northern electrification and Crewe-Chester

[edwin_m]

No doubt they could supply dual voltage at a price, but I think there would be other problems with running S-stock-alikes in mixed traffic including gauge and possibly crashworthiness.

 

[transmanche]

No doubt they could supply dual voltage at a price, but I think there would be other problems with running S-stock-alikes in mixed traffic including gauge and possibly crashworthiness.

S stock mixes with NR trains when working to Richmond and Amersham. And being that Movia is a customisable platform, I'm sure that Bombardier can supply something that meets mainline crashworthiness regs.

 

[edwin_m]

S stock mixes with NR trains when working to Richmond and Amersham.

Only under trainstop protection I think. Though ERTMS could arguably offer equivalent protection on Crewe-Chester.

Low top speed of S stock could be another problem.

 

[transmanche]

Low top speed of S stock could be another problem.

Limited to 100 km/h (62mph) at the moment I believe. I don't know what their design top speed is, but the limited speed is only 13mph slower than the design top speed of a Class 507/8. But then S Stock is a Movia product customised specifically for LU. Merseyrail would want a product built to their specifications.

 

[kieron]

I've been advocating that for some while. But Merseyrail do not appear to be enthusiastic. Perhaps it's too soon to be thinking of it. It's certainly not on their current wish list. And, Merseyrail is about to embark on a light refurb so replacement doesn't look as though it's any time soon. In my view the 507/508s are better than the 150s that are the current fare. The through journey would be very welcome.

While the 150s are a bit slow, they have the big advantage over 507s and 508s of having an onboard toilet. It doesn't matter for Merseyrail as their stations are generally close together (leaving aside the 15 minute gap between Hooton and Chester), so going at the station isn't an issue. I would expect complaints if trains like that went to Crewe.

Meanwhile, I'd prefer to see VT doing the shuttle, perhaps using those two spare Voyager end cars. They did it with five-car Voyagers for route training when the Pendo/Voyager change occurred some time ago. ATW's shuttle alternates with VT's EUS-Chester/Wrecsam/Caergybi.

My impression is that Virgin are only interested in London trains. That's why ATW run 2tph in the early morning and late at night when most of the Voyagers are tucked up in bed.

Whilst the C-C shuttle may look like a nice symetrical part of ATW's empire on the map, in practice it's an oddity and doesn't integrate too well with the rest of the franchise. Perhaps one reason why we see such a menagerie of stock doing the shuttle.

Why do you say that? My impression is that it is very well integrated into the franchise, connecting with the Llandudno-Manchester train in both directions at Chester, and the Cardiff-Manchester trains in Crewe (as well as the Virgin London-Manchester ones). It's not much good if you're going to Stoke, though.

What may play into the mix is the Halton Curve of course (or as it may be known soo the Mersey-Dee Link.

Merseytravel have agreed to fund the research into the project.
http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/15075-rail-link-reinstatement-progresses.html

I'm a bit confused by that article. Which stage have they agreed to fund? And which stage are they seeking contributions to pay for?

 

[pablo]

Chester-Crewe with emus would be less than 20 minutes. Long enough to burst?

Have you seen the pax running from the shuttle for the Llandudno train?
and, if I were going to Manchester from Chester, I wouldn't think of via Crewe.

I use VT/Arriva a lot and can't agree that it's well joined up. It would do VT no harm to provide a little extra.

 

[kieron]

Chester-Crewe with emus would be less than 20 minutes. Long enough to burst?

It's not the time that's the problem (although 20 minutes sounds a bit optimistic to me), but the fact that it will be worse that what people are used to.

Have you seen the pax running from the shuttle for the Llandudno train?

I can't say I've seen people actually running on platform 3, but I have seen people in a hurry. Usually because their inbound train was late getting in, because they see the train in the platform and panic, or because the train pulls in while they're going and it goes to the far end of the platform, causing everyone to hurry.

I realise things are a bit different if you have limited mobility, though.

and, if I were going to Manchester from Chester, I wouldn't think of via Crewe.

It's quicker than going via Northwich. And some people are going to Wilmslow or Stockport.

I use VT/Arriva a lot and can't agree that it's well joined up. It would do VT no harm to provide a little extra.

Sorry, I can't guess why you feel it isn't well joined up.

Crewe-Chester is Arriva's franchise commitment. I don't think VT have any desire to use any of their Voyagers for a shuttle.

 

[6Gman]

And since the 2car 150 is rarely full (unless it's Chester Races or Saturdays pre Christmas) why provide a 5car 125mph unit?

 

[merlodlliw]

Crewe-Chester is Arriva's franchise commitment. I don't think VT have any desire to use any of their Voyagers for a shuttle.

[/QUOTE]

I am sure they use a VT voyager on Sunday evening ,according to Nat Rail for a Chester/Crewe

 

[Welshman]

I am sure they use a VT voyager on Sunday evening ,according to Nat Rail for a Chester/Crewe[/QUOTE]

You're right.
The 1735 & 2035 on Saturdays and 1935 & 2037 on Sundays Virgin Voyagers terminate short at Crewe when they are running out of service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't say I've seen people actually running on platform 3, but I have seen people in a hurry. Usually because their inbound train was late getting in, because they see the train in the platform and panic, or because the train pulls in while they're going and it goes to the far end of the platform, causing everyone to hurry.

I realise things are a bit different if you have limited mobility, though.

The connection into the Llandudno service is neat - usually just from platform 1, up the adjacent platform to 3b, as you say.

It can be a bit fraught in the opposite direction though, when a train arriving from Llandudno at x49/50 is supposed to connect into the x55 shuttle to Crewe, as the Llandudno usually arrives in 7a, which means going back along platform 7 to the footbridge, over the bridge and back along platform 3 to platform 1.
That can be a bit taxing for someone with limited mobility or bearing heavy luggage!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Have you seen the pax running from the shuttle for the Llandudno train?
and, if I were going to Manchester from Chester, I wouldn't think of via Crewe.

Very useful if you've just missed the xx50 Llandudno from Piccadilly.
There are now also cheap Coast/Chester-Manchester fares on the VT connection via Crewe.

I use VT/Arriva a lot and can't agree that it's well joined up. It would do VT no harm to provide a little extra.

Especially if you have just decamped from a 7-late Scotland train at Warrington BQ, just in time to see the tail lights of the Llandudno vanishing into the distance.
60 minutes is too long to enjoy the delights of Bank Quay.

 

[pablo]

It's not the time that's the problem (although 20 minutes sounds a bit optimistic to me), but the fact that it will be worse that what people are used to.

I can't say I've seen people actually running on platform 3, but I have seen people in a hurry. Usually because their inbound train was late getting in, because they see the train in the platform and panic, or because the train pulls in while they're going and it goes to the far end of the platform, causing everyone to hurry.

I realise things are a bit different if you have limited mobility, though.

It's quicker than going via Northwich. And some people are going to Wilmslow or Stockport.

Sorry, I can't guess why you feel it isn't well joined up.

Crewe-Chester is Arriva's franchise commitment. I don't think VT have any desire to use any of their Voyagers for a shuttle.

1) 150s do it in 23 and 158s can manage 20 minutes so what would you expect from a dual-voltage emu successor to the 507/508s?

2) Especially when the staff urge the pax along to avoid delaying the outbound.

3) You didn't mention Wilmslow or Stockport in your original post. So why expand the argument?

4) So you can't guess and you can't think. No-one said VT had any desire until you mentioned it. I said I'd prefer to see VT do it. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do in order to land the main objective. The big four, pre-nationalisation, voluntarily provided uneconomic branch-line services as part of their overall service. Daft could copy.

If you want to be argumentative, try dicipline and precision in your arguments.

And another poster should go to Specsavers. I never suggested using 5-car Voyagers.

Cheers. P

 

[6Gman]

And another poster should go to Specsavers. I never suggested using 5-car Voyagers.

Cheers. P

No need to be sarky!

If VT took over the service what else do they have available?

 

[pablo]

No need to be sarky!

If VT took over the service what else do they have available?

Well, if you read my post, you'd see.
However, I've since discovered that they would need compressors fitted to operate the air brakes and a power supply to operate the compressors. Alternatively, a middle car, so not viable I suppose. So, the two driving ends continue to languish in store.

 

[kieron]

You're right.
The 1735 & 2035 on Saturdays and 1935 & 2037 on Sundays Virgin Voyagers terminate short at Crewe when they are running out of service.

Sorry; I knew that Virgin had an ECS run to Crewe late on weekdays, leaving Holyhead 2 hours after the last passenger service, but I didn't know it was different at the weekend. I notice that they also run the second Crewe-Holyhead train of the day on Sundays.

The connection into the Llandudno service is neat - usually just from platform 1, up the adjacent platform to 3b, as you say.

It can be a bit fraught in the opposite direction though, when a train arriving from Llandudno at x49/50 is supposed to connect into the x55 shuttle to Crewe, as the Llandudno usually arrives in 7a, which means going back along platform 7 to the footbridge, over the bridge and back along platform 3 to platform 1.
That can be a bit taxing for someone with limited mobility or bearing heavy luggage!

The trains I'm on usually use 4a, and I'm not sure if 7a's any different. Those trains usually stop alongside the eastern set of steps, so that someone in the back carriage doesn't have to walk very far at all to get to the steps. You do have a bit of a walk on platform 3, though.

(For anyone who is unfamiliar, this is a fairly accurate diagram of Chester station.)

1) 150s do it in 23 and 158s can manage 20 minutes so what would you expect from a dual-voltage emu successor to the 507/508s?

Based on your original post, I was comparing something which was a lot like a 507, but could go to Crewe. They appear to have similar acceleration to a 175, at least at low speed, but can't reach line speed. As there's a lot of 90mph running on the line, I'd add an extra couple of minutes for that. 175s are given 19 minutes by the WTT, hence my suggestion.

In the real world, a 507/508 replacement is likely to have a higher top speed (or, at least, be easy to modify to have one), and also to have toilets and passenger-operated doors. But I don't know when the Merseyrail trains will be replaced, and don't know if or when Chester-Crewe will be electrified, so I can't guess whether extra Liverpool-Crewe services would be an option.

2) Especially when the staff urge the pax along to avoid delaying the outbound.

That doesn't help. But, at least if staff are hurrying you along, you know that the staff know you want to catch that train and will probably hold it for you.

3) You didn't mention Wilmslow or Stockport in your original post. So why expand the argument?

Sorry for making myself clearer, but I didn't mention passengers at all in that post, except with regard to Stoke. People catch Cardiff-Manchester trains for all sorts of reasons.

I'm not exactly sure what the question of what I mentioned in my last post has to do with how useful people find the connections between the ATW service from Chester to Crewe and the one which goes to Manchester via Crewe.

4) So you can't guess and you can't think. No-one said VT had any desire until you mentioned it. I said I'd prefer to see VT do it. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do in order to land the main objective. The big four, pre-nationalisation, voluntarily provided uneconomic branch-line services as part of their overall service. Daft could copy.

Okay. So you would prefer Virgin to run this service. You appear to want them to use a Voyager to do this. I'm sure Virgin could find some way to accommodate this. Voyagers are much heavier than Sprinters, and use more fuel. All this adds up to a cost for your proposed change. What benefit do you see this change having to balance against this cost?

If you want to be argumentative, try dicipline and precision in your arguments.

I shall take your comments on board.

 

[Welshman]

The trains I'm on usually use 4a, and I'm not sure if 7a's any different. Those trains usually stop alongside the eastern set of steps, so that someone in the back carriage doesn't have to walk very far at all to get to the steps. You do have a bit of a walk on platform 3, though.

I'm not making a great issue out of it, but most of the daytime Llandudno-Manchesters I've used have used platform 7a at Chester [x49/50-x52] to avoid conflict at the east of the station with the Manchester - Llandudnos heading for platform 3b [x53-55].

I take your point that the rear coach of the train using platform 4a is near the bridge, but as services using 7a tend to pull up right to the eastern end of the platform [presumably to allow a Merseyrail service to pull in behind on 7b], and if you just happen to be unaware of the situation at Chester and are in the front carriage of the Manchester service, it is a longer walk, especially as you are in conflict with passengers heading to 7a to board the train.

Only a couple of minutes to get your bearings and do the extra walk, but with a 5-6 minute connection that's about a third of the time gone!!

 

[Boysteve]

The Crewe-Chester line bridges are very old (150 years), very numerous and very low.
Many of the bridges have historic value and should not be raised even if it were possible (which is probably is not).
The land is flat and the area rainy. If you lowered the track you would have to build new drainage and pumps or you would have flooding.

It's not impossible, but because the land is largely green fields and farming (and therefore relatively cheap) if would (perhaps) be cheaper to build a new right of way and avoid the costs associated with disruption and working around the same. It is certainly worth pricing it out. The end result would be a lot better (loading gauge and new durables structures).

Also you could either selling off the old right of way land for a healthy profit or have a second line for diversions or freight (not that there presently is any freight to speak of but we are thinking in terms of 100 year investment proof against climate change).

Yes, you don't have to do a new right of way, but it's a much better deal overall. Except for the cows that will lose some of their pasture.

The other alternative is third rail, that is still possible if the North Wales coast is never to have OHLE which seems quite likely.

So if the value of land is cheap to buy, then the same applies to selling it to. It is contradictory to buy a new alignment 'on the cheap' and then sell the land for 'healthy profit' like it's worth loads! As for keeping a secondary diversion route, do we really need two routes from Crewe to Chester? I vote no.

 

[Ships]

Talk is that Chester is going to be electrified.

 

[HSTEd]

If we were to have a new alignment the old one would obviously be junked and good riddance.
Its not an efficient route in the slightest.

 

[The Planner]

Lots of issues with Christleton tunnel apparently, not a dead cert yet for sure.

 

[6Gman]

Lots of issues with Christleton tunnel apparently, not a dead cert yet for sure.

In all this discussion about a "new route" between Crewe and Chester it struck me that the most difficult existing 'bits' are the ones which would be most difficult to by-pass, notably the Christleton tunnel.

 

[DJH1971]

Talk is that Chester is going to be electrified.

What's the latest you've heard and where did you hear?

 

[Holly]

In all this discussion about a "new route" between Crewe and Chester it struck me that the most difficult existing 'bits' are the ones which would be most difficult to by-pass, notably the Christleton tunnel.

One would just route North of Christleton village and avoid the canal altogether.

 

[The Planner]

Don't understand this new route stuff, it isn't as though it is going to happen!

 

[snowball]

One would just route North of Christleton village and avoid the canal altogether.

I don't think there's a route there without going through houses. You'd also need new bridges under or over two dual carriageways.

 

[driver_m]

Planner has hit the nail on the head. If something like the 2nd mainline to Brighton can't get reopened, then a new line to Chester is never ever going to happen. There must be a way of getting rid of a lot of the single track bridges and if Farnworth tunnel can be wired then Christleton should be able to be done too.

 

[pablo]

Talk is that Chester is going to be electrified.

Wind up?

 

[HSTEd]

Attempting to get rid of that many bridges without replacement is going to be a political and economic nightmare.
The amount that would cost would be titanic.

Unless you go for conductor rail throughout it will never be electrified.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Wind up?

If Chester is to be electrified it will most probably be the Warrington line and not Crewe.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If Chester is to be electrified it will most probably be the Warrington line and not Crewe.

Why? The link to Crewe is considerably more important, and would be the first step for the electrification of the North Wales Coast.