Suggestions for where new flyovers/diveunders should be built to replace 'flat' junctions

[cle]

Were there ever Stoke to Chester direct services?

I always feel that the Crewe/Stoke-Derby line is an underused axis which could be used for more regional or XC type services, in addition to what it currently gets. There aren't too many east-west routes and it definitely has capacity. East Midlands to North West is a very underserved market too, in general. Even merging it in with the Matlock service (if most useful than Nottingham, or in addition to) - might be worthwhile.

 

[route:oxford]

For England.

It's got to be a flyover at Didcot.

For Scotland

If it was possible to squeeze it into the space available, then an over or under junction to take the Carstairs route across the down (towards Stirling) line at Haymarket without conflict. I've lost too many hours of my life staring at derelict garages just outside Haymarket.

Otherwise a flying junction to take a service from Edinburgh to Dunblane from the Up line West of Camelon to the Downline South of Larbert without conflicting with Glasgow-Falkirk Grahmston services or Stirling to Glasgow Services.

 

[Ianno87]

For England.

It's got to be a flyover at Didcot.

For Scotland

If it was possible to squeeze it into the space available, then an over or under junction to take the Carstairs route across the down (towards Stirling) line at Haymarket without conflict. I've lost too many hours of my life staring at derelict garages just outside Haymarket.

Otherwise a flying junction to take a service from Edinburgh to Dunblane from the Up line West of Camelon to the Downline South of Larbert without conflicting with Glasgow-Falkirk Grahmston services or Stirling to Glasgow Services.

Quite often trains get "delayed" approaching Haymarket from the Carstairs direction simply because they are early. Nothing a flying junction will solve, particularly when its a path into Edinburgh that's being awaited, not a train coming out.

 

[A0wen]

Operators are loathe to run services across mainlines as this causes serious pathing difficulties.

The most obvious example is at Nuneaton where Leicester - Coventry services are no longer able to operate since it was "improved".

Likewise there are no through services between Chester and Stoke-on-Trent although this move is possible.

But the most obvious case for a flyover would have been at Manchester Piccadilly if they hadn't built the Ordsall chord.

Leicester - Coventry was problematic though for a number of reasons. It needed a reversal at Nuneaton as well as crossing the fasts.

Operationally it made more sense when they extended it up the Trent Valley to Stafford, though with the introduction of the LM Crewe - London service, that made less sense, particularly as the Nuneaton - Coventry line isn't electrified and a 75mph Sprinter wasn't ideal for pathing.

Leicester - Birmingham is a much more attractive traffic flow overall which is clearly why the focus has been on that.

Chester - Stoke again doesn't seem to make much sense. It's always been problematic when extending services such as Derby - Crewe onto other places as if it gets delayed it tends to have a knock on elsewhere - part of the reason why the extension to Manchester Airport was dropped.

It would almost make sense to reinstate the south facing bay on the east side of Stoke station and curtail the Derby service there, replacing the stops on that with the LNW stopper. It would also free up a path between Stoke & Crewe - could that allow an extension of the current Manchester - Crewe stopper onto Stoke via Alsager? So there would be a 2 EMU / hour service between Stoke and Manchester, one via Macclesfield and the other via Crewe & Manchester Airport.

I'm going to suggest Haughley junction - anywhere were there are alot of conflicting freight and fast passenger movements would seem to make sense and that's one.

 

[MarkyT]

Leicester - Coventry was problematic though for a number of reasons. It needed a reversal at Nuneaton as well as crossing the fasts.

Operationally it made more sense when they extended it up the Trent Valley to Stafford, though with the introduction of the LM Crewe - London service, that made less sense, particularly as the Nuneaton - Coventry line isn't electrified and a 75mph Sprinter wasn't ideal for pathing.

I have often thought that Trent Valley locals going on to London should run via Coventry to make them more useful. Obviously that would need new electrification and probably have to be post-HS2 Phase 1 when some of the other traffic at Nuneaton and Coventry has gone away to make pathing easier. That would have the side effect of further increasing Coventry - London frequency in the post-HS2 World.

Chester - Stoke again doesn't seem to make much sense. It's always been problematic when extending services such as Derby - Crewe onto other places as if it gets delayed it tends to have a knock on elsewhere - part of the reason why the extension to Manchester Airport was dropped.

Something that might be possible post-HS2 Phase 2 when The fastest trains will be tunnelling under Crewe station and all its junction conflicts.

It would almost make sense to reinstate the south facing bay on the east side of Stoke station and curtail the Derby service there, replacing the stops on that with the LNW stopper. It would also free up a path between Stoke & Crewe - could that allow an extension of the current Manchester - Crewe stopper onto Stoke via Alsager? So there would be a 2 EMU / hour service between Stoke and Manchester, one via Macclesfield and the other via Crewe & Manchester Airport.

Interesting idea. ideally going through Crewe in both directions entirely on the Up side if that's possible now or could be made so in future remodelling / resignalling.

I'm going to suggest Haughley junction - anywhere were there are alot of conflicting freight and fast passenger movements would seem to make sense and that's one.

Complicated by the local level crossing .

I think overall the leading contenders of Didcot and Woking get my vote for joint 1st place (if that's allowed!).

 

[swt_passenger]

I think you are miss understanding, there's a difference between what the Wessex Route Strategy is taking about (East facing chord to provide direct rail travel to Waterloo, which I agree wouldn't be viable as it would require more paths into Waterloo, which just won't happen) and the junction which I've suggested which would be West facing. I agree it's fairy unlikely but significant more likely than a few stations with relatively free passengers gain a new direct service to Waterloo.

The quote was intended just to support the view that NR are not interested in through running onto that line at all, but the main point was that there is no present junction to improve, therefore your idea is basically irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Ianno87]

I have often thought that Trent Valley locals going on to London should run via Coventry to make them more useful. Obviously that would need new electrification and probably have to be post-HS2 Phase 1 when some of the other traffic at Nuneaton and Coventry has gone away to make pathing easier. That would have the side effect of further increasing Coventry - London frequency in the post-HS2 World.

.

By "more useful", I presume you mean "slower between the Trent Valley, Milton Keynes and London?"

 

[MarkyT]

By "more useful", I presume you mean "slower between the Trent Valley, Milton Keynes and London?"

Clearly a run via Coventry is going to be slower than direct from Nuneaton to Rugby, but you could still have some additional skip-stop trains serving selected Trent Valley local destinations direct avoiding Coventry, especially in the peaks. I'm not even saying it's a good idea, just one I had that might have some merits. One thing it would do is strengthen semi-fast London - Coventry service frequency post HS2 to help compensate for possible loss of fast pendolinos.

 

[edwin_m]

Operators are loathe to run services across mainlines as this causes serious pathing difficulties.

The most obvious example is at Nuneaton where Leicester - Coventry services are no longer able to operate since it was "improved".

That is a service reduction resulting from creation of a flying junction...

 

[RJ21]

Both Winwick and Golborne Junctions would be helpful, Chester bound ATW services stop at Winwick Jn to allow an up WCML service to pass and down services at Golborne usually suffer the very same waiting for a down WCML service.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Carnforth. Would possibly allow an increased line speed from 110 to 125 EPS, and removes the slow crossover reducing WCML paths.

Without wanting to pour too much cold water on this... Much as in principle I like the idea of sorting out conflicts there... How on Earth would you get a grade separation at Carnforth without basically demolishing the whole (heritage) station? And if you could, would it really be worth it to cater for - basically - one-and-a-bit trains per hour on the branch line? And how much of a difference would increasing the line speed on the main line make when quite a few of the trains on that line can't get beyond 110mph anyway? And what about the aspiration many people have to re-open the main line platforms at Carnforth?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Without wanting to pour too much cold water on this... Much as in principle I like the idea of sorting out conflicts there... How on Earth would you get a grade separation at Carnforth without basically demolishing the whole (heritage) station? And if you could, would it really be worth it to cater for - basically - one-and-a-bit trains per hour on the branch line? And how much of a difference would increasing the line speed on the main line make when quite a few of the trains on that line can't get beyond 110mph anyway? And what about the aspiration many people have to re-open the main line platforms at Carnforth?

I think that providing a good connection between Lancaster and Carnforth is better than opening the mainline platforms again. Solution would be a dive under for the down main, with the Carnforth platforms being given a higher speed of at least 40 miles per hour. The Carnforth up would join the up main directly, while the down would branch off earlier and be reversible to allow the heritage depot to remain.

Preston-Carnforth seems like a good place for non EPS 125mph running to be implemented eventually.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think that providing a good connection between Lancaster and Carnforth is better than opening the mainline platforms again. Solution would be a dive under for the down main, with the Carnforth platforms being given a higher speed of at least 40 miles per hour. The Carnforth up would join the up main directly, while the down would branch off earlier and be reversible to allow the heritage depot to remain.

I'm assuming 'up' = southbound? In that case, Yes, thinking about it, that would work quite well. It would be expensive - and in terms of 'most compelling case' be nowhere near Woking and Windmill Bridge - in my view the two clear top runners so far. But it would be very useful. I wonder if it would make it easier for the Barrow line to go half-hourly - something which Barrow surely deserves, or Lancaster-Leeds to go to regular two-hourly? As far as opening the main platforms - I kinda agree with you to the extent that with current service patterns, there wouldn't be too much point: The only trains that could realistically stop at them would be the Windermere ones, and there are only a couple a day of those. But I would have thought a sensible ambition would be for all Windermere branch trains to run to/from Preston. And if that happened, re-opening the mainline platforms at Carnforth would look a lot more sensible (and would also help to give the good connection between Lancaster and Carnforth you mention).

I'm going to hazard a guess that slow line speeds through the Carnforth platforms are in part because of the extreme curvature of that platforms. Would increasing them be possible without rebuilding the station in order to straighten the platforms?

Preston-Carnforth seems like a good place for non EPS 125mph running to be implemented eventually.

The big unknown here is HS2. If everything goes to plan, then presumably, in 15 years time, all of the current fast WCML-Scotland trains will have moved to a new yet-to-be-built fast line. That probably means that the current line will swap to being more commuter in nature. I'm guessing you'll see a service pattern something more like perhaps a regular half-hourly service of slower trains, still running London/Manchester-Scotland, but catering for shorter journeys and intermediate stations, with everything calling everywhere between Preston and Carlisle. That probably means the case will become more of looking for new stations to open rather than increasing line speeds.

incidentally, your mentioning Carnforth made me think about where the line to Morecambe splits off. The current Morecambe service is very irregular and not nearly as frequent as it probably ought to be, and I wonder whether that is in part because of constraints imposed by that flat junction. Grade separation there would look at first sight quite useful (still not in the Woking league though). For full impact, you would also need to sort out the conflicting moves a mile further South when trains get into the terminating platform at Lancaster too. I would guess the easiest solution there would be to build a new terminating platform in between the main up and down platforms - there looks to be sufficient space for one, certainly if you removed at least one of the (very lightly used) fast lines.

 

[edwin_m]

The big unknown here is HS2. If everything goes to plan, then presumably, in 15 years time, all of the current fast WCML-Scotland trains will have moved to a new yet-to-be-built fast line. That probably means that the current line will swap to being more commuter in nature. I'm guessing you'll see a service pattern something more like perhaps a regular half-hourly service of slower trains, still running London/Manchester-Scotland, but catering for shorter journeys and intermediate stations, with everything calling everywhere between Preston and Carlisle. That probably means the case will become more of looking for new stations to open rather than increasing line speeds.

HS2 as currently planned won't bypass Carnforth - if anything it will put more trains onto this part of the WCML as London-Glasgow/Edinburgh becomes two trains per hour (splitting/joining further north). There are various ideas to improve further north but nothing is anywhere near committed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

HS2 as currently planned won't bypass Carnforth - if anything it will put more trains onto this part of the WCML as London-Glasgow/Edinburgh becomes two trains per hour (splitting/joining further north). There are various ideas to improve further north but nothing is anywhere near committed.

Really?!?!?!? Wow, I'm surprised, since off the top of my head, that would seem to imply no increased line speeds - and indeed, a lot more congestion - for that part of HS2! Do you have a link to more info, out of interest? If that's the case then that's going to significantly enhance the arguments for providing grade separated junctions along the line.

 

[edwin_m]

Really?!?!?!? Wow, I'm surprised, since off the top of my head, that would seem to imply no increased line speeds - and indeed, a lot more congestion - for that part of HS2! Do you have a link to more info, out of interest? If that's the case then that's going to significantly enhance the arguments for providing grade separated junctions along the line.

See Figure 3 in below link, which I can't quote:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...on_of_the_service_patterns__January_2013_.pdf

This isn't definitive, and changes from time to time, but gives a reasonable idea of current intentions. It doesn't say anything about the non-HS2 service but I think we can assume the two per hour London-Scotland are replaced by the three shown, and the Manchester-Scotland continues.

It does create various problems along the route north of Golborne where HS2 phase 2 ends, particularly as the two London-Scotland trains will want to be 30min apart but the current timetable compresses all passenger trains into 20min or so to give the maximum time for freight to run before it is caught up by a following passenger train. I think that issue is likely to be more significant than junction conflicts, but either way there needs to be a decision on long-term strategy so that any short-term measures are not superseded after a few years. For example it's possible to imagine a high-speed cut-off following the M6 that would avoid both Lancaster and Carnforth for non-stopping trains, and if that was built then a flying junction at Carnforth would be redundant.

 

[cle]

Are there not existing plans to raise line speeds north of Preston anyway? Surely HS2 would contribute to these - would be quite the trundle after the first half up!

 

[Old Yard Dog]

It would almost make sense to reinstate the south facing bay on the east side of Stoke station and curtail the Derby service there, replacing the stops on that with the LNW stopper. It would also free up a path between Stoke & Crewe - could that allow an extension of the current Manchester - Crewe stopper onto Stoke via Alsager? So there would be a 2 EMU / hour service between Stoke and Manchester, one via Macclesfield and the other via Crewe & Manchester Airport.

They have already chopped the former Skegness to Crewe service into three, now you want to cut it into four. I suffered enough stress last Saturday travelling from Boston to Little Sutton when one of the last connecting trains at Nottingham was cancelled.

EMT are awful at putting together a timetable with decent connections, its almost as if they aren't interested. An absolute classic is their 0 minute SO connection at Lincoln at 1110 between infrequent Doncaster - Lincoln and Lincoln - Peterborough trains. The Crewe - Derby service should at the very least be re-extended to Nottingham. Sadly franchising and the layout at Crewe prevents a tie up with the hourly Crewe - Chester ATW shuttle.

 

[Taunton]

Were there ever Stoke to Chester direct services?

Yes, into the 1960s there were Stoke-North Wales summer holiday trains, this being North Staffordshire's nearest seaside.

 

[Chris Hamilton]

Law Junction
Uddingston
Newton North
Rutherglen

All pipe dreams, I know. But I would make Law a priority, along with a new station on the Holytown Lines.

I wouldn’t make Shieldmuir a flying junction, but I would 4 track it and put the station platforms on the slow/Wishaw lines to take stopping traffic off the main line. This would also resolve the hold ups that occur from having Glasgow bound trains waiting on the single track to cross on to the Down Main, which in turn can hold up traffic on the Up Main waiting to go on to the single line.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I'm assuming 'up' = southbound? In that case, Yes, thinking about it, that would work quite well. It would be expensive - and in terms of 'most compelling case' be nowhere near Woking and Windmill Bridge - in my view the two clear top runners so far. But it would be very useful. I wonder if it would make it easier for the Barrow line to go half-hourly - something which Barrow surely deserves, or Lancaster-Leeds to go to regular two-hourly? As far as opening the main platforms - I kinda agree with you to the extent that with current service patterns, there wouldn't be too much point: The only trains that could realistically stop at them would be the Windermere ones, and there are only a couple a day of those. But I would have thought a sensible ambition would be for all Windermere branch trains to run to/from Preston. And if that happened, re-opening the mainline platforms at Carnforth would look a lot more sensible (and would also help to give the good connection between Lancaster and Carnforth you mention).

I'm going to hazard a guess that slow line speeds through the Carnforth platforms are in part because of the extreme curvature of that platforms. Would increasing them be possible without rebuilding the station in order to straighten the platforms?



The big unknown here is HS2. If everything goes to plan, then presumably, in 15 years time, all of the current fast WCML-Scotland trains will have moved to a new yet-to-be-built fast line. That probably means that the current line will swap to being more commuter in nature. I'm guessing you'll see a service pattern something more like perhaps a regular half-hourly service of slower trains, still running London/Manchester-Scotland, but catering for shorter journeys and intermediate stations, with everything calling everywhere between Preston and Carlisle. That probably means the case will become more of looking for new stations to open rather than increasing line speeds.

incidentally, your mentioning Carnforth made me think about where the line to Morecambe splits off. The current Morecambe service is very irregular and not nearly as frequent as it probably ought to be, and I wonder whether that is in part because of constraints imposed by that flat junction. Grade separation there would look at first sight quite useful (still not in the Woking league though). For full impact, you would also need to sort out the conflicting moves a mile further South when trains get into the terminating platform at Lancaster too. I would guess the easiest solution there would be to build a new terminating platform in between the main up and down platforms - there looks to be sufficient space for one, certainly if you removed at least one of the (very lightly used) fast lines.

Firstly, Woking and Windmill Bridge are certainly very 'compelling' - but Windmill Bridge already has the design funding and Woking doesn't look too far off the horizon. Grade separating Carnforth would most likely allow for both 2tph Barrow and 1tp2h Lancaster-Leeds to run without an issue, especially if 100mph DMUs are used on the Barrow services which appears to become more likely by the day. I'm still not too keen on the idea of stopping the Windermere services at reopened mainline platforms - 1tph joining/splitting at Lancaster with the service from Barrow would make more sense, and 2tph on the Furness line would fulfil demand for the foreseeable future. That way all Windermere branch services run through to the Airport - and Carnforth still gets a decent service, with longer trains provided on the busiest section (the Cumbria services are now the Wigan-Manchester fasts).

The curvature is certainly an issue - but I think 20-25 could be achieved with some upgrade work?

Carnforth grade separation would probably be a big enabler for increased HS2 services on the northern WCML. Even if the line was diverted, there isn't really that much to call at anyway (1tph to Tebay, anyone?) meaning that higher, non EPS speeds are better. TPE has new 125mph capable stock coming with the 397s, and since HS2 will most likely use the northern WCML in the beginning anyway the line geometry seems to work fine for 125, even 140mph (with some work between Preston and Lancaster to remove that curve)

I'm hoping that eventually, all Furness Line services will run through to at least Preston allowing Platforms 1 and 2 at Lancaster to be shut. A realignment of the platforms similar to the layout at Haywards Heath would allow fast services to run through faster (current speed through the DFL/UFL is 75mph as far as I can remember - a straighter and simpler alignment could see this increased to 100 or even 110mph. This layout would also make a splitting Barrow/Windermere service more practical as they wouldn't need to cross to Platform 5 to split/join, while the Leeds/Morecambe service could each run two hourly, birthing in one of the loop platforms in the gap between the fasts from the Airport.

Grade separation at Hest Bank already exists on the down - there would need to be a similar dive under solution to the up to enable full grade separation. The northern part of the junction simply isn't used enough to warrant grade separation. With Lancaster remodelled to better support its future service pattern, Morecambe grade separated from the south with 1tp2h and Carnforth separated as well, an awful lot of capacity could be unlocked on the northern WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

How about a flying junction at Grantham for the Nottingham/Skegness branch?

It would be a pain to engineer but it would enable the Liverpool-Norwich trains to be a little less scrambled up with the ECML, and the Down Slow might actually be of some use in untangling everything.

 

[The Ham]

Some others that could be useful going forwards:
- Southcote Junction (just south of Reading West) which could allow the extension of the XC services which currently don't go south of Reading as well as maybe some extra GWR services to Basingstoke and/or more services for the B&H line (probably a Newbury to Reading shuttle, or even a Newbury to Basingstoke via Reading shuttle).
- Basingstoke, which could allow more services to call the, possible options include services to Heathrow via the Southern Approach (trains using the Western Approach would likely replace the current Basingstoke-Reading services), extending the XC services listed above (either southwards or possibly towards Salisbury) although some extra capacity could be created by extending the Basingstoke Stoppers towards Salisbury after electrification (would also allow the existing DMU services to skip some of the lower used stations).
- Guildford (probably on the North side) to remove the crossing of the North Downs Line (NDL) services when heading Southbound, which could free up capacity for Heathrow services (probably 2tph), would remove some of the conflicts for 3tph and 4tph on the NDL services and could even allow the Woking Stoppers to be extended to Guildford.
- Wokingham, which would also help with NDL services and Reading-Waterloo services.

 

[Carntyne]

Another vote for Hyndland East here. A nightmare when it starts going belly up.

 

[The_Engineer]

Yes, into the 1960s there were Stoke-North Wales summer holiday trains, this being North Staffordshire's nearest seaside.

...... plus there was a daily (unadvertised) extension of dmu from Stoke to Crewe into Crewe Electric depot where there was a staff platform for Crewe Works staff. There was an equivalent evening return working.

 

[swt_passenger]

Some others that could be useful going forwards:
...Basingstoke, which could allow more services to call the, possible options include services to Heathrow via the Southern Approach (trains using the Western Approach would likely replace the current Basingstoke-Reading services), extending the XC services listed above (either southwards or possibly towards Salisbury) although some extra capacity could be created by extending the Basingstoke Stoppers towards Salisbury after electrification (would also allow the existing DMU services to skip some of the lower used stations)...

NR propose Basingstoke as a freight only capacity scheme. NR believe passenger capacity is adequate without it. Wessex route study refers.

 

[MarkyT]

NR propose Basingstoke as a freight only capacity scheme. NR believe passenger capacity is adequate without it. Wessex route study refers.

That may be true in for its business case but passenger trains would still use the grade separation if provided and removed conflicts would certainly provide more flexibility in timetable planning, and greater resilience during perturbation.

 

[The Ham]

NR propose Basingstoke as a freight only capacity scheme. NR believe passenger capacity is adequate without it. Wessex route study refers.

Does the Wessex Route Study include for the Southern Approach to Heathrow?

As that appears to be quite likely to happen, and would add another 2tph turning around at Basingstoke. Which would add to passenger service constraints, which if it's not been included in the study, could change the requirements.

 

[Altfish]

Not been through all these but has Manchester Piccadilly throat been mentioned? Enable Liverpool to Leeds traffic to not block the Stockport bound traffic.

 

[swt_passenger]

Does the Wessex Route Study include for the Southern Approach to Heathrow?

The Wessex route study does mention Heathrow Southern & Western Access running to various places, but not in a finalised form because Airport connections have a separate study. It also suggests plenty of other additional services running through Basingstoke, eg towards Southampton. It also mentions that Southern Acess could use diverted existing services, which could obviously allow for Guildford and/or Basingstoke. They also mention Southampton to Heathrow via Reading and Western Access. So its fair to say they haven't actually ignored it.