R A I LT R AC K - The Railways Archive

These are the route improvements we plan to deliver
CAPACITY CHANGES TO MEET FRANCHISING DIRECTOR, PTE AND CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVER ROUTE VISION
The route has substantial capacity as it is generally at least double track and signalled with four-aspect colour-light signalling. However, the volume of passenger and freight train movements
on the route is very high. Several route sections are operating at or near to capacity, the principal ones being London–Rugby, Coventry–Birmingham–Wolverhampton,
Stockport–Manchester Piccadilly and the approaches to Glasgow. Other sections of the trunk route will be operating closer to their capacity limit in the near future.
We have carried out a number of capacity analyses for the bottlenecks we identified in the 1998 NMS. In addition, in accordance with undertakings given to the Rail Regulator, we have
carried out strategic capacity reviews in four areas. We have set out below the conclusions from all of these studies.
Euston–Rugby The bottleneck constraint is caused by differential speeds and stopping patterns on the fast and slow lines, which will worsen on the slow lines when
the fast lines become dedicated to 125–140mph trains. We have identified the following options to resolve the constraint.
Option A Provide turnback facilities at Watford Junction, Tring and Milton Keynes to optimise slow line capacity and provide high-quality paths on
the slow lines for Silverlink services, especially to and from Northampton.
Option B In order to provide the minimum possible journey time between London and Northampton – about 45 minutes instead of 1 hour – this
option would transfer two trains per hour on to the fast lines. This would require investment in 140mph trains and a grade-separated junction in the
Hanslope area. The currently envisaged post-PUG 2 timetable requires some changes to the timetable of passenger trains on the slow lines and this
option would alleviate these problems. These two actual paths consume four standard paths, which could be used by 75mph freight trains and/or
other semi-fast passenger services.
Option C Provide dynamic loops at Tring, Watford and quadrupling of slow lines at Bletchle y. This has previously been assessed and found to
further constrain the timetable pattern and operating flexibility, creating new bottlenecks. This option only creates enough capacity for additional
short-distance trains, which do not satisfy the long-distance market demands on the route.
Option D Provide four slow lines, ie a six-track railway from London to Rugby. This would significantly improve capacity, but gaining full benefit of
this capacity would require substantial further investment in the Trent Valley, and further north. The substantial land purchase and construction costs
involved are unlikely to be acceptable or fundable.
Option E Lengthen the journey time of the fast Northampton trains on the slow lines from 2005. This reduces the nominal path consumption of
these trains from four to two paths per hour, thereby freeing up two paths for other services. However, it increases the journey time to
Northampton from 60 minutes to up to 75 minutes.
Option F Reduce freight traffic over this section of the route by operating Felixstowe–West Midlands/North West England trains via Peterborough
and Nuneaton and some other freight trains via Midland Main Line or via Oxford Banbury rather than on the WCML. This option is dependent
upon the freight routeing strategy. It reduces differential speeds between trains, thereby enabling more passenger trains to operate on the slow lines,
thus satisfying the aspirations of our customers for more capacity.
Our preferred option is A, although option F is critical to the long-term management of capacity on the south end of the WCML.
Coventry–Birmingham The number of train movements on the route between Coventry and Birmingham has been near the route’s capacity for a number of years. There
are both contracted commitments and customer aspirations to increase the number of train movements over the route. The present mixture of fast
and slow trains over the route precludes any further train movements being accommodated without significant operational performance risk.
An engineering feasibility study has been undertaken to assess the options to increase the number of available train paths on this corridor. The
synopsis of the conclusions reached is set out below.
To increase the corridor’s capacity, it is necessary to reduce the conflict between fast trains and stopping trains. This can only be done by increasing
the number of lines to provide an ‘overtaking’ facility. In addition, the remodelling of Proof House Junction on the approach to Birmingham New
Street Station in 2000 will remove conflicting train movements between this route and those on the Walsall–Lichfield–Longbridge cross-city route .
Thus, there are three options for this bottleneck.
Option A Remodel Proof House as part of the WCRM project and do no other infrastructure work. Run a revised timetable with slow trains
overtaken at Birmingham International Station on existing infrastructure. This would enable a maximum of 12 paths per hour, fully utilising capacity
but not exceeding it. However, a number of customer aspirations would not be met. Additional freight train movements as agreed with the Rail
Regulator can be accommodated.
Option B Provide a four-track railway from Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford, broadly 70% of the route mileage between Coventry and Birmingham.
This would enable all operator aspirations to be met.
Option C Enhance option B by providing a grade-separated junction at Stechford and other works off this route to enable all WCML freight
services to be routed over this corridor.
Our initial analysis suggests that option A produces the best industry value even though all operator aspirations cannot be met. The trains
concerned have the lowest industry value over the route.
However, we have included within the partnership elements of schemes to develop the network, option B above providing the only long-term
solution which would substantially increase capacity.
Birmingham–Wolverhampton The number of train movements on the route between Wolverhampton and Birmingham has been growing and is now near its capacity. West
Midlands Passenger Transport Authority (Centro) has an aspiration to further increase the number of train movements over the route. The present
mixture of fast and slow trains o ver this route limits any future growth in train movements.
In order to accommodate Centro’s aspirations to increase the stopping train service from two to four trains per hour, an ‘overtaking’ facility would
be required. We have assessed the most appropriate facility to be the creation of a four-track railway from Monument Lane Tunnel to Dudley Port.
The route between these points would require very substantial reconstruction and additional land. The cost of achieving this, solely to operate two
additional trains per hour is not viable for Centro. We have discussed this with Centro who no longer wish to proceed with this aspiration.
The route will therefore continue to operate with the present infrastructure.
145