Ribblehead Viaduct

[RichmondCommu]

Hi, can anyone tell me why the viaduct still only has a single line over it?

Many thanks,

Richmond Commuter

 

[mumrar]

Hi, can anyone tell me why the viaduct still only has a single line over it?

Many thanks,

Richmond Commuter

It's to do with reducing the load on the structure itself and was done to save on maintenance costs for the line. Don't forget, it was work required to the viaduct and its associated cost that almost led to the closure of the line.

 

[47741]

although allegedly this was always a bit of a red herring, exaggerated by BR managers to support their closure case. Since the line is now far busier than it was in the 80s, this bottleneck will perhaps warrant some attention eventually.

 

[CosherB]

I suspect the structure is fully capable of supporting two tracks. In the unlikely even of that not being so, why not have two tracks, but signalled to ensure that only one train at a time is on the viaduct. This would still mean the occasional delay, but not as much as both directions having to be switched to use the same physical rails.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm sure i'd read somwhere that capacity improvements were being made on the S&C. I seem to remember these being shorter distances between signals and i think the lengthening of passing loops. That said that only passing loop i'm aware of is the one at Blea Moor although i dare say there are others.

I guess the single line over the viaduct will always keep Blea Moor box busy which is no bad thing. That said the path from the road to the signal box can't be much fun on a cold winters night!

Thanks for your posts.

 

[furryfeet]

network rail have already stated, during the recent improvement works ( i.e. adding IBS singnals ) that the section of single track from Ribblehead to Blea Moor is so short, that it does not consititute a capacity restriction.
So I do not think that the track we be re-doubled for a long time yet, if ever.
If it really got tight, then the section from the north end of the viaduct to Blea Moor could be re-doubled faily quickly and presumably cheaply, since the single line is on one side of the formation and there is only one set of points to be moved.

 

[RichmondCommu]

network rail have already stated, during the recent improvement works ( i.e. adding IBS singnals ) that the section of single track from Ribblehead to Blea Moor is so short, that it does not consititute a capacity restriction.
So I do not think that the track we be re-doubled for a long time yet, if ever.
If it really got tight, then the section from the north end of the viaduct to Blea Moor could be re-doubled faily quickly and presumably cheaply, since the single line is on one side of the formation and there is only one set of points to be moved.

Apologies if this sounds really daft but what are IBS signals?

 

[142094]

Intermediate block signal. Don't search for IBS signals on Google, that is something else!

As for the bottleneck at Ribblehead, there always seems to be a large gap in between trains running over the viaduct so I don't see how there can be a bottleneck? This includes freight workings and normal passenger stock.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Intermediate block signal. Don't search for IBS signals on Google, that is something else!

As for the bottleneck at Ribblehead, there always seems to be a large gap in between trains running over the viaduct so I don't see how there can be a bottleneck? This includes freight workings and normal passenger stock.

I think i'd read somewhere that there was a desire to increase the number of passenger services over the line but capacity constraints were preventing this.

While we're on the subject Ribblehead to Dent over the top of Blea Moor and return by train is highly recommended!

 

[142094]

I think i'd read somewhere that there was a desire to increase the number of passenger services over the line but capacity constraints were preventing this.

While we're on the subject Ribblehead to Dent over the top of Blea Moor and return by train is highly recommended!

Sure it could be done without the need for double tracks. But if more and more freight is going on the route then it might have to be done in the future.

Leeds - Carlisle is one of my favourite trips, plus always have a good meal at the pub at Ribblehead.

 

[mumrar]

I very much doubt BR managers had all the scaffolding and engineers in place to carry out the works on the viaduct to protect the alleged perpetuated myth of it's structural condition.

The advantage of the single line is that it is central to the viaduct, where as two lines exert more force on one side of the viaduct than the other. I'm not Brunel, but I think it will certainly help.

 

[Nym]

Yes, it will help running down the centre of the viaduct, as it distributed the weight more evenly over the supports, the same as running slowly over the viaduct reduces the lateral forces due to curvature, all potential solutions depend on the timetabling entirely, say that Ribblehead can take two passenger 158s or whatever passing or on either side, but not a Coal train, 3 tracking with overlaps would allow for this to be acceived, but if the majority of traffic is feight, this would be an utter waste of time to impliment, and a single track line with holding sidings for freight, so passenger services can have prioroty, with of course, 2 track either side. But then again, I'd like to see hourly passenger service along the line from Hellefeild to Carlisle, 1tp2h to Manchester Vic and 1tp2h to Leeds via Shilpley. with possible extra extentions from Skipton, eg, Hourly from Skipton to Hellfeild half to Carlisle, half to Lancaster. Making it hourly from Leeds to Hellfeild and Hourly from Hellfeild to Carlisle. Would be a nice link into Manchester.

Finally though pepole are realising just how bloddy important the S&C Line is, since it's one of only three routes between well, Crewe & Carlisle, strictly speaking, 4, but ones quite a long way round...

 

[142094]

I don't think we'll be seeing any of the exra services that you have suggested whilst Northern struggle to have capacity on other, more important routes.

 

[Nym]

In addition to what I have written above I spoke to a friend of mine who deals with structures quite a lot, scaled up from what he deals with, but nevertheless. It is better to have a single track running doen the centre, regardless of what it was designed to run, when a coal train for example would run on one side of the viaduct it would put one side under greater compression streess, and the other under tension, combine the running of heavy freight in both directions and you would have continuing variable tension on masonary, that is essensially very brittle and only works well in compression.
So, yes it may be possible to run it as 2 track again, but it would be subject to a hell of a lot of testing and ultimatlely would reduce the lifespan of the viaduct.

 

[matchmaker]

I suspect the structure is fully capable of supporting two tracks. In the unlikely even of that not being so, why not have two tracks, but signalled to ensure that only one train at a time is on the viaduct. This would still mean the occasional delay, but not as much as both directions having to be switched to use the same physical rails.

This is done on the Tay Bridge - two trains are not permitted in the High Girders at the same time, I believe.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is done on the Tay Bridge . . . .

and a similar restriction applies to the Forth Bridge, which is particularly applicable to the structural concerns rasied by Nym. Regulations allow two passenger trains to cross the Forth Bridge (in opposite directions of course) but freight must only cross while no other traffic is on the bridge (and must cross at lower speed).
That sort of restriction seems to provide the capacity of dual line working while applying only those restrictions which are necessary to minimise structural stresses.

But to return to the general discussions of capacity on the S&C, I agree with others that the single track of over the R. viaduct does not limit the line's overall capacity.

 

[Scotrail84]

and a similar restriction applies to the Forth Bridge, which is particularly applicable to the structural concerns rasied by Nym. Regulations allow two passenger trains to cross the Forth Bridge (in opposite directions of course) but freight must only cross while no other traffic is on the bridge (and must cross at lower speed).
That sort of restriction seems to provide the capacity of dual line working while applying only those restrictions which are necessary to minimise structural stresses.

But to return to the general discussions of capacity on the S&C, I agree with others that the single track of over the R. viaduct does not limit the line's overall capacity.

Ive been on a passenger train and passed freight on the forth bridge. 66s and HAAs loaded and unloaded IIRC. 50mph for Passengers and 20mph for freight i think. Also the Fuel Oil train to Leuchars has passed me on the bridge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is it true that Blea Moor box is the last Box in the UK not to have running water and it still gets it delivered by trains that work over the line??

 

[Liam]

This is done on the Tay Bridge - two trains are not permitted in the High Girders at the same time, I believe.

I remember reading somewhere that they are going to relay the tracks on the Tay Bridge as single track to improve the lifespan of the bridge, can anyone else recall any more info on this?

 

[Tomnick]

Ive been on a passenger train and passed freight on the forth bridge. 66s and HAAs loaded and unloaded IIRC. 50mph for Passengers and 20mph for freight i think. Also the Fuel Oil train to Leuchars has passed me on the bridge.

If I'm not mistaken, the restriction's quite specific - there was some discussion on the Simsig forum of the exact details, but I don't think a freight is prevented from passing a passenger train on the bridge.

Is it true that Blea Moor box is the last Box in the UK not to have running water and it still gets it delivered by trains that work over the line??

It's certainly not got running water; I believe it's currently delivered by the unit working ECS to form the first Up service from Ribblehead (which has to go to Blea Moor to reverse anyway).

 

[Scotrail84]

If I'm not mistaken, the restriction's quite specific - there was some discussion on the Simsig forum of the exact details, but I don't think a freight is prevented from passing a passenger train on the bridge.

It's certainly not got running water; I believe it's currently delivered by the unit working ECS to form the first Up service from Ribblehead (which has to go to Blea Moor to reverse anyway).

Freight on the Forth Bridge is rare now anyway since the Alloa - Dunfermline line reopened most freight take that route although there is the odd engineers train and the empty coal trains make an appearance from time to time.

2011 and no running water. Makes you wonder eh?

 

[Ploughman]

2011 and no running water. Makes you wonder eh?

Its always had running water.

It runs down the windows every day.

 

[Nym]

2011 and no running water. Makes you wonder eh?

You ever seen just how remote this place is? Most houses in the area won't have running drinking water either... All four of them...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Even more remarkably, for many years cottages were provided for railway employees based at Blea Moor. The one remaining cottage was I believe constructed by the LMS in the 1930’s and when myself and my family walked past it last summer it did not look to be in a good state of repair! I can only assume it is listed as it would have surely have been demolished by now. As an aside does anyone know why the original Midland Railway cottages were demolished?