Stoke-on-Trent to Derby improvements question

[thenorthern]

I would agree about TOCs not wanting to dropping Derby from their services in normal circumstances.

As far as services go I would think XC services to miss Derby and divert via Castle Donnington and and SW to NE services also via Totley to maintain current paths north and south
EMT to / from London would just run straight on via Totley.
Matlock probably a bus through out and a Crewe to Nottingham service via Castle Donnington.
When is this supposed to be anyway?

With the Matlock trains I would think they would do what they did with the Skegness trains at Nottingham and have a single platform just for the Matlock trains while the works go on at Derby.

 

[edwin_m]

If what happens at Derby is what I expect then it might be possible to do it in two phases, keeping half the station open most of the time. In short, close and rebuild the high-numbered platforms, then slew the Trent lines into the new platforms and close the low-numbered platforms and the Birmingham line. In the first phase all three routes could remain open but services would have to be reduced because of less platform capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Full block is what I hear.

 

[thenorthern]

When is the Derby re-signalling due to happen?

 

[D1009]

If what happens at Derby is what I expect then it might be possible to do it in two phases, keeping half the station open most of the time. In short, close and rebuild the high-numbered platforms, then slew the Trent lines into the new platforms and close the low-numbered platforms and the Birmingham line. In the first phase all three routes could remain open but services would have to be reduced because of less platform capacity.

The platforms were rebuilt not long ago as you describe, but resignalling is an entirely different matter.

 

[Bevan Price]

Since there's already a 3 mile stretch of single track between Barthomley and Crewe I don't think half a mile through Meir Tunnel is going to be a big deal!

And Barthomley - Crewe became a serious bottleneck last time WCML services were diverted that way.

For the Meir Tunnel problem, a shortish single line section, say Longton to Blythe Bridge might suffice, but anything much longer is another potential major bottleneck, particularly if they route more freight services that way.

The best improvements for the Crewe - Stoke - Derby line would be
1. Trains bigger than single 153s.
2. Better connections at Derby for anyone going to Loughborough, Leicester, etc.
3. Removal of the parking charges imposed by EM at the unstaffed intermediate stations. I don't know what the current station usage figures are, but on fairly recent journeys, trains seem less heavily loaded than they used to be - though of course some people might have got fed up with trying to use overcrowded single 153s and decided to travel by other methods.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The platforms were rebuilt not long ago as you describe, but resignalling is an entirely different matter.

The platforms were not rebuilt however the canopies were! As I understand it the semi disused rolling stock stabling roads next to platform 6 will be sacrificed in order to build another platform and expand the station towards the old loco works site. This will then help to completely separate the lines heading off to Long Eaton and those running to Birmingham. By doing that you remove the oh so annoying bottle neck where the two routes meet.

 

[The Planner]

And Barthomley - Crewe became a serious bottleneck last time WCML services were diverted that way.

Diversion being the operative word, it copes quite happily under normal circumstances.

 

[Bevan Price]

Diversion being the operative word, it copes quite happily under normal circumstances.

But the case for Kidsgrove - Crewe electrification was mainly to provide an alternative electrified route during engineering work on other lines.

 

[thenorthern]

But the case for Kidsgrove - Crewe electrification was mainly to provide an alternative electrified route during engineering work on other lines.

At the time though the only regular booked passenger train along that line was the hourly Manchester Airport to Skegness/Lincoln Central train (now Crewe to Derby) and there were no plans for a semi-fast London service. I think as well the both Virgin Cross Country and West Coast served Stoke-on-Trent only hourly rather than half hourly.

If the route was being electrified now Network Rail would have doubled the single line section.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When Derby is being rebuilt I was thinking the other day is there any chance that the Crewe trains will terminate at Peartree and then be bussed into derby in a similar way to how Beeston was the terminus for many trains when the Nottingham Resignaling was happening.

 

[Senex]

The platforms were not rebuilt however the canopies were! As I understand it the semi disused rolling stock stabling roads next to platform 6 will be sacrificed in order to build another platform and expand the station towards the old loco works site. This will then help to completely separate the lines heading off to Long Eaton and those running to Birmingham. By doing that you remove the oh so annoying bottle neck where the two routes meet.

Surely the platforms were (quite expensively) re-surfaced at the same time (with number 1 being treated rather differently from the rest)?

It will be very interesting to see the proposed speeds for the new Derby, given how much time is lost at the moment by the very slow approaches frm both ends (and that's before delays from conflicts come into play). At the north end and at the south to and from Birmingham there should be no problems, but from the new platforms towards Spondon looks pretty difficult, especially after various building works in recent years in the area that looks as if it would be needed for a more gentle curve.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Splitting the Crewe - Skegness into three with poor connections at Derby and Nottingham was a very backward step. Why was the Matlock branch given through trains to Nottingham instead of the Crewe line which has many more connections?

I'm glad you asked this question, as it was one I had been puzzling about - the reasoning behind this decision passed me by.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Matlock branch has always been difficult as the journey to Derby is about 30min so an hourly shuttle needs two units. Extending it to Nottingham gives reasonable layovers each end and requires three units.

Are you speculating this was the reasoning behind it, or you know?

If the latter, it's quite shocking, isn't it? For purely operational reasons? I mean, Crewe, Stoke (especially) and even Utoxetter are significant population centres, not to mention Crewe being a hub for, eg Chester, Shrewsbury, N Wales.

So, say, a Chester - Nottingham passenger now has to change twice, and typically endure a single unit, overcrowded stopper for a big chunk of the journey. A Chester - Grantham or Peterborough passenger would ....... well, OK, under present circumstances, I don't suppose these exist any more.

Also I suspect it was decided that Matlock-Derby and Derby-Nottingham both required two-car units and (incorrectly) they could get away with 153s on the Crewe. Now further complicated by extending the Matlock service to Newark.

Crewe - Nottingham - Skeggy used to be - in the 1970s - 3-car Swindon cross country sets (I never learned their Tops classification). Reasonably comfortable they were too. Amazing to think these have been replaced by single units on the Derby - Crewe section.

I believe that the Nottingham-Cardiff should run via the Stenson to Sheet Stores route, giving an hourly Nottingham-Birmingham taking about an hour, and the Crewe should be extended to Nottingham using the path thus released.

That's an interesting proposal. Of course, Derby must be a very important traffic generator - but there are alternatives, and it would cut 12 min? off the journey.

If tried, it would not be long before Castle Donnington would be demanding their station re-open, one suspects.

 

[D1009]

I'm glad you asked this question, as it was one I had been puzzling about - the reasoning behind this decision passed me by.

Whilst it was good in theory, punctuality and reliability on the Crewe-Skegness service was appalling as problems on one side of the country immediately reacted on the other.

 

[thenorthern]

I'm glad you asked this question, as it was one I had been puzzling about - the reasoning behind this decision passed me by.

Punctuality was a big issue, the route ran partly along 4 mainlines (West Coast Mainline x2, Cross Country Main Line, Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line) and if there were ever any late running express trains they were given priority over Central Trains.

Quite a few times I had been on an on time departure from Manchester Airport that would be delayed at Wilmslow (although Central Trains for some reason didn't stop there) while waiting for a delayed Manchester to London express to pass.

 

[ashworth]

[QUOTE =70014IronDuke] Crewe - Nottingham - Skeggy used to be - in the 1970s - 3-car Swindon cross country sets (I never learned their Tops classification). Reasonably comfortable they were too. Amazing to think these have been replaced by single units on the Derby - Crewe section.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, don't know what I did but made a mess of the quote and can't put it right!

I'm not sure that is quite correct. I think Crewe - Nottingham - Skegness was later than that during the 1980s and was later for a time extended to Manchester Airport.
During the 1970s it was Crewe - Derby - Nottingham - Lincoln. I know this is the case because for 3 years between 1975 and 78 I was at college in Derby and used to travel direct from Lowdham (Nottm-Lincoln line) on these comfortable 3 car Swindon cross country sets. I can even remember them having orange curtains! It was a regular hourly service and was great that I didn't have to change at Nottingham.

 

[Mugby]

Surely the platforms were (quite expensively) re-surfaced at the same time (with number 1 being treated rather differently from the rest)?

Quite so!

 

[edwin_m]

Are you speculating this was the reasoning behind it, or you know?

I know it was an active topic for discussion in the Community Rail Partnership who were later in dialogue with the franchise bidders. The fact they thought they could get away with 153s on the Crewe route, but not on Matlock or Derby-Nottingham stoppers, may also have had something to do with it.

I can't imagine many people would have travelled through between Crewe and Lincoln, still less Crewe and Skegness, so these were probably for operational convenience to a large degree as well!

A Chester - Grantham or Peterborough passenger would ....... well, OK, under present circumstances, I don't suppose these exist any more.

Alternative routes are available with one change, at Manchester or Birmingham.

That's an interesting proposal. Of course, Derby must be a very important traffic generator - but there are alternatives, and it would cut 12 min? off the journey.

If tried, it would not be long before Castle Donnington would be demanding their station re-open, one suspects.

Derby would still have the same number of trains to Crewe and Nottingham, as the Crewe train would replace the Cardiff one between Derby and Nottingham. It would have three trains per hour to Birmingham instead of four.

When I looked I decided the saving would be nearer 20min, which is enough to save one unit on the present timetable, although this depends how long the avoided layover at Derby is which I think may have been reduced since then. Incidentally Castle Donington doesn't have a double "n".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the platforms were (quite expensively) re-surfaced at the same time (with number 1 being treated rather differently from the rest)?

It will be very interesting to see the proposed speeds for the new Derby, given how much time is lost at the moment by the very slow approaches frm both ends (and that's before delays from conflicts come into play). At the north end and at the south to and from Birmingham there should be no problems, but from the new platforms towards Spondon looks pretty difficult, especially after various building works in recent years in the area that looks as if it would be needed for a more gentle curve.

I believe the curved part of platforms 4-6 will be straightened out to give a more gentle curve towards Spondon, which may take a slice out of the footprint of Etches Park depot but won't touch the newish shed. Platform 5 probably disappears but a new through platform will be provided east of what is now platform 6. The majority of the platform surfaces and canopies would be unaffected, but all would have some changes towards the south end.

 

[70014IronDuke]

[QUOTE =70014IronDuke] Crewe - Nottingham - Skeggy used to be - in the 1970s - 3-car Swindon cross country sets (I never learned their Tops classification). Reasonably comfortable they were too. Amazing to think these have been replaced by single units on the Derby - Crewe section.

Sorry, don't know what I did but made a mess of the quote and can't put it right!

I'm not sure that is quite correct. I think Crewe - Nottingham - Skegness was later than that during the 1980s and was later for a time extended to Manchester Airport.
During the 1970s it was Crewe - Derby - Nottingham - Lincoln. I know this is the case because for 3 years between 1975 and 78 I was at college in Derby and used to travel direct from Lowdham (Nottm-Lincoln line) on these comfortable 3 car Swindon cross country sets. I can even remember them having orange curtains! It was a regular hourly service and was great that I didn't have to change at Nottingham.[/QUOTE]

Yes - apologies - I was being loose with my timetables east of Notthingham (an area I only occasionally ventured to).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know it was an active topic for discussion in the Community Rail Partnership who were later in dialogue with the franchise bidders. The fact they thought they could get away with 153s on the Crewe route, but not on Matlock or Derby-Nottingham stoppers, may also have had something to do with it.

I can't imagine many people would have travelled through between Crewe and Lincoln, still less Crewe and Skegness, so these were probably for operational convenience to a large degree as well!

Yes, of, course, but how many travel all the way on Newcastle - Bristol trains, let alone Aberdeen to Penzance?

Nobody expects more than a minority of passengers to do the total journey (except, perhaps, Euston - Manchester) - it's about serving the needs of a large variety of people.

With the new arrangement, even Nottingham-Stoke or Crewe passengers have to change once. And we know that, at least as far as 'normals' go, it puts a lot off.

Of course, it has benefitted some Matlock/Belper pax - direct trains to Nottingham and now Newark, of course.

Alternative routes are available with one change, at Manchester or Birmingham.

But I suspect many would be less direct than via Crewe and Stoke. And we all know how popular changing at New Street is (or at least was).

Derby would still have the same number of trains to Crewe and Nottingham, as the Crewe train would replace the Cardiff one between Derby and Nottingham. It would have three trains per hour to Birmingham instead of four.

When I looked I decided the saving would be nearer 20min, which is enough to save one unit on the present timetable, although this depends how long the avoided layover at Derby is which I think may have been reduced since then.

Yes - I get your reasoning. And I think it has merit. more train miles, of course.

Incidentally Castle Donington doesn't have a double "n".

Well, it clearly should have: they never could spell well north of Loughboro, IMX