East Coast Mainline Blockade for Werrington Junction diveunder

[Donington Road]

2 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Thanks for the photos of the works. It's good to see that work is continuing. Just a point about the cylindrical piles.  What I think you are seeing is the cylinders that cut the holes. IIRC from when a similar process was used at Dover, the metal tube is used to drill the hole, then an auger us used to get the spoil out. Next  a pre made rebar cage us lowered in. The hole is then filled with concrete and the metal tube withdrawn.  All by the same remarkable machine.  I may be barking up the wrong tree and would be happy to be corrected.  Please keep thevpictures coming.

 

Jamie

 

I have been wanting to get a video of the operation but this will have to suffice for now

 

 

 

 

[jamie92208]

7 hours ago, Donington Road said:

 

I have been wanting to get a video of the operation but this will have to suffice for now

 

 

Somewhere in the forum archive is a thread about the works to repair the seawall at Dover a couple of years ago. A guy used to walk up every day and posted photos and videos of the works.  The same technique was used to repair the landslip that closed the Settle and Carlisle for several months, however that worksite was so remote there are very few photos.  

 

Jamie

[Crun]

An article is in the latest RAIL magazine out this week, issue 902 by Paul Stephen on pages 42 to 45 titled 'ECML dive-under drives divergence'

Edited April 11, 2020 by Crun

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I did not say they had been brought into use (in fact, the complete opposite), but they were definitely installed - I was a Piltoman on part of the works, and was told exactly what the work was for.

 

Whether all or some, or one, has been used subsequently for SIMBIDS, I can only guess, having left Operations on the ECML in the late 80's. They may even have been removed. The fact that one BiDi signal remains at Holme, suggests that, and that would be all that is needed for SIMBIDS on that stretch.

As a technical aside you need an absolute minimum of two signals (*) for wrong direction signalling in a simbids section unless it is a sufficiently short section to enable the yellow aspect to be given by the signal at the entrance to the section.  In a fully signalled bi-directional section the 'wrong' direction signals should properly exactly mimic the normal running direction signals.   However most UK 'open country' bi-directional lines tend nowadays not to have that facility - unlike, for example, bi-directional signalling on SNCB.

 

Note - * One signal at the exit from the section capable of showing a red aspect (plus the necessary proceed aspect(s) and indication of route) plus a repeater signal in rear of it capable of showing at least a single yellow aspect.

[phil-b259]

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

As a technical aside you need an absolute minimum of two signals (*) for wrong direction signalling in a simbids section unless it is a sufficiently short section to enable the yellow aspect to be given by the signal at the entrance to the section.  In a fully signalled bi-directional section the 'wrong' direction signals should properly exactly mimic the normal running direction signals.   However most UK 'open country' bi-directional lines tend nowadays not to have that facility - unlike, for example, bi-directional signalling on SNCB.

 

Note - * One signal at the exit from the section capable of showing a red aspect (plus the necessary proceed aspect(s) and indication of route) plus a repeater signal in rear of it capable of showing at least a single yellow aspect.

 

Given how busy the network is these days, SimBiDi tends to cause more problems than it solves. As such I don't believe its installed any more while some of those that exist have had extra wrong road signals added to increase train capacity and actually make them useful again.

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

6 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Given how busy the network is these days, SimBiDi tends to cause more problems than it solves. As such I don't believe its installed any more while some of those that exist have had extra wrong road signals added to increase train capacity and actually make them useful again.

 

plus those that are there

And I have a feeling - rightly or wrongly - that in one or two places on the GWML that the number of 'wrong line' signals installed under the original reversible schemes (the early ones) have not been replicated with recent resignalling for electrification. (which interestingly is mainly achieved nowadays by putting signals on the wrong side on double line stretches instead of the more expensive overhead structures used originally.

[Mike Storey]

Most planned Bi-Di working (and subsequently SIMBIDS) was destroyed by the progressive removal of crossovers at key locations. For example, one job I did in the early 1980's, for around six months, which involved Pilot Working between various points on the Tonbridge - Ashford, on nights, for line upgrading, would be impossible now. You would have to close the entire route, and work SLW on one line throughout (or perhaps two sections - I can't remember) instead of the four we had at the time (which meant we could still run the entire late evening and early morning services and get a full 7 hours work on the project each night).

[Zomboid]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And I have a feeling - rightly or wrongly - that in one or two places on the GWML that the number of 'wrong line' signals installed under the original reversible schemes (the early ones) have not been replicated with recent resignalling for electrification. (which interestingly is mainly achieved nowadays by putting signals on the wrong side on double line stretches instead of the more expensive overhead structures used originally.

The only bit I'm familiar with is the Simbids between Basingstoke and Winchester, which has the wrong line signal heads on poles to the "wrong" side of the tracks.

[blackpete]

The Junctions on the dive-under appear to have been named: Marholm Junction on the ECML end & Glinton Junction on the Spalding end. Courtesy of Callum Sharp on the Railscene Peteborough Facebook page

[Donington Road]

4 hours ago, blackpete said:

The Junctions on the dive-under appear to have been named: Marholm Junction on the ECML end & Glinton Junction on the Spalding end. Courtesy of Callum Sharp on the Railscene Peteborough Facebook page

 

I wonder who chose those names for the junctions and what was the criteria for doing so.

 

My choice would have been Walton and Foxcovert.

Walton, because the dive under lines come off the old Midland Railway just beyond the old site of Walton station.

Foxcovert, as it is just before Foxcovert Crossing and Foxcovert Wood.

[Zomboid]

I don't know about junctions, but I have been involved in naming substations. There doesn't seem to be a lot of specific criteria there; if the first name that someone comes up with in the early design stages is reasonably descriptive of where it is and doesn't risk confusion with another one (particularly within the same ECR area) then that tends to stick. If it needs changing then a quick "what shall we call this?" conflab comes up with another idea.

[Crun]

Saturday 18th April.  A newly erected fence in between the tracks. A cold and wet solo cycle across Hurn Road bridge:

Edited April 18, 2020 by Crun

[Crun]

More work being done on Werrington Brook:

Edited April 18, 2020 by Crun

[Crun]

More machinery in vicinity of Cock Lane bridge:

Edited April 18, 2020 by Crun

[Crun]

A noticeable increase in the amount of sheet piling:

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Crun

[Donington Road]

Thank you for the update photos Chris.

Looks like the large yellow cylindrical piling machine is inching nearer to Cock Lane.

It will be interesting to see how or what they do regarding sheet piling directly under Cock Lane footbridge.

 

As to the extra fencing at Hurn Road, perhaps it is a wide lane for employees access and the narrow one for the foxes

Edited April 18, 2020 by Donington Road
sheet piling

[melmerby]

Railcam UK have updated their Peterborough area diagrams and now include the full Werrington dive under even though it's nowhere near finished.

Edited April 19, 2020 by melmerby

[St. Simon]

On 13/04/2020 at 21:53, Donington Road said:

 

I wonder who chose those names for the junctions and what was the criteria for doing so.

 

My choice would have been Walton and Foxcovert.

Walton, because the dive under lines come off the old Midland Railway just beyond the old site of Walton station.

Foxcovert, as it is just before Foxcovert Crossing and Foxcovert Wood.

Hi,

 

It’s Ops who tell the signalling designers their preferred names for junctions. If OPs don’t tell us, we just make up a name and use it until someone objects (usually Ops)
 

There’s no set rules on the naming of junctions (or indeed when a junction has to be named or how much infrastructure a name covers), but the rule of thump is that has had to be unique within at least the workstation control area and preferably unique within the whole Control Centre.
 

New names tend to be based on geographical locations that are recognisable to everyone (signallers / drivers / maintenance staff) unless there’s a another name which everyone knows the area as.

Simon

[Donington Road]

3 hours ago, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

It’s Ops who tell the signalling designers their preferred names for junctions. If OPs don’t tell us, we just make up a name and use it until someone objects (usually Ops)
 

There’s no set rules on the naming of junctions (or indeed when a junction has to be named or how much infrastructure a name covers), but the rule of thump is that has had to be unique within at least the workstation control area and preferably unique within the whole Control Centre.
 

New names tend to be based on geographical locations that are recognisable to everyone (signallers / drivers / maintenance staff) unless there’s a another name which everyone knows the area as.

Simon

 

I do find both choices odd as neither Marholm nor Glinton have ever been on the railway map.

 

As for Hurn Road, which used to be a gated road crossing and is now just a footbridge, was always known as Marholm Crossing.   Non local people refer to it as Hurn Road, Marholm,  but in fact Hurn Road has always been in Werrington.  The whole railway infrastructure from Hurn Road to Werrington Brook is in Werrington, from there going south to Marholm Road it is in Walton.  To the west of the railway boundary it is the parish of Bretton.

[St. Simon]

13 hours ago, Donington Road said:

 

I do find both choices odd as neither Marholm nor Glinton have ever been on the railway map.

 

Hi,

 

The names don't have to be on a railway map, the name of the nearest main road, park, forest, lake, pub, airport etc. will do just as fine, as long as it is easily recognisable. Traditional Railway Names for new sites can start to become confusing, so we tend not to use them, unless it would be obviously wrong (to everyone) not to use them!

 

Simon

[melmerby]

Railways have never been known for strictly accurate place names.

Dent Station is 4 miles from Dent.

The GWR was fond of using xxxx Road for station names, being on the road to xxxx.

 

Even something like Birmingham New Street station is not in New St. and never has been.

Maybe it should have been named the more appropriate Stephenson Street as that was the access road that was built for it?

 

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

The names don't have to be on a railway map, the name of the nearest main road, park, forest, lake, pub, airport etc. will do just as fine, as long as it is easily recognisable. Traditional Railway Names for new sites can start to become confusing, so we tend not to use them, unless it would be obviously wrong (to everyone) not to use them!

 

Simon

But someone has reused an old name at Reading which is somewhat confusing to those of us of more mature (albeit retired) years as Reading High Level has moved from the east end of Reading station to west of the station and from the north side of the running lines to the south side.  But strangely although High Level has been re-used there is not a new Low level - which seems a bit churlish because High Level made a lot of sense when it related, pretty closely, to Low Level.

 

Having named a junction in the past it does allow scope for creativity.  For a long while a particular junction was shown on the S&T scheme plans as 'Funny Name Jcn'  a name which the Scheme Development Engineer and I had conjured up at one of our regular design meetings.  However we were reaching the stage of drawings for panel fascia etc and one of the staff in the scheme Development Section put it to us that we couldn't really put that name on a panel fascia or anywhere else so I had to come up with a 'proper' name for it.  Following GWR tradition I duly christened it Portbury Terminal Jcn although its on the opposite side of the River Avon from Portbury and then some distance further on from the river bank.  But as it connected into the terminal being developed to handle coal imported via Portbury Dock it seemed quite logicaL to me to name it in that way.

[keefer]

A couple of others named after where they lead to come to mind.

Poplar junction in Acton, where (I think) you leave the GW main line in order to get onto the North London Line to Poplar

Mallaig junction at Fort William, was previously Banavie junction (when that's where the line went). It was renamed Mallaig junction after the line was extended to Mallaig itself -both cases the station being the other end of the line.

It was further renamed Fort William junction in 1988 to avoid confusion with Mallaig in radio communications.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, keefer said:

A couple of others named after where they lead to come to mind.

Poplar junction in Acton, where (I think) you leave the GW main line in order to get onto the North London Line to Poplar

Mallaig junction at Fort William, was previously Banavie junction (when that's where the line went). It was renamed Mallaig junction after the line was extended to Mallaig itself -both cases the station being the other end of the line.

It was further renamed Fort William junction in 1988 to avoid confusion with Mallaig in radio communications.

Poplar Junction is an oddity as the long established name of the junction is Acton East Jcn but an alternative name used by, I think, the Civil Engineers on their single line diagrams and thus in cvommon regular use was Poplar Branch Jcn (not Poplar Jcn) because it connects to the Up & Down Poplar Lines (between Acton East Jcn and Acton Wells Jcn.  Old Oak Common East had the other one which would be an oddity to modern ears (although there it definitely distinguished a particular junction among several potential running junctions) and that was Victoria Branch Jcn.

 

Both of course were junctions to GWR destinations although Poplar was a GWR freight location whereas one side of Victoria was a (shared lease) GWR passenger station served by regular GWR passenger trains.

[jamie92208]

Of course we could all be confused with Clapham. Clapham Junction is AFAIK in the area of London known as Clapham.  Clapham station, which was a junction station as well, is well over a mile from the village of Clapham and is actually nearer to Keasden.

 

Jamie