Might the GN/GE Joint Line March to Spalding reopen?

[railnerd]

Hi.

Sorry if this subject has currently got a thread. Im new!

This week, I was shown a facebook message by someone. It was from a train driver saying that Network Rail are once again, bringing up the subject of reopening the 1982 closed March to Spalding line.

This subject has rattled on for years, since about 1990 when the disused line began having bits built on it, most notably HMP Whitemoor.

Now though, theres a rumour that Network Rail are considering this option rather than a flyover at Werrington. The re-instated line would also keep the freight traffic away from Peterborough. The flyover would not!

Has anyone else anything to add?

 

[Philip Elliott]

Just to go off topic for a moment, which signal box is being demolished in your avatar?

 

[railnerd]

Hi.

The box is... was... Blotoft SB. Formally Blotoft Siding SB. It could be found in the middle of nowhere between Sleaford and spalding on the GN/GE Joint Line. Without looking, Im pretty sure the original box dated from 1882 with the opening of the line. In the early 2000's, most of the original structure was replaced with the 'plastic' cladding and the box was made larger around the original lever frame.

I was there filming it being demolished in 2014.:cry:

 

[LowLevel]

Ahh, one of those silly old boxes that didn't have axle counters and obstacle detectors to fail every couple of days for added journey excitement - it'll never catch on!

 

[Welshman]

Hi.

The box is... was... Blotoft SB. Formally Blotoft Siding SB. It could be found in the middle of nowhere between Sleaford and spalding on the GN/GE Joint Line. Without looking, Im pretty sure the original box dated from 1882 with the opening of the line. In the early 2000's, most of the original structure was replaced with the 'plastic' cladding and the box was made larger around the original lever frame.

I was there filming it being demolished in 2014.:cry:

I'm sorry to see Blotoft SB go.

I lived in Helpringham between 2002 & 2010, and occasionally ventured down the fen to watch specials go by.

 

[linkyork]

Hi.

Sorry if this subject has currently got a thread. Im new!

This week, I was shown a facebook message by someone. It was from a train driver saying that Network Rail are once again, bringing up the subject of reopening the 1982 closed March to Spalding line.

This subject has rattled on for years, since about 1990 when the disused line began having bits built on it, most notably HMP Whitemoor.

Now though, theres a rumour that Network Rail are considering this option rather than a flyover at Werrington. The re-instated line would also keep the freight traffic away from Peterborough. The flyover would not!

Has anyone else anything to add?

It certainly makes sense but I think that too much of the line has gone.
The latest breech being the new A16 Spalding to Peterborough road where it is crossed twice.
ORR do not seem to like level crossings on new/reopened lines and the Spalding area would require at least five.
The cost of bridges I think would outweigh the one proposed for Werrington Junction.
In Spalding itself a house/hotel has been built on the Cowbit Road crossing and across the river, where the bridge remains, a road has been built on the formation to serve new housing.
The authorities in Spalding do not appear railway friendly prefering to allow industrial buildings to be built next to closed railway lines which are then served by vehicles almost as wide as the roads leading to them.

 

[Johnuk123]

It would need massive bridge works and also quite big diversions from the old route, would surely not be cost effective.

 

[railnerd]

Hi

If, and its a big if, the line did reopen, it wud make more sense to divert west around Cowbit and join the current line south of Spalding.
Ideally, it wud go north of Spalding.

 

[bramling]

I'm sorry to see Blotoft SB go.

I lived in Helpringham between 2002 & 2010, and occasionally ventured down the fen to watch specials go by.

Yes lovely little box, in a delightfully quiet and hard-to-reach location.

PS - to the original poster, you really *must* change that avater, as it's so sad to see that sight!

 

[thedbdiboy]

It would need massive bridge works and also quite big diversions from the old route, would surely not be cost effective.

Well yes, except that (as Google Maps shows), the land there is extremely flat and relatively undeveloped, so following a new alignment in part is much less of an issue than where the topography precludes any deviation.
The major issue with the flat landscape is indeed the prevalence of level crossings on the original route - every crossing on a reopened line would need to be bridged, but again, that is fairly straightforward. Motorways do it all the time with minor road crossings.

It's less of a reopening and more an issue of constructing a new route across some very flat, featureless countryside....

 

[railnerd]

Hi.

I havent chosen the picture of the demolished signal box out of malice. Signal boxes are my thing when it comes to railways. The other picture I uploaded was of St. James Deeping SB with a beautiful sunset. As any signal box freak knows, that box is also gone. However the locals are still trying to rebuild it elsewhere.
I will change my avatar soon

Back on topic now pls!

 

[30907]

Hi.

Sorry if this subject has currently got a thread. Im new!

This week, I was shown a facebook message by someone. It was from a train driver saying that Network Rail are once again, bringing up the subject of reopening the 1982 closed March to Spalding line.

This subject has rattled on for years, since about 1990 when the disused line began having bits built on it, most notably HMP Whitemoor.

Now though, theres a rumour that Network Rail are considering this option rather than a flyover at Werrington. The re-instated line would also keep the freight traffic away from Peterborough. The flyover would not!

Has anyone else anything to add?

The question is - how much of the freight through Peterborough could actually be diverted via March - Spalding?
Felixstowe - NE yes, but London area to NE is problematic, and Felixstowe - Midlands or NW would be awkward though possible via Nottingham, and presumably would require loading gauge work.

 

[HowardGWR]

I thought the real capacity issue for the GN and GE freight route / diversion route is the loss of the Lincoln by pass, let alone March to Spalding.

 

[Donny Dave]

Just looking at the area in Streetmap, I honestly don't see any reason why the line should be rebuilt (on a new alignment in places).

Firstly, there are no significant areas of population for the (new) line to serve, plus I'm assuming that the residents of the local villages would prefer to be connected to Peterbourgh for shopping and/or transport connections.

Secondly. With the area being flat fenland, you would need a lot of roads being bridged, which raises construction costs significantly, plus dodging the new alignment (still under construction) of the A1073 in places.

Thirdly, there is no real market for Spalding - March. The only possible flow I can think of for the area is Cambridge/Ely - Lincoln/Doncaster, with the latter destination being easily served with a change at Peterborough.

My opinion is that is should be included on a list with the Woodhead route. IE. Wishful thinking.

 

[ultrabox]

I'm sure this is all old news. NR investigated the proposal of reinstating the line between Spalding and March a few years ago but the cost was formidable given the new alignments needed such as the line diverging at Deeping St Nicholas, south of Spalding before heading towards its previous routing around Cowbit.

 

[DaleCooper]

I seem to remember another thread where it was mentioned that it would be possible to build a line from (I think) King's Dyke to Peakirk which would remove the need for a flyover at Werringion Junction that being the a cause of problems with freight crossing the ECML on the flat.

 

[Class 170101]

The question is - how much of the freight through Peterborough could actually be diverted via March - Spalding?
Felixstowe - NE yes, but London area to NE is problematic, and Felixstowe - Midlands or NW would be awkward though possible via Nottingham, and presumably would require loading gauge work.

London to Northeast could run via Hitchin and Cambridge.

I believe Nottingham is gauge cleared as it was usually the diversion for W10 freight running cross country rather than via London before Peterborough to Leicester was done.

 

[Bald Rick]

In any inquiry into major construction schemes, you have to demonstrate you have considered alternatives.

I imagine that reopening this line is an alternative to the Werrington flyover. So it is being looked at in sufficient detail to demonstrate why, actually, it isn't a sensible alternative.

 

[DaleCooper]

London to Northeast could run via Hitchin and Cambridge.

Where would it go after Cambridge? Ely and Peterborough?

 

[Class 170101]

Where would it go after Cambridge? Ely and Peterborough?

Ely, March, then direct to Spalding should the line be re-built.

 

[DaleCooper]

Ely, March, then direct to Spalding should the line be re-built.

Oh, I see, sorry I didn't realise you meant if the line was re-built.

 

[deltic08]

It would need massive bridge works and also quite big diversions from the old route, would surely not be cost effective.

With a BCR of 0.6, HS2 is not cost effective but already over £1 billion has been spent on it. That would be enough to new build between March and Spalding.

I support reinstating this route 100% if it removes freight traffic from the ECML opening up more passenger paths.

 

[30907]

It's about removing traffic from Werrington Jn rather than the ECML.
If freights from London ran via Ely and Spalding it would ease the pressure on the double track south of Peterborough - but how many freights actually use that?

 

[linkyork]

Just looking at the area in Streetmap, I honestly don't see any reason why the line should be rebuilt (on a new alignment in places).

Firstly, there are no significant areas of population for the (new) line to serve, plus I'm assuming that the residents of the local villages would prefer to be connected to Peterbourgh for shopping and/or transport connections.

Secondly. With the area being flat fenland, you would need a lot of roads being bridged, which raises construction costs significantly, plus dodging the new alignment (still under construction) of the A1073 in places.

Thirdly, there is no real market for Spalding - March. The only possible flow I can think of for the area is Cambridge/Ely - Lincoln/Doncaster, with the latter destination being easily served with a change at Peterborough.

My opinion is that is should be included on a list with the Woodhead route. IE. Wishful thinking.

You are a bit behind times David, a number of years in fact.
The old A1073 is now unclassified since the opening of the new road classified A16 - the section of the old A16 west of Spalding is now the A1175

 

[ac6000cw]

In any inquiry into major construction schemes, you have to demonstrate you have considered alternatives.

I imagine that reopening this line is an alternative to the Werrington flyover. So it is being looked at in sufficient detail to demonstrate why, actually, it isn't a sensible alternative.

Quite - 100% agree.

In overall railway system terms (making the best use of the existing assets) the Werrington flyover idea seems a no-brainer solution to fix the flat-junction capacity bottleneck at the north end of Peterborough station, combined with full bi-directional signalling from there to Werrington Junction on the 'Stamford' line double track to maximise flexibility.

The real freight bottleneck in East Anglia is Ely Dock Junction - Ely North Junction. If NR wants to throw serious money at a problem, how about a freight bypass line from the Soham line to the March line bypassing both junctions ?

 

[railnerd]

Hi.

There isnt that much freight coming from south of Peterborough. Its mostly the Plasmor and Grain Freightliner. The vast chunk of freight is the Felixstowe stuff coming and going via Ely.

Although it cannot be denied that there is now freight running on the GN/GE again, theres not that much. I think theres still some internal wrangling with the Freightliner drivers and the FLT depot at Ipswich and the Bacon factory curve. I think being the case, some freight still goes south of Ipswich.

Remember a few years ago NR spent a lot of money on the Peterborough - Stamford - Oakham line? That was to put more freight containers on that route. The only regular runner that I can see is the Hams Hall GBR freight.

It may all take time, but I cannot see why the Plasmor only goes one way on the GN/GE (Bow - Biggleswade - Heck). The only time it runs southwards is on occasional diversions.

Im not sure where this conversations going. I think that NR wont spend any money on a long term freight solution until the 'long term freight' materialises and the money rolls in to pay for it!

 

[HSTEd]

You'd probably be better off (at the next ECML resignalling for ERTMS) skylighting Stoke Tunnel. You could then remove the last of the double track section, having a three/four track section all the way to Grantham approach.
You could then have a paired-by-use alignment between Peterborough and Grantham.
(The slows might have to collapse to a single track section for a mile or so south of Grantham but possibly not if you were clever with the alignment).
If the slow tracks were west of the fasts then you could run from Ely to Nottingham without ever coming into contact with ECML passenger trains.

As that would make the slowest trains on the true ECML be ~125mph passenger runs (as Liverpool-Norwich would use the slows to avoid conflicitng moves across the ECML) you could then far more easily deploy 140mph operation between Grantham and Peterborough, you can likely also ease track cant restrictions to get more speed.
EDIT:
It also reduces the path constraints on the Nottingham-Norwich section of Liverpool-Norwich rather considerably - perhaps enough for a second train per hour in collaboration with the Northern Hub.
You can also reach Lincoln and thus the non-ECML route to Doncaster via Sleaford, although you would require a new chord to avoid a reversal.

It does however have the advantage of peripheral benefits beyond the simple Joint Line freight traffic of the Werrington flyover suggestion.

 

[Donny Dave]

You are a bit behind times David, a number of years in fact.
The old A1073 is now unclassified since the opening of the new road classified A16 - the section of the old A16 west of Spalding is now the A1175

I was going by what was shown on streetmaps.co.uk, which shows the route still under construction.

 

[ac6000cw]

You'd probably be better off (at the next ECML resignalling for ERTMS) skylighting Stoke Tunnel. You could then remove the last of the double track section, having a three/four track section all the way to Grantham approach.
You could then have a paired-by-use alignment between Peterborough and Grantham.
(The slows might have to collapse to a single track section for a mile or so south of Grantham but possibly not if you were clever with the alignment).
If the slow tracks were west of the fasts then you could run from Ely to Nottingham without ever coming into contact with ECML passenger trains.

As that would make the slowest trains on the true ECML be ~125mph passenger runs (as Liverpool-Norwich would use the slows to avoid conflicitng moves across the ECML) you could then far more easily deploy 140mph operation between Grantham and Peterborough, you can likely also ease track cant restrictions to get more speed.
EDIT:
It also reduces the path constraints on the Nottingham-Norwich section of Liverpool-Norwich rather considerably - perhaps enough for a second train per hour in collaboration with the Northern Hub.
You can also reach Lincoln and thus the non-ECML route to Doncaster via Sleaford, although you would require a new chord to avoid a reversal.

It does however have the advantage of peripheral benefits beyond the simple Joint Line freight traffic of the Werrington flyover suggestion.

I've mused a few times on something similar, but I suspect (given the amount of extra tunnelling added to HS2 plans to appease the opposition) that there is pretty close to zero chance of NR being allowed to daylight Stoke Tunnel.

What might help a little/sometimes (in exchange for relatively small expenditure) is to bi-directionally signal the down slow between Werrington and the tunnel, and the down line from there to Grantham to allow southbound 'Norwich' trains to run without having to cross the ECML twice between Grantham and Peterborough (other down trains permitting of course )

 

[snowball]

I was going by what was shown on streetmaps.co.uk, which shows the route still under construction.

Depends which scale you look at.

Edit: I thought at first that "streetmaps.co.uk" was a typo for "streetmap.co.uk", but I see now that both exist! Though you may have meant "streetmap" anyway.