Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
GWR advice during Coronavirus
Coffee Shop during Coronavirus
Please - Do NOT travel unless you have to!
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/2020 - Tuesday Club - ONLINE
05/06/2020 - World Environment Day
10/06/2020 - MRUG meeting - ONLINE
11/06/2020 - Community Rail Dinner - CANX
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
May 31, 2020, 02:29:24 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[122] Free Bus Travel In Cornwall
[91] A little "where was I" end of week distraction quiz
[78] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[73] 29.5.20 Marvin Rees's Mayor of Bristol team talks to/with Trav...
[56] Planning for restoration of services
[34] You're A Journalist? Really?
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Increasing throughput of trains - some ways of doing it  (Read 10261 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29482



View Profile WWW Email
« on: July 10, 2017, 02:04:31 pm »

In another thread ({here}) I documented / described the solution adopted an Penryn on the Falmouth branch for increased capacity.   Doubt has been expressed at the robustness of such an arrangement for a line that's got the potential to be disrupted at both ends ... so here (separate thread) is a list of the various things I can think of that could be done to increase capacity.   Not an expert, so some may be silly and my list may not be complete ...

1. Closer crossover to Thingley Junction
2. Faster junction pointwork
3. Intermediate signals
4. Intermediate loop near but not at Melksham
5. Intermediate loop at Melksham
6. Double junction(s) at Thingley and / or Bradford
7. Double junction(s) with sufficient double track to hold a train off main line
8. Holding loops just off the main lines at Thingley and / or Bradford
9. Dynamic loop(s) between River Avon and Melksham, and Melksham and Thingley
10. Redouble from River Avon to Thingley with "Malton" platform at Melksham
11. Redouble from River Avon to Thingley with two platforms at Melksham
12. Redouble the whole line
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
bignosemac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 17342


Birthday Avatar: 47 143.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2017, 02:33:00 pm »

13. Redouble whole line with grade separation at Thingley Junction.
Logged

SandTEngineer
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3446


Retired in an S&T hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2017, 02:35:44 pm »

Grahame.  What is the issue with the river Avon bridge that would stop double track being restored across it?
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1890


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2017, 03:08:06 pm »

13. Redouble whole line with grade separation at Thingley Junction.


.... and reinstate a single line Bradford North curve, not so sure about grade separation at Thingley though. 
Logged
Adelante_CCT
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1293



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2017, 03:20:00 pm »

14. Four Track, Now!
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29482



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2017, 03:30:15 pm »

Grahame.  What is the issue with the river Avon bridge that would stop double track being restored across it?

I stand open to correction, but I think the double track bridge there may have been replaced by a single track one?   Now that you ask, I'm not so sure.   But it's the major engineering element on the line ...
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29482



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2017, 03:39:55 pm »

13. Redouble whole line with grade separation at Thingley Junction.


.... and reinstate a single line Bradford North curve, not so sure about grade separation at Thingley though. 

This idea always worries me as we could end up splitting our southbound service between two destinations, both of which are running not quite frequently enough for them to be virtually a turn up and go service.

You could, however (once you've doubled the track to add capacity) restore both the Bradford East - West and the Thingley South - West curve and then save yourself the Bathampton turn back for MetroWest by running  Bristol Temple Meads, stations to Bath - Corsham - Melksham - Bradford-on-Avon - Avoncliff - Freshford - Bath and stations to Bristol Temple Meads.  I expect that would be very popular and would generate far more revenue that just running the Bath terminator to Westbury putting that up to 3 per hour; Trowbridge and Westbury would probably benefit far more from longer trains than more of them.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
SandTEngineer
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3446


Retired in an S&T hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2017, 04:06:13 pm »

Grahame.  What is the issue with the river Avon bridge that would stop double track being restored across it?

I stand open to correction, but I think the double track bridge there may have been replaced by a single track one?   Now that you ask, I'm not so sure.   But it's the major engineering element on the line ...

OK.  I have had a look on GOOGLE MAPS and as best I can see the bridge still looks to be double track width with the current single line slued to the middle of it.

On that basis, I would vote for No.10 (the option that is, not the Downing Street one..... Roll Eyes Tongue )
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3299

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2017, 04:14:50 pm »

Cost wise  something like penryn may be a lowest cost option and more easily justifiable?
Logged

All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1890


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2017, 04:17:25 pm »

13. Redouble whole line with grade separation at Thingley Junction.


.... and reinstate a single line Bradford North curve, not so sure about grade separation at Thingley though. 

This idea always worries me as we could end up splitting our southbound service between two destinations, both of which are running not quite frequently enough for them to be virtually a turn up and go service.

You could, however (once you've doubled the track to add capacity) restore both the Bradford East - West and the Thingley South - West curve and then save yourself the Bathampton turn back for MetroWest by running  Bristol Temple Meads, stations to Bath - Corsham - Melksham - Bradford-on-Avon - Avoncliff - Freshford - Bath and stations to Bristol Temple Meads.  I expect that would be very popular and would generate far more revenue that just running the Bath terminator to Westbury putting that up to 3 per hour; Trowbridge and Westbury would probably benefit far more from longer trains than more of them.


I was thinking more of a re-instated Bradford North curve acting as a diversionary route when Bathampton to Thingley is closed for engineering works or other times when the direct route is unavailable for traffic.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2774


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2017, 05:07:31 pm »

If you were going to have MetroWest running in a loop like that using a new line at Thingley, why not just send it on a few more miles to Chippenham and reverse there using a third platform (and then the rest of that loop)?
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4779


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2017, 06:11:44 pm »

OK.  I have had a look on GOOGLE MAPS and as best I can see the bridge still looks to be double track width with the current single line slued to the middle of it.

Funny. When I ask Google Earth to measure the width of that bridge, it tells me 4.2m - and a train is over 3.2 m wide before clearances. So definitely single track.  By comparison, there's an accommodation track under the line just to the north-east, with parapets 8.2 m apart.

Now, have any other over- or underbridges on that stretch been renewed since singling and without preserving the double-track width?
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3570


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2017, 06:12:24 pm »

Ok so what is a "Malton" platform then?  I have heard of a different platform arrangement at Penmere.  

Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29482



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2017, 06:15:26 pm »

Ok so what is a "Malton" platform then?  I have heard of a different platform arrangement at Penmere.  

A double track line but a platform on one line only on the "up" line.  Down line trains cross over as they approach the station via a facing crossover, and cross back upon departure through another crossover.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29482



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2017, 06:30:04 pm »

Ok so what is a "Malton" platform then?  I have heard of a different platform arrangement at Penmere.  

A double track line but a platform on one line only on the "up" line.  Down line trains cross over as they approach the station via a facing crossover, and cross back upon departure through another crossover.

I should add that the option is to replicate the current Malton, not the old one.   From Wikipedia:

Quote
Though Malton station now has only one platform in use, at its peak, there were two through platforms and an additional bay platform serving (mainly) Whitby local trains. The George Townsend Andrews overall roof was removed in 1989 and replaced by the canopy recovered from the Whitby platform.

One of Malton station's claim to fame was the novel solution adopted to allow passengers to access the second (island) platform, instead of a footbridge or barrow crossing the NER installed a removable section of platform, in the form of a wheeled trolley running on rails set at right-angles to the (single) running line. When a train had to use the platform, the trolley was wheeled back under the up (York) platform; the trolley was interlocked, with the signals giving access to the platform.

After which I should start drawing a parallel to the turning arrangement at Brockenhurst for wheelchairs. Is that still in use?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page