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

[rebmcr]

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

It has been mentioned in this thread, and NR considered it years ago but decided to build the Ordsall Chord instead — eventually all Liverpool-Leeds services will be via Victoria, not via Guide Bridge.

 

[Altfish]

It has been mentioned in this thread, and NR considered it years ago but decided to build the Ordsall Chord instead — eventually all Liverpool-Leeds services will be via Victoria, not via Guide Bridge.

I hope you are wrong about all Liverpool - Leeds being via Victoria. Back to the 1970s.
It is not just those trains that cross the throat. Anything from Wigan, Southport, Bolton.
The Airport - Leeds trains were supposed to use the Ordsall Chord but with the stalling of the Oxford Road and Piccadilly 14/15 platform schemes I doubt this will be fully implemented.

 

[Ianno87]

I hope you are wrong about all Liverpool - Leeds being via Victoria. Back to the 1970s.
It is not just those trains that cross the throat. Anything from Wigan, Southport, Bolton.
The Airport - Leeds trains were supposed to use the Ordsall Chord but with the stalling of the Oxford Road and Piccadilly 14/15 platform schemes I doubt this will be fully implemented.

Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds is faster than via Piccadilly. Very much going forwards, not back to the past (where it was effectively managed decline of Victoria to divert them out of the way in the first place)

Wigan, Southport, Bolton don't cross the throat if (As most trains do) they head for Manchester Airport.

 

[IanXC]

I hope you are wrong about all Liverpool - Leeds being via Victoria. Back to the 1970s.
It is not just those trains that cross the throat. Anything from Wigan, Southport, Bolton.
The Airport - Leeds trains were supposed to use the Ordsall Chord but with the stalling of the Oxford Road and Piccadilly 14/15 platform schemes I doubt this will be fully implemented.

Next month's timetable has all the TPE Leeds to Liverpool services via Victoria, and all the TPE Leeds to Airport services via Ordsall.

 

[MarkyT]

- 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).

I think three bi-di tracks in from Southcote with a rebuild of Reading West station and Oxford Road bridge would be a better option. There are so many different conflicting movements through this area it's not clear which is the most compelling to grade separate.

- 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.

Would probably fit and the Reading line is already at a higher level than the main line. Not convinced its neccesary though
A better flat layout with some more platforms might be better

- Wokingham, which would also help with NDL services and Reading-Waterloo services.

I doubt if that's possible. The station, level crossing and junction are all in close proximity.

 

[Altfish]

Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds is faster than via Piccadilly. Very much going forwards, not back to the past (where it was effectively managed decline of Victoria to divert them out of the way in the first place)

Wigan, Southport, Bolton don't cross the throat if (As most trains do) they head for Manchester Airport.

Oh, it is faster, but less convenient for most of Manchester. Yes, you can get a tram across town between the stations but if you live in South Manchester it is an inconvenience.
Victoria declined until the trams went in, once it was contactable from the south it started to increase its numbers. I still remember having to walk with suitcase across Manchester to get to and from Victoria
Oxford Road is an incredibly busy station too, especially for commuters, that is going to lose services.
A flyover would have been the best of both worlds.

 

[edwin_m]

Piccadilly will still have four trains per hour to Leeds (two via Guide Bridge which make intermediate stops, and two via the Ordsall Curve and Victoria then I believe non-stop to Huddersfield). It will also have two semi-fast trains per hour to Liverpool via Warrington Central (the East Midlands as now plus a Northern replacement for the TPE in simialr timings). So not actually significantly worse than today.

 

[Ianno87]

Oh, it is faster, but less convenient for most of Manchester. Yes, you can get a tram across town between the stations but if you live in South Manchester it is an inconvenience.
Victoria declined until the trams went in, once it was contactable from the south it started to increase its numbers. I still remember having to walk with suitcase across Manchester to get to and from Victoria
Oxford Road is an incredibly busy station too, especially for commuters, that is going to lose services.
A flyover would have been the best of both worlds.

How is Oxford Rd losing services? The currently hourly TPE gets replaced with two TPEs per hour.

And going into Piccadilly means you're stuck with the tortuos crawl in through Guide Bridge forevermore. And a flyover does nothing to take the reversal moves out of Piccadilly main shed.

Plus Victoria is very much the "growing" side of the city, better for the north of the city (currently remote from TPE full stop), and Victoria needs the services to support its growth.

The 4tph from Piccadilly still have reasonably decent journey times.

 

[Senex]

And going into Piccadilly means you're stuck with the tortuos crawl in through Guide Bridge forevermore. And a flyover does nothing to take the reversal moves out of Piccadilly main shed.

Plus Victoria is very much the "growing" side of the city, better for the north of the city (currently remote from TPE full stop), and Victoria needs the services to support its growth.

The 4tph from Piccadilly still have reasonably decent journey times.

There was an article in RAIL a good many years ago now which shewed how the Piccadilly-Leeds route could be upgraded at various points. One of these was Guide Bridge, where it was suggested that the curve towards Stalybridge could be upgraded to 60 given the amount of land available. And there's no doubt that Manchester-Guide Bridge could be a lot faster than it is. I rather suspect the route from Piccadilly could have been at least as fast as that from Victoria.

Is it a good thing to go back to two principal stations for Manchester, particularly when Victoria was so poorly rebuilt in the expectation that its future role was just as a station for local servces? And is it a good thing to sacrifice Warrington for Lea Green and Newton-le-Willows? Or is it clear that at some distant future date a genuinely fast Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds service can be provided via Chat Moss and Victoria? What is clear is that if the Piccadilly routing had been kept, then the long-overdue flyover would have had to be built. Are we going to end up with a thoroughly poor solution, with the slow Ordsall Chord but with inadequate capacity on to and through Piccadilly trying to cope with pseudo-Inter-City trains still stopping at (almost) every milk-churn.?

As for teh 4tph from Piccadilly still having reasonably decent journey times, well that rather depends on how long you think a journey over the 42 miles between two of Britain's principal cities ought to take ....

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

My vote may appear to be a bit of a curve ball suggestion, but it would be to build a new junction to allow trains to run Basingstoke to Ascot via Farnborough. Why? It allows you to divert trains past Woking while you build the new junction there (there are other benefits too, such as better connections to/from Frimley and Camberley, including to Waterloo even though the junction would be facing the wrong way for direct services as well as potentially allowing more stations to be built and served without showing down existing services and increasing frequencies on local services).

will there be room with 4 trains Reading to Waterloo?

 

[swt_passenger]

Re MarkyT’s points above about Southcote Junction, Network Rails view (in the Western route study is that it probably needs grade separation and three tracking. They also mention the point about movements through both junctions being complex. No explicit mention of grade separation north of Reading West though, could there ever be room?

Presumably whatever the studies came up with they wouldn’t want the heaviest aggregate trains to have to struggle up any ramps though...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

After some thought, I'd like to add Lewisham to my preferred list of Woking and Windmill Bridge.

Trying to look at it in terms of Bald Rick's requirements...

To answer the OPs question precisely, ie ‘the most compelling case’ you will need to understand the benefits of such a flying junction.

Typically the most benefits arise from enabling additional trains to run. Journey time improvements and reliability gains help, but it is more capacity that wins the argument. Crucially that extra capacity has to be useable, ie there is spare capacity elsewhere on the network and the flying junction unlocks it. And, the more valuable each train path is the better, valuable being determined by number of passengers on the train and the likely average fare they pay.

So if capacity is key... Lewisham wouldn't allow more trains - that's constrained by capacity at the London terminals. But it would allow more trains to stop at Lewisham, which would have much the same impact in bringing in more passengers: Right now we have the absurd situation where about half of the metro services round Lewisham actually skip a key interchange station, running along the avoiding lines instead, in order to avoid too many conflicts on the flat junctions. That kills viability for a lot of potential interchange journeys: Stations along the Sidcup, Grove Park and Hayes lines onto the DLR and 'orbital' journeys around London that would involve interchanging between those lines at Lewisham. It also makes travelling to Lewisham by train from a lot of outer London destinations less attractive. Solving those problems by infrastructure that enables all metro trains to stop at Lewisham would seem likely to bring many more passengers onto the existing metro trains on exactly the sections of their routes South/East of Lewisham where those trains are currently least busy. And that's even before we talk about the Bakerloo line extension.

(And it would help a lot on reliability too, though Bald Rick indicates that's not the thing that wins the argument).

Unfortunately the devil in this room is how/where you could get a flying junction that would help. You have about five flat junctions in succession around Lewisham, and almost no land nearby on which to build anything. Add to that the the single junction which I'm guessing is the one that causes the most problems is right at the end of the platforms. I imagine any solution is going to involve some tunnelling, so won't come cheap. And it's not obvious to me what the solution might look like.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Can't see that anyone has mentioned Barnes yet?

RUS highlights that a flyover to avoid conflicts between down Hounslow and up Richmond services, and replacement of level crossings, would be needed for further enhancement of services beyond that currently proposed.

 

[swt_passenger]

Can't see that anyone has mentioned Barnes yet?

RUS highlights that a flyover to avoid conflicts between down Hounslow and up Richmond services, and replacement of level crossings, would be needed for further enhancement of services beyond that currently proposed.

Well yes, but is it the most compelling case in the country?

 

[RichardN]

What Bald Rick is saying seems very similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints to me.

 

[Ianno87]

Can't see that anyone has mentioned Barnes yet?

RUS highlights that a flyover to avoid conflicts between down Hounslow and up Richmond services, and replacement of level crossings, would be needed for further enhancement of services beyond that currently proposed.

I think that was in the (now very old) SWML RUS.

I don't think that came out in the much more recent SWML Route Study. Even if you had a flying junction, two two track railways and level crossings, and Waterloo throat/approach capacity would still be limiting factors.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think that came out in the much more recent SWML Route Study. Even if you had a flying junction, two two track railways and level crossings, and Waterloo throat/approach capacity would still be limiting factors.

And the planned CP7 (was CP6) reduction of the Windsor side to two tracks through Queenstown Rd must put a theoretical limit on that overall capacity, despite the four track section, not that much higher than today - 20 tph maybe? In fact that limit probably also means putting the kibosh on further hypothetical services joining the route at Ascot, as proposed in earlier comments...

Although in fact Barnes grade separation does get a passing mention in the final route study, could it effectively be done somewhere else? What has to be achieved by Barnes is lines ‘paired by route’, rather than ‘paired by direction’, so is there a more practical site for the necessary flyover, or are the stations all too close?

 

[Thebaz]

Leatherhead. [ducks]

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Although in fact Barnes grade separation does get a passing mention in the final route study, could it effectively be done somewhere else? What has to be achieved by Barnes is lines ‘paired by route’, rather than ‘paired by direction’, so is there a more practical site for the necessary flyover, or are the stations all too close?

I don't know if that's possible, but I would suspect doing it that way might cause additional problems by making it harder for fast trains to overtake stopping trains - since there would be fewer places where they could do so.

In the long run, I see only two solutions to the Barnes problem: Either a grade separated junction gets built at the same time as a tunnel from Barnes to Richmond for the fast trains. Or, the political climate moves further against private cars in London, thereby making it much more politically acceptable to close the level crossings in 10 years' or so's time - and then grade separation at Barnes hopefully becomes adequate by itself to give capacity increases.

 

[WessexEclectic]

And the planned CP6 reduction of the Windsor side to two tracks through Queenstown Rd...

Say what? Is the rot in the boards spreading @ QRB?

 

[swt_passenger]

Say what? Is the rot in the boards spreading @ QRB?

No, it’s part of the fairly well known published route plans, although I was wrong about CP6, it’s now showing as in CP7. Reinstatement of P1 for all up trains, all down trains through P2. Reversible empty carriage line to Clapham Yard through P3. 5th mainline track through Vauxhall. I’d say it was a fairly well known proposal - it has been on the cards since the 2011 London and SE RUS, and in the recent Wessex Route Study it was recommended for completion during CP6. But it’s really getting away from the main point of this thread...

 

[WessexEclectic]

No, it’s part of the fairly well known published route plans, although I was wrong about CP6, it’s now showing as in CP7.

Sorry, but my Google-fu is weak at the moment, do you have a link to the documents? TIA.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, but my Google-fu is weak at the moment, do you have a link to the documents? TIA.

Wessex Route Study, figure 5.5 on Page 79 is the best source:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Wessex-Route-Study-Final-210815-1.pdf
The recent route strategic plan is here, now showing it (in a table on page 84) as a CP7 project:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wessex-Route-Strategic-Plan.pdf

 

[MarkyT]

Wessex Route Study, figure 5.5 on Page 79 is the best source:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Wessex-Route-Study-Final-210815-1.pdf

The proposed layout with the reinstated platform is much better than what's there today through Queenstown Road, which is something of a bottleneck. The Windsor Reversible is not easily usable by up Windsor non-stops today and was mainly used for empty Eurostar movements to and from North Pole. The 'Carriage Line' will still be accessible by Windsor side traffic for overtaking if required.

 

[swt_passenger]

I noticed by the way that the London & SE RUS proposed an 8 track layout with Nine Elms flyover removed. I guess that’s been kicked into the very long grass - and is the opposite case to this thread, ie arguably a compelling case for removal of a redundant flying junction...

I wonder if there is anything like it anywhere else - at least in terms of solidity of construction and lack of normal use?

 

[Grumpy]

Some of the above suggestions whilst operationally attractive don’t seem to factor in the high cost of construction. The OP asked for the most compelling case which must surely mean the most benefit per £ spent

The route of the Swinton and Knottingley railway passes above the West Riding and Grimsby Joint just north of Moorthorpe. The provision of a simple short chord from the Doncaster-bound track of the WR&G up to join the S&K north of the existing bridge would remove the conflict where trains from Leeds to Sheffield have to cross over trains from Doncaster to Leeds.

Thus effectively a flying junction without the costs of a new bridge, plenty of seemingly disused land to build the chord on, negligible interference with the existing railway whilst building, and conflicts between NE-SW and ECML trains resolved cheaply.

Clearly the most compelling case.

 

[Wychwood93]

Re MarkyT’s points above about Southcote Junction, Network Rails view (in the Western route study is that it probably needs grade separation and three tracking. They also mention the point about movements through both junctions being complex. No explicit mention of grade separation north of Reading West though, could there ever be room?

Presumably whatever the studies came up with they wouldn’t want the heaviest aggregate trains to have to struggle up any ramps though...

I do like MarkyT’s diagram and think that the chance of a flying junction at Southcote is much more likely, and most unlikely at Oxford Road - both are, IMO, too late in the ongoing scheme. To have three tracks at Reading West would really need a raft to be created - from there to Southcote there is easily room for them. More than likely to be a lost opportunity. If all is running well Southcote flows sweetly - and if not......, well, not too much of an issue, but three tracks would really help - the up/down aggregate trains on the middle road - as above, ramps for them would be no help.

Edit: as an aside, my vote would be for Woking - work was actually initially started in the 1930's, some foundations in etc. - not sure why no completion - perhaps war related? Another plan - have I mentioned this before? - was for a BML1 flyover creating a two level station - acceptable to the residents of 'A town called malice', so I was told. Perhaps now complicated by the 'West Byfleet west' platform - perhaps still possible.

 

[driver_m]

I'd concur with whoever said Allerton in Liverpool and make it a double at the Hunts Cross end while we're at it..

 

[Bald Rick]

Some of the above suggestions whilst operationally attractive don’t seem to factor in the high cost of construction. The OP asked for the most compelling case which must surely mean the most benefit per £ spent

The route of the Swinton and Knottingley railway passes above the West Riding and Grimsby Joint just north of Moorthorpe. The provision of a simple short chord from the Doncaster-bound track of the WR&G up to join the S&K north of the existing bridge would remove the conflict where trains from Leeds to Sheffield have to cross over trains from Doncaster to Leeds.

Thus effectively a flying junction without the costs of a new bridge, plenty of seemingly disused land to build the chord on, negligible interference with the existing railway whilst building, and conflicts between NE-SW and ECML trains resolved cheaply.

Clearly the most compelling case.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.

How many extra train paths would this release, and how valuable is each one?

 

[mwmbwls]

Castlefield Junction, Ordsall Lane Junction and Edgeley Junction.

Is Castlefield doable or do you see this as part of a four track 13/14/15/16 at Piccadilly and a rebuilt Oxford Road ?

Absolutely agree on the others. Is there not a case to add Heaton Norris to that list?

IIRC Euxton Junction is already under consideration as part of the post HS2 extension to Wigan works on the WCML.