Speculative East Coast Main Line Upgrade

[Aictos]

As someone who has close ties to Peterborough and still likes to spend some time there, I can certify that the new development in Hampton is in dire need of better transport links. It could just be two slow platforms for GTR trains.

I have close ties to the city and yes a station with two platforms capable of 12 cars is all that's needed.

Peterborough has always had a issue with road congestion in the city centre so building a parkway station south of the city with decent parking, decent road links and a decent bus service would go a long way to counter the ongoing traffic congestion that happens every weekday.

Not likely to happen but it is long overdue!

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

As someone who has close ties to Peterborough and still likes to spend some time there, I can certify that the new development in Hampton is in dire need of better transport links. It could just be two slow platforms for GTR trains.

Could we reopen the Yaxley and Farcet station?

 

[Peter Kelford]

There is a narrow strip of land next to the Debenhams distribution centre that might offer space for a station. The other upgrade everyone has so far ignored is that the line north of York only has 125mph in patch stretches, perhaps some upgrading here could speed up the trains. We also know for sure that the 800s can run at 140mph, so perhaps that could be a consideration.

The ECML primarily (in my view) needs bottleneck redevelopment, with Welwyn 2 being one of the primary concerns.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

A few suggestions by Network Rail for the future: https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/East-Coast-Main-Line-Route-Study.pdf

ECML South (South of Peterborough)

• Stevenage Turn back platform
• Huntingdon to Woodwalton four- tracking scheme
  
• Peterborough down slow speed improvement
  
• Kings Cross station remodelling
• Power Supply Upgrade
• Supplementary Renewals Programme
  
• Moorgate Capacity. Enable more suburban journeys for passengers into London (up to 5 additional trains) using technology
  
• Digital Signalling for the ECML. Increase line capacity and improve performance
• Reduce journey time and improve reliability.
  Linespeeds can increase up to
  140 mph by upgrading infrastructure; safety improvements are made by closing level
  crossings; the reliability of the railway is improved with upgraded infrastructure.

ECML Central (Peterborough to Doncaster):

• Provide reliable power supply sufficient for planned additional services to run
• Werrington Grade Separation
• Supplementary Renewals Programme
  
• Doncaster Leeds Operational Changes
• Alternative option: Doncaster to Leeds additional tracks
• Reduce journey time and improve reliability. Linespeeds can increase up to 140 mph by upgrading infrastructure; safety improvements are made by closing level crossings; the reliability of the railway is improved with upgraded infrastructure.
• Doncaster west side linespeed improvements and platforms
  
• Additional platform at Lincoln
  
• Additional platform and junction lead at Grantham

ECML North (Doncaster to Newcastle):

• Provide reliable power supply sufficient for planned additional services to run.
• Supplementary Renewals Programme

• Newcastle platform capacity. Reduce crowding on inter-regional services by enabling longer trains to terminate at Newcastle station.

• York. Optimise York station for HS2 services and allow an extra hourly service along the Harrogate line.

• Increase line capacity through York station to Northallerton (To accommodate 9 trains per hour)

• Darlington. Make Tees Valley services independent of the ECML.

• Create an additional rail route parallel to the ECML, utilising the Leamside branch, a disused rail alignment.

• Reduce journey time and improve reliability. Linespeeds can increase up to 140 mph by upgrading infrastructure; safety improvements are made by closing level crossings; the reliability of the railway is improved with upgraded infrastructure.

ECML Borders: Newcastle to Berwick

• Provide reliable power supply sufficient for planned additional services to run.
• Supplementary Renewals Programme
• Link more people to jobs by reinstating passenger services on the Ashington Blyth and Tyne railway.
  
• Allow current infrastructure to use industry standard 775m freight trains, enabling operational efficiencies.
  
• Reduce journey time and improve reliability. Linespeeds can increase up to 140 mph by upgrading infrastructure; safety improvements are made by closing level crossings; the reliability of the railway is improved with upgraded infrastructure.

 

[Meerkat]

How would you fit another platform in at Lincoln - bit tight on the South side?

 

[Train Maniac]

If you wanted to fix Newark, it would have to be a flyover, as the River Trent kinda gets in the way of a flyunder

I definitely agree with upgrading suburban services north of Newcastle.
But before ANYTHING is done, you really need to fix the Welwyn Bottleneck. Ideally a new parallel viaduct and rebuilt Welwyn North station. If not (and probably slightly more practical) Upgrade the Hertford Loop Line with Passing loops at Hertford North (used to have one) and Gordon Hill.

 

[Aictos]

If you wanted to fix Newark, it would have to be a flyover, as the River Trent kinda gets in the way of a flyunder

I definitely agree with upgrading suburban services north of Newcastle.
But before ANYTHING is done, you really need to fix the Welwyn Bottleneck. Ideally a new parallel viaduct and rebuilt Welwyn North station. If not (and probably slightly more practical) Upgrade the Hertford Loop Line with Passing loops at Hertford North (used to have one) and Gordon Hill.

Umm Hertford North has never passing loops EVER!

Yes the platforms were designed as two island platforms but only 3 faces have ever receive any track with the Up Hertford being Platform 1, Down Hertford being Platform 2 and the Hertford Bay being Platform 3.

Yes it is possible to reconstruct the unused face opposite Platform 1 and make it into a bay platform but equally it could be used as a headshunt from the yard.

Plus you have the challenges of both the rail bridge at the north end of the station and the pointwork to the south end to consider.

As to Gordon Hill, again I don’t think they ever were loops but rather 2 bays and 2 though lines.

That’s not to say I don’t think there ought to be passing loops on the Hertford Loop but I can’t see that happening in much the same way that the plan to bring Platform 4 at Gordon Hill back into use which still has the OHL has been cancelled by bean counters.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

If you wanted to fix Newark, it would have to be a flyover, as the River Trent kinda gets in the way of a flyunder

I definitely agree with upgrading suburban services north of Newcastle.
But before ANYTHING is done, you really need to fix the Welwyn Bottleneck. Ideally a new parallel viaduct and rebuilt Welwyn North station. If not (and probably slightly more practical) Upgrade the Hertford Loop Line with Passing loops at Hertford North (used to have one) and Gordon Hill.

Latter is most likely for Welwyn Bottleneck. I would love to see the Newark Flyover built with a replacement curve to Northgate from Lincoln.

 

[Aictos]

Latter is most likely for Welwyn Bottleneck. I would love to see the Newark Flyover built with a replacement curve to Northgate from Lincoln.

I disagree, I think the likelihood of a Welwyn solution being brought into use has a zero per cent chance of happening not that I don’t think it should happen but that’s being realistic.

Hopefully CR2 will have the New Southgate branch built but have it as a tunnel until after Potters Bar then extend it to Welwyn GC as you could split the 4tph between Moorgate and Chessington South for example which would release some capacity between Alexandra Palace and Potters Bar on the slow lines.

 

[Meerkat]

Do Newark properly - a flyover with a replacement two level station, giving easy connections between the ECML and Nottingham/Lincoln.
Where’s that money tree gone?

 

[carlosfandango]

Electrify Peterborough to Doncaster via Lincoln and Lincoln NNG to provide diversion routes. If timings fit in similar to mainline (I'm sure they used to be fairly similar aeons ago) then maybe half the Lincoln to KX services could go via Spalding and Sleaford and extend up to York thus providing a viable alternative and opening up the route

 

[59CosG95]

Electrify Peterborough to Doncaster via Lincoln and Lincoln NNG to provide diversion routes. If timings fit in similar to mainline (I'm sure they used to be fairly similar aeons ago) then maybe half the Lincoln to KX services could go via Spalding and Sleaford and extend up to York thus providing a viable alternative and opening up the route

As it stands, the linespeed from Werrington Jct to Flyover East Jn never exceeds 75mph - most of the time it's below that. Re-adjusting the GN/GE for higher speeds is possible, but long-term maintenance costs would be higher in line with the speed.

Personally, I'd 4-track the Digswell-Woolmer Green section (i.e. through Welwyn North), the Huntingdon-Woodwalton section, the Holme Jn - Fletton Jn section, and the Stoke Jn - Grantham section. This last part would include a remodelled Grantham, with 4 through platforms, and a flyover/diveunder at one end of the station to allow services from Nottingham to cross the Fast tracks to reach the Up Slow. Stoke Tunnel would also need a second bore, probably suitable for 140mph.
If 140mph is aspired to on the ECML between Peterborough & Grantham, an upgrade to the OLE is almost a must - replacement of the headspans with portals (similar to those seen at Conington), and use of Siemens' SICAT SX OLE design range (being installed in Denmark at the moment; the lower-speed SICAT SA range is in use in Scotland on the Larkhall & Gourock lines).
The use of SICAT SX would of course depend on the tensile capabilities of the existing masts and the new booms; Mk3b OLEMI equipment has 11kN catenary tension and 11kN contact tension, while SICAT SX has 30kN catenary tension and 15kN contact tension.

 

[NoMorePacers]

A realignment of Morpeth station to reduce the curve, like what's presently being done at Market Harborough, would be useful.

 

[deltic08]

A realignment of Morpeth station to reduce the curve, like what's presently being done at Market Harborough, would be useful.

We have been here before. Bald Rick will tell you why it cannot be done.

 

[deltic08]

We have been here before. Bald Rick will tell you why it cannot be done.

M Harborough was a cop out, only 65 to 85 mph. Wasn't worth the spend. Reopening some closed lines would be worth more.

 

[Killingworth]

For non-rail enthusiasts it's the little things that add up to a lot and some of them don't need multiple billions to achieve. Some of the suggestions so far would cost a fortune and make little difference to most journeys and take decades.

A recent Saturday journey from Dore & Totley to Newcastle should have been a TPE service towards Cleethorpes into Sheffield to catch a XC, very simple, same platform change, journey time about 2 hours. Ah, no. On this day the TPE didn't stop at Dore. It had been rerouted from Doncaster to go to - of all places, Newcastle!

Ah well, got the the earlier Northern stopping service into Sheffield and hoped to pick up the XC. No luck. It had been brought forward and rerouted to take longer via Leeds.

So, picked up Northern train for Bridlington to Doncaster to catch an EC service to Newcastle, but just missed the connection thanks to being delayed for 4 minutes within sight of the platforms. No matter there was a following EC going to York where I should catch up with that wandering XC service. The EC was only a couple of minutes late into York, but in the bay platform. On that platform was a joyous gathering of clerical people greeting each other from around the globe. Congested platforms I've experienced at Piccadilly, but this was different. It took a couple of minutes to negotiate a way through the happy throng, run up the stairs - and see the XC train shutting doors and leaving on time!

Never mind, there was another EC service going north (amazing how many there were) for Edinburgh. Full! Standing and luggage everywhere. Sat like Jeremy Corbyn in a vestibule as far as Darlington, beside some American tourists. Only 45 minutes longer than a normal 2 hop journey, and as an enthusiast I quite enjoyed the challenge, 4 trains instead of 2.

What do we need at much more realistic costs?

More carriages. More platforms with more space. Tightened up timetables achieved with slicker signalling. Relief tracks in loops and better crossovers. Make critical sections bi-directional to add more flexibility for regular services, not just emergencies.

On expensive projects I'd like to see a way to achieve a fly over/under at Doncaster to allow trains from the east and north to get across to the west without holding up northbound trains, although it's usually the crossing trains that have to wait for platforms and paths. Northern Bridlington - Sheffield, TPE Man Airport - Cleethorpes and XC services all conflict with EC here. A Werrington type solution would/will be very difficult, but needed! Further platforms would also help to add resilience.

Rewire the route with something that doesn't get pulled down so easily. Far too many disruptions.

Look after the little things and passenger experience in the near future can be improved well before any of the big schemes being suggested can be completed.

 

[malc-c]

The bottleneck at Welwyn / Digswell is one area that really needs to be resolved. But the cost is prohibitive. Not only the widening of the digswell viaduct, but the remodelling of Welwyn North station, and then the boring of new tunnels or widening the existing tunnels. You would also need to widen the small viaduct over Robbery Bottom Lane. The track used to be four track just after this point, so in theory all you would need to do is remove the bricks from the bricked up arches of the two road bridges at Woolmergreen. I can remember the track being changed to 2 track under the B197 road bridge as a child, my guess it was something to do with the electrification projector possibly to increase line speed as the track after the bridges is straighter ?

 

[class26]

M Harborough was a cop out, only 65 to 85 mph. Wasn't worth the spend. Reopening some closed lines would be worth more.

60 mph - 85 mph

 

[kevin_roche]

I'd build a new line just for fast trains and use the exiting lines for slow and semi-fast services.

 

[Ianno87]

The bottleneck at Welwyn / Digswell is one area that really needs to be resolved. But the cost is prohibitive. Not only the widening of the digswell viaduct, but the remodelling of Welwyn North station, and then the boring of new tunnels or widening the existing tunnels. You would also need to widen the small viaduct over Robbery Bottom Lane. The track used to be four track just after this point, so in theory all you would need to do is remove the bricks from the bricked up arches of the two road bridges at Woolmergreen. I can remember the track being changed to 2 track under the B197 road bridge as a child, my guess it was something to do with the electrification projector possibly to increase line speed as the track after the bridges is straighter ?

Correct. Puts the Slow Line turnouts on straight track so they can be 70mph/Flashing Yellows, so Slow Lines clear the section quicker. An increase of capacity by extending the length of Double Track sections

I'd build a new line just for fast trains and use the exiting lines for slow and semi-fast services.

Also known as HS2.

 

[kevin_roche]

Also known as HS2.

Ahh you spotted it!

 

[cosmo]

I'd do the following as part of a general project to improve the railways in the North:

- Upgrade the electrification/power supply as above, for higher capacity and so the old problems that the 373s etc used to have, and more recently Class 801s I think? are solved
- In-cab signalling with some derivative of ATP or ERTMS to enable faster operation (probably 140-160mph) and/or the need for use of tilting trains
- As above, some possible Newcastle platform extensions (also at York)

 

[The Ham]

I'd build a new line just for fast trains and use the exiting lines for slow and semi-fast services.

Also known as HS2.

Ahh you spotted it!

I'd go further and build a new line to relieve capacity for more of the ECML services.

Something like a 200mph line running London, Cambridge, Doncaster, Leeds/York.

Although further than the ECML or would be that much faster that it would get to Leeds/York faster than the current services could (even with non stop 140mph running).

It would also likely be faster than by HS2, which may well be in need of extra capacity soon after its complete given that current WCML services are now carrying more passengers than was predicted to be being carried a few years after phase 2a opened.

This is because rail growth had been exceeding the 2.5% per year growth used to justify HS2, as an example in the last year Virgin saw growth of 3.1% and it is already significantly ahead of where it should have been.

Between London and the regions which benefit from HS2 phase 1, of we take the baseline figure of 100 passengers from 2009 when HS2 was announced. The predictions for passenger numbers were:
125 by 2018
152 by phase 1 opening
156 by phase 2 opening
172 by 2031
177 by 2033

In comparison the actual numbers seen was:

170 in 2018

To put that in perspective is 4 passengers for every 3 predicted. If the 3.1% growth seen in the last year follows through to those regional figures then 2019 could see circa 175 passengers (compared to the baseline of 100) meaning that it's not far off the 2033 predictions and there's still no HS2 services (which would have been running for 7 years by then!).