Going forward any changes will not be as dramatic now that the viaduct and the embankment are complete. It is all going to be about finishing the viaduct edging, the overheads, and eventually signalling and track. Today was quite misty and damp with quite a lot of water underfoot in the Bury Mead Springs conservation area. A lot of construction workers on site today probably to take advantage of the weather before the winter sets in. All the work seemed to be focussed on the viaduct edging which continues to extend towards the scrapyard. The large yellow crane has left the site as its work is now finished. A smaller crane was working today lifting material onto the top of the viaduct.
First shot shows the crane working on the last sections to be added. Edging work has already started and extends almost the whole length of the viaduct.
Looking back the other way at the completed viaduct.
And again from a bit further north.
Looking through the viaduct on the higher ground you can see it curving round to meet the main line.
Edging work nearly finished here. Just a small gap which was being worked on today.
Looking across the main line you can just make out the viaduct curving round to meet the embankment. The end wall is between the two piers. A work platform on the ground on the left recently removed from the viaduct edge.
Shot of an East Coast service heading south under the viaduct. Concrete edging is finished here. Still quite misty unfortunately.
Turning slightly left, the viaduct as it passes through the redundant sewage treatment works.
The quarry taken from the top of the Icknield Way footbridge. Restoration works will soon be under way I am guessing now that the embankment is complete.
Final shot shows ballast has been mounded up ready for the link to the viaduct. This is one of the widened overhead gantries next to the River Hiz bridge.
When I first read that a viaduct was to be constructed, I wondered where they could fit it in. I'd never even considered that they would use part of the former Bedford branch and go around the BACK of the industrial estate in the 'V' between the Cambridge and Peterborough routes. Thanks for documenting the construction for those of us who cannot visit the area regularly in person. I wonder what use will be made of the 'cut off' section of the down Cambridge line, once trains start using the new alignment ? My suggestion would be that the up line could have a set of facing points so that, in effect, there could be two up lines on the original embankment. The fast services from Cambridge to King's Cross could then access the up fast line directly (providing that suitable signalling arrangements are put in place). The stopping services would continue to use the same track as they do now, which has, of course, a platform face alongside it at Hitchin station!
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest makes perfect sense. I believe they are going to leave original down line in place so it can be used if the new line needs maintenance. It already connects with the up fast where it crosses the three lines so wouldn't be that difficult to do. I am sure it would be better used than being left to rust until the odd occasion when it is needed. It could used for both with the right signalling. Thanks for your interest in my blog.
DeleteNR documentation concerning Cambridge Junction, Hitchin contains the following interesting paragraph,
Delete'The flyover will not accommodate the heaviest freight trains (in excess of 2000 tonnes trailing load) and the flat junction will be left in for exceptional train movements which would be timetabled in quiet periods.'
Thanks for your reply. I'm sure you are right about leaving the original down line in place. Lifting it would be a tad foolish, because of the maintenance of the new line aspect (which hadn't occured to me, I must admit). Retaining the original line might allow a little operational flexibility. If, for example, engineering works required possession of the down fast line south of Hitchin, a down stopping service could call at Hitchin, use the old crossover and then be held at a signal, allowing a fast Cambridge service (or diverted East Coast service) to 'overtake' by using the new line as a passing loop.
ReplyDeleteYour blog is interesting to me because I was born around the time the Beeching closures were killing off lines in my local area (WGC/Hatfield, so it's nice to see some money being invested in improving railways. Of course, the new alignment would make it problematic to re-instate the old Bedford-Hitchin line, but I guess that was not likely to happen anyway. I wonder if anyone at Network Rail has ever seriously considered the wider benefits of restoring the connection ? Not only would places that used to have a train service become rail-connected again, but the holder of the franchise currently held by First Capital Connect would have a ready-made diversionary route to St Pancras, once track and overhead line equipment have been laid in the Canal Tunnels (near King's Cross) in Key Output Stage 2 of the Thameslink Programme !!
I was born a bit before Beeching but was too young to be aware of it at the time. Do remember the Bedford line being there. Saw a couple of trains on it passing through Ickleford. Probably engineers trains or an odd freight around 1963. Was all fairly intact up to the other side of the Icknield Way until the work started. Through Ickleford and out towards Henlow it is as if it never existed. The embankments have been removed and the cuttings filled in. Would be virtually impossible to reinstate it now on the original alignment. However if the East West route is to succeed, it needs Bedford-Hitchin or Bedford-Sandy to work. Both would require a reversal at Hitchin unless the Bedford-Hitchin option could join the new line in some way. Would probably need another bridge and a junction the other side of the main line as the curve would be all wrong. But that would only work in the Cambridge direction unless some sort bi-directional working could be arranged but I would say that was unlikely. That wouldn't allow the possibility of any diversionary workings that you envisaged. I can see why Beeching had to do what he did but what a shame some of these routes weren't protected in case we needed them in the future.
ReplyDelete