by trains on the direct line south, so once HS2 takes trains off, it could then be a stop on a residual Stoke to London service. An excpensive way to speed up the curve, so very unlikely to happen.

 

[Minstral25]

That’s not a slow speed crossing though, and speeding it up would add no additional paths.


It’s been one of my career missions to do this (speed up junctions where it is relatively easy to do so at renewal), and my fingerprints are on multiple examples.

Bit I’ll add (for starters)

Preston
Carlisle
Stechford Jn
Redhill
Bury St Edmunds
various junctions at Streatham / Streatham North

As a regular user of Redhill I agree on that one.

Watching 12 coach Thameslink trains arrive from London (north) hitting the brakes from speed as the approach was rebuilt with P0 - then the achingly long time it takes to approach from the South with the same trains.

Also maybe a P4 to terminate Tonbridge trains without running them across the station throat meaning everything else has to sit and watch their very slow progress.

 

[zwk500]

As a regular user of Redhill I agree on that one.

Watching 12 coach Thameslink trains arrive from London (north) hitting the brakes from speed as the approach was rebuilt with P0 - then the achingly long time it takes to approach from the South with the same trains.

Also maybe a P4 to terminate Tonbridge trains without running them across the station throat meaning everything else has to sit and watch their very slow progress.

Is there space to do anything without shifting the entire station northwards?

A 4-car bay on the down side would be great though, if you can fit in the pointwork to access it for the tonbridge line. maybe a Doncaster P0-style "hide it round the back of the car park" solution would be workable as a compromise.

 

[OxtedL]

Is there space to do anything without shifting the entire station northwards?

A 4-car bay on the down side would be great though, if you can fit in the pointwork to access it for the tonbridge line. maybe a Doncaster P0-style "hide it round the back of the car park" solution would be workable as a compromise.

Don't know if Redhill has been discussed on previous speculative threads.

I reckon you would:

• Ditch the down side platform loop (current Platform 3)
• Build out P3 onto the current down through line, probably about 4 carriage lengths north (so up to opposite P0)
• This makes P3 accessible southbound at full linespeed. And allows you to simplify some of the pointwork at the south end of the station.
• It also makes space for a P4 bay at the south end of the current P3.
• Ideally you'd also try to build the approach from the Tonbridge line to that P4 bay so that is independent of the south station throat towards Gatwick - if there is space for a third track around the corner.

If you want to speed up turnouts for northbound trains approaching from Gatwick, the key will be moving the pointwork further south.
You might be able to build a line from the Gatwick line to P0 that is further south than the current turnout if you were willing to lose access from P0 to/from Tonbridge (for example, if it was no longer needed because you'd built P4)

If you want higher speeds into P2 but to keep access to the Tonbridge line, I imagine you'd have to lose the up through line (either realigning the up line into the current P2 line, or building P2 out to the up through line.)

This plan depends on no-one being particularly attached to continuing use of the through lines.

 

[zwk500]

This plan depends on no-one being particularly attached to continuing use of the through lines.

I think you can ditch the Down loop and take over the Down through, but you do need the Up Main to regulate the odd freight that does go that way

 

[JonathanH]

I reckon you would:

• Ditch the down side platform loop (current Platform 3)
• Build out P3 onto the current down through line, probably about 4 carriage lengths north (so up to opposite P0)

I don't think the operators would want to lose the through line. It is important when there are engineering blocks on the Quarry Line, and indeed short notice diversions.

• It also makes space for a P4 bay at the south end of the current P3.
• Ideally you'd also try to build the approach from the Tonbridge line to that P4 bay so that is independent of the south station throat towards Gatwick - if there is space for a third track around the corner.

This is a bit too elaborate. All the Tonbridge line really needs is a crossover East of Redhill, so that trains could approach Redhill on the current down line, then I think a platform could be fitted without moving platform 3. No third track needed.

The south end at Redhill clearly isn't as quick as the north end, but the need to feed three routes close to the end of the platforms and maintain flexibility does present challenges with space.

 

[CAF397]

Hall Royd Jn on the Calder Valley line, where the Manchester and Preston lines diverge could be remodelled.

There is enough railway land to make a junction fitted with flashing yellows and a 50mph turnout speed for the Preston route (currently approach controlled and 30mph).

Down L&Y services from Manchester currently have a 50mph PSR over the Junction, with approach speeds before of 65mph and after of 70mph.

 

[zwk500]

Hall Royd Jn on the Calder Valley line, where the Manchester and Preston lines diverge could be remodelled.

There is enough railway land to make a junction fitted with flashing yellows and a 50mph turnout speed for the Preston route (currently approach controlled and 30mph).

Down L&Y services from Manchester currently have a 50mph PSR over the Junction, with approach speeds before of 65mph and after of 70mph.

If the approach speeds are 65/70 and the max branch speed 50 wouldn't you get more.capacity by dropping the through line speed to 60 and having Main Aspect Free than having Flashing yellows?

 

[CAF397]

On the Down, from Manchester, the linespeed is reduced from 65 to 50 just to pass over the Junction. It then goes up to 70. That restriction is just condition of track, a new junction and you could go over it at 65. Time saving is minimal.

On the Up, to Manchester, the junction is 70 throughout, reducing to 65 shortly after. No improvement.

The big win would be to and from Preston which is currently 30mph both directions, and approach controlled on the Up. The junction seems to be in its historic layout, the points are sharp, but then it goes straight for a while before going off on a curve again.

There is enough land to create 40 or 50mph turnouts - although the line speed would then have to reduce just after heading towards the Copy Pit route - but this would allow Up trains to be signalled using flashing aspects. The benefit being Preston bound trains would not be brought almost to a stand, and following trains wouldn't be slowed down as much.

 

[PGAT]

East Croydon and the whole Selhurst triangle complex really need sorting out

 

[zwk500]

East Croydon and the whole Selhurst triangle complex really need sorting out

There was CARS, but it appears to have stalled.

 

[PGAT]

There was CARS, but it appears to have stalled.

Indeed

 

[JonathanH]

East Croydon and the whole Selhurst triangle complex really need sorting out

Why? It is quick enough for the traffic now running, without any awkward slowing. I appreciate that it has some operational constraints around train lengths, but users of the trains in the area have dodged a bullet in terms of the ten years of disruption that CARS represented.

South Croydon isn't a great junction either.

 

[mcmad]

My mistake.

The solution to the problem at that junction is the building of the Dalmeny chord, with which I was intimately involved, but unfortunately now is kicked into the long grass.

Are you meaning Haymarket West/Central then? the ladder opposite Murrayfield and the one where the E&G and Fife lines diverge? Don't think there is the volume of traffic to justify Almond Chord now.

 

[zwk500]

Why? It is quick enough for the traffic now running, without any awkward slowing. I appreciate that it has some operational constraints around train lengths, but users of the trains in the area have dodged a bullet in terms of the ten years of disruption that CARS represented.

The Selhurst/windmill bridge Triangle really did need sorting out pre-covid - particularly the conflict between the Up London Bridge fast and the Down Victoria Fast along with the Fast-to-slow transitions of the Vic-East Grinstead services. There were also useful benefits in extending the standage out to 12 cars on most lines. Post-Covid I don't know what the service reductions are like.

South Croydon isn't a great junction either.

Not great but much less problematic in terms of the timetable with the centre line and not too many conflicting up movements.

 

[td97]

Preston is being looked at now, as is Carlisle.

Correct, on a timescale based on 'ETCS deployment', so not happening too soon.

Good news.

A very competent design team are looking at rationalising the north WCML to improve junctions and available crossing movements for ETCS deployment.

The entirety of Crewe station

There's a completed business case for Crewe remodelling. Detailed design is the next stage.

 

[The Planner]

Correct, on a timescale based on 'ETCS deployment', so not happening too soon.

A very competent design team are looking at rationalising the north WCML to improve junctions and available crossing movements for ETCS deployment.

Even has its own buzzword organisation already!

 

[waverley47]

Are you meaning Haymarket West/Central then? the ladder opposite Murrayfield and the one where the E&G and Fife lines diverge? Don't think there is the volume of traffic to justify Almond Chord now.

No the problem still exists.

The problem is not undercapacity of Haymarket east junction, instead it is the unbalance between numbers of trains through each of the Haymarket tunnels, and ultimately into each 'half' of the Waverley west end platforms (granted there are more platforms on the south side, platforms 8-14 vs 15-20)

Currently, the north tunnel, through platforms 1&2 at Haymarket carries the Fife trains.

The south tunnel, through platforms 3&4, carries trains to Stirling, Glasgow via Falkirk, Bathgate, Shotts and Carstairs.

This necessitates several trains per hour in each direction crossing over the previously mentioned ladder junction, which eats capacity, and causes conflicts. Most of these are ad-hoc moves rather than being explicitly timetabled, which makes matters worse. Additionally, the three flat junctions along the south set of lines (Haymarket East, Newbridge and Polmont) chews through capacity on this line, as timetabling crossing moves becomes an instant conflict.

The Almond or Dalmeny Chord solves this by rebalancing train numbers through both sets of lines. When I was involved, it was needed because the original EGIP plan was for 6tph Edinburgh to Glasgow shuttle, made of 6 cars.

This negated the need for platform extensions, but ultimately was unworkable with 17tph minimum each way through the south tunnel, and over those flat junctions. That doesn't work with the platform reoccupation time, and minimum headway, of 3.5 minutes through Haymarket.

In the end, this was swapped for 4tph of eight car trains, providing the same capacity, but needing platform extensions. This killed the intimate and immediate need for the Almond Chord, but the idea still lives, basically as a way of evening out capacity and making timetabling easier through Haymarket.



Currently post-covid, the situation is that it's not needed as immediately, as some service rejiggs and cuts have taken place, but it's still on the horizon. Edinburgh isn't really susceptible to the same commuter flows as London is, and the frequencies are usually steady throughout the day.* In the medium term, there is a an aspiration for 3tph each way via Shotts, and 1tph to Alloa in addition to 2tph to Dunblane, as well as the ever present assumption that eventually, 6tph to Glasgow will be needed via Falkirk High.

*Current service levels through Haymarket South tunnels
4tph Edinburgh - Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk High
2tph Edinburgh - Dunblane
2tph Edinburgh - Glasgow Central via Shotts
4tph Edinburgh - Bathgate - Glasgow Queen St Low Level
1.5tph Edinburgh - Carstairs (to Manchester (TPE), Euston (Avanti) or Glasgow (XC or ScotRail))
0.5tph Edinburgh - Inverness via Stirling

There are also the currently cancelled indefinitely 2tph Edinburgh - Glasgow Queen Street via Cumbernauld

 

[ChrisC]

Has anything ever been done in the Trent/Sheet Stores area to speed up journeys between Nottingham and Derby? It doesn’t seem to be any different now to what it was in the late 1970’s when I used to travel to college in Derby.

 

[Bald Rick]

Has anything ever been done in the Trent/Sheet Stores area to speed up journeys between Nottingham and Derby? It doesn’t seem to be any different now to what it was in the late 1970’s when I used to travel to college in Derby.

Yes the top of the triangle was remodelled a few a years ago. Double track and double junctions both ends, which has removed a point of conflict and thus reduced pathing time etc. The speed limit is due to the radii of the curves themselves, not the junctions.

 

[Nottingham59]

Has anything ever been done in the Trent/Sheet Stores area to speed up journeys between Nottingham and Derby? It doesn’t seem to be any different now to what it was in the late 1970’s when I used to travel to college in Derby.

The IRP noted they would have to grade separate Trent East jn if HS2 gets to East Midland Pkwy