Proposals for "Northern arc": linking north Oxfordshire (Banbury) with Northampton and Peterborough

[Doctor Fegg]

The Northants Telegraph has published this story about adding a new chord and starting a service from Kettering to Peterborough and beyond, which is the obvious Eastern leg of this Northern Arc concept.

That's just weird.

Kettering-Corby-Peterborough could work as a service (let's not get into the whole Wisbech thing) if there were already a south->east chord at Manton. And maybe, assuming a more munificent government and some random economic development funding, you could find a magic money pot to build the chord given that there isn't one.

But a new line from Seaton to Luffenham? Really?

That would be a whole lot of expense purely to save a minute or two on a regional service. You would need serious earthworks at Seaton given that the Corby line is at viaduct level, whereas the old Harborough-Stamford line is on the valley floor.

Given that their project officer was photographed in front of Manton Tunnel then I would presume he's actually looked at the site. So... why?

[I used to live two miles from Seaton so know the area pretty well!]

 

[crablab]

But a new line from Seaton to Luffenham? Really?

It does seem odd. A chord at Manton would seem more sensible?

If you go South of the viaduct, you can even find the old line that used to run through to Peterborough (via Kings Cliffe and Nassington), which had a spur to Oundle at Wansford.

 

[BrianW]

The difference is that those who believed in this stuff put their own money into it, or conned others to do so. Now, the game is to use attention-seeking MPs, councillors and the like to extract taxpayers' money to do the same thing.

Howard- this 'attention-seeking' worked. A formerly red wall has become blue. All those 'Beeching seats'; expect restorations or service improvements in eg-
Bassetlaw (Worksop and Retford); Blyth; Blackpool; Burnley; Rochdale; Bolsover; Dudley; Wakefield; Don Valley; Erewash valley ... I'm thinking a kind of Great Central revival- LS2??
And re 'Northern Arc' I guess this should link to a revived Midland and Great Northern- no crayon required; I think I should be buying into Melton Constable (another Conservative gain in 2010!).
Reliving that glorious pre-Beeching past already; we never had it so good

 

[crablab]

Here is an extract from OS Pathfinder 141, which shows the area we're talking about (this is a very old edition). Down the bottom you see the Welham Viaduct. The line exiting to the right goes through Kings Cliffe and Wansford to Peterborough, the line exiting at the top is the one proposed to be used as a chord, and joins the Stamford line at Luffenham.

As you can see, the old line to Luffenham is in quite a significant cutting, and the mainline over the Viaduct cross it on a bridge.

If you look at the contours, you can see that the tunnel at the top is going through quite a significant hill - the road from Seaton goes over the top!

The line going towards Kings Cliffe actually follows the river and sits in the valley (as you can see from the contours), and rises only slightly to join with the Luffenham line.

I would *guess* what is proposed is going from the end of the embankment and extending that over the "existing" junction to join the Viaduct line. But I just don't see how that's possible without significant earthworks.

 

[zwk500]

I would *guess* what is proposed is going from the end of the embankment and extending that over the "existing" junction to join the Viaduct line. But I just don't see how that's possible without significant earthworks.

Looking on google maps and the like, the new earthworks don't seem too bad - the land rises to meet the level of Welland viaduct so the gap between the two trackbeds looks to be substantial but not enormous. If anything, the old earthworks are going to give more trouble as they may need stabilising or drainage works.

The earthworks new or old do not compare with the two major challenges facing any proposal to re-use the trackbed:
1. Morcott tunnel, just visible within the map - Is it stable & Safe, what works will it need to bring it back into use?
2. Housing has been built fully obstructing the trackbed at 2 separate locations (Station Road, Morcott and Cutting Lane, South Luffenham).
Problem number 2 is you major sticking point because even if you refurbish the tunnel you would then have your way blocked. Demolition in what is effectively open countryside would be rather over the top, not to mention the objections from locals of having a railway through their sleepy village without the benefit of a station. It looks like you'd need a new alignment for a substantial portion of the route anyway, at which point it's probably better to just build a new alignment throughout, further away from the villages and to modern standards. Obviously a brand new alignment comes with all the legal and design costs, so the costs likely well exceed any budget that could be put together without HM Treasury or Network Rail, and both of those have not got much cash going spare right now.

 

[peteb]

Northampton to Wellingborough was always plagued by flooding

 

[crablab]

Morcott tunnel, just visible within the map - Is it stable & Safe, what works will it need to bring it back into use?

I understand, from the website, it is in good condition. Pass on what would be needed to bring it back into use.

Station Road, Morcott

This is a significant problem, at Morcott at least. There is a house on top of what was once an embankment, where the side of the embankment has been regraded (so as to be less severe) and turfed over as a lawn. This is directly between the exit portal of Morcott tunnel (towards Luffenham) and the bridge which carries Station Road.

As you observe, I don't think the residents would be too happy. You'd essentially have to demolish that house and their immediate neighbours also might not be too keen!

I took a little trip to see how this actually looked from the ground, and I have to agree with @zwk500 and retract some of my previous statements.



Figure 1 is looking towards Seaton, with back facing the Luffenham direction, onto the bridge which carries the Corby line over the viaduct (to the left) from the tunnel (to the right).

The line originally passed under this bridge (and another) to merge with the line from Wansford/Peterborough.

I imagine if you were to wish to connect to the Corby line, you would essentially be replacing that bridge with something that took a spur out towards the camera. That would mean either infilling where the bridge is as embankment, or building some additional piers and replacing the bridge deck. The Luffenham line is in a cutting, which you would need to infill and regrade.

You cannot connect further left, as the land drops away and the viaduct begins. You cannot connect further to the right, as the land rises and there is a tunnel.


You cannot connect further left, as the land drops away and the viaduct begins. You cannot connect further to the right, as the land rises and there is a tunnel.
It's quite hard to see in this photo, but the Luffenham line is the row of trees in the top left, with the strip of grass in the field just in front of them. You can see the way the land is rising towards the hill, and just on the very left below the horizon, you can see the Corby line.

The big green area just above the Luffenham line is the hill which the tunnel goes through!

The small valley/dip in the photo is a tributary which joins the River Welland. There is some sort of bridge over it which isn't visible (and I didn't explore).
---

I don't think this would be impossible, but you'd need to infill the current cutting and remove a road bridge which goes over the line, just before the intersection. You would also need to do some fairly significant bridge work including removing the current bridge deck and essentially rebuilding it with a spur off to Luffenham.

I'm not sure what gradient you'd end up with on the approach to the junction, however. It's difficult to say as the old alignment is very overgrown.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Post HS2: wouldn't it be useful to have such a chord so that services could run down the MML, up the ECML and visa versa ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Post HS2: wouldn't it be useful to have such a chord so that services could run down the MML, up the ECML and visa versa ?

Why?

 

[zwk500]

I understand, from the website, it is in good condition. Pass on what would be needed to bring it back into use.

I'm not sure of the precise requirements, but things that would have to be checked include: Water ingress, minimum gauge requirements, track level drainage and lighting & refuges for P-Way access. Consideration will also need to be given for things like cable troughing, train detection, signal spacing and ventilation. All of which might require further work to get them into line with a modern railway.
Not strictly necessary, but cheaper in the long run to do before it opens to traffic, are things like structure gauge enhancement, electrification clearances and any structural remedial work that might be needed before the next blockade opportunity (20-30 years or more with slab track).

As you can see it's potentially quite a lot of work, and all of it for naught if the houses across the formation issue isn't resolved. Any potential diversionary route round the houses would probably mean the tunnel doesn't need to be returned to rail use anyway.
Anybody serious about reinstating the railway needs to come up with a solution for South Luffenham first, rather than the Tunnel. My initial instinct would be a shorter chord nearer Wing, but from aerial photography the topography in that area would require substantial earthworks. If there's demand for Kettering to Peterborough then extend the StP - Corby to Melton Mowbray and time it to connect with a train to P'bro. Linespeed enhancements for the P'bro-Leicester Line wouldn't hurt either, and would be a darn sight easier to fund.

 

[A0wen]

Why?

Once again - the like button is so badly needed on these forums.

A one word post there which precisely sums this kind of madness up.