northern electrification and Crewe-Chester

[NotATrainspott]

It is reported that all classes of EMU running in Scotland can run to Paisley Canal but if a diesel train needs to serve the freight terminal on the line (which is currently out of use anyway) the power has to be turned off. The exact nature of what is possible on another route would depend on the exact clearances that exist at the bridges.

It also has extended neutral sections. These aren't a problem on the Paisley Canal because it is an entirely self-contained line without any real interaction with other services, so if something got stuck then it's not going to bring down the entire Glaswegian rail network. If they ever re-open back to Elderslie then they will have to re-do the electrification properly, but this wasn't a big issue because the entire scheme was really only done to free up a few DMUs for the Kessock Bridge (Inverness) resurfacing work extra services. If there are any short runs in Northernland which could allow a Pacer or 153 to be disposed of then they'll likely be done in the same way.

 

[edwin_m]

It also has extended neutral sections. These aren't a problem on the Paisley Canal because it is an entirely self-contained line without any real interaction with other services, so if something got stuck then it's not going to bring down the entire Glaswegian rail network. If they ever re-open back to Elderslie then they will have to re-do the electrification properly, but this wasn't a big issue because the entire scheme was really only done to free up a few DMUs for the Kessock Bridge (Inverness) resurfacing work extra services. If there are any short runs in Northernland which could allow a Pacer or 153 to be disposed of then they'll likely be done in the same way.

Indeed - I think we'd be storing up trouble if major main lines were electrified in that sort of way. It would be less of a problem if all the electric trains were full-length Pendolinos or similar, as if these are stranded in a long neutral section the other pan will probably be under a live section of line. Maybe something like the battery-fitted EMU being trialled in East Anglia will be of use here too?

Incidentally I think building a new alignment is totally unrealistic. However much needs doing to all the bridges it would be cheaper than building a totally new line alongside.

 

[kieron]

It also has extended neutral sections. These aren't a problem on the Paisley Canal because it is an entirely self-contained line without any real interaction with other services, so if something got stuck then it's not going to bring down the entire Glaswegian rail network.

It has a neutral section for one bridge according to The Rail Engineer. Everywhere else, they managed by lowering the line (and even one station) or raising bridges.

The article specifically refers to diesel freight when it talks about de-energising the wires, so I don't know whether or not a 156 could still run there without cutting the power to the line.

To me, the central questions are which bridges are too low, and which would be hardest to raise (whether due to the disruption caused or to the likely opposition).

Lower-than-normal wires, batteries and bridges the driver has to drop the pantographs to clear are all ways of addressing a situation when both raising the bridge and lowering the railway are undesirable, but it's hard to guess what Network Rail would consider in an attempt to electrify this section without knowing how big the challenge really is.

And it would be hard to evaluate any alignment Holly might suggest without knowing what it needs to do. I do know that it would be opposed, though, wherever it is.

 

[merlodlliw]

Let's be grateful he isn't Transport Secretary then!

You have lost me on that comment.

here's an "aspiration".
Some of it is "me too" politics seeing as the South Wales main line and Valleys are being wired.
Another argument is that it is a strategic international TEN route and they will get Euro-money for it.
To others, "North Wales Electrification" means the piddling local line from Wrexham to Bidston, for ever on somebody's short list for throwing good money away.
It will all get reviewed in the next year or so, but whether that makes any progress at Cardiff or with Network Rail's priorities is another matter.
It is likely to get tangled up in the next round of rail devolution and W&B franchise specification.
If W&B stick with diesels that's the end of it.
Planning to do Warrington/Crewe-Chester is a necessary precursor, and may be the catalyst to go along the coast.

Indeed an aspiration, but no harm in the Sec Of State wanting the North to get its share. The current WG task force is under a weak Chairman in my opinion,who has never said a word against her fellow Ministers cost saving in her patch on the redouble fiasco & seems more interested in the Bidston line.

Yes the "locals" in north Wales will want it but the hourly Cardiff to Holyhead HST service will scupper it as wiring a route with so many diesels running under the wires will knacker the business case.

Fully agree. We already have enough North/South trains.

 

[tbtc]

As discussed on a previous thread, it'd be cheaper to install a chord at Hartford and electrify the fifteen(ish) miles from there to Chester (if you are worried about low bridges on the direct line from Crewe to Chester).

That way you also give Hartford direct services to Chester (and more to Crewe).

 

[DJH1971]

As discussed on a previous thread, it'd be cheaper to install a chord at Hartford and electrify the fifteen(ish) miles from there to Chester (if you are worried about low bridges on the direct line from Crewe to Chester).

That way you also give Hartford direct services to Chester (and more to Crewe).

Quite a good suggestion!

 

[Gareth Marston]

When looking at electrification in this area would it be better to also look at the whole issue of transport provision in this area.

What about installing a curve around Shotton to bring Wirral services round into Chester?

The main thing is to look at what the demands are going to be and adapt the rail network to take that into account

What's now the Wrexham to Bidston line was a very busy route because it linked into Chester via Dee Marsh Jbc to Mickle Trafford Jnc. Closing Chester Northgate on the assumption that it was duplicate was one of the stupidest errors in the reshaping report. The report had three categories of usage for number of passengers per week and for revenue ie ticket sales at stations. Northgate and the lines to the Wirral/Wales were in the highest category. The village of Blacon is now a suburb of Chester with population of around 20000 and the massive Deeside Industrial Estate is built alongside it. The route is now a footpath as it stayed open to freight until the early 90's.

 

[northwichcat]

As discussed on a previous thread, it'd be cheaper to install a chord at Hartford and electrify the fifteen(ish) miles from there to Chester (if you are worried about low bridges on the direct line from Crewe to Chester).

That way you also give Hartford direct services to Chester (and more to Crewe).

There's been a few different suggestions regarding an alternative Chester-Crewe route. However, it's important to remember that the WCML through Winsford and Hartford is very busy and only double track not quadruple and that the line around the Mouldsworth area is currently single track with a 50mph limit.

What I think should be done in conjunction with that is to double track the Middlewich branch, increase the line speed over the Leftwich viaduct and to provide an electric route from Sandbach-Northwich-Weaver Junction which could be used for freight and the proposed slow Preston-Birmingham service, as well as a diversionary route for fast trains, to allow more fast services to run via Winsford.

The land immediately west of the WCML at Winsford is very fragile due to salt mining in the area and some artificial 'Flashes' have been created due to land subsiding next to the River Weaver.

 

[TDK]

If a route is to be electrified do you not think it should be in it's entirety? Say for instance there is a Holyhead London service then it should be direct and the complete route electrified. So if that is a valid statement why would it benefit anyone just electrifying the North Wales Coast when it would not be electrified all the way to Cardiff or Birmingham International where ATW run their services? Currently the only part with a problem from Holyhead to London apparently would be Chester to Crewe if the coast was electrified but what of the services running to Cardiff etc. would these still be diesel traction??

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The land immediately west of the WCML at Winsford is very fragile due to salt mining in the area and some artificial 'Flashes' have been created due to land subsiding next to the River Weaver.

I am pleased to see that you have drawn attention to this matter, as there will be forum members who will be unaware of the ground level and underlying conditions that so prevail in that part of the Cheshire region.

 

[tbtc]

There's been a few different suggestions regarding an alternative Chester-Crewe route. However, it's important to remember that the WCML through Winsford and Hartford is very busy and only double track not quadruple and that the line around the Mouldsworth area is currently single track with a 50mph limit

How many trains an hour are we talking?

London - Glasgow (hourly)
London - Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh (hourly)
London - Liverpool (hourly)
Birmingham - Liverpool (half hourly)

Is there much freight? Otherwise we'd be talking about increasing from five passenger trains an hour to six passenger trains an hour which a two track line ought to be able to cope with?

Plus giving Hartford some direct London services - it ought to be a fairly large catchment area for such a service.

 

[northwichcat]

London - Glasgow (hourly)
London - Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh (hourly)
London - Liverpool (hourly)
Birmingham - Liverpool (half hourly)

Is there much freight? Otherwise we'd be talking about increasing from five passenger trains an hour to six passenger trains an hour which a two track line ought to be able to cope with?

Don't forget Virgin run additional services at peak times. If you take the an evening peak hour you've got:

London-Glasgow 2 trains
London-Preston 1 train
London-Birmingham-Edinburgh 1 train
London-Liverpool 2 trains
Birmingham-Liverpool 2 trains

There's also not much flexibility in the timetable e.g. the 17:36 Birmingham-Liverpool service cannot call at Winsford (as it calls at Acton Bridge instead), the Runcorn arrival time of that service is 18:56 with a 18:57 departure, the following Virgin service arrives at Runcorn at 19:00 and also departs at 19:00. If the LM service called at Winsford then it would be an 18:58 arrival at Runcorn and a 18:59 departure, which is too tight when they have to use the same platform at Runcorn.

Real Train Times shows a total of 20 workings an hour through Hartford Junction in the middle of the day, including all passenger, freight and ECS. The freight relates to the power plant at Fiddler's Ferry, the former I.C.I works in the area, Jaguar Landrover at Halewood, imports being transported up from Southampton and some Royal Mail workings to/from the regional distribution centre at Crewe.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If a route is to be electrified do you not think it should be in it's entirety? Say for instance there is a Holyhead London service then it should be direct and the complete route electrified. So if that is a valid statement why would it benefit anyone just electrifying the North Wales Coast when it would not be electrified all the way to Cardiff or Birmingham International where ATW run their services? Currently the only part with a problem from Holyhead to London apparently would be Chester to Crewe if the coast was electrified but what of the services running to Cardiff etc. would these still be diesel traction??

The Chester to Shrewsbury to Oxley and Marches being wired the same time as the north Wales coast seems unlikely. However there's logic in doing Crewe to Chester and Chester to Warrington the same time as north Wales coast as you then have entire services that can be run with electrics. Euston to Chester/ N Wales and Manchester to Chester/ N Wales. Cardiff trains will stay diesel and will be reduced in number.

 

[tbtc]

The Chester to Shrewsbury to Oxley and Marches being wired the same time as the north Wales coast seems unlikely. However there's logic in doing Crewe to Chester and Chester to Warrington the same time as north Wales coast as you then have entire services that can be run with electrics. Euston to Chester/ N Wales and Manchester to Chester/ N Wales. Cardiff trains will stay diesel and will be reduced in number.

Chopping the Cardiff/ Birmingham services at Chester for most of the day would also free up a number of 158s for where they are needed on the Cambrian.

 

[snowball]

If a route is to be electrified do you not think it should be in it's entirety? Say for instance there is a Holyhead London service then it should be direct and the complete route electrified. So if that is a valid statement why would it benefit anyone just electrifying the North Wales Coast when it would not be electrified all the way to Cardiff or Birmingham International where ATW run their services? Currently the only part with a problem from Holyhead to London apparently would be Chester to Crewe if the coast was electrified but what of the services running to Cardiff etc. would these still be diesel traction??

It seems to me that you could apply that logic to almost every stretch of line in the country and be forced to the conclusion that the only solution is to electrify the whole country overnight. Which of course is impossible.

Although the government has avoided using the phrase "rolling programme of electrification", and will probably continue to do so, it seems clear to me that we are in effect getting one, and that with the possible exception of places like Kyle of Lochalsh and Blaenau Ffestiniog, the whole country will probably be done over the next four or five Control Periods.

Inevitably, anyone interested in a particular part of Britain will be frustrated by the delays before some of their favourite lines get done, and will be able to comment that it would have been more efficient to do all their favourite lines at once. But they might be neglecting the adverse effects of the resulting delay to other lines elsewhere.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I shouldn't think NR or anybody else is thinking of rerouting the Crewe-Chester or North Wales main lines.
Options at Hartford are fanciful - a junction for Chester would would be very expensive and disruptive (on a 2-track section of WCML) and the line west of there would need a major upgrade.

Curves at Shotton are equally daft.
The market is oriented strongly via Chester, and the basic WMCQ route southwards is just not built as a main line.

 

[6Gman]

You have lost me on that comment.

I was expressing a view that investment decisions should be evidence-based, not based on where the relevant ministers happen to represent.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could any updated re-use be made of the stretch of railway line that once served the now-closed CLC railway stations of Barrow for Tarvin and Mickle Trafford East ?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Wasn't a very clever solution to low bridges come up with on the Paisley Canal line?

They lowered the track in a few places and Hawkhead station is now about a foot lower down than it used to be as a result. The two lines in question are very different though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wasn't a very clever solution to low bridges come up with on the Paisley Canal line? IIRC it came in well under budget? Or is it very slow speed only there? What's the current prevailing speed like between Crewe and Chester?

This NR document http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...lutions/network rus alternative solutions.pdf
looked at Crewe-Chester as a test case for the technology, and concluded it was not practicable.

Look at section 4.3 and Case Study D1.1 (Paisley Canal) and D1.2 (Crewe-Chester).
Also this was not a business case study, just a technical exercise about emerging technology.
It isn't a "yes" or "no" about any particular plan.

Note that one of the implications would be to use non-standard rolling stock on the route.
That means most WCML and ATW stock would have to be upgraded with the technology.
This is not an isolated branch line.

 

[Holly]

... And it would be hard to evaluate any alignment Holly might suggest without knowing what it needs to do. I do know that it would be opposed, though, wherever it is.

Allow 140mph electric trains from Birmingham and London to reach Chester. Allow continental loading gauge trains to reach Chester (this means HS2 captive stock gauges but not necessarily HS speeds on the section). Allow long distance dual voltage trains to reach Hooton (Chester Parkway). And allow the old right of way to be preserved, downgraded or retired and sold off.

The land exists rights there, it is not expensive as land goes, and the topography is close to ideal. Unlike proposed upgrading of the crossings of the River Weaver (either WCML quad-track or Northwich viaduct speed). The low bridge and potential flooding nasties of the old alignment are just the straws that break the camel's back.

Yes, you can electrify the existing line, with some clever and expensive technology instead. And for your big money you buy a vastly inferior end product as compared with a new right of way.

Electrifying the Middlewich branch has many advantages, that are unrelated to Chester and Wirral.

 

[edwin_m]

Allow 140mph electric trains from Birmingham and London to reach Chester. Allow continental loading gauge trains to reach Chester (this means HS2 captive stock gauges but not necessarily HS speeds on the section). Allow long distance dual voltage trains to reach Hooton (Chester Parkway). And allow the old right of way to be preserved, downgraded or retired and sold off.

The land exists rights there, it is not expensive as land goes, and the topography is close to ideal. Unlike proposed upgrading of the crossings of the River Weaver (either WCML quad-track or Northwich viaduct speed). The low bridge and potential flooding nasties of the old alignment are just the straws that break the camel's back.

Electrifying the Middlewich branch has many advantages, that are unrelated to Chester and Wirral.

There is some merit in electrifying to Chester even if this is the furthest it goes, since most of the London trains terminate there so a lot of running under the wires would be eliminated. London-Holyhead trains would need a bi-mode or locomotive haulage though. I agree with the various people who say that the Welsh Government will need to sort out its priorities before electrification can progress further west.

However in my opinion this doesn't justify a new line. The new line would need as many new bridges as the old line would need upgraded bridges, so the bridge costs would be greater with the new line. With modern clearances and other standards the strip of land for the new line would be much wider than the old one so of much greater area, and the existing land would require a lot of remediation before its value per square metre would approach that of the agricultural land that would need to be purchased. On top of that there is the cost of building new track, drainage and cable routes when the existing ones could mostly be re-used if electrifying the existing line. It would also required legal powers and a public enquiry, at which point no doubt the NIMBYs would start crawling out of the woodwork.

About the only cost saving with a new line would be the ability to build it away from the operational railway. But Crewe-Chester isn't particularly busy, it has no intermediate stations and diversionary routes are available. So it is an ideal route to deal with by a blockade approach which is much cheaper than doing the work during many short possessions.

Even with a brand new line, UIC gauge stock wouldn't be able to access Chester. HS2 as currently planned dives under Crewe in a tunnel and only classic compatible stock would be able to run over the connection into the existing station. Running HS2 captive stock to Chester would need either a new junction at Crewe (possibly underground, with Chester trains unable to call there) or the rebuilding of part of Crewe station to UIC clearances (which would render the platforms involved unusable by normal stock).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Allow 140mph electric trains from Birmingham and London to reach Chester. Allow continental loading gauge trains to reach Chester (this means HS2 captive stock gauges but not necessarily HS speeds on the section). Allow long distance dual voltage trains to reach Hooton (Chester Parkway). And allow the old right of way to be preserved, downgraded or retired and sold off.

The land exists rights there, it is not expensive as land goes, and the topography is close to ideal. Unlike proposed upgrading of the crossings of the River Weaver (either WCML quad-track or Northwich viaduct speed). The low bridge and potential flooding nasties of the old alignment are just the straws that break the camel's back.

Yes, you can electrify the existing line, with some clever and expensive technology instead. And for your big money you buy a vastly inferior end product as compared with a new right of way.

Yes but who in their right minds is proposing to spend megabucks on this?
If Liverpool can't justify a new alignment from the WCML/HS2, Chester surely can't.
If there was a whole new western rail crossing of the Mersey to serve Liverpool then a Chester branch from it might make sense.

 

[Holly]

Yes but who in their right minds is proposing to spend megabucks on this?
If Liverpool can't justify a new alignment from the WCML/HS2, Chester surely can't.
If there was a whole new western rail crossing of the Mersey to serve Liverpool then a Chester branch from it might make sense.

1. Chester would be an awful lot cheaper than Liverpool (empty rural land versus built-on urban land) and is offset by the electrification cost. (Liverpool is already electrified).
2. Far fewer bridges would need to be built as compared with the number that would need to be upgraded for electrification (because many of the old ones do not carry public roads).
3. The are lots of spin-off benefits, including for Wales (admittedly they might not do much to lower the cost).

Running continental gauge stock above ground non-stop through Crewe station would not be costly to build.

 

[edwin_m]

Running continental gauge stock above ground non-stop through Crewe station would not be costly to build.

This would probably have to go round the back of the station where speeds would be very low because of curvature. Using the through lines would most likely involve removing the historic trainshed, since its supports come down very close to the tracks. And I think there would be a need to stop Chester trains at Crewe anyway because of connections to other places.

 

[HSTEd]

The only practical alternative for Crewe-Chester electrification to building a new line would be to close the line for six months or more so that the bridges can be replaced without having to take precauations like those taken for working on railway lines.

Temporary road surfaces across the trackbeds and such things.
But I doubt a six month closure would go down well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This would probably have to go round the back of the station where speeds would be very low because of curvature. Using the through lines would most likely involve removing the historic trainshed, since its supports come down very close to the tracks. And I think there would be a need to stop Chester trains at Crewe anyway because of connections to other places.

What about the shunting yard? that appears to be north of the main station.
There appears to be room for a pair of 400m platform faces there.

 

[edwin_m]

The only practical alternative for Crewe-Chester electrification to building a new line would be to close the line for six months or more so that the bridges can be replaced without having to take precauations like those taken for working on railway lines.

I don't see why. Unless there are major complications an overbridge can be replaced in a weekend possession of the railway - see various articles in The Rail Engineer for example. And no engineering trains are involved so it is possible to do several bridges during the same closure.

What about the shunting yard? that appears to be north of the main station.
There appears to be room for a pair of 400m platform faces there.

Not sure where you mean, but to get through the station to somewhere further north would involve either going round the back west of platform 12 on a tight curve, or through the middle on the fast lines which are close to the train shed supports as I mentioned. And if the new platforms aren't next to the existing station then interchange becomes more difficult.

 

[6Gman]

Isn't a new railway rather excessive to serve a city which half-fills a 5car Voyager once an hour?

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't a new railway rather excessive to serve a city which half-fills a 5car Voyager once an hour?

On the same basis you could say the London-Manchester via Crewe services should turnaround at Stockport given that the Manchester passengers can't fill 2 Pendolinos an hour for most of the day and a lot of infrastructure expense is going in to capacity improvements between Slade Lane Junction and Castlefield Junction.

However, maybe if Crewe-Chester electrification proves too difficult and the Voyagers are needed elsewhere then concentrate on reinstating the Halton Curve and providing a frequent Liverpool-Runcorn-Chester service and enhancing the Liverpool-Runcorn-London service at the expense of Chester.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't see why. Unless there are major complications an overbridge can be replaced in a weekend possession of the railway - see various articles in The Rail Engineer for example. And no engineering trains are involved so it is possible to do several bridges during the same closure.

Yes, it is possible to do this at a rate of several bridges during a closure.
But as I am sure you are aware doing that is insanely expensive.
With as many bridges to replace as Crewe-Chester, it may prove cheaper to simply close the line for the duration.

Not sure where you mean, but to get through the station to somewhere further north would involve either going round the back west of platform 12 on a tight curve, or through the middle on the fast lines which are close to the train shed supports as I mentioned. And if the new platforms aren't next to the existing station then interchange becomes more difficult.

Oh yeah, sorry, I was confused and thought you were talking about the arrangements at the Chester end.

Crewe is a little more difficult but I think you can fit a pair of 400m platform faces west of the existing platforms and smooth out the curve by taking away a little bit of what appears to be an adjacent car park.
A slalom isn't necessarily a major problem since Chester trains would still call at Crewe in all likelyhood.