• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Werrington grade separation updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

jyte

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2016
Messages
670
Location
in me shed
Should the dive under be electrified to a turn back on the Lincoln route to enable Thameslink trains to arrive, turn back and depart south without conflict to inter city services? Ideally this would go on to Spalding of course.
I imagine part of it will be electrified as overrun/protection in the event of future electrification, but electrification to permit turnback is a good idea (like the one north of Doncaster)...if it happens!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,991
On the internal Network Rail Connect there was an article on the Werrington dive under. Passive provision for electrification but no plans to electrify it.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,292

GNER 91128

Member
Joined
13 Jan 2011
Messages
292
Location
Peterborough

Attachments

  • WP_20181209_15_27_05_Rich_LI.jpg
    WP_20181209_15_27_05_Rich_LI.jpg
    3.8 MB · Views: 137
  • WP_20181209_15_27_35_Rich_LI.jpg
    WP_20181209_15_27_35_Rich_LI.jpg
    4.1 MB · Views: 126
  • WP_20181126_14_49_41_Rich_LI.jpg
    WP_20181126_14_49_41_Rich_LI.jpg
    4.6 MB · Views: 120
  • WP_20181126_14_49_44_Rich.jpg
    WP_20181126_14_49_44_Rich.jpg
    3.2 MB · Views: 126
  • WP_20181209_15_32_35_Rich_LI.jpg
    WP_20181209_15_32_35_Rich_LI.jpg
    4.3 MB · Views: 124
  • WP_20181126_14_45_20_Rich_LI.jpg
    WP_20181126_14_45_20_Rich_LI.jpg
    4.8 MB · Views: 127
  • WP_20181126_14_47_15_Rich_LI.jpg
    WP_20181126_14_47_15_Rich_LI.jpg
    4 MB · Views: 120
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Should the dive under be electrified to a turn back on the Lincoln route to enable Thameslink trains to arrive, turn back and depart south without conflict to inter city services? Ideally this would go on to Spalding of course.

Even just the turn back would need at least one extra 700, inc. driver, etc. Adding operational cost for no passenger benefit.
 

jamieP

Member
Joined
27 Feb 2012
Messages
298
Even just the turn back would need at least one extra 700, inc. driver, etc. Adding operational cost for no passenger benefit.

Dont see the point in a turn back. Most 700s only sit in the station for 20 minutes.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
891
Location
ECML
Dont see the point in a turn back. Most 700s only sit in the station for 20 minutes.
I do !

20 mins has been proven not to be long enough for turnarounds. ( Unless you want to dismiss the amount of skip stopping on GTR to get the 700 units on time to depart Peterborough right time.)
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
891
Location
ECML
Even just the turn back would need at least one extra 700, inc. driver, etc. Adding operational cost for no passenger benefit.
But. There would be a passenger benefit. It would reduce skip stopping on late running GTR services and make the Thameslink timetable more robust.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Can you explain how tho?
Longer turnaround times mean that trains can be later on each journey without being late on the next journey.
If a train has a short turnaround time at the destination, in times of disruption it is more likely to skip-stop or turnaround short than if it had a long turnaround time.
Since Thameslink is constantly disrupted, skip-stopping and turning back short happen frequently enough for it to be a serious pain. Therefore, if Thameslink services had longer turnaround times, such measures would be less frequent.
This is of benefit to passengers. Therefore, there is a passenger benefit.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The potential benefit of turnback via Werrington would be that terminating trains wouldn't have to cross the fast lines on the flat either when arriving or departing. This ought to reduce disruption to both Thameslink and the faster services, and might even increase ECML capacity (though I suspect after Werrington the constraint will be elsewhere). However if the purpose of an extra train was to provide more robust turnarounds, the time needed to get to Werrington and back might eat up a lot of the benefit.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,067
The potential benefit of turnback via Werrington would be that terminating trains wouldn't have to cross the fast lines on the flat either when arriving or departing. This ought to reduce disruption to both Thameslink and the faster services, and might even increase ECML capacity (though I suspect after Werrington the constraint will be elsewhere). However if the purpose of an extra train was to provide more robust turnarounds, the time needed to get to Werrington and back might eat up a lot of the benefit.
You get what you pay for! Avoiding crossing busy junctions on the flat is always a benefit, and if a terminating train came in late there is always the chance that Control or the signallers might be able to send it straight back out, crossing on the level as before (or on the way in.)
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,768
Location
Nottinghamshire
I'm probably being daft here, but if a 700 needs a turnback away from the station, why don't they just send it into the depot/sidings?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I'm probably being daft here, but if a 700 needs a turnback away from the station, why don't they just send it into the depot/sidings?
The difference is that any of the platforms or sidings would involve a flat crossing of the Fast lines either on arrival or on departure. With electrification a short distance towards Spalding and a suitable crossover, trains could arrive on the Down side, run under the diveunder and return to the Up side without such conflicts.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,768
Location
Nottinghamshire
The difference is that any of the platforms or sidings would involve a flat crossing of the Fast lines either on arrival or on departure. With electrification a short distance towards Spalding and a suitable crossover, trains could arrive on the Down side, run under the diveunder and return to the Up side without such conflicts.

Do they not mostly come into platforms 1 and 2 at Peterboro then? No crossing fast lines to shunt then.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Do they not mostly come into platforms 1 and 2 at Peterboro then? No crossing fast lines to shunt then.
They'd have to cross the Up Fast to arrive in 1 or 2. They'd have to cross the Down Fast to depart from the higher-numbered platforms.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Do they not mostly come into platforms 1 and 2 at Peterboro then? No crossing fast lines to shunt then.

I struggle to understand why the Thameslink services need to run via Platform 4 or 5 then up to the Werrington Junction to come back to Platform 1 or 2 when ALL Thameslink services are currently booked to use Platform 1/2 anyway when they just need to cross between the Nene Bridge and the Platforms which to be honest is what GN services have done for years without it being a issue.

As to the Great Northern services they only use Platforms 1/2 in the peaks as the rest of the time when they terminate on Platform 4/5 in the evenings they head towards the Nene Sidings so again not a issue here.

I can only count 8 ECS services departing the Nene Sidings in the morning which needs to shunt via the Down Fast or via the Yard north of the station) so for 8 services a day to head up to Werrington Junction to come back again, I can't see any business case for this getting past the DfT.

So no there's is no call to send the TLs to Werrington Junction to turnaround when they can do so in the station itself, although they would wire so far of the Joint Line to cater for the times when a wrong signal is taken by a electric train.

They'd have to cross the Up Fast to arrive in 1 or 2. They'd have to cross the Down Fast to depart from the higher-numbered platforms.

However they cannot depart from Platforms 4/5 towards London as the signalling doesn't permit it and any departures from these platforms are usually ECS moves to the Nene Sidings so I don't understand your point?

The only point that is valid that I understand is the fact that services using Platforms 1 or 2 be Thameslink or LNER HAVE to cross the Up Fast and have done so for years so not sure what the big deal is?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I struggle to understand why the Thameslink services need to run via Platform 4 or 5 then up to the Werrington Junction to come back to Platform 1 or 2 when ALL Thameslink services are currently booked to use Platform 1/2 anyway when they just need to cross between the Nene Bridge and the Platforms which to be honest is what GN services have done for years without it being a issue.

As to the Great Northern services they only use Platforms 1/2 in the peaks as the rest of the time when they terminate on Platform 4/5 in the evenings they head towards the Nene Sidings so again not a issue here.

I can only count 8 ECS services departing the Nene Sidings in the morning which needs to shunt via the Down Fast or via the Yard north of the station) so for 8 services a day to head up to Werrington Junction to come back again, I can't see any business case for this getting past the DfT.

So no there's is no call to send the TLs to Werrington Junction to turnaround when they can do so in the station itself, although they would wire so far of the Joint Line to cater for the times when a wrong signal is taken by a electric train.



However they cannot depart from Platforms 4/5 towards London as the signalling doesn't permit it and any departures from these platforms are usually ECS moves to the Nene Sidings so I don't understand your point?

The only point that is valid that I understand is the fact that services using Platforms 1 or 2 be Thameslink or LNER HAVE to cross the Up Fast and have done so for years so not sure what the big deal is?
To be fair there probably isn't a big deal, given that nobody is electrifying the diveunder so the EMU reversing moves via Werrington aren't going to happen. I was simply pointing out the possible benefit of doing so.

I guess it might still happen sometime given that the whole reason behind Werrington is to free up paths on the ECML for increased services which will mostly pass through Peterborough towards London and therefore increase the conflicts at the south end. Removing the crossing moves of EMUs arriving into 1 and 2 several times every hour might free some more, at rather less cost than the Hitchin flyover or the Allington curve which achieved a similar level of benefit. Unless, as I suggested a few posts back, the capacity constraint on the ECML has now moved elsewhere.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
To be fair there probably isn't a big deal, given that nobody is electrifying the diveunder so the EMU reversing moves via Werrington aren't going to happen. I was simply pointing out the possible benefit of doing so.

I guess it might still happen sometime given that the whole reason behind Werrington is to free up paths on the ECML for increased services which will mostly pass through Peterborough towards London and therefore increase the conflicts at the south end. Removing the crossing moves of EMUs arriving into 1 and 2 several times every hour might free some more, at rather less cost than the Hitchin flyover or the Allington curve which achieved a similar level of benefit. Unless, as I suggested a few posts back, the capacity constraint on the ECML has now moved elsewhere.
If you were to electrify the dive-under and use it for EMU reversals, the constant reversal moves would adversely affect the freight capacity - thereby defeating the whole point of the project. Passive provision is being provided for future wiring though - but don't hold your breath as to when that might be if it ever happens.

I also fail to understand your point about "increasing the conflicts" at the South end of the ECML - the constraint at Welwyn has always been there, and King's Cross's constraining layout (which was fine in the 70's) has been set in aspic for over 40 years. There has never been a single capacity constraint, always multiple. KGX, Digswell Viaduct, Hitchin (pre-flyover), Huntingdon-Woodwalton, Werrington Jct, Allington (pre-curve) and Joan Croft Jct (pre-flyover) are just some of them from the ages - and some are still extant. It's much less "increase conflicts at the south", and more "an increase in concentration of conflicts at the south end".
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I also fail to understand your point about "increasing the conflicts" at the South end of the ECML - the constraint at Welwyn has always been there, and King's Cross's constraining layout (which was fine in the 70's) has been set in aspic for over 40 years. There has never been a single capacity constraint, always multiple. KGX, Digswell Viaduct, Hitchin (pre-flyover), Huntingdon-Woodwalton, Werrington Jct, Allington (pre-curve) and Joan Croft Jct (pre-flyover) are just some of them from the ages - and some are still extant. It's much less "increase conflicts at the south", and more "an increase in concentration of conflicts at the south end".
I was discussing conflicts at the south end of Peterbrough not the south end of the ECML in general. Clearly with more trains on the main line there is more potential for conflicts where flat junctions exist on the fast lines. Hitchin, Werrington, Allington and Joan Croft were intended to unlock extra ECML capacity by removing these flat crossings, and in the case of Werrington also by diverting more freight via Lincoln. All the major crossings of the fast lines south of Peterborough (Hitchin, Stevenage, Welwyn, Bounds Green and Kings Cross) are grade separated so the remaining flat crossing where terminating trains access platforms 1 and 2 at Peterborough could become a significant capacity constraint if main line useage continues to increase. Welwyn and Huntingdon-Woodwalton are a bit different as the capacity constraint is following trains on the same track rather than crossing moves, but it could indeed be that these need to be sorted before Peterborough south end becomes the limiting factor.

Peterborough-Spalding is unlikely to have more than a couple of freight and a couple of passenger trains each hour. If this made future turnback use difficult, a siding could be added further north where there is space available.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
Or get the crayons out properly and add a North Peterborough Parkway station.....
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
If you were to electrify the dive-under and use it for EMU reversals, the constant reversal moves would adversely affect the freight capacity - thereby defeating the whole point of the project. Passive provision is being provided for future wiring though - but don't hold your breath as to when that might be if it ever happens.

I also fail to understand your point about "increasing the conflicts" at the South end of the ECML - the constraint at Welwyn has always been there, and King's Cross's constraining layout (which was fine in the 70's) has been set in aspic for over 40 years. There has never been a single capacity constraint, always multiple. KGX, Digswell Viaduct, Hitchin (pre-flyover), Huntingdon-Woodwalton, Werrington Jct, Allington (pre-curve) and Joan Croft Jct (pre-flyover) are just some of them from the ages - and some are still extant. It's much less "increase conflicts at the south", and more "an increase in concentration of conflicts at the south end".

Indeed, if there was such a issue at the south end of Peterborough station with services crossing the Up Fast to gain access to Platforms 1 and 2 then surely something would have been considered when they last remodelled Peterborough...

As it is the current layout is probably the best that Peterborough will see and that's going back to the original Peterborough North layout!

In any case, that crossing conflict has been there since the 1970s with it not being such a big deal so considering that I don't believe it's in Network Rail's best interest to start messing around with sending trains to Werrington Junction to turnback.

Far better that they just concentrate on getting Werrington Junction grade separated and then send all the freight that way instead of using the mainline via Grantham.

As to Werrington Junction itself, I'm happy that they're working on it and passive electrification is part of it because it's something that does need doing.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Far better that they just concentrate on getting Werrington Junction grade separated and then send all the freight that way instead of using the mainline via Grantham.

As to Werrington Junction itself, I'm happy that they're working on it and passive electrification is part of it because it's something that does need doing.
The mainline via Grantham is posing its own problems for freight however; one or both of Stoke & Peascliff Tunnels don't have sufficient clearances for some containers (can't remember if it's W10 or W12), which would be a right royal pain if the Joint Line was shut for any reason and freight had to divert.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
The mainline via Grantham is posing its own problems for freight however; one or both of Stoke & Peascliff Tunnels don't have sufficient clearances for some containers (can't remember if it's W10 or W12), which would be a right royal pain if the Joint Line was shut for any reason and freight had to divert.

Obviously that would be a issue but it's something that the dive under at Werrington Junction will avoid as it ought to be less conflicts for East Anglia to Yorkshire freight flows otherwise they wouldn't be doing the work in the first place would they?

As to the tunnels above, I've no idea if it's possible but could they lower the track to ensure there is sufficient clearance in place which would resolve the issue you've raised above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top