Which junctions would you grade-separate?

[mike57]

Back to Northallerton, I think the biggest issue here is that developments have extended right up to track boundaries, so killing any hopes of simple improvements. Obviously the worst culprits are Northbound services heading for Yarm, as these generally call at Northallerton, blocking the northbound main line, then cross the southbound after they leave the station. If the northbound platform on what is now the freight line had been retained then northbound services to Yarm could have used it, and there would be no conflicts. But the level crossings on this route become a problem as well.

 

[Legolash2o]

Back to Northallerton, I think the biggest issue here is that developments have extended right up to track boundaries, so killing any hopes of simple improvements. Obviously the worst culprits are Northbound services heading for Yarm, as these generally call at Northallerton, blocking the northbound main line, then cross the southbound after they leave the station. If the northbound platform on what is now the freight line had been retained then northbound services to Yarm could have used it, and there would be no conflicts. But the level crossings on this route become a problem as well.

The level crossings on the route are an absolute pain. They can do down three times in a very short space of time.

There's going to be even more new houses on the north side. Maybe it's worth adding a Northallerton North station.

 

[brad465]

The level crossings on the route are an absolute pain. They can do down three times in a very short space of time.

There's going to be even more new houses on the north side. Maybe it's worth adding a Northallerton North station.

Presumably this would allow trains to Yarm and beyond to call their instead of Northallerton, allowing these to use the avoiding line. Alternatively they could consider a new platform further up on the bit of land where the down avoiding line has not met the up avoiding line, which has no development and probably isn't suitable for anything else. Granted the platform would be a bit of a trek from the other two platforms, but the trek can't be anymore difficult than somewhere like Retford.

 

[geoffk]

I don't think anyone has mentioned
a) Wootton Bassett
b) Ordsall Lane - if road over- and under-bridges allow without excessive gradients.

 

[Legolash2o]

Presumably this would allow trains to Yarm and beyond to call their instead of Northallerton, allowing these to use the avoiding line. Alternatively they could consider a new platform further up on the bit of land where the down avoiding line has not met the up avoiding line, which has no development and probably isn't suitable for anything else. Granted the platform would be a bit of a trek from the other two platforms, but the trek can't be anymore difficult than somewhere like Retford.

The new Northallerton North near the new bridge on North Moor road could accept Yarm services as well as a new platform 3 and 4 on the bypass line, which would be situated next to the main station car park (down line).

This would allow residents of Brompton and the many new homes to easily get the the main station to then use the main line. It would also be used by Yarm, Middlesbrough, etc services to avoid conflicting the main line.

Northallerton doesn't have any bus services so it's a 40 minute walk to the station each way. Which is terrible considering they're built/building maybe 1000 homes so far in that area in the last few years. It's mental!

 

[Bald Rick]

Which junction would unlock the most new paths, both in absolute terms and per pound spent? I'm pretty sure in absolute terms it would be Selhurst, but that would be expensive so I'm not sure which would be the best value.

Well it’s not necessarily about paths unlocked, but about the value of the paths unlocked.

For example Newark would unlock lots of paths between Nottingham and Newark, but they would largely be worthless. (Newark is relatively cheap too, compared to some on here!)

Where will have the best value, in terms of value of paths released vs cost to provide? This is quite subjective, as AFAIK there isnt a filing cabinet with business cases in for grade separation ranked by value. This is because every grade separation comes with add ons - for example more trains always means more rolling stock, more crew, etc., and can often mean more infrastructure elsewhere. Therefore it would form part of a broader business case for a service improvement that delivers a specific benefit.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Woking

I completely understand your mentioning this location at top of your list, and as such it was always on my radar in my days. I notice a couple of other regulars on here have commented on this as well. There were those (in SW Planning circles) in BR days and continuing forward through SWT days who had an interest in this subject, and (AFAIR) plans were also submitted to higher levels, although I wasn't that close to that aspect so am unable to quote specifics.
Suffice to say, that when it came to the 10 car (SWT) suburban plans the proposals to electrify a number of sidings in Woking Up Yard for that particular project, some discussion did take place in relation to allowing space for any future flyover for the UP Portsmouth road, to come across and down in the area currently occupied by #1 & 2 Up Yard reception roads.

But as Bald Rick comments, how beneficial would such a flyover be in relation to additional paths from Woking onwards to Waterloo in todays world, and that is the crux of the matter?

In L&SWR/SR and even early BR days, it may well have had some benefit, but in todays world (being unaware of the current timetable as it is now in post covid/SWR days), I can only comment in regards to SWT days, so pre 2017, when the timetable (peak wise) was all but at its maximum capacity between Surbiton/New Malden and Waterloo on the UP (a.m. peak), therefore any more services that (might?) have benefitted from a flyover on the UP at Woking Junction, would just add to the 'timetabled' congestion Between Woking and Hampton Court Junction.

The timetable revamp of 2004 made the best use of Woking Junction (as was/is), in that UP & DOWN Portsmouth Direct services were, where ever possible, planned to cross Woking Junction at the same time, each half hour, the benefit of that being that this maximised the number of paths that would then be available to other services on the Bournemouth main line between Brookwood and Woking.

 

[brad465]

Are there any grade separation proposals officially happening, not including anything to do with HS2?

 

[zwk500]

Are there any grade separation proposals officially happening, not including anything to do with HS2?

Do you mean authorised for construction, or just designs/business cases being progressed?

 

[brad465]

Do you mean authorised for construction, or just designs/business cases being progressed?

Primarily the first point, though as you've mentioned the latter maybe that too if it's not an exhaustive list (and disclosable).

 

[mcmad]

Nothing in Scotland mentioned yet! So;

Gretna Jc
Law Jc
Greenhill Upper Jc

Surprised you went for Gretna rather than Newbridge.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are there any grade separation proposals officially happening, not including anything to do with HS2?

Yes, Ravensthorpe.

Arguably Radlett too, albeit that won’t really help.

 

[gingertom]

Nothing in Scotland mentioned yet! So;

Gretna Jc
Law Jc
Greenhill Upper Jc

Hyndland?
And if the Almond chord ever gets the nod, Winchburgh?

 

[brad465]

Yes, Ravensthorpe.

Arguably Radlett too, albeit that won’t really help.

Thank you for confirming. I'm guessing Radlett is so Thameslink services can transfer between the fast and slow lines before/after St Albans in a less conflicting manner, as I can't think what other common movements occur here.

 

[Zomboid]

I think it's for accessing the "Strategic rail freight interchange", which is located to the west (ie fast line) side of a MML.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you for confirming. I'm guessing Radlett is so Thameslink services can transfer between the fast and slow lines before/after St Albans in a less conflicting manner, as I can't think what other common movements occur here.

I think it's for accessing the "Strategic rail freight interchange", which is located to the west (ie fast line) side of a MML.

Correct, it’s grade separation from the slows to the new ’rail freight’ terminal.

It’s in the wrong place for a fast - slow connection, the best place for that would be between St Albans and Harpenden.

 

[The Ham]

It wouldn't necessarily have to, as there's always the option (in theory at least) to put a turn back siding between the tracks beyond Worting Jn, if that were a serious constraint.

Given the 25 minute turn around, it might be possible to send the Basingstoke Stoppers to a new station at Oakley and turn then around there as there's only 2tph in each direction to worry about.

Come in on Basingstoke platform 1, head to the WofE line stop at a Oakley (replacing a closed station, which depending on the timetable could be on the current track but only on one side or a station on a siding) return to Basingstoke platform 4 continue to Waterloo as existing.

 

[Grimsby town]

Ordsall Lane in Manchester would be one of my top priorities. Having lived next to it, I've seen how many trains get stopped waiting to cross the Chat Moss to get to the Windsor link. Given that there are planned enhancements at Salford Crescent, Oxford Road and Victoria to accommodate more services, the junction is only going to become more unreliable.

 

[Zomboid]

Given the 25 minute turn around, it might be possible to send the Basingstoke Stoppers to a new station at Oakley and turn then around there as there's only 2tph in each direction to worry about.

Come in on Basingstoke platform 1, head to the WofE line stop at a Oakley (replacing a closed station, which depending on the timetable could be on the current track but only on one side or a station on a siding) return to Basingstoke platform 4 continue to Waterloo as existing.

It's quite telling though that the Oakley has expanded substantially since the station closed, but the old station is still noticeably outside the village/ housing estate... Don't know where gradients etc would permit a station to be built in the area now, though I was imagining a central turn back on the Southampton line, but the Salisbury line is quieter so possibly a better choice, as you've got to use the fast lines one way or the other.

 

[The Ham]

Woking could allow Southern Approach to Heathrow, so whilst not serving London there could be other advantages other than reducing delays and Crossrail 2.

Southcote Junction could be useful to do (if potentially tricky to do) bit probably doesn't gain you a lot beyond 4tph between Reading and Basingstoke and better reliability.

I do wonder if it would be possible (given the level difference already) if you could shuffle things at Guildford so the North Downs services cross over the line to Woking to drop down on the Eastern side of that line. It would be fairly disruptive to do for limited gains.

Likewise another controversial suggestion (one which would allow new services to run providing much better interconnectivity between two lines) would a grade separated junction to allow trains to interconnect between Farnborough Main/Frimley (potential new service between Ascot and Basingstoke).

 

[Basil Jet]

It's quite telling though that the Oakley has expanded substantially since the station closed, but the old station is still noticeably outside the village/ housing estate... Don't know where gradients etc would permit a station to be built in the area now, though I was imagining a central turn back on the Southampton line, but the Salisbury line is quieter so possibly a better choice, as you've got to use the fast lines one way or the other.

The lines are level at and east of Oakley. (Source Ian Allen Gradient Profiles)

 

[mike57]

Presumably this would allow trains to Yarm and beyond to call their instead of Northallerton

But I assume that LNER and other Newcastle bound services would still call at the current station, so what about interchange?

 

[Zomboid]

How frequent is the service on the Yarm line? As far as the level crossings go we're probably not talking about Poole or Egham style down times here, are we? Especially if the only trains to usually use them are northbound.

 

[Palmerston]

Given the 25 minute turn around, it might be possible to send the Basingstoke Stoppers to a new station at Oakley and turn then around there as there's only 2tph in each direction to worry about.

Come in on Basingstoke platform 1, head to the WofE line stop at a Oakley (replacing a closed station, which depending on the timetable could be on the current track but only on one side or a station on a siding) return to Basingstoke platform 4 continue to Waterloo as existing.

Would special permission be needed for an extra mile or so of new third rail?

 

[Falcon1200]

Surprised you went for Gretna rather than Newbridge.

Yes, Newbridge should be considered, especially when (if?) the full 4 trains per hour on the Bathgate and Queen Street express routes are reinstated.

Hyndland?

Ideally with 4-tracks between the Finnieston Junctions and Hyndland East Junction, with island platforms at Partick and Hyndland for easy interchange. Unlikely to happen though!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Balham.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A flyover at Basingstoke doesn't deal with the conflicting moves there in that Up stopping services from there having to cross all lines to access the Up Slow from platform 1 (Down Slow).

You could deal with that by building a station in Oakley and extending the London-Basingstoke stoppers to Oakley, in effect taking advantage of the existing grade separation where the Salisbury and Southampton lines separate, to get those trains on the the correct line for the return journey to London. And with the bonus of Oakley - which is quite a reasonable sized community - gaining access to the rail network.

Herne Hill, but goodness knows where the space for this is.

You could partially solve that one without grade separation by recasting the local services so that Thameslink trains run towards Bromley South, and locals from Victoria head towards Tulse Hill and Wimbledon. That leaves the fast Victoria-Kent trains. But since they don't stop at Herne Hill (or anywhere between Victoria and Bromley South) you could remove those with a much longer tunnel - potentially extending a lot of the way to Beckenham Junction. That would be expensive but would have the added benefits of both speeding up the fast trains and allowing a more intensive metro service.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

You could deal with that by building a station in Oakley and extending the London-Basingstoke stoppers to Oakley, in effect taking advantage of the existing grade separation where the Salisbury and Southampton lines separate, to get those trains on the the correct line for the return journey to London. And with the bonus of Oakley - which is quite a reasonable sized community - gaining access to the rail network.



You could partially solve that one without grade separation by recasting the local services so that Thameslink trains run towards Bromley South, and locals from Victoria head towards Tulse Hill and Wimbledon. That leaves the fast Victoria-Kent trains. But since they don't stop at Herne Hill (or anywhere between Victoria and Bromley South) you could remove those with a much longer tunnel - potentially extending a lot of the way to Beckenham Junction. That would be expensive but would have the added benefits of both speeding up the fast trains and allowing a more intensive metro service.

That was the solution London Recconections came up with, with an extension of the Victoria line to Herne Hill

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only thing I think you can do with Newark Flat Crossing is to put the east-west route (NOB1) onto a viaduct/embankment with the curve junction (NSE) starting further east to ease the gradient. You may also have to change the A46 Newark Bypass so that it would go under the new viaduct instead of over it.

It'll be expensive either way!

My suggestion for the grade separation at Newark: Reroute the Nottingham-Lincoln line to run via new stations at Farndon and Newark South then a flyover over the ECML to run into Newark Northgate on the East side of the WCML tracks, from where trains would carry on towards Lincoln. Newark Castle station could then be closed, and people would instead have direct interchange between the two lines at Northgate. Picture shows a map of this.

 

[D6130]

How frequent is the service on the Yarm line? As far as the level crossings go we're probably not talking about Poole or Egham style down times here, are we? Especially if the only trains to usually use them are northbound.

The passenger service is hourly....but the existing low-level level crossings are also used by North- and South-bound freight trains to and from Teesside.