Woking Junction could get a flyover

Status
Not open for further replies.

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,359
lans for a flyover at Woking railway station could still be in the pipeline to help increase capacity on the line.

Network Rail confirmed it is working with Woking Borough Council to "progress the scheme" which was originally highlighted in the rail infrastructure company's 30-year vision for the south east .

The Wessex Route Study by the Network Rail-South West Trains Alliance proposed a new flyover for trains coming to and from the Guildford line.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/woking-railway-station-flyover-plans-12748375

I wonder how this will be funded. I mean, why would Woking Council (and it's residents) pay for something that prevents trains from stopping at their station :roll:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,319
Location
Southampton
Has someone misinterpreted what a flyover is? There are plans for a flyover at Woking junction to fix capacity problems there, but nothing for the station itself...
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
[... that prevents trains from stopping at their station :roll:
Does it? I believe any form of flyover in relation to Woking simply removes the need to cross the SWML on the flat, not avoid the station altogether. I believe the current timetable on the SWML from Waterloo was written around Woking Junction, so I can imagine it's quite a headache for planners at present!
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,232
Location
Sunny South Lancs
It's about providing grade-separation at Woking Junction and nothing to do with the station itself. The timetable constraints imposed by the lack of said grade-separation are amongst the largest of all such constraints on the national network and reducing them has been on Network Rail's wish-list for a long time.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
14,044
Location
West of Andover
Does it? I believe any form of flyover in relation to Woking simply removes the need to cross the SWML on the flat, not avoid the station altogether. I believe the current timetable on the SWML from Waterloo was written around Woking Junction, so I can imagine it's quite a headache for planners at present!
Especially when you get delays of services from the branch line causing the main-line trains to stop outside the station for a half empty 450 from Haslemere to empty out at Woking :lol:
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
12,124
Location
No longer here
There's not a massive amount of space at Woking Jct - you could physically fit a flyover in there, but the work would be difficult to carry out. Also, would the flyover feed into the fasts or the slows? Surely not both, as I thought the aim was to reduce conflict?
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
Also, would the flyover feed into the fasts or the slows? Surely not both, as I thought the aim was to reduce conflict?
It would reduce conflict of Up trains having to cross the Down Main four times an hour though.

(I'm presuming the line designations at Woking are Up to London!)
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,590
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
The SW main line is extremely blessed with low-conflict (i.e. flying or burrowing) junctions except at Woking, so that would address a major constraint. The flyover need only serve one up line (fast or slow) with a fast crossover to the other line, to provide a major improvement.

I wonder if local pressure would point to a burrowing junction rather than a fly-over.
 
Last edited:

slicedbread

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2012
Messages
11
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/woking-railway-station-flyover-plans-12748375

I wonder how this will be funded. I mean, why would Woking Council (and it's residents) pay for something that prevents trains from stopping at their station :roll:
I think the idea may be to coordinate with Woking Council if and when they do the work on the Victoria Arch rather than Woking paying for the flyover.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/work-undertaken-victoria-arch-tunnel-5324420
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,319
Location
Southampton
There's not a massive amount of space at Woking Jct - you could physically fit a flyover in there, but the work would be difficult to carry out. Also, would the flyover feed into the fasts or the slows? Surely not both, as I thought the aim was to reduce conflict?
The down slow is slewed immediately after the physical junction, I believe done that way many years ago with the intention of adding a flyover later.

Since the slows and fasts are paired together in both directions, it's not a problem to take the up line from the Pompey direct to the up slow, then have trains cross over towards London, just as down Pompey trains often use the down slow platform at the moment. By comparison, crossing over both down lines from the up Pompey reduces the capacity a lot more.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,325
With the plans for a Southern Approach to Heathrow also looking at adding 4tph (2 to/from Basingstoke and 2 to/from Guildford) and plans for extra long distance services after Crossrail 2 removed services from Waterloo, I don't think it's Woking could get a fly over, it's when could Woking get a fly over.

As an example of need, on a daily basis the 1747 from Guildford stood outside Woking to let the Basingstoke stopper service pass through the junction before being able to carry on.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,737
The down slow is slewed immediately after the physical junction, I believe done that way many years ago with the intention of adding a flyover later...
I think that was done just to change the angle of the crossover from the down fast towards Guildford.

However, the LSWR are reputed to have bought the actual land for the flyover, it was supposed to be done with all the other grade separation on the line, but they ran out of money.

The recent Wessex route study (as mentioned earlier) includes a diagram of what NR intend, including a new platform 6. See figure 5.6 on page 80. The main idea of installing a flyover is not "new news". They also draw it coming down between the two up lines, so it will give non-conflicting access to either route.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Wessex-Route-Study-Final-210815-1.pdf
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,218
Location
York
The SW main line is extremely blessed with low-conflict (i.e. flying or burrowing) junctions except at Woking, so that would address a major constraint. The flyover need only serve one up line (fast or slow) with a fast crossover to the other line, to provide a major improvement.

I wonder if local pressure would point to a burrowing junction rather than a fly-over.
Wouldn't you ideally bring it down (or up if a burrowing junction) between the up slow and the up fast so it could feed into either?
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
2,781
.. The timetable constraints imposed by the lack of said grade-separation are amongst the largest of all such constraints on the national network and reducing them has been on Network Rail's wish-list for a long time.
I know someone who was working on this project, and I was amazed to learn that it wasn't already a grade separated junction. (I have only been through Woking a couple of times, and never noticed that it was a flat junction.)

From what I gather (BICBW), the desire to eliminate the conflicting movements here goes back long before Network Rail was even thought of - I suspect even the SR wanted to put in a grade separated junction - but the whole area is v v tight on space.
 

GW43125

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2014
Messages
1,895
Especially when you get delays of services from the branch line causing the main-line trains to stop outside the station for a half empty 450 from Haslemere to empty out at Woking :lol:
I remember back in my spotting days when I would stand in the car park just north of the station, on one occasion there was a late-running Up Pompey service which would conflict with the down non-stopper to Weymouth, so they ran it (Pompey) through P5 using the BiDi and crossed it over at the north end.

Though this was on a Saturday, no chance of it happening in the peaks. Whilst it only shifts the conflict rather than eliminate it, it was the path of least resistance so to speak.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
12,973
As an example of need, on a daily basis the 1747 from Guildford stood outside Woking to let the Basingstoke stopper service pass through the junction before being able to carry on.
That train is booked to stand there for 3.5 minutes, not because of a conflicting move towards Basingstoke, but to get it behind an up train from Weymouth. A flyover would make no difference to that train.

As an aside, the flyover does mean changes to the station, with a new through platform as the diagram in the Route Study shows.

Also, the land for a flyover was bought by the Southern Railway in the 1930s IIRC, and only sold in BR days.
 
Last edited:

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,524
The plan for the flyover in the Wessex Route study also shows a potential turnback siding - this would allow the option for the trains that use Woking Bay to terminate on platform 5 (or the new 6) then run to the turnback siding and return to the station via the flyover to depart back to London from platform 1 (or 2 if necessary). This would remove the second capacity constraint on the station - two trains an hour crossing from the Down Slow to the Up Bay across the Down Fast; then departing from the Up Bay to the Up Slow crossing the Up Fast.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
4,530
Location
Torbay
I attach a screenshot of the the Network Rail concept sketch from their route study document and some ideas of my own for comparison.

Note the major differences in my layout:

The through conversion of platform #6 becomes the new down slow, with down fast moving across to #5. #4 becomes up fast. #2 up portsmouth, #1 up slow as now. Each approaching line would thus have it's own dedicated platform with flexible parallel switching between all three.

The reversing siding alongside the Portsmouth line is on the down side, not in the centre. This has the advantage that with the double flat junction layout shown (in addition to the flyover), a down fast train to Portsmouth, or Basingstoke via fast or slow can leave #5 at the same time as a a reversing local terminator is moving from #6 to the reversing siding, clearing both platforms more quickly for following movements. With the three dedicated up platforms available, the local train can return to the up side between other trains in good time to be ready for an on time departure.

With reversing locals adequately catered for by the siding and flyover, the middle terminal platform #3 can be removed, taking with it all the fast line conflicts involved in using it today.
 

Attachments

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,325
The plan for the flyover in the Wessex Route study also shows a potential turnback siding - this would allow the option for the trains that use Woking Bay to terminate on platform 5 (or the new 6) then run to the turnback siding and return to the station via the flyover to depart back to London from platform 1 (or 2 if necessary). This would remove the second capacity constraint on the station - two trains an hour crossing from the Down Slow to the Up Bay across the Down Fast; then departing from the Up Bay to the Up Slow crossing the Up Fast.
Personally I think that with the removal of the conflict by sending trains towards Guildford it would be better to just send the Woking stopping services to Guildford. There are a LOT of people that travel between the two stations, to see this you only need to look at the numbers getting on the 7:39 or 8:39 at Woking that are only going to Guildford, those using the 8:39 have opted for that over the 8:25, so it's not like they have had a long time to wait since the previous train.

Would I still build the turn back, yes. If for no other reason that it allows you to stop short some services if the is disruption at Guildford or Aldershot or Farnborough.
 
Last edited:

Waldgrun

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2011
Messages
273
I seem to recall that the land between the two lines was at one time owned by the railways, but it was sold off for housing in the 1980's!
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,996
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
The timetable constraints imposed by the lack of said grade-separation are amongst the largest of all such constraints on the national network and reducing them has been on Network Rail's wish-list for a long time.
I believe the current timetable on the SWML from Waterloo was written around Woking Junction, so I can imagine it's quite a headache for planners at present!
Sorry if this is going off topic, but what kind of improvements could there be on the SWML if this conflict were to be removed?

Are there potentially paths through Weybridge (etc), if you could remove the problem of Portsmouth - London services and London - Basingstoke services from clearing the current flat junction?

(I appreciate that it would make the timetable simpler to organise if the "up" and "down" services didn't depend on each other, and it'd be much more reliable - it's a busy enough bit of railway to justify investment on those grounds alone - I'm just curious as to whether the suggestion is that a flyover would permit more SWT services or if it's more just about removing a bottleneck that constrains the current timetable from being as reliable as it might be)
 

30907

Established Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
9,097
Location
Airedale
Sorry if this is going off topic, but what kind of improvements could there be on the SWML if this conflict were to be removed?

Are there potentially paths through Weybridge (etc), if you could remove the problem of Portsmouth - London services and London - Basingstoke services from clearing the current flat junction?
Not at the moment, because the line is at capacity from Hampton Court Junction, but with Crossrail 2 in place (see the current MR) the slows are freed up (and Effingham Junction might get faster trains too...).

Back to the proposals. The advantage of the NR layout is having 3 down platforms, so you can have a Portsmouth stop clear of the down fast AND a train off the down slow platformed - indeed, platformed long enough to terminate there. Which means you dispense with Platform 3 and all its conflicting movements normally.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
4,530
Location
Torbay
Not at the moment, because the line is at capacity from Hampton Court Junction, but with Crossrail 2 in place (see the current MR) the slows are freed up (and Effingham Junction might get faster trains too...).

Back to the proposals. The advantage of the NR layout is having 3 down platforms, so you can have a Portsmouth stop clear of the down fast AND a train off the down slow platformed - indeed, platformed long enough to terminate there. Which means you dispense with Platform 3 and all its conflicting movements normally.
I agree with getting rid of the middle bay #3, but I'd argue generally that for each approach line at a major station, at least one platform should be provided if possible, here especially to better cope with the more variable and chaotic arrival times from the west. Thus I think a group of three platforms are better allocated to the up direction normally in order that an up Portsmouth can usually always be able to run into the station while something is passing or calling on the up fast through #4 and something is simultaneously running through or calling at #1. For your scenario of a down Portsmouth stopper immediately in front of a runner, I'd cross the Portsmouth into #6 and hold the terminator back on the slow on the eastern approaches until it had departed. In my layout down trains can always exceptionally cross over to #2 or #4 on the up side if necessary and then regain any route at the west end, even the Portsmouth by running reversibly over the flyover.

latest version attached
 

Attachments

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
4,530
Location
Torbay
Which software are you using to render these signalling layouts? The result looks great!
It is a windows signalling simulator package I developed with a programmer friend back in the early noughties. It automatically and very quickly configures very accurate signalling behaviour according to the track as drawn, which is then fully manually configurable to tweak it for details like junction approach release times etc. One can manually set routes immediately or set up lines to run simulated traffic with a simplified form of automated route setting to test layout ideas under traffic conditions. NR adopted it as an interlocking simulator to drive a small NX panel in some of their signaller training facilities, but for various reasons took it no further. I still have rights to distribute the executables under various conditions and have been thinking about setting up a website to do so, although it probably needs a bit of work, particularly in documentation! The graphics also could do with an update to modern techniques. Watch this space!
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,140
Location
Cambridge
It is a windows signalling simulator package I developed with a programmer friend back in the early noughties. It automatically and very quickly configures very accurate signalling behaviour according to the track as drawn, which is then fully manually configurable to tweak it for details like junction approach release times etc. One can manually set routes immediately or set up lines to run simulated traffic with a simplified form of automated route setting to test layout ideas under traffic conditions. NR adopted it as an interlocking simulator to drive a small NX panel in some of their signaller training facilities, but for various reasons took it no further. I still have rights to distribute the executables under various conditions and have been thinking about setting up a website to do so, although it probably needs a bit of work, particularly in documentation! The graphics also could do with an update to modern techniques. Watch this space!
Wow, that's even fancier than I'd suspected! I had assumed something like a custom content suite for Visio or similar.

If feedback/testing for updates would be useful, I'd be happy to lend a hand. ;)
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
4,807
The flying junctions done by the LSWR were rather an odd set. Put in at Putney towards Wimbledon, and at Byfleet facing west, both of which are little used, but not at Barnes or at Woking, which have caused delay for the last century since the LSWR went on its building spree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top