CONSTRUCTION SERVICES & EQUIPMENT
The GNGE route linking Peterborough and Doncaster via Spalding, Lincoln and Gainsborough is undergoing a large- scale upgrade to make it suitable for modern freight containers and relieve pressure on the ECML. RTM found out more from senior sponsor David Anderson of Network Rail.
began almost a decade ago on increasing ca- pacity on the East Coast Main Line between Peterborough and Doncaster. Options included four-tracking the ECML itself and putting in dynamic loops, but the conclusion reached on the best way to provide availability in future timetables for long-distance, high-speed, high- value passenger trains was to provide an alter- native route via the GNGE line.
T
David Anderson, senior sponsor for the up- grade and responsible for many ECML projects during CP4, told RTM: “That’s the real purpose and real driver for this work; it is, if you like, an ECML business case.
“Having been under-utilised during the late 80s and early 90s, it became the predominant route for traffic, and so consequently there was some less investment on the joint line, the GNGE line. To some degree, what we’re doing is returning that line to the capability where it can fulfil its former role of carrying a great deal of freight – a role it’s fulfilled in the past.
“The track condition isn’t suitable for modern wagons and modern freight trains, so we’re doing a lot of track work to return the track to RA10 traffic. The freight industry has changed: there’s far less aggregate traffic moving around and far more container traffic. So for it to re- tain its freight crown, we’re doing a lot of work to provide W9 and W10 loading gauge as well, which allows the line to be used as an alter- native route for freight ahead of the ECML. That involves a combination of a consider- able amount of track work and a considerable amount of bridges work and culvert strength- ening, and so on.”
Bridge and track works
Track renewal works contracted to Balfour Beatty have already started, while bridge con- tracts have also been let. One of the contractors is May Gurney, which won a £6.5m contract to replace 12 rail under-bridges. Design work began in December 2011 and the work will be complete by the end of 2013, the company said.
Anderson explained: “We’ve been undertaking track renewals on the south end of the route – the Werrington/Peterborough area – doing about 750 yards a weekend, although this past weekend we’ve achieved about 950 yards. Our objective now is to try to get up to 1,000 yards
he current upgrade work on the GNGE route has its genesis in discussions that
One of the bridges being replaced by May Gurney, spanning the Chesterfield Canal.
per weekend, which we think is possible given the possession availability and also the technol- ogy on the route – it’s quite a simple route in terms of signalling and so on. We’ve got gener- ous possessions.”
Network Rail has possessions virtually every weekend until the end of March 2014, except when the route is used occasionally for diverted traffic.
Faster journey times
Freight operators obviously want as short a journey time as possible between Peterborough and Doncaster, and Network Rail has said that the average journey time from the 2009 and 2011 timetables will be maintained for them via the GNGE.
Anderson said: “The really good news is that in providing an alternative route via the GNGE, journey times become not just an average, but they become consistent and repeatable. We’re looking at just over the two-hour mark in either direction for Peterborough to Doncaster, which is obviously repeatable.”
East Midlands Trains and Northern run servic-
The upgrade works also mean the GNGE route will be a much more attractive option as a di- versionary route for ECML traffic where neces- sary, with about 45 minutes cut off the current Peterborough to Doncaster journey time, as- suming no stops.
There will also be resignalling work and auto- mation of most of the 141 level crossings on the route.
He said: “In terms of it becoming a diversion- ary route for the ECML during weekend work- ing and so on, it becomes far more viable.”
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com
rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 12 | 57
es currently, and Anderson says that although the line is being upgraded primarily for freight utilisation, “there’s no reason why passenger services couldn’t use the line in the short term”.
He added: “Those passenger services would benefit from the removal of the permanent speed restrictions and they would benefit from a high line speed profile as well.”
A good diversion
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92