What is the plan for the Leicester capacity works project?

[londonmidland]

If and when the Leicester capacity works take place, am I right that a flyover will be be erected from South Wigston carrying freight and XC services over the MML thus reducing conflict?

Also I assume the tunnel which is disused at Knighton is wide enough for double track to travel through it?

So four track from Syston to Knighton Jn, but EMR and XC services will essentially be separated from one another. Of course there will need to be additional platforms built at Leicester.

I doubt any electrification will take place before the major remodel around Leicester takes place.

 

[Senex]

If and when the Leicester capacity works take place, am I right that a flyover will be be erected from South Wigston carrying freight and XC services over the MML thus reducing conflict?

Also I assume the tunnel which is disused at Knighton is wide enough for double track to travel through it?

So four track from Syston to Knighton Jn, but EMR and XC services will essentially be separated from one another. Of course there will need to be additional platforms built at Leicester.

I doubt any electrification will take place before the major remodel around Leicester takes place.

That is indeed the idea. And yes, the Knighton New Tunnel is wide enough — it was built in the 1890s to carry the two goods lines and so conforms fully to the Board of Trade requirements of that time (same requirements that applied to the GC London Extension).

 

[Roast Veg]

That is indeed the idea. And yes, the Knighton New Tunnel is wide enough — it was built in the 1890s to carry the two goods lines and so conforms fully to the Board of Trade requirements of that time (same requirements that applied to the GC London Extension).

The Knighton New Tunnel is a service road at present, but it seems pretty clear all along that stretch that there's plenty of room for more track.

 

[Edders23]

It used to be 4 tracks there (double track through the tunnel) in the 70's

 

[louis97]

If and when the Leicester capacity works take place, am I right that a flyover will be be erected from South Wigston carrying freight and XC services over the MML thus reducing conflict?

The flyover will run from Glen Parva Junction, therefore any train stopping at South Wigston in its current location will still require to cross on the flat.

 

[D365]

So four track from Syston to Knighton Jn, but EMR and XC services will essentially be separated from one another. Of course there will need to be additional platforms built at Leicester.

Is four platforms at Leicester station not enough?

What would happen to Syston station? The platform is on the eastmost track, which would become the CrossCountry pair of tracks.

Answered my own question; have read that a rebuild of Syston station would be implemented.

 

[edwin_m]

Is four platforms at Leicester station not enough?

What would happen to Syston station? The platform is on the eastmost track, which would become the CrossCountry pair of tracks.

Answered my own question; have read that a rebuild of Syston station would be implemented.

If there are extra platforms then the Cross Country services can stay clear of the main line all the way through the Leicester area, or at least going by #5 they will be able to if they don't call at South Wigston. I don't think there's room for full length platforms but about 6 coaches ought to be ample for anything on that route.

The platform at Syston does indeed sit where the future Up Slow would be. There's room in the car park for a new Up platform through there wouldn't be much parking left, and the original station had a platform between the Up Fast and the current bidirectional Slow so there ought to be room to put one back.

 

[Ianno87]

It used to be 4 tracks there (double track through the tunnel) in the 70's

Many of the signalling gantries on that stretch (dating presumably from re-signalling into Leicester PSB) span the 4 track formation, so presumably were installed before the 4 tracks were then removed?

 

[londonmidland]

The flyover will run from Glen Parva Junction, therefore any train stopping at South Wigston in its current location will still require to cross on the flat.

Interesting. So approximately where would the flyover start on the western side as you’ve got a road bridge in the way at South Wigston? Also would it make use of the space in the middle of the triangle junction?

 

[edwin_m]

Many of the signalling gantries on that stretch (dating presumably from re-signalling into Leicester PSB) span the 4 track formation, so presumably were installed before the 4 tracks were then removed?

According to an article in Modern Railways at the time, a lot of the structures were put up in advance, so that some of the lines they spanned went out of use at the same time as the signals were commissioned.

 

[Ianno87]

According to an article in Modern Railways at the time, a lot of the structures were put up in advance, so that some of the lines they spanned went out of use at the same time as the signals were commissioned.

What I suspected.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting. So approximately where would the flyover start on the western side as you’ve got a road bridge in the way at South Wigston? Also would it make use of the space in the middle of the triangle junction?

View attachment 72569

Looks to me like it would diverge off the south-to-west curve somewhere alongside the station then go roughly parallel to the other curve but climbing up to pass over the main lines about where it says "Howdens".

 

[londonmidland]

Looks to me like it would diverge off the south-to-west curve somewhere alongside the station then go roughly parallel to the other curve but climbing up to pass over the main lines about where it says "Howdens".

Oh I see what you both mean now.

So it would initially take the Leicester avoider freight only line before heading up the flyover and curving round north, passing over the MML.

 

[Meerkat]

How full are the current lines through the station? I wondering how disruptive the following would be....
Close the station avoiding lines, build a full length island platform there at a lower level (electrification clearances under London Road)
Then close the 3/4 island, lower it, then repeat for 1/2.

i am assuming London Road Bridge can’t be replaced for heritage/disruption reasons??

 

[Class 170101]

How full are the current lines through the station? I wondering how disruptive the following would be....
Close the station avoiding lines, build a full length island platform there at a lower level (electrification clearances under London Road)
Then close the 3/4 island, lower it, then repeat for 1/2.

i am assuming London Road Bridge can’t be replaced for heritage/disruption reasons??

I don't think you can lower by much either. Sewer or something under the railway there. Its been mentioned before elsewhere on this board as I recall.

 

[AndrewE]

Interesting. So approximately where would the flyover start on the western side as you’ve got a road bridge in the way at South Wigston? Also would it make use of the space in the middle of the triangle junction?

That's small beer... Lower it (underpass,) raise it, move it, close it... If you are talking about the one leading to the station (not Saffron Rd) just put a turning circle and platform access at both sides of the track!

 

[Meerkat]

Someone linked the East Midlands route study - that had Wigston as a dive under by the cross country line rather than a flyover!
Are they easier/cheaper to build or is it just easier to get permission as it’s hidden away?

 

[Bald Rick]

Someone linked the East Midlands route study - that had Wigston as a dive under by the cross country line rather than a flyover!
Are they easier/cheaper to build or is it just easier to get permission as it’s hidden away?

Not usually cheaper, unless it means it can be kept in a smaller footprint and therefore lower land / compensation costs.

 

[Meerkat]

Not usually cheaper, unless it means it can be kept in a smaller footprint and therefore lower land / compensation costs.

i was quite surprised. The only thing that occurred to me was that it might be easier to develop the triangle with a rising trench through it than a falling viaduct??

 

[D365]

There was a reason why the Warrington grade separation is to be a dive-under rather than a flyover. But I can’t remember the reason...

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a reason why the Warrington grade separation is to be a dive-under rather than a flyover. But I can’t remember the reason...

The inspectors report for Werrington says that the costs were similar, so the decision was made on visual amenity grounds, public preference being taken into account. But if they’d gone with a flyover there’d have been difficulties crossing a main road, the dive under alignment allowed for a vertical alignment that reuses an existing road bridge.

 

[edwin_m]

At Werrington the A15 is close to the junction and would have to cross the ramp of any flyover, which would in turn need the road to be raised or lowered, probably affecting a nearby roundabout and its side roads too. A diveunder at Wigston reduces the impact on the houses backing onto the area where the ramp would be.

If it goes as far west as Saffron Road it would also avoid major impact there. With buildings fronting onto it both sides of the bridge raising it is difficult, and the alternative route for temporary or permanent closure would lengthen many journeys by a couple of miles and sever a major bus corridor.

 

[MarkyT]

At Werrington the A15 is close to the junction and would have to cross the ramp of any flyover, which would in turn need the road to be raised or lowered, probably affecting a nearby roundabout and its side roads too. A diveunder at Wigston reduces the impact on the houses backing onto the area where the ramp would be.

If it goes as far west as Saffron Road it would also avoid major impact there. With buildings fronting onto it both sides of the bridge raising it is difficult, and the alternative route for temporary or permanent closure would lengthen many journeys by a couple of miles and sever a major bus corridor.

The A15 would also have had to go under the tracks that remain on the surface as well as the rising ramp of a notional flyover, so would have had to be very deep indeed. The rail dive-under is also very deep of course but probably represents less disruption overall to both rail and road users.