The Norton Bridge Flyover.

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

Looking forward to the future line speed increases at Shugborough and Kilsby (and through Crewe).
Surprised they did not mention 135mph running somewhere as well...

 

[QueensCurve]

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.

Can you enlighten us further?

 

[LesF]

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

Norton Bridge has never been through a statutory closure procedure though it was effectively closed some years ago when the bridge was declared unsafe and the tracks were realigned so far from the plats that trains couldn't stop there. Closure by stealth. But no-one seems to kicked up a stink about it.

 

[Crossover]

Which is Yarnfield Jn?

 

[The Planner]

Junction on the single line chord (the old line) to the Stone branch.

 

[Crossover]

Junction on the single line chord (the old line) to the Stone branch.

Has that always been a single track chord or was it double before this work took place? I know it was a very slow turnout, hence the flyover

 

[The Planner]

Double

 

[Kite159]

What will happen to the old down slow line, will it be removed now it's been cut at the southern end or remain in place to rust away?

(Unexpectedly got the new down slow this afternoon as it looked like the fasts were out of action for engineering works)

 

[Elecman]

What will happen to the old down slow line, will it be removed now it's been cut at the southern end or remain in place to rust away?

(Unexpectedly got the new down slow this afternoon as it looked like the fasts were out of action for engineering works)

It's been cut at both ends!!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Looking forward to the future line speed increases at Shugborough and Kilsby (and through Crewe).
Surprised they did not mention 135mph running somewhere as well...

I'm not. The safety case work, clearance issues, safe staff access problems and signalling scope (plus the pending HS2 line) make this very very unlikely, let alone the limited areas in which a speed higher than 125 is actually possible.

Whilst there is plan (in the long term) to fix the roof at Crewe, I'm not aware of anyone actively blowing the dust off the 1970s Shugborough plans (prepared by J. Locke Snr.) and never heard of a speed scheme for Kilsby.

Also, 390s are 140mph machines, so why stop at 135?

 

[Class 170101]

Also, 390s are 140mph machines, so why stop at 135?

Sometrhing about 135mph without in cab signalling wasn't it?

 

[QueensCurve]

Whilst there is plan (in the long term) to fix the roof at Crewe, I'm not aware of anyone actively blowing the dust off the 1970s Shugborough plans (prepared by J. Locke Snr.) and never heard of a speed scheme for Kilsby.

Pardon my ignorance, what was the 1970s Shugborough scheme?

I assume fixing the roof at Crewe would be to allow the speed on the through line to be increased above the present 80mph?

 

[neilb62]

As soon as you want to go faster than 139 it's goodby to the colored lights on sticks beside the track. 135 is a nice round figure below that I guess?

 

[TheKnightWho]

As soon as you want to go faster than 139 it's goodby to the colored lights on sticks beside the track. 135 is a nice round figure below that I guess?

I believe that there was some experimentation done (although I believe in America, not here?) that found 135 was the absolute maximum for coloured light signals; I don't think it's that 140 was particularly special (I doubt 139 is better), but that the boundary lies somewhere between those two.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I believe that there was some experimentation done (although I believe in America, not here?) that found 135 was the absolute maximum for coloured light signals; I don't think it's that 140 was particularly special (I doubt 139 is better), but that the boundary lies somewhere between those two.

I'm pretty sure 225kph (140mph) is run with lineside signals on some lines in France and Germany (eg parts of the Tours-Bordeaux line run by TGV Atlantique, after leaving the LGV).
The Florence-Rome Direttissima I think also runs with fixed signals for classic trains, using double blocks.

 

[40129]

IIRC the original plan when the ECML was electrified was for 225kph operation with color light signalling by adding a fifth - flashing green - aspect

 

[Ianno87]

IIRC the original plan when the ECML was electrified was for 225kph operation with color light signalling by adding a fifth - flashing green - aspect

That provides sufficient (extra) braking distance within the existing signal spacing. However, doesn't resolve the workload of the driver in having to deal with and process observation of signals being passed at an increasing rate of knots.

I believe you can still see the flashing greens on the Fast Lines between Peterborough and Stoke Tunnel?

 

[Bald Rick]

That provides sufficient (extra) braking distance within the existing signal spacing. However, doesn't resolve the workload of the driver in having to deal with and process observation of signals being passed at an increasing rate of knots.

I believe you can still see the flashing greens on the Fast Lines between Peterborough and Stoke Tunnel?

They were there last time I looked. Unfortunately that was nearly 20 years ago. I heard they had been decommissioned, but happy to be proved wrong.

 

[QueensCurve]

Sometrhing about 135mph without in cab signalling wasn't it?

To look at the history of this, ECML Mk4 were designed to run at 225km/h (140mph) They could not stop within existing signal spacings from that speed.

Class 91/Mk4 running at 140mph was successfully trialled on Stoke bank following modifications to the signalling to allow a "5th aspect" which was a flashing green. This introduced an element of speed signalling in so far as the trains were limited to 125mph on Green but could exceed that speed where they received a flashing green aspect.

Meanwhile the Hidden report had recommended BR investigate the provision of Automatic Train Protection (ATP) capable of stopping trains before they pass signals at danger. BR trialled 2 different version of ATP on the GWML and the Chiltern lines.

Apparently this was developed into a standard BR specification for ATP which provided a cab display for 140mph running in conjunction with ATP and flashing greens. This was accepted by the regulators who then took the position that cab signalling would be a requirement for running above 125mph since they considered that human factors prevented drivers interpreting lineside signals reliably at that speed.

ATP was never rolled out nationally and it has since become set in stone that running above 125mph without cab signalling is unacceptable.

Virgin have raised the possibility of running at 135mph based on TASS being a form of cab signalling. Why they stop at 135 I have no idea.

I wonder if anyone has more information on this?

 

[Railsigns]

I suspect Virgin was just chancing its arm with its desire to run trains at 135 mph on lineside signals:

"You can't run at 140 mph without cab signalling."

"Okay. What about 135 mph?"

TASS falls well short of being cab signalling. It receives no input from the signalling system and doesn't display signal aspects in the cab.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Pardon my ignorance, what was the 1970s Shugborough scheme?

I assume fixing the roof at Crewe would be to allow the speed on the through line to be increased above the present 80mph?

Shugborough was to get a second bore, and 125mph through Crewe.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TASS falls well short of being cab signalling. It receives no input from the signalling system and doesn't display signal aspects in the cab.

It's never been confirmed if any part of the WCML is capable of more than 125mph.
Railtrack promised 140mph, and the WCRM programme should have upgraded the track/OHLE to 140mph south of Crewe.
ie it should only be the signalling that prevents higher speeds (unlike the ECML, where the OHLE at least needs upgrading).
The places usually mentioned for higher speeds are the new TV4 section in the Trent Valley, and around Lockerbie in Scotland.

 

[Class 170101]

I thought the Trent Valley had been used under tests for Pendolinos at >125mph?

 

[6Gman]

I assume fixing the roof at Crewe would be to allow the speed on the through line to be increased above the present 80mph?

What is the connection between roof and linespeed at Crewe?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It's never been confirmed if any part of the WCML is capable of more than 125mph.
Railtrack promised 140mph, and the WCRM programme should have upgraded the track/OHLE to 140mph south of Crewe.
ie it should only be the signalling that prevents higher speeds (unlike the ECML, where the OHLE at least needs upgrading).
The places usually mentioned for higher speeds are the new TV4 section in the Trent Valley, and around Lockerbie in Scotland.

Yeah, UK1 is 140mph capable, but with single pantograph.

 

[rdeez]

Anyone have any idea what's going on at Norton Bridge at the moment? Everything seems to have stopped on the Down Fast, Up Fast and Up Slow...been like this for almost 30 minutes

 

[jp4712]

According to the National Rail Twitter feed, there are delays of 90 minutes between Crewe and Stafford: so it looks like train '611K' has sat down at signal 5608. That'll be fun to sort out at this time of night. I don't have a true reporting number for it but it was due to run from Crewe Basford Hall to Stafford Doxey Junction.

 

[rdeez]

According to the National Rail Twitter feed, there are delays of 90 minutes between Crewe and Stafford: so it looks like train '611K' has sat down at signal 5608. That'll be fun to sort out at this time of night. I don't have a true reporting number for it but it was due to run from Crewe Basford Hall to Stafford Doxey Junction.

Thanks. On the move now - long night for anyone on the two services from Scotland who have come from the origins, they were already delayed before this!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yeah, UK1 is 140mph capable, but with single pantograph.

Yes, but I meant the track really.
I assumed all the WCRM track/structures rebuilds (eg Crewe-Norton Bridge) were for 140mph, but nobody has ever confirmed it.
It just seems perverse if NR has constructed a fully functioning 140mph route but won't go the final mile to authorise its use with TASS.

 

[snowball]

I assumed all the WCRM track/structures rebuilds (eg Crewe-Norton Bridge) were for 140mph, but nobody has ever confirmed it.

I would have thought there were locations where the curvature imposed a lower limit?