Should Stevenage platform 5 have been created as a loop?

[malc-c]

From my own personal view, I do think that they shot themselves in the foot for not adding on a few more metres of track and a point to make P5 a through platform rather than a terminus.

It would thus give the routers the option of sending a fast freight train through P5 to join the Down Slow (DS) line ahead of any service from King's Cross (KGX) that would stop at P4, and allow new services from Moorgate to Hitchin and letchworth, or even north to Peterborough.

It makes more sense to do such work when you already have the equipment and workforce on site.

Who knows, maybe this will be the next phase when or if Stevenage station gets its makeover

 

[Mcq]

Right as ever malc-c

 

[Ianno87]

From my own personal view, I do think that they shot themselves in the foot for not adding on a few more metres of track and a point to make P5 a through platform rather than a terminus. It would thus give the routers the option of sending a fast freight train through P5 to join the DS line ahead of any service from KX that would stop at P4, and allow new services from Moorgate to Hitchin and letchworth, or even north to Peterborough. It makes more sense to do such work when you already have the equipment and workforce on site. Who knows, maybe this will be the next phase when or if Stevenage station gets its make over

Doesn't "make sense" if it means more cost and disruption to do more work, without the proportional benefit from it. It isn't that much better than holding a Down Slow passenger service south of Langley Jn to let a freight go firsr.

As long as the design for P5 "as is" doesn't make it difficult/more expensive to come back and make P5 a through route in future.

 

[cle]

From my own personal view, I do think that they shot themselves in the foot for not adding on a few more metres of track and a point to make P5 a through platform rather than a terminus. It would thus give the routers the option of sending a fast freight train through P5 to join the DS line ahead of any service from KX that would stop at P4, and allow new services from Moorgate to Hitchin and letchworth, or even north to Peterborough. It makes more sense to do such work when you already have the equipment and workforce on site. Who knows, maybe this will be the next phase when or if Stevenage station gets its make over

I think it was discussed, and is passively provided for - but supposedly isn't necessary. I'd think also useful for general flexibility - or for making P3 a bi-di passing line or central turnback point - but for the specific Hertford Loop purpose alone, this is the best solution and keeps it 'pure'.

 

[CW2]

Adding to the above responses, it would need to be a considerable additional length of track, rather than the "few more metres". You need to make provision for the possibility of a SPAD, so the converging pointwork cannot be in the immediate vicinity of the platform end. It might even need an entire additional signal section - and some relatively high-speed pointwork.

 

[Mcq]

The traffic thumping up and down the HN loop between 2300-0200 is surprising, multiple TOCs involved services to/from, Edinburgh, Peterborough, Cambridge etc, plus freight from various places - with the local TOC 'in the way'
P5 is fine to solve that, but as we said earlier passing loops are more useful than 'dead ends' and with the main ECML traffic also going for P4, P5 could be very active as a passing spot - if it was one.
Of course some of the late Moorgate services to Stevenage, still go into P4 because they then go on to be stabled at Letchworth overnight - they block P4 in the process, a N exit from P5 would enable them to stay clear of the ECML DS until they are ready to go.
As I said before it needs a more holistic approach than just what the 'TOC of the Day' seems to need.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I said before it needs a more holistic approach than just what the 'TOC of the Day' seems to need.

Industry strategic planning is a strategic approach, and nothing to do with ‘what the TOC of the day’ wants. The extra cost of making P5 a lop would have been non-trivial, and would have had little benefit.

 

[Mcq]

'would have had little benefit' - is a view - though not mine, nor it would seem that of several other contributors.

 

[Bald Rick]

'would have had little benefit' - is a view - though not mine, nor it would seem that of several other contributors.

Ah, but how many of them have seen the development work and the investment paper?

If you can describe the benefit of the through line, in fiscal terms, and demonstrate how it is ‘worth’ the cost, I may amendment my view.

 

[Mcq]

As I pondered much earlier in the previous thread -
'How much would it cost'?
That's the first question, the second is
'Are you sure you can't do it cheaper'?
Then you can build the case

Since I'm not privy to those details I can't continue - but like others, I have a view.

 

[John R]

Under the current weekday timetable the line from Langley South to Stevenage P5 is occupied for 50 mins in each hour by Moorgate trains. So this would appear to restrict any use during the day for through traffic if it’s the post COVID timetable too.

 

[A0]

As I pondered much earlier in the previous thread -
'How much would it cost'?
That's the first question, the second is
'Are you sure you can't do it cheaper'?
Then you can build the case

Since I'm not privy to those details I can't continue - but like others, I have a view.

As a project manager - albeit in the IT field - I fundamentally disagree with the approach you suggest.

The correct way to do any of these things is:

1 - define the problem - which includes listing the requirements of any solution which are prioritised from Must Have down to Nice to have (there are various models for doing this). The requirements should also tie back to the benefits case - potentially some will have individual financial benefits called out against them.

2 - options are then identified which should show their match to requirements and potentially outline costs.

3 - the option selected is based on the responses in 2.

On this basis making it a loop would have been a 'non essential' requirement - doubtless some options would have included that which would have been reflected in their cost and complexity.

Just saying "go back and challenge the costs to see if you can do it cheaper" is the unprofessional and lazy way to do it. And nearly always results in a higher cost at the end, because a problem is identified during the project which needs to be addressed as a result of that "cost cutting" which in turn results in a Change Request (CR) which more than off-sets the saving achieved with the "make it cheaper" conversation.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I pondered much earlier in the previous thread -
'How much would it cost'?
That's the first question, the second is
'Are you sure you can't do it cheaper'?
Then you can build the case

Since I'm not privy to those details I can't continue - but like others, I have a view.

As @A0wen says, this is back to front.

1) define the problem
2) identify the benefits from solving it
3) identify options to solve it
4) work out how much each option costs
5) then build a case

So, what is the problem we are trying to solve?

 

[swt_passenger]

From my own personal view, I do think that they shot themselves in the foot for not adding on a few more metres of track and a point to make P5 a through platform rather than a terminus.

It would thus give the routers the option of sending a fast freight train through P5 to join the Down Slow (DS) line ahead of any service from King's Cross (KGX) that would stop at P4, and allow new services from Moorgate to Hitchin and letchworth, or even north to Peterborough.

It makes more sense to do such work when you already have the equipment and workforce on site.

Who knows, maybe this will be the next phase when or if Stevenage station gets its makeover

When a very similar thread was started back in February, (and similarly pulled out of the Stevenage P5 discussion), you thought that a through platform wasn’t needed, except for freight... (In post #3)

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-the-new-stevenage-platform-5-be-turned-into-a-loop-platform.200938/

I think there’s been a few discussions of this in the las5 few years, wasn’t it discovered at one time that more land would have been needed, north of the footbridge?

 

[malc-c]

When a very similar thread was started back in February, (and similarly pulled out of the Stevenage P5 discussion), you thought that a through platform wasn’t needed, except for freight... (In post #3)

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-the-new-stevenage-platform-5-be-turned-into-a-loop-platform.200938/

I think there’s been a few discussions of this in the las5 few years, wasn’t it discovered at one time that more land would have been needed, north of the footbridge?

I seem to recall (I've slept since so could be wrong) at the time we were discussing the Stevenage to Moorgate service, hence the comment that I didn't see any advantage, other than to path a freight on the loop past any train in platform 4. However if there were services from Letchworth to Moorgate via the loop then it would have made sense to fit a switch to form a passing loop arrangement. But if you look at the satellite view on google maps, you'll see that there isn't the amount of land available, and the radius of the switch would need to quite tight in order to join the DS before the bridge over Fairlands way just North of the station. It would be even tighter (and probably not practical given the speed restriction such a tight radius switch would need to be) if the switch was fitted before the existing DS to DF cross over....I have no idea who owns land north of the leisure park carpark, but if negotiation with two or more land owners is required then it could soon become uneconomical to consider.

 

[Hadders]

I really don't see the need at this point in time for P5 to be a through platform. Even if it was a through platform I think there are any paths adailable on the slows between Stevenage and Hitchin so even if you wanted to run Moorgate services through to Letworth you couldn't.

P5 is awkward in that it's a bit remote but it's not the end of the world, very few passengers use the service between Hertford and Stevenage, although I suspect the numbers will increase now it operates half hourly. There is passive provision should things change in the future.

In reality we were lucky to get P5 built at all, remember there was talk of 7 years bustitution. So what we've ended up with is probably the right solution given funds available.