The Norton Bridge Flyover.

[The Planner]

The spur at the new Yarnfield Jn towards the Up Fast is not finished.
Today's LM Euston service used the new flyover and then had to weave back over the layout at Stafford North to reach P1.
Presumably it will use the spur to the Up Fast eventually.

Nope....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is the VIP inspection party at Norton Bridge this morning.
Taken from an LM train crossing the WCML on the new flyover.
They are at a vantage point where they can see trains on both routes.
The Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin is clearly visible (I didn't realise that at the time!).
You can see the old Stone branch in the far distance.

 

[D1009]

BBC Midlands News have done a feature about the opening today stating that the project has been completed on time and under budget.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/passengers-benefiting-from-gbp-250m-railway-upgrade-between-stafford-and-crewe[/url]

A snippet from it: Work has taken place over the last four years and has been delivered on budget and 18 months early.

So is it on time and under budget or on budget and 18 months early?

 

[swt_passenger]

Has the semi-closed Norton Bridge station platform been removed as part of the construction of the flyover?

Would it need to be? AIUI the closed station is not very near the flyover site at all. They are unlikely to remove it unless it is in the way of anything, I'd have thought.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Give the team a week off and then get them started on Bicester to Bletchley ASAP please!

 

[The Planner]

Difficult to start a project that isn't even out of GRIP2...

 

[cle]

Is there any official info on the time savings and actual additional frequencies?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there any official info on the time savings and actual additional frequencies?

Nothing seems to change in May, but maybe the works will not be fully "complete" till August, particularly on the main line.
At the very least, the 1 minute that was added into all southbound VT services for the speed restriction at Norton Bridge should be removed at some point.
You'd also expect time to be taken out of Birmingham-Stoke route trains which now have a clear 100mph run from Stafford instead of 25/30mph weaves at Doxey or Norton Bridge (or both).
But it all depends on pathing elsewhere.

As for added services, nothing has been said about more VT/LM/XC services. All that will have to wait for new franchise deals.
The glass-half-empty folk will say there's no point in adding new services to/from London when HS2 construction at Euston will take them away again.
But that would not stop extra services from Birmingham.
Only the Alliance application for 2-hourly London-Blackpool services is on the table, and they won't start till 2018 (if approved).

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there any official info on the time savings and actual additional frequencies?

A thread earlier this year in the allocations and timetables section was fairly inconclusive...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2435447#post2435447

 

[PMN1]

Given the way the railways developed, would there have been any chance of the tracks being laid to the new layout when the lines were first built?

 

[Crossover]

Has the semi-closed Norton Bridge station platform been removed as part of the construction of the flyover?

Would it need to be? AIUI the closed station is not very near the flyover site at all. They are unlikely to remove it unless it is in the way of anything, I'd have thought.

When I passed a few weeks ago, the shelter had gone I think but the platform was still there. A bit like the Hitchin Flyover, the new junction is a little way further north and the flyover is thus nowhere near Norton Bridge station

 

[rdeez]

When I passed a few weeks ago, the shelter had gone I think but the platform was still there. A bit like the Hitchin Flyover, the new junction is a little way further north and the flyover is thus nowhere near Norton Bridge station

I came across this which suggests possibly that its days may be numbered? (does 'inside platform' mean where the platform is now or simply to the other side of it? I'm not sure)

For those unable to view the image, it shows an annotated laminated sectional appendix page detailing realignment of the fast lines.

 

[rdeez]

Hang on, just realised the down fast is currently on the outside of the platform, which probably means it will just be realigned to the other side of the platform, not that they're demolishing the platform.

(And that I've double posted instead of editing. Sorry)

 

[Mag_seven]

Has Norton Bridge station been through a formal closure procedure because its looks pretty closed to me?

 

[The Planner]

In a word, no.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

EPS speed dip on the Fasts to 115mph I see from the diagram, for about a mile.
The East Chord to the Fasts will be bi-di 40mph so quite useable.
All finished over the May Bank Hols.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

When I passed a few weeks ago, the shelter had gone I think but the platform was still there. A bit like the Hitchin Flyover, the new junction is a little way further north and the flyover is thus nowhere near Norton Bridge station

The footbridge went some time again. I thought the station had been formally replaced by a bus stop?

 

[deltic08]

Hang on, just realised the down fast is currently on the outside of the platform, which probably means it will just be realigned to the other side of the platform, not that they're demolishing the platform.

(And that I've double posted instead of editing. Sorry)

Surely it is a case of Down fast becoming Up fast, Up slow becoming Down fast, Down slow becoming Up slow and lifting current Up fast?

 

[Crossover]

The footbridge went some time again. I thought the station had been formally replaced by a bus stop?

The footbridge went before I started at uni in Stafford back in 2007, so it has been inaccessible for ages! As mentioned by another poster, the station is formally still open but with a bus replacement service. No chance of it opening in its current location as it will completely defeat the point of the flyover which bypasses the station entirely

 

[absolutelymilk]

EPS speed dip on the Fasts to 115mph I see from the diagram, for about a mile.
The East Chord to the Fasts will be bi-di 40mph so quite useable.
All finished over the May Bank Hols.

What was it before?

 

[The Planner]

Surely it is a case of Down fast becoming Up fast, Up slow becoming Down fast, Down slow becoming Up slow and lifting current Up fast?

Not quite, Down Fast stays where it is, Up Fast where the Up and Down Recess line was, Up Fast becomes the Chord line to Yarnfield.

What was it before?

90mph no EPS

 

[HowardGWR]

90mph no EPS

What does EPS mean? I mean, I know it means 'enhanced permissible speed' (looked up the glossary) but what does that mean in practice. please?

 

[YorkshireBear]

What does EPS mean? I mean, I know it means 'enhanced permissible speed' (looked up the glossary) but what does that mean in practice. please?

Means only train with tilt can use that speed.

 

[absolutelymilk]

What does EPS mean? I mean, I know it means 'enhanced permissible speed' (looked up the glossary) but what does that mean in practice. please?

I believe its the higher speed allowed when using tilt.

 

[QueensCurve]

Has the semi-closed Norton Bridge station platform been removed as part of the construction of the flyover?

It is still there and still has no overbridge.

The single bidirectional line from Norton Bridge Junction to Yarnfield Junction will pass the platform on it's East face.

There will still be no new bridge to the platform.

I had wondered whether there would be any demand for a new station on the flyover line accessed from Searchlight Lane.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Today's LM Euston service used the new flyover and then had to weave back over the layout at Stafford North to reach P1.
Presumably it will use the spur to the Up Fast eventually.
Don't expect any panoramic views from the new line - it's mostly in a deep cutting.

Virgin objected to the flyover proposal on the grounds that the LM Crewe to Euston would conflict with their down paths at Stafford or Whitehouse.

Virgin's suggestion was that the up LM Crewe to Euston should indeed join the up fast directly at Norton Bridge. I am not convinced this is a lot better.

I don't know what the current proposal is, but it does seem odd to transfer the conflict somewhere else

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Virgin objected to the flyover proposal on the grounds that the LM Crewe to Euston would conflict with their down paths at Stafford or Whitehouse.
Virgin's suggestion was that the up LM Crewe to Euston should indeed join the up fast directly at Norton Bridge. I am not convinced this is a lot better.
I don't know what the current proposal is, but it does seem odd to transfer the conflict somewhere else

You'd think the sensible thing would be to route the LM via Stafford P4 and then back onto the Fast at Whitehouse Jn.
Of course it might not work with the current paths, where the LM gets to sit a Stafford for 5 minutes.
On my first sampling it waited a fair while at Stafford North to let a couple of Pendolinos go by.

 

[QueensCurve]

Surely it is a case of Down fast becoming Up fast, Up slow becoming Down fast, Down slow becoming Up slow and lifting current Up fast?

That was what I thought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What was it before?

25mph.

 

[The Planner]

Virgin objected to the flyover proposal on the grounds that the LM Crewe to Euston would conflict with their down paths at Stafford or Whitehouse.

Virgin's suggestion was that the up LM Crewe to Euston should indeed join the up fast directly at Norton Bridge. I am not convinced this is a lot better.

I don't know what the current proposal is, but it does seem odd to transfer the conflict somewhere else

That is a very different view of the events I know of.....

 

[QueensCurve]

That is a very different view of the events I know of.....

My source was Virgin's response to NR's Network Change Proposal:-

WCTL objects to the change as proposed; the reasons for our stance being as follows:
WCTL acknowledges those benefits expected to be brought to the wider industry by the introduction of the grade separated junction & remodelling of Norton Bridge, and the real opportunity provided to enhance both the capacity & capability of the WCML north of Stafford. However there are a number of elements proposed both within this project and on inception that we have concerns with and for which we request further clarity and/or substantiation:

WCTL notes that the bi-directional East Chord is being introduced primarily as a means of maintaining access between Stafford and Stone during times of engineering work and perturbation. At this stage in the project, we therefore have to assume that the Chord will have no booked timetable services over the line.
1.2
This therefore leads us to assume that planned (LTP) services operated principally by Cross Country and London Midland, will utilise the new Flyover thence running along the SL’s at least as far as Doxey Jn. This raises a potential timetable capacity issue in that London Midland services will have to cross at some point south of Norton Bridge (either Doxey Jn, Stafford North Jn (No.5) or Stafford South Jn (No.4) to access the WCML route to London (v.v.).
1.3
This is likely to present both timetable conflict & performance delay. Unless it can be proved otherwise, (there is no information contained within), the crossing of London Midland services south of Norton Bridge is likely to, amongst other issues outlined below, impede linespeed operation of some WCTL services in the Stafford area.
1.4
Similarly when considering the proposed linespeed increase from 90mph to 115mph over the Up Fast Line (along the current ‘recess’ line at Norton Bridge Station), the likelihood of our services ever utilising the 125mph speed south of 137m 78c is unlikely. This is due to the short distance to Doxey Jn (3¼ miles) where the speed reduces to 110mph. When combined with current driving techniques and the use of TASS, plus the 80mph speed restriction further south at Queensville, drivers are only likely to maintain a speed of around the 115-120mph mark, thus importing additional time into the services.
1.5
The combination of both conflicts and driver behaviours compels us to request that a timetable capacity exercise is undertaken, to establish the effects of these operational impacts on the timetable, and particularly any possible impact on the journey times of our services. We would also need an assurance that this would not bring about a worsening in performance?
1.6
For reference, we have voiced similar concerns about Doxey Jn in our responses’ to both the Stafford Resignalling Network Change sent on 20th December 2012, and the still live Norton Bridge TSR>PSR Network Change, but we received no further information on such concerns at the time.
1.7
This leads us on to challenge why the Chord cannot be used for Up London Midland services, thus reducing any crossing moves further south. This would reduce the potential impact on performance and timetable operation & capability. As part of the above timetabling exercise we request that this option be considered as a potential solution to those problems highlighted above.
1.8
Another aspect that is not proposed within the current proposal is the lack of bi-directional signalling on the Flyover lines. With the East Chord being only of limited advantage to services perturbed over the Fast lines north of Doxey Jn and likewise, during times of engineering works, the slow single lead nature of the Chord being likely to restrict the number of movements possible over the line; Bi-directional functionality on the Flyover lines would provide some further opportunity to robustly manage such events. Could Network Rail clarify why this has not been encompassed within the

That response also made representation as to the proposed line speed of 115mph.

I have just found a later Virgin response stating:-

WCTL hereby confirms that it accepts the above Network Change proposal; on the basis that:
Such conclusion has been reached following significant dialogue and recent review between both Parties’. This, principally due to reflecting upon the net Industry benefit of the project when measured against potential increases in both cost and delay through any protracted dispute process. This includes those primary outstanding issues relating to Bi-Di Signalling, 125mph on the Fast Lines and associated maintenance provisions.
Nonetheless, WCTL acceptance is made only on the basis that it receives an assurance from Network Rail that ongoing concerns relating to line-speed and net overall journey time impact along the WCML, are investigated further during CP5. This includes receiving a firm commitment from Network Rail that they explore, in detail with us, other opportunities to increase line-speeds wherever feasible / cost-effective (through renewal or enhancement schemes), right through to delivery. Examples where such opportunities potentially exist (but are not exclusive to), are locations such as Shugborough, Kilsby, the approaches to Rugby from the south and the through lines at Crewe.
We are keen to work with Network Rail to achieve these improvements; however, we also consider that in order make such a joint approach successful, that you will need to allocate the appropriate degree of priority necessary, to ensure that such objectives are delivered successfully.

WCTL will continue to assess the impact of this proposed change on its business, and inform Network Rail of any such ‘direct costs & benefits’ thus incurred as a result of any effects associated with, and/or resultant from or during, the implementation of such change (including any previous and future electrical interface testing); when WCTL considers it practicable. This shall include those aspects associated with, for example, any Driver Training and Train Management requirements.
WCTL has no concern with any part of this letter, as required under Part A of the Network Code (Condition A3.5), being published on the Network Rail website under Condition GA3(b)(ii).]
Note: It is by default with the above scheme, that this letter also provides confirmation that WCTL withdraws its objection to an outstanding Network Change reference LNW530 (issued 10th Jan 2012), concerning a TSR to PSR conversion. This does not however, set any future precedent for further conversions and our withdrawal is explicitly referenced to this alteration only.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed that was the "official" response as all Network Changes are, but it was slightly different behind the scenes, especially in connection to the 125mph issue.