Continental Track Layouts

[Pyewipe Junction]

I watch a lot of cabride videos on YouTube, my favourites being those from Switzerland. You can learn a lot about a country just by observing the trackside scenery. And of course the Swiss rail network is immaculately maintained - hardly a weed to be seen!

One thing I have noticed, however, (and this applies to other countries in Europe), is that track layouts on the Continent seem to be much more complex than those in the UK. The approaches to Zurich, for example, look like a signaller's nightmare, with all possibilities apparently covered by way of slips and diamond crossings that extend from one side of the track to the other. Elsewhere there are crossovers galore, although to be fair most Swiss double-track main lines are bi-directional.

In the UK, on the other hand, the policy seems to be to simplify track layouts as far as possible to meet current traffic requirements, even if this means costly reversals later on - for example Dore and Totley and Oxford to Worcester. And what about the 'two into one' junctions where double lines are singled before a major junction, creating difficulties where two trains want to use the junction at the same time.

I don't mean to excite the 'keepers of the faith' who will defend UK practice as best practice, but I would like to know if there is reason for this divergence of approach.

[Hatfield Shed]

Simplistically, this stems from national government policies and a much larger and more complex network, to support 'anywhere to anywhere' rail services for passenger and freight within Western Europe.

On our little island, the long range services are inevitably dominated by sea and air, and the relative importance of rail is diminished. If flying can genuinely go green, I would see that as further reducing longer distance passenger rail traffic within the UK. Much as I have always liked using the ECML and WCML for London -Scotland, when it came to business, the only way was to fly...

[Mickey]

I read not to long ago about an accident that possibly occurred on the former London Midland Region possibly in the very early 1970s and was attributed if not wholly but in part to the simplification of the then existing 'old fashioned' type junction designed layout (with flank protection) where the old junction was replaced by at the time the new type of 'ladder design junction' that is in common use of Britain's railways today.

At the time of the GN suburban area 'track rationalisation' in preparation for the GN re-signalling and electrification of the middle 1970s I recall being actually dismayed by seeing many familiar old P.Way points & crossings along with a number of other little used P.Way connections being either abolished completely or being heavily rationalised between about 1968-1975.

[Pyewipe Junction]

On our little island, the long range services are inevitably dominated by sea and air, and the relative importance of rail is diminished. If flying can genuinely go green, I would see that as further reducing longer distance passenger rail traffic within the UK. Much as I have always liked using the ECML and WCML for London -Scotland, when it came to business, the only way was to fly...

I haven't been back to the UK for a number of years, so I found this statement to be quite surprising.

Are you really saying that the ordinary person (not talking about business travel here - for a number of reasons it's a separate market) would really prefer to fly from London to Edinburgh rather than catch a train that takes only just over four hours? And what sea services compete with rail?

[StevieG]

"I read not to long ago about an accident that possibly occurred on the former London Midland Region possibly in the very early 1970s and was attributed if not wholly but in part to the simplification of the then existing 'old fashioned' type junction designed layout (with flank protection) where the old junction was replaced by at the time the new type of 'ladder design junction' that is in common use of Britain's railways today. .... "

I can't think of the accident you refer to Mickey, but I was reminded of the 1989 head-on collision at Bellgrove, Glasgow, involving two fatalities and over 50 injured, where the principal cause was a 'Ding ding and away' SPAD (Guard gave an Electric Multiple Unit's Driver the 'Right away' from a station stop bell signal and the train departed, the crew overlooking that the platform signal which protected the junction was displaying a red aspect).
But the two trains involved would not have met had the junction been of the traditional 'double junction' type, but Bellgrove had been simplified into a four simple point ends 'Single Lead Junction', so the positions of the points for the second involved, legitimately approaching, train guided the offending train onto the wrong line and into head-on collision, there then usually being no apparatus to stop a train passing a signal at Danger. without authority.

On our little island, the long range services are inevitably dominated by sea and air, and the relative importance of rail is diminished. If flying can genuinely go green, I would see that as further reducing longer distance passenger rail traffic within the UK. Much as I have always liked using the ECML and WCML for London -Scotland, when it came to business, the only way was to fly...

"I haven't been back to the UK for a number of years, so I found this statement to be quite surprising.

Are you really saying that the ordinary person (not talking about business travel here - for a number of reasons it's a separate market) would really prefer to fly from London to Edinburgh rather than catch a train that takes only just over four hours? And what sea services compete with rail?"

Pyewipe Junction, I've no idea about sea services I'm afraid, but regarding flying I'd suggest that, although there might be a time advantage over going by long distance train within the UK - though small, or possibly none at all** - there is often a significant cost advantage.

** - (taking airport check-in, security, local train/taxi/buses into consideration.)

" .... One thing I have noticed, however, (and this applies to other countries in Europe), is that track layouts on the Continent seem to be much more complex than those in the UK. The approaches to Zurich, for example, look like a signaller's nightmare, with all possibilities apparently covered by way of slips and diamond crossings that extend from one side of the track to the other. Elsewhere there are crossovers galore, although to be fair most Swiss double-track main lines are bi-directional.

In the UK, on the other hand, the policy seems to be to simplify track layouts as far as possible to meet current traffic requirements, even if this means costly reversals later on - for example Dore and Totley and Oxford to Worcester. And what about the 'two into one' junctions where double lines are singled before a major junction, creating difficulties where two trains want to use the junction at the same time.

I don't mean to excite the 'keepers of the faith' who will defend UK practice as best practice, but I would like to know if there is reason for this divergence of approach."

As regards simplified versus complex track layouts, although comparable British layouts to that which you describe at Zurich [also, some 25-ish years ago, Bruxelles (Sud?) springs to mind as being similar], over the decades from (perhaps) about the 1960s, the UK railways seem to have steadily progressed from being happy to form up layouts with good operating flexibility, using bespoke track components, towards more and more simplification and standardisation of parts, with manufacture, installation, maintenance and subsequent replacement costs being increasingly taken into account; perhaps much moreso in the UK than in Europe, and maybe that policy being given greater priority as compared to operational flexibility, including for contingencies against unexpected situations.

As one example (though not Zurich/Bruxelles-like), I, like Mickey no doubt, have been familiar with Kings Cross through three versions of its approach lines' layouts.
Prior to 1977, the layout, which had changed little for at least 70 years, had been geared to all trains being loco-hauled, and involved tandem turnouts, diamond crossings, several sets of slips (of both inside and outside type) & some switch diamonds, and was mostly bespoke to the specifics of the positions of the 17 or 16 platforms, loco yard and loading docks, all limited by the generally restricted area of the station yard as a whole for the approx.150 yards between the platforms and the 3-bored Gasworks Tunnel.
The layout therefore allowed much flexibility for simultaneous train and very localised loco and vehicle shunting movements.
But with the six (uni-directional) running lines serving the terminus being 'Paired by use', a disadvantage of this and the layout was that a train arrival to a west side platform of the station prevented all departures from platforms further east: Similarly a departure from an eastern side platform conflicted with all potential arrivals to those west of it.

In 1977, the approach lines through the tunnel were reduced to four, but made bi-directional for the nearest 1/2 - 3/4 of a mile. The majority of trains had become of fixed formations (no locomotives involved) with wider use of same imminent, the number of platforms reduced to 10, and the two halves of the new platforms-to-tunnel layout were close to being mirror images of each other, so rather more standardised than previously, but still involved about five inside double-slips with switch diamonds, a sixth without, and 3 or 4 tandem turnouts.

From 2021, with changed numbers and patterns of train services, it was 'all change' again, with approach lines through the tunnel restored to six (all bi-directional), all points (fewer in number) at the immediate station approach are simple turnouts/crossovers, with more points beyond the tunnel, and the only diamond crossing of any sort being that of the necessarily conventional 'double junction' out at Belle Isle where Thameslink's Canal Tunnels' lines leave/join the Slow lines.

[Mickey]

Something was mentioned on BBC radio last week in relation to either the HS2 route between London and Birmingham or the WCML although I didn't quite hear which route was being talked about although both routes were mentioned in the same radio piece but either way the aim was trying to 'iron out' the heavy track usage of the line and it was said that both the UP & DOWN lines would be signalled for bi-directional working in either direction (possibly throughout?) so 'in theory' I presume a DOWN train leaving London and heading northwards could be routed along what would be usually regarded as the UP line all the way northwards?.

With regards to an accident occurring due to the 'simplification' of the junction layout from a conventional junction to a 'ladder junction' I can't remember where the location was although I only read about this accident within the last 8 or 9 months maybe on the Railway Archive website?.

Possibly back in the early/mid 1970s I vaguely recall being told by a railway bloke that British Rail back then wanted the express trains of the future to be designed similar to a jet airliner (without the wings) like the APT & HST-125 and the London terminal stations such as Euston to resemble an airport style of building with with arrival and departure boards above the main concourse area and to feel like Heathrow airport?.

[thesignalman]

Something was mentioned on BBC radio last week in relation to either the HS2 route between London and Birmingham or the WCML although I didn't quite hear which route was being talked about although both routes were mentioned in the same radio piece but either way the aim was trying to 'iron out' the heavy track usage of the line and it was said that both the UP & DOWN lines would be signalled for bi-directional working in either direction (possibly throughout?) so 'in theory' I presume a DOWN train leaving London and heading northwards could be routed along what would be usually regarded as the UP line all the way northwards?.

For engineering work, perhaps?

J

[Hatfield Shed]

,,,Are you really saying that the ordinary person (not talking about business travel here - for a number of reasons it's a separate market) would really prefer to fly from London to Edinburgh rather than catch a train that takes only just over four hours?

Following two dismal strike infested rail trips, I will fly in future. (I am a retired and extremely ordinary person.) No lessons learned from the UK's previous strike infested industries, that have uniformly gone to the wall.

And what sea services compete with rail?

All the south and East coast ferries vs Chunnel.

[Mickey]

Something was mentioned on BBC radio last week in relation to either the HS2 route between London and Birmingham or the WCML although I didn't quite hear which route was being talked about although both routes were mentioned in the same radio piece but either way the aim was trying to 'iron out' the heavy track usage of the line and it was said that both the UP & DOWN lines would be signalled for bi-directional working in either direction (possibly throughout?) so 'in theory' I presume a DOWN train leaving London and heading northwards could be routed along what would be usually regarded as the UP line all the way northwards?.

For engineering work, perhaps?

Yeah you are probably right John in regards to any trains being signalled on or through the 'bi-directional' sections during a time of an engineering possession (blockage) of the opposite running line.

[thesignalman]

Following two dismal strike infested rail trips, I will fly in future. (I am a retired and extremely ordinary person.) No lessons learned from the UK's previous strike infested industries, that have uniformly gone to the wall.

Personally I avoid air travel whenever possible - the stress of airport procedures is way too much for me. I have to admit that despite the free rail travel I benefit from as a retired railwayman, I don't enjoy rail journeys either. Sad to say, I find the un-green idea of motoring the most pleasurable and relaxing way to go.

I guess I am not at all "extremely normal"!

John