Electric trains

[plantfit 7,569]

There was talk a few years ago about putting a flyover in for the midland line at Newark to cross the ECML instead of the flat crossing there now, and I did hear it's back on the agenda again, as for electric overhead lines there's a section near Tollerton/Stanton on the Wolds area that comes from Melton but I don't know where it ends

Rog

[Cliff Ton 10,453]

Are you not confusing this with the former Midland Railway(L.M.S.) Lady Bay bridge at West Bridgeford are you? This bridge was converted to road use in the 80s?(could it be put back to rail use?)

I don't know what of the "track bed" is left of the Melton route in the West Bridgeford area but reinstating the line would shorten the distance to London by about three miles and would give Melton & Corby a service to London.

I don't think Lady Bay bridge could realistically be re-converted back to rail; a lot of embankments and earthworks were removed when the lines were taken up. And on the West Bridgford side of the river, most of the former course of the line is now occupied by housing at various points. Although once you go out beyond Edwalton there is very little removed or demolished, the survival rate is very high because................

as for electric overhead lines there's a section near Tollerton/Stanton on the Wolds area that comes from Melton but I don't know where it ends

There is still a track in place on the former Melton line in the Tollerton/Stanton area. It was (still is?) used by British Rail as a test track for experimental projects.

At the top (western) end of Gamston Lings Bar Road you drive under a bridge, which carries that line. That bridge was built 15 years after the Melton line closed to passengers.

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

There was talk a few years ago about putting a flyover in for the midland line at Newark to cross the ECML instead of the flat crossing there now, and I did hear it's back on the agenda again,

Rog

I think the traffic on the Lincoln line is too light(2 passenger trains per hour + a little freight) to justify building a flyover.

[StephenFord 866]

I seem to remember the proposal to build a flyover originated in the heady days of Great North Eastern running the East Coast Main Line. Each Nottingham - Lincoln train crossing the 125mph line plays havoc with their track capacity and there were negotiations to remove obstacles, with GNER chipping in on the costs, I believe. It was the same reasoning as at Grantham, where Skegness trains occupied the main line (including a 30mph trundle for about a mile NORTHwards up the SOUTHbound track before branching right at Barkston Junction). That was resolved by building a new curve at Allington so that Grantham - Skegness trains no longer touch the main line.

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

The curve to cut out Barkston south junction was simple and there was room to do it & it didn't involve building a new flyover.

The problem at Newark is the river Trent/weir & locks

A flyover would involve crossing not only the ECML but also the river Trent and the junction which allows trains from Lincoln to enter Newark North Gate would have to be rebuilt.

I'm not saying it can't be done I'm just saying cost!

It would be interesting to see how much the similar job at Retford cost in the early 60s when there was no river or overhead wires to deal with.

If Newark was cost effective it would have been done years ago.

[StephenFord 866]

You're right Bubblewrap. The point I was really making was that it was the ECML capacity requirement that put Newark flyover on the table as a possibility in the first place. I agree that traffic on the Nottingham - Lincoln line would never have justified it. I guess that two conflicts (Newark and Grantham) only 10 miles apart really could tie the main line services in knots, especially if trains were running late, and Central Trains were useless on punctuality. Getting rid of both would be ideal but expensive. Getting rid of one would be a big help. As you say the Allington curve was always going to be easier and cheaper, and its construction didn't interfere with the main line.

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

And another point It wont be the T.O.Cs. that would bear the cost of a flyover but Railtrack & in the end the tax payer.

[StephenFord 866]

#30 - regarding Retford, I think that was a much simpler job - the low level line already existed - used mainly for freight and excursions. So it was only a case of widening the cutting to allow for construction of new platforms.

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

That is something I did not know I always understood that the Ex G.C. line crossed the G.N. just south of Retford station and the underpass was a new construction.

[StephenFord 866]

I beg your pardon - confession is said to be good for the soul! I am wrong, and you are right - it was indeed a flat crossing until the rebuilding in the 60s. (Engage brain and check facts before striking keyboard!)

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

There was a third level crossing on the ECML.

That was at Darlington( near Bank Top Station) both lines were Notth Eastern Railway, I don't know when the crossing was removed.

There were other "level crossings" in the past looking at my atlas I have found at least another four some disappeared before the WW.II

[BulwellBrian 107]

The Retford underpass was built mainly for coal trains, the collieries were west of the ECML & the new power station to the east. The power station required about 20,000 tons of coal per day thus about 40 trains over the ECML 20 full and 20 empty.

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

I beg your pardon - confession is said to be good for the soul! I am wrong, and you are right - it was indeed a flat crossing until the rebuilding in the 60s. (Engage brain and check facts before striking keyboard!)

I have just acquired a 50" scale map of Retford dated 1959 showing the railway there including the railways crossing & both engine sheds(both had the same code of 36E)

[Merthyr Imp 729]

Regarding the situation at Newark, the idea of building a flyover was first raised, I think, back in the 1970s. Since those days, of course, a new road has been built, complete with a bridge over the main line not far from where the Lincoln line crosses it on the flat. A pity they couldn't have thought to build a combined road and rail bridge just there - although I don't know what the gradients would have been like. Even so, I'm sure it could have been done if they'd wanted to.

The trouble with Newark has always been partly with the cost of maintaining the flat crossing (wear and tear on the track is higher, plus it means a speed restriction on the main line) and the simple fact of the conflicting movements of trains on two lines. Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s, there was a scheme put forward to close the Lincoln line just the other side of Newark station so the crossing could be done away with. That would have meant passenger trains from Nottingham terminating at Newark (in those days there was still freight traffic to Staythorpe power station just before Newark as well). Services from Nottingham to Lincoln would then (according to this scheme) have taken the Grantham line as far as Bottesford West Junction then turned off to take the line through Cotham, which was still open for freight in those days, and reach Newark North Gate staion on the main line that way. They would then have taken the link still used by Lincoln trains to reach the Lincoln line just the other side of the flat crossing.

Nothing came of that, no doubt for various reasons, one of which would have been that Nottingham - Lincoln trains would still have needed to cross the main line even if not by the flat crossing. The Bottesford - Cotham - Newark line, of course is now long-closed.

[Bubblewrap 3,815]

I think the main problem with building a bridge for the Lincoln line over the "East Coast Main Line" is the river Trent & canal lock.

And I don't think the volume of traffic on the Lincoln route would justify the building of a bridge.

[StephenFord 866]

I think a lot of this goes back to the early days of privatisation when GNER (remember them?) were determined to free up reliable paths on their main line. They were prepared to put money into removing conflicting movements by other operators' trains. That, I believe, was the origin of the chord at Allington Junction near Grantham which removed the necessity for Grantham - Skegness trains to run wrong-line at reduced speed northwards up the main line for half a mile before turning off at Barkston. Every such movement in either direction required a gap of about 10 miles between southbound main line services. GNER were even talking about funding a second Digswell viaduct near Welwyn Garden City, to segregate Kings Cross suburban trains from their own main line trains. GNER lost the franchise some years ago now, and the whole franchising game has changed to civil service diktat. (And they understand nothing about running trains, being in the main, bean-counters?).

[Merthyr Imp 729]

I think the main problem with building a bridge for the Lincoln line over the "East Coast Main Line" is the river Trent & canal lock.

And I don't think the volume of traffic on the Lincoln route would justify the building of a bridge.

But as I said, they built the A46 bypass road bridge very close by - see here for a photo of it, with the railway beyond it leading to the flat crossing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jondave/4432545506/

It would surely have been a lot simpler in the long run to build a combined road and rail bridge when they did that instead of now having the problem of trying to fit a separate rail bridge in at that height as well (the road also goes over the main line).

I believe a flyover is still in Network Rail's long term plans, but I don't know if it will happen. I think it's not so much the idea of increasing capacity on the Nottingham - Lincoln line as getting rid of the speed restriction over the crossing on the main line.