Improving The Chingford Branch Line
The Chingford Branch Line has a four trains per hour (tph) service between Liverpool Street and Chingford via Hackney Downs and Walthamstow Central stations.
Those that I know who live in the area, have a few simple wishes.
- New trains with wi-fi and other passenger-friendly features.
- More trains to improve services and take the pressure off the Victoria Line.
- A service from Chingford and Walthamstow to Stratford and Crossrail.
- Perhaps some new stations.
- Step-free access at St. James Street and Wood Street stations.
The following sections tackle these wishes in more detail.
New Class 710 Trains
The biggest change to the line will come with the new Class 710 trains in a couple of years time.
Thirty new four-car Class 710 trains will replace the same number of Class 315 and Class 317 trains, that currently work the Cheshunt and Chingford services.
- As the number of trains and their length is the same, the service frequency and capacity will be no worse than at present.
- The trains will be modern and have air-conditioning and all the features that passengers now expect.
- The trains will be fitted with various driver aids to ensure accurate timekeepers.
- Nothing has been said about wi-fi, but most other new Aventras will have free wi-fi fitted, so I suspect it will be fitted or there will be a big argument.
- I am of the belief that all Class 710 trains will be fitted with enough onboard energy storage to handle regenerative braking and short movements not connected to the overhead wires.
- Onboard energy storage would also mean the trains could be fitted with remote wake-up, so that trains stabled overnight at Chingford, can be driver and passenger ready before the driver arrives to start the service in the morning.
It should be noted that London Overground has taken an option for another twenty-four trains. So could some of these trains be added to the fleet on the Chingford Branch to increase capacity and service on the Branch?
The Highams Park Level Crossing
In an ideal world, more services would be provided on the Chingford Branch to Liverpool Street for the following reasons.
- The Victoria Line from Walthamstow Central now has the trains to handle passengers to Central London, but the station doesn’t have the capacity to handle them, due to its cheapskate 1960s design.
- The Chingford Branch has direct access to Crossrail at Liverpool Street whereas the Victoria Line doesn’t connect to London’s new train line.
- The Chingford Branch has direct access to the North London Line at Hackney Downs and the new Class 710 trains, will mean that North London Line services will be increased.
- Crossrail could release extra platform space at Liverpool Street for more London Overground services.
But there is one major problem to increased services on the current Chingford Branch. They must all go through the level crossing at Highams Park Station.
- There is only long detours, if the crossing is closed.
- Extra trains would cause significant traffic congestion.
- Extra trains would mean the crossing would be closed for a large proportion of every hour.
As it is unlikely that the money could be found for a bridge or tunnel at Highams Park, the only thing that can be done, is make sure that all train services be at maximum length, which is probably eight cars.
Obviously, longer trains would help, but in the long term, I’m certain that London Overground would want to run more frequent services between Liverpool Street and Chingford.
I think it is true to say that the train frequency of the Chingford Branch through Highams Park is probably limited by a maximum of eight closures per hour of the Highams Park level crossing, unless the level crossing could be closed or by-passed.
But is maximum use being made of the level crossing closures now?
At present in the Off Peak.
- Trains arrive at Highams Park from Chingford at 14, 29, 44 and 59 minutes past the hour.
- Trains leave Highams Park for Chingford at 08, 23, 38 and 53 minutes past the hour.
I don’t think that this means that a Northbound and a Southbound train can share a single closure of the level crossing. This page on the National Rail web site, shows live departures at Highams Park.
If they could, then that would cut the number of times the crossing closed in the Off Peak by half.
Things that will help, is that the Class 710 trains will have extensive driver aids and probably onboard signalling, so the precise timekeeping that would be required, so two trains shared a level crossing closure, could be a lot easier.
Eight trains per hour in the Off Peak in both direction through Highams Park station is a distinct possibility.
This 8 tph frequency could be continued through the Peak, as it’s probably better than the current timetable.
Eight Trains Per Hour From St. James Street To Chingford
So it looks like that modern Class 710 trains running to a precise timetable could mitigate the problems of the Highams Park Level Crossing and allow eight trains per hour between St. James Street and Chingford.
|As there is no other trains using the branch, except moving empty and some engineering trains to and from the sidings at Chingford, there is probably little to interfere with an 8 tph schedule.
South From St. James Street
South from St. James Street station, the trains go through the Coppermill Junction area and cross the West Anglia Main Line.
The Chingford Branch then joins the line from Tottenham Hale to Hackney Downs, as this map from carto.metro.free.fr shows.
Coppermill Junction
The map shows Coppermill Junction, where the Chingford Branch Line crosses the West Anglia Main Line, that runs North from Liverpool Street to Tottenham Hale, Bishops Stortford, Stansted Airport and Cambridge.
I suspect that there would be a problem fitting another four tph through Hackney Downs station and on to Liverpool Street.
In Rumours Of Curves In Walthamstow, I talked about how two curves would be rebuilt, based on information from an informant with detailed knowledge.
- The Hall Farm Curve would be rebuilt as a bi-directional single-track connection between St. James and Lea Bridge stations.
- The Coppermill Curve would be rebuilt to give a connection between St. James and Tottenham Hale stations.
The Hall Farm Curve is the significant one for passenger services on the Chingford Branch Line, as it would mean that the current service of 4 tph between Chingford and Liverpool Street would be augmented by a second 4 tph between Chingford and Stratford.
- Waltham Forest would get an 8 tph metro service between St. James and Chingford stations.
- There are extensive bus connections at Chingford, Walthamstow Central and Stratford.
- The line has good connections to the Victoria Line, the Jubilee Line, the Central Line and Crossrail.
The only infrastructure needed would be the single-track Hall Farm Curve. If the Class 710 trains were to be fitted with onboard energy storage, this curve would not even need to be electrified.
Conclusion
By using the features of the new Class 710 trains, Chingford can be given four trains per hour to Liverpool Street and 4 trains per hour to Stratford, if a new single-track Hall Farm Curve without electrification is built between St. James and Lea Bridge stations.
Related Posts
Could Electrification Be Removed From The Chingford Branch Line?
Could Reversing Sidings Be Used On The Chingford Branch Line?
Could The Hall Farm Curve Be Built Without Electrification?
Crossrail 2 And The Chingford Branch Line
New Stations On The Chingford Branch Line
Rumours Of Curves In Walthamstow
Will Walthamstow Central Station On The Victoria Line Be Expanded?
Wikipedia – Chingford Branch Line
Comparing An Aventra IPEMU With An Electrostar IPEMU
The Concept Of An IPEMU
This article in Rail Engineer, which is entitled An Exciting New Aventra, quotes Jon Shaw of Bombardier on onboard energy storage.
As part of these discussions, another need was identified. Aventra will be an electric train, but how would it serve stations set off the electrified network? Would a diesel version be needed as well?
So plans were made for an Aventra that could run away from the wires, using batteries or other forms of energy storage. “We call it an independently powered EMU, but it’s effectively an EMU that you could put the pantograph down and it will run on the energy storage to a point say 50 miles away. There it can recharge by putting the pantograph back up briefly in a terminus before it comes back.
I believe that once the concept of onboard energy storage is accepted, that Bombarduier’s engineers have found other ways to use it to the benefit of passengers, operators and Network Rail.
- Regenerative braking energy can be stored on the train and used for a restart or other purposes, rather than just burning it off or returning it to the grid, through complicated transformers.
- Onboard energy can be used to move a train to the next station, if the overhead or third rail power should fail.
- Depots and stabling sidings don’t need to be fully electrified.
- Onboard energy storage enables train features like remote wake up, which I discussed in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?.
- Trains can safely pass over short sections without electrification. Third rail trains can do this with contact shoes at both ends of the train.
Trains with onboard energy probably need to have intelligent current collection, so that pantographs and contact shoes can be intelligently deployed and retracted.
Take the simple example of a passing loop on a single track electrified branch line, which is needed for two trains per hour. The passing loop could be built without electrification and without altering the existing electrification, with just a set of points and appropriate signalling at each end.
- Trains using the existing line and electrification would travel as now.
- Electric trains using the loop would lower the pantograph a safe distance before the loop, go along the passing loop using onboard energy and then once on the main line, raise the pantograph.
This technique could probably be used to simplify building of new stations or adding new platforms to existing ones.
Network Rail are going to love trains with onboard energy storage.
Electrostars and Aventras
Bombadier have shown that onboard energy storage is possible in an Electrostar and there is various articles on the web saying it can be fitted to the new Aventra.
As both Aventras and Electrostars seem to come in four- and five-car versions, I’ll do the calculations for both lengths of trains.
I’ll use these assumptions.
- Electrostar cars weigh 40 tonnes and Aventra cars 32.5 tonnes.
- Each car has 50 passengers weighing an average of 80 kilos.
The various types of IPEMU are shown in the next four sections.
Four-car Electrostar
This would have the following characteristics.
- A mass of 160+16 = 176 tonnes.
- A formation of DMOS+MOS+PTSO+DMOS
- Braking from 100 kph would release 18.9 KWH.
- Braking from 200 kph would release 75.5 KWH.
- Onboard energy storage could be placed in probably the MSO or PTSO cars.
This could be created from a train like a Class 377, Class 378, Class 379 or Class 387 train.
We know that in the demonstration using a Class 379 at Manningtree, that that train could do 18.2 km. on the Mayflower Line, just by the use of battery power.
Five-car Electrostar
This would have the following characteristics.
- A mass of 200+20 = 220 tonnes.
- A formation of DMOS+MOS+PTSO+MOS+DMOS
- Braking from 100 kph would release 23.6 KWH.
- Braking from 200 kph would release 94.3 KWH.
- Onboard energy storage could be placed in probably the MSO or PTSO cars.
Four-car Aventra
This would have the following characteristics.
- A mass of 130+16 = 146 tonnes.
- A formation of DMOS+MOS+PMSO+DMOS
- Braking from 100 kph would release 15.6 KWH.
- Braking from 200 kph would release 62.6 KWH.
- Bombardier have stated that the MOS car is ready for onboard energy storage.
This could be created from a train like a Class 710 train.
Five-car Aventra
This would have the following characteristics.
- A mass of 162.5+20 = 182.5 tonnes.
- A formation of DMOS+MOS+PMSO+MSO+DMOS.
- Braking from 100 kph would release 19.6 KWH.
- Braking from 200 kph would release 78.2 KWH.
The five-car Aventra could have two sets of batteries or onboard energy storage.
Note this about all Aventras.
Bombardier have stated that the MSO car is ready for onboard energy storage, if the customer desires.
The MSO and PMSO cars can be considered a fixed pair of cars handling the electrical power for the train.
Can a PMSO and two MSOs be considered a trio on the five-car Aventra?
Aventras have a lot of motored cars, with lots of traction motor/generators.
The trains can have a remote wake-up feature, that would probably need some form of onboard energy. After all, your smart-phone doesn’t work if the battery is not fitted.
Can I draw any conclusions?
- The Aventra with its pair of electrifical cars has been designed to have onbosrd energy storage.
- The energy that needs to be handled is less with the lighter weight Aventra.
- Stopping from 200 kph releases a lot more energy. Four times more than from 100 kph in fact.
- The energy storage needed for 100 kph stop and restart operation, are within the battery size range of the battery in an electric car like a Nissan Leaf.
- There could be advantages concerning reliability and battery size with the five-car Aventra with its possible two sets of energy storage.
Obviously, the weight of the battery would need to be factored into the calculations, but if say it was a tonne, it would only increase energy figures by less than one percent.
The Definitive IPEMU
I said that two two sets of energy storage in the five-car Aventra could give advantages.
- Each set could be smaller.
- Two sets will be more reliable than one.
- The weight of the storage is shared between two MSO cars.
- The two MSO cars in the five-car Aventra IPEMU would probably be identical.
In the extract from the Rail Engineer article that started this post Jon Shaw of Bombardier is quoted as saying this.
it will run on the energy storage to a point say 50 miles away.
Two sets of onboard storage would obviously help this, with each set needed to keep the train going for 25 miles. This is not the onerous task it could appear. Especially in an Aventra.
- The train is designed to minimise aerodynamic losses.
- The train is designed to minimise the very small rolling losses of steel wheel on steel rail.
- All passenger systems like wi-fi, lighting and air-conditioning are designed to use minimum electricity.
- Driving aids on the train will help the driver to drive in an energy efficient way.
- When the brakes are applied, the energy is recovered and stored in the onboard energy storage.
- The train will stop at a station using much less energy than a conventional train.
But the most important thing, is that the train has been designed from the wheels up as an efficient package.
Conclusions
I believe the following.
- Five cars will be one of the most common lengths for Aventras. Abellio have already ordered eighty-nine.
- The range on energy storage of a five-car Aventra with two sets of energy storage will be at least fifty miles.
- Aventras with an IPEMU-capability will be used to reduce electrification work.
- Aventras with an IPEMU-capability will be used to develop new electrified routes.
- As the IPEMU technology develops, Bombardier will develop a solution, so that later Electostars will be able to store their own braking energy and travel a limited distance away from electrification.
- All train manufacturers will look seriously at energy storage on trains.
If I was asked what would be the ultimate range of a train using this technology, I would say, that trains with an IPEMU-capability will within a few years be running the whole route between Waterloo and Exeter.
I
Would High-Speed Trains With Onboard Energy Storage Enable Environmentally-Friendly High-Speed Lines?
If you stand on the platform at Stratford International station, when a Eurostar Class 373 train comes through, it is a very noisy experience.
For this and other reasons high-speed trains usually have their own fenced-off tracks, well away from centres of population.
High-speed trains like Eurostar tend to have a journey profile, where they accelerate to line speed and then run at this speed, until they stop at the next station.
High speed lines are also designed, so that trains don’t lose energy on gradients and curves for energy efficiency.
I’d love to see an energy use profile for a modern high-speed train like a Class 374 train, as it goes from London to Paris.
Onboard energy storage is rather primitive today, but who’s to know how far the next generation of battery technology will take a train in say ten years time.
Say a high speed train has to go through an area that is highly-sensitive with respect to visual and/or audio intrusion!
If the section was not electrified, which would cut the visual intrusion to just the trains passing through and reduce the pantograph noise to zero, how far would a mix of battery power and the kinetic energy of the train power it until it could get electric power on the other side of the electrification gap?
We could be closer than anybody thinks to the use of batteries on high-speed trains.
The Midland Main Line is being electrified and Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways has speculated that 125 mph Aventras could be used between London and Sheffield. I wrote about this in A High-Speed Train With An IPEMU-Capability.
Could we see sections of the fast lines deliberately built without wires, so that noise is reduced?
Leicester station is a serious bottleneck, so could track be arranged there with two quiet fast lines without wires, through the centre of the city and the station?
It’s an interesting possibility to both reduce the effects on the environment and cut the cost of electrification.
I also think there are other reasons why trains will increasingly have on-board energy storage or in the case of electric locomotives, a small diesel engine.
- A get-to-the-next-station capability for when electric power to the line fails.
- Depots could be without electrification.
- Complicated stations could be electrically-dead.
It is a technology, that will have a large number of positive effects in the coming years.
The New Trains Arriving In East Anglia
This article in the Derby Telegraph is entitled Derby workers on tenterhooks over contract worth BILLIONS. (Note the newspaper’s capitals!)
It states that the new East Anglian Franchise could be announced tomorrow, as it is supposed to be settled in June, and that the order for new trains is between Bombardier and Siemens.
I can’t believe that given the current Euro-turmoil in the country, that Siemens will be given this order.
I think that we can assume that based on London Overgroun’s contract for Class 710 trains, where this is said.
In July 2015 TfL announced that it had placed a £260m order for 45 4-car Bombardier Aventra EMUs
That a new four-car Aventra train will cost around £6million. I would suspect that Siemens Desiro City would probably be around the same price.
So for a billion pounds, you would get around a hundred and thirty trains.
As I said in Could Class 387 Trains Do Norwich In Ninety And Ipswich In Sixty?, one twelve-car Class 387 train, could fulfil the franchise requirement of two fast trains a day on the Great Eastern Main Line in both directions. It might even be possible to deliver it, early in 2017, now that it appears production of Class 387 trains might be able to continue.
The Derby Telegragh article talks about Aventra trains, but unlike Class 387 trains, these would not be available until probably 2019, at the earliest.
But Aventras for the flagship London-Ipswich-Norwich route could be delivered with all or part of this specification.
- Up to twelve-cars.
- Walk-through capability. Thameslink’s Bedford to Brighton serrvice will be like this, so why not?
- A specially-design business- and commuter-friendly interior.
- 125 mph capability to give all services Norwich in Ninety and Ipswich in Sixty.
- A buffet car could be provided.
- An IPEMU capability, so a direct Yarmouth service could be introduced.
Some might mourn the passing of the much-loved and well-used Mark 3 coaches, but the Great Eastern Main Line would have one of the best commuting trains in Europe.
I estimate that six sets would be needed to provide two trains per hour in 90 minutes between Norwich and London.
Currently, they have sixteen sets with eight coaches.
If the trains had an IPEMU-capability, which is possible, but of course hasn’t been announced, these trains could also work Norwich to London via the Breckland Line and the West Anglia Main Line, serving Thetford, Ely, the new Cambridge North, Cambridge and Tottenham Hale. Currently, this route would take just under three hours with a change at Cambridge. What time a 125 mph electric train could manage, is pure speculation, but a time of two and a half is probably possible, with some track improvements on the route.
So could we see the current hourly, Norwich to Cambridge service on this route, serving Cambridge North and extended to London? It would give advantages to passengers, the operator and Network Rail.
- The improved connectivity between Cambridge and Norwich would spread the benefits of the Fenland Powerhouse to Norwich and Norfolk.
- Norfolk would get a third direct route to the capital, after the Great Eastern Main Line and the Fen Line.
- Norwich services would have a same platform interchange to Thameslink at one or possibly both Cambridge stations.
- One of the Northern bay platforms at Cambridge would be used more efficiently, as most Norwich services would be through trains.
- The trains could be identical or very similar to those serving the Great Eastern Main Line.
- The route would be available as a diversionary route between Norwich and London, should the |Great Eastern Main Line be closed.
- There would be no major electrification needed.
To provide an hourly service, I think that three trains will be needed.
The Great Eastern Main Line to Ipswich and the western route to Ely, have platforms long enough for twelve-car trains. North from Ipswich, they can certainly take ten-car trains, as that is the effective length of the current stock.
So will the stock be eight- or twelve-car trains? It could be either, with perhaps some platform lengthening on the western route.
The minimum number of trains would be six for the Great Eastern Main Line and three for the western route. It would probably be prudent to call it ten trains.
I think adding in a bit extra for 125 mph and IPEMU-capabilities and a custom interior, that prices could be of the order of.
- £20million for an eight-car train or £200million for ten.
- £30million for a twelve-car train or £300million for ten.
That’s not billions!
Shorter units of perhaps four-car or eight-car formations with an IPEMU-capability, could run the following routes.
- Ipswich to Cambridge
- Ipswich to Ely and Peterborough.
- Ipswich to Lowestoft, if some form of charging could be provided at Lowestoft.
Four trains of eight-cars for these Ipswich-based routes, would be another £80million.
Still not billions!
This leads me to the conclusion, that a large number of other electric trains in the franchise will be replaced.
- I believe for Norwich in Ninety, all trains north of Colchester need to have a 110 mph-capability or better.
- Some trains are very tired, dated and lack capacity.
- Some could have an IPEMU-capability for working the branch lines that don’t have electrification.
In the present franchise there are the following trains working the Great Eastern Main Line and the West Anglia Main Line
All are of four cars.
If all except the nearly-new Class 379 trains, were replaced with Aventras, that would cost about £950million including the IPEMUs for the branch lines.
I think that if they can develop a sensible way of charging trains at Lowestoft, Sherringham and Yarmouth, this would give the following advantages.
- Every train would be a new or nearly-new electric multiple unit.
- Some trains would have an IPEMU capability to handle lines without electrification.
- Every train would be able to use regenerative braking to save energy.
- There would be a large increase in capacity.
- Most services would be faster and not just Norwich and Ipswich to London.
- New trains into Southend to compete with c2c.
- Trains would be available to serve the new Cambridge North station.
- A possible London to Lowestoft service could be run.
- .Services between Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich and Peterborough could be increased.
- March to Wisbech could be added to the network.
- Diversionary routes from Ipswich, Norwich and Peterborough to London have been created.
- No new electrification of a substantial nature.
- Some quality diesel trains would be released to other operators.
As I indicated earlier, if it was decided to fulfil the requirements of Norwich in Ninety and Ipswich in Sixty, early in the franchise, this could be done with some Class 387 trains.
If this happens, it will be a substantial improvement on the current service.
East Anglia will have been totally-electrified for passenger services, with all the electrification being done in a new, modern factory in Derby.
I don’t know what will happen, but unless something like this does, I can’t see how Bombardier will get the order for billions of pounds of new trains, as reported in the Derby Telegraph.
Engineering is the science of the possible!
Glasgow Queen Street Station – 18th June 2016
I took these pictures of Glasgow Queen Street station.
I suspect that when they have finished the station it will be rather different.
Mystery Tours Of Glasgow
On Saturday, I was staying at Stirling near to the station and wanted to get to Glasgow to have a look at the closure of Queen Street station, for upgrading Queen Street Tunnel, platform lengthening and electrification work.
This article on Network Rail’s web site, which is entitled Glasgow Queen Street Tunnel upgrade, says this.
The work is starting just before the Easter bank holiday weekend, and lasting much longer, with a 20-week closure of the high-level Glasgow Queen Street Tunnel from Sunday 20 March to Monday 8 August so that the concrete slab track inside the tunnel can be renewed safely.
It’s the largest piece of engineering on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line since the railway was built. Renewing more than 1,800 metres of slab will mean 10,000 tonnes of existing concrete slab will be removed, as well as 4,000 metres of new rails laid, and more than 150 staff will be working on the project every day during the 140-day period.
A lot of other work will also be done at the same time.
So Network Rail and Scotrail have called up the spirit of Baldrick, and devised a cunning plan. This map shows the rail lines in the Glasgow area.
Glasgow Rail Lines
My route in from Stirling to the low-level platform at Queen Street was something like.
- Larbert
- Croy
- Lenzie
- Bishopbriggs
- Springburn
- Duke Street
- Belgrove
- High Street
Coming back from Glasgow Central, the route was something like.
- Mount Vernon
- Bargewddie
- Kirkwood
- Coatbridge Central
- Cumbernauld
Although the train didn’t stop until Stirling.
These are some pictures taken on the Jouney into Glasgow
And these were taken on the way out.
It certainly seems there are more wayus of moving trains through Glasgow, than most other cities.
You almost wonder looking at these pictures and the routes that I took, that Network Rail and Scotrail have an alternative philosophy.
- Most platforms seem to have been lengthened to at least eight cars, which mean they’ll handle two Class 385 trains coupled together.
- Most of the lines through Glasgow seem to either be electrified or seem to be having wires installed.
- It should be noted that the route I took back to Stirling, would also enable a service to be run from Carlisle to Perth via Motherwell, Coatbridge, Cumbernauld and Stirling.
- Once, the TransPennine routes are electrified, Manchester to Edinburgh can go up the East Coast.
- Are Network Rail going to apply some of the innovative interchange philosophy I wrote about in Better East-West Train Services Across Suffolk?
If electric trains can get everywhere and they are twice the capacity of the current diesel trains, then mathematics and scheduling rules, says you can get more trains through the system.
So could they be looking to increase the capacity of the two Glasgow stations and open up circular routes between them?
I don’t know the answer, but I do believe that when the EGIP program is complete, it will be interesting to see if more passengers are able to use the trains. What is being done is very different to previous proposals.
The New Norton Bridge Junction In Action
I was travelling between Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly stations on a Cross-Country train.
After leaving Stafford station, the train took the new route through Norton Bridge Junction on the flyover over the West Coast Main Line to j0in the line to Manchester. The Norton Bridge page on the Network Rail web site, links to this map.
The New Norton Bridge Junction
Trains continuing up the West Coast Main Line take the black route, whereas trains to and from Manchester use the orange line and the branch to the North-East.
This pictures show my progression threough the junction.
I was sitting on the right side of the train.
It looks like the new route is being electrified.
Would this mean that an electrified service could be run on the following route?
- Euston
- Birmingham International
- Birmingham New Street
- Wolverhampton
- Stafford
- Stoke-on-Trent
- Manchester Piccadilly
- Preston
- Carlisle
- Glasgow/Edinburgh
There is also a current electrified route, using the Crewe to Manchester Line and the Styal Line.
- Wolverhampton
- Crewe
- Manchester Airport
- Manchester Piccadilly
Throw in the Ordsall Chord and I suspect that Virgin Trains, TransPennine and Northern Rail have been looking at their traffic, to see if the reconfigured and electrified Norton Bridge Junction could be to their and Manchester Airport’s advantage.
It should also be pointed out, that much of the line from Preston to Crewe, Stoke and Stafford will have line speeds of on or about 100 mph and the new generation of trains like Aventras, Class 700s and Class 800s will be able to take advantage.
It seems to me, that the Norton Bridge Junction and Orsall Chord projects at £250 million according to this document and £85 million according to Wikipedia, respectively, will help to improve services all along the corridor from Preston to Rugby via Manchester, Manchester Airport, Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Coventry.
Only when you take a train from Birmingham to Manchester and look seriously at Norton Bridge Junction, do you realise its significance.
The Bridges Of Walthamstow
I have been meaning for some time to walk the route of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBlin) between Walthamstow Central station in Selborne Road to Blackhorse Road station.
But now the line is closed for electrification work, I thought it would be an appropriate time to do it, taking photographs as I walked.
To cross all the bridges, I was constantly doubling back on myself, using a route of.
- West on Selborne Road.
- Right onto Vernon Road
- Left onto Walthamstow High Street
- Right onto Palmerston Road
- Left onto Northcote Road
- Right onto Pretoria Avenue
- Right onto Warner Road and back to Northcote Road
- Left onto Palmerston Road
- Left onto Walpole Road, Suffolk Park Road and The Links
- Right onto Pretoria Road
- Left onto Forest Road
After a short detour to look at the bridge on Blackhorse Road, I arrived at the station, where I took a bus alongside of the GOBlin to Tottenham Hale station.
This Google Map shows Walthamstow Central and Blackhorse Road stations, and the portion of the GOBlin in the area.
The Bridges Of Walthamstow
Note in both the photographs and the map.
- There are eleven bridges including those at Blackhorse Road and Selborne Road.
- Most seem to be in good condition, with Palmerston Road having been recently replaced and others looking as if they have been thoroughly refurbished.
- Only Suffolk Park Road and Stoneydown Avenue Bridges have restrictions on access.
- It would appear that the track going towards Blackhorse Road has been lifted and laying of new track has started at that end.
- There does appear to be some new sheet piling to stabilise the cutting.
- There is ample space on both sides of this section of the line to erect the masts and gantries for the overhead wires.
- I wonder what William Morris would think of the bridge designs.
- I can’t find any information on whether more work needs to be done on the bridge at Suffolk Park Road, except a mention of new public art from 2015.
So in this section at least, it doesn’t appear that there’ll be much problem putting up the overhead wires for the electrification.
Alongside The GOBlin – June 14th 2016
I took these pictures of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line from the top of a 123 bus going between Blackhorse Road and Tottenham Hale stations.
This bus ride will be an easy way to ascertain progress on the electrification.
Nothing much seems to be happening yet!
Wightman Road Bridge Is Falling Down
I went to IKEA this morning on a 341 bus (As one does?) and the area around Harringay Green Lanes station.was locked solid.
A quick check on the Internetfrom my phone, told me that Wightman Road is closed.
This Google Map shows the area between Harringay Green Lanes station and Harringay station.
Wightman Road Bridge
If you follow the Gospel Oak to Barking Line (GOBlin) westward from Harringay Green Lanes station, you come to the important bridge where the East Coast Main Line goes over the GOBlin. To the East of this bridge is a road bridge that takes Wightman Road, which is a major route numbered B138 over the railway.
This would appear to be the bridge that is causing the trouble.
I can only find one authorative document on the web and that is this page on the Haringey Council web site, which is entitled Bridge Reconstruction Work in Wightman Road. This is said.
Work is under way to replace the defective bridge over the railway lines on Wightman Road. The bridge is showing signs of severe deterioration. Network Rail are carrying out the work to coincide with the closure of the Gospel Oak-Barking line, which is undergoing electrification. Both projects are being carried out at the same time to help minimise transport disruption.
The main construction work will run from March to September 2016. While every effort will be made to minimize disruption to traffic, there will be a period when complete road closure will be unavoidable. A temporary footbridge will be put in place to provide access for pedestrians and cyclists while the work is in progress.
Incidentally,. I’ve not heard anything on the news or seen anything in the papers. When I checked a few minutes ago, there was nothing I could find on the Transport for London or Network Rail web sites.
So is this another case of Network Rail not giving the truth about bad problems in the hope they’ll not be spotted?
Or do they think that informing the general public is not important?
These are some pictures, I took at a visit to the bridge on a quiet Sunday morning.
There’s certainly more useful infrormation at the bridge site, than on the web.
One notice labelled Wightman Road Overbridge says this.
- What: The existing Wightman Road Overbridge is to be demolished to bridge abutments to enable a complete bridge reconstruction.
- When: The construction phase is due to start in March 2016 and run until September 2016.
- Installation of scaffold walkway and access platform planned for March 2016.
- Diversion of services and removal of road surface are planned for April 2016 & May 2016.
- Removal of existing highway and bridge is planned for June & July 2016.
- Installation of new bridge deck planned for July 2016.
- Reinstatement of the highway, VRS and services is planned for July & August 2016.
- Why: The Wightman Road Overbridge is now at the end of its design life.In 2005 the structure was assessed and it was decided to renew the life-expired structure to modern-day standards.
A second notice says this.
- Improved Road Profile: This will make it safer for road traffic, pedestrians and especially cyclists.
- Lifespan of New Bridge: An increased design lifespan of 125 years with the first 25 years maintenance free.
- Save Taxpayer Money: Completing works within GOB blockade.
- Less Energy Use And Pollution: Raising the bridge height to allow for electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking Line.
- Save Disruption: Other groundworks being completed by LBHC in conjunction with the road closure.
The pictures show that good progress appears to be being made. It would appear that services are being diverted, but that the original road surface is still in place. There were also notices prominently displayed saying that on the weekends of the 25th June and 2nd July the pedestrian walkway would be closed, as a crane would be working. Could this be when the old bridge is lifted out and the new one is lifted in?
Let’s face it, 125 year old bridges do get tired! The bridges at Upper Holloway, South Tottenham and Highbury and Islington stations have all been or are being replaced!
I do wonder, if the urgent need to replace this bridge might explain the progress on the GOBlin electrification. Network Rail and Murphys seemed to have had a simple plan, which was proceeding in the early months of 2016. Then they found they needed a six month closure of the railway to replace the Wightman Road bridge and that blew a big hole right through everything.
But that doesn’t explain, why TfL and Network Rail haven’t disclosed the detailed truth to the people of North London!
At least when they’ve replaced the bridge, they’ll have a strong structure that they could use to support the overhead wires.
The Anonymous Widower 