Kidsgrove to crewe line

[Hppmaar]

Why have thay not doubled line from radway green to crewe.
Would give direct train liverpool to stoke, not faster by 30 mins by car.
Would give space

 

[30907]

Why have thay not doubled line from radway green to crewe.
Would give direct train liverpool to stoke, not faster by 30 mins by car.
Would give space

Welcome!
They singled it for economy when Crewe was rebuilt IIRC. As there are only 2 trains per hour each way it's not really a constraint on capacity.

 

[CheshireCrusty]

The real problem the single section causes is when the WCML is diverted via Stoke. Has happened to me quite a number of times. The capacity to cope with two way diversions on top of the 2tph each way creates backlogs stretching south of Nuneaton and north to Liverpool and Wigan.
I would like to see the costings for redoubling from Radway Green to Crewe (would still have problems at the throat at Crewe and Stoke/Stone - but surely would make a significant improvement).
Perhaps a lesson for HS2 to consider diversionary routes?

 

[A0]

Why have thay not doubled line from radway green to crewe.
Would give direct train liverpool to stoke, not faster by 30 mins by car.
Would give space

Comes in the wrong side of Crewe to head for Liverpool so you'd need to find a 2 paths across Crewe - one there, one back.

 

[Ianno87]

The real problem the single section causes is when the WCML is diverted via Stoke. Has happened to me quite a number of times. The capacity to cope with two way diversions on top of the 2tph each way creates backlogs stretching south of Nuneaton and north to Liverpool and Wigan.
I would like to see the costings for redoubling from Radway Green to Crewe (would still have problems at the throat at Crewe and Stoke/Stone - but surely would make a significant improvement).
Perhaps a lesson for HS2 to consider diversionary routes?

HS2 *is* the diversionary route!

 

[A0]

Perhaps a lesson for HS2 to consider diversionary routes?

As @Bald Rick has pointed out on more occasions than I care to count, diversionary potential does not make for a viable business case.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As @Bald Rick has pointed out on more occasions than I care to count, diversionary potential does not make for a viable business case.

I am not saying it (Diversionary potentials) does but surely to god for the love of everything logical it must at least help the B in the BCR calculation?

 

[A0]

I am not saying it (Diversionary potentials) does but surely to god for the love of everything logical it must at least help the B in the BCR calculation?

Not necessarily, if the costs of maintaining the diversion in route knowledge and keeping spare paths exceeds the cost of providing an alternative - a coach perhaps - then there is no "benefit".

 

[edwin_m]

At the time it was singled there was only the hourly Derby train using the route and not much freight. Pretty much by definition the train wouldn't be coming back out of Crewe at the same time as it went in, which was probably the reason to single it. One of many elements of the Crewe re-signaling, done at about the lowest point in BR's fortunes and expectations of future traffic, that turned out to be inadequate for the growth in demand that actually happened.

 

[The Planner]

Not being touched as part of Crewe re-signalling or HS2 enabling either. It would have a use for the construction period, but after? not so much.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As @Bald Rick has pointed out on more occasions than I care to count, diversionary potential does not make for a viable business case.

It did actually have a business case or it wouldn't have been electrified c2000.
This was just so WCML traffic could use it instead of the main line to Stafford for a year while they rebuilt it.
Otherwise the Crewe-Stoke-Stafford service would be a DMU (or not exist, as before).

 

[CW2]

Electrification was necessary to allow for WCML diversions during the West Coast Route Modernisation. There was no business case driven by local demand, it was all about keeping the WCML running. Doubling was considered at that time, and deemed unnecessary. I don't see anything much has changed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There was no business case driven by local demand-----

My point exactly - business case has to depend on more than just local demand.

 

[jfowkes]

I'm surprised there isn't a demand-driven business case for an a-bit-more-regular-than-once-an-hour Crewe-Stoke shuttle, especially in the peaks.

 

[Trainfan2019]

I'm surprised there isn't a demand-driven business case for an a-bit-more-regular-than-once-an-hour Crewe-Stoke shuttle, especially in the peaks.

There are 2 trains an hour between Crewe and Stoke (London Northwestern and East Midlands Railway) but badly timed leaving Crewe at 1 minute past and 7 minutes past each hour. Even worse on Sundays as EMR don't start operating until mid-afternoon.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Not being touched as part of Crewe re-signalling or HS2 enabling either. It would have a use for the construction period, but after? not so much.

It wouldn't be the first time an improvement was made to cater for other long-running engineering/improvement works. HS2 will no doubt disrupt the southern end of Crewe for quite a number of years to come. Going via Shrewsbury is hardly a viable alternative to via Kidsgrove, and it's not electrified anyway.

Refusing to redouble a once double-track and already electrified diversionary route epitomises the penny wise, pound foolish thinking that pervades today's rail industry (and this is by no means a criticism levelled solely at Network Rail itself).

There's no single track bridges to contend with (a double track one was provided at considerable expense when the A5020 was built). There's only a couple of passenger trains an hour to bustitute (or divert via Norton Bridge) whilst the work is done.

Not many schemes are this simple. And yet it's seemingly impossible to just get on and do it, in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. For as long as the rail industry is unable to grasp the nettle of efficiency, even the smallest improvements will continue to take forever to be approved.

 

[Bald Rick]

Electrification was necessary to allow for WCML diversions during the West Coast Route Modernisation. There was no business case driven by local demand, it was all about keeping the WCML running. Doubling was considered at that time, and deemed unnecessary. I don't see anything much has changed.

It was indeed considered for redoubling. I remember it well.

The choice was redoubling, or electrification. Not both. The right answer was chosen.

 

[The Chimaera]

There's no single track bridges to contend with (a double track one was provided at considerable expense when the A5020 was built). There's only a couple of passenger trains an hour to bustitute (or divert via Norton Bridge) whilst the work is done.

Not many schemes are this simple. And yet it's seemingly impossible to just get on and do it, in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. For as long as the rail industry is unable to grasp the nettle of efficiency, even the smallest improvements will continue to take forever to be approved.

No single track bridges to remove correct but one overbridge to heighten because the single line was slewed to the centre of formation to pass under the middle of a low arched bridge to get clearance of the OLE. Not a biggy really though. Should be a easy, locally led project but we don't live in that world anymore unfortunately.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

No single track bridges to remove correct but one overbridge to heighten because the single line was slewed to the centre of formation to pass under the middle of a low arched bridge to get clearance of the OLE. Not a biggy really though. Should be a easy, locally led project but we don't live in that world anymore unfortunately.

Precisely. It's frankly sad to think about the contemporary state of the industry by comparison to the attitude shown by videos such as this:

Electrifying Euston in one night. Utterly unthinkable nowadays

 

[InOban]

Raising a bridge can be simple or complicated depending on the number of services which run under the surface, requiring each to be diverted across a temporary footbridge while the old bridge is dismantled and rebuilt.

 

[A0]

Precisely. It's frankly sad to think about the contemporary state of the industry by comparison to the attitude shown by videos such as this:

Electrifying Euston in one night. Utterly unthinkable nowadays

Naturally you're qualified to make such assessments and assertions?

 

[CW2]

The traditional way of working is no longer possible. The Working at Height Regulations mean practices like leaning a ladder at a 45 degree angle then climbing half way up to reach up to clip up a cable are (rightly) prohibited. I don't claim we have the most efficient electrification methodology, but at least we aren't killing and maiming as many people as we used to.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It was indeed considered for redoubling. I remember it well.

The choice was redoubling, or electrification. Not both. The right answer was chosen.

Given that choice I would have chosen electrification too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The traditional way of working is no longer possible. The Working at Height Regulations mean practices like leaning a ladder at a 45 degree angle then climbing half way up to reach up to clip up a cable are (rightly) prohibited. I don't claim we have the most efficient electrification methodology, but at least we aren't killing and maiming as many people as we used to.

Hear hear. I get frustrated too but Health and Safety has to be quite rightly paramount. I want people going home to their families etc at night not in the casualty department of the local hospital.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The traditional way of working is no longer possible. The Working at Height Regulations mean practices like leaning a ladder at a 45 degree angle then climbing half way up to reach up to clip up a cable are (rightly) prohibited. I don't claim we have the most efficient electrification methodology, but at least we aren't killing and maiming as many people as we used to.

How many people are killed and maimed in RTCs each year that wouldn't have happened if there were a viable train alternative? What about serious health conditions and deaths from air pollution from our congested roads?

As morbid as might seem, the deaths and injuries of track workers needs to be put into the context of what happens if you focus purely on improving that issue (to the detriment of enabling more public transport improvements to happen, and thus improving society as a whole, with the money that's available).

You have to look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately that's something this country struggles at.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not necessarily, if the costs of maintaining the diversion in route knowledge and keeping spare paths exceeds the cost of providing an alternative - a coach perhaps - then there is no "benefit".

Maybe - but rail replacement coaches are a big negative benefit. I don't have numerical figures, but trains are always a lot emptier than normal when pre-advertised rail replacement services occur.

 

[A0]

How many people are killed and maimed in RTCs each year that wouldn't have happened if there were a viable train alternative? What about serious health conditions and deaths from air pollution from our congested roads?

As morbid as might seem, the deaths and injuries of track workers needs to be put into the context of what happens if you focus purely on improving that issue (to the detriment of enabling more public transport improvements to happen, and thus improving society as a whole, with the money that's available).

You have to look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately that's something this country struggles at.

According to government figures in 2018 there were about 5 deaths for every BILLION miles travelled on the roads.

So to remove just one road death - assuming a straight correlation you would need to replace 200,000 miles worth of road journey. The average motorist drives about 12,000 miles a year - so you would need 16 "average mileage" motorists to change all of their journeys to rail to achieve that 1 reduction in death.

If you think that's going to happen, I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality.

 

[A0]

Maybe - but rail replacement coaches are a big negative benefit. I don't have numerical figures, but trains are always a lot emptier than normal when pre-advertised rail replacement services occur.

But rail replacement coaches are exceptional and usually people are advised to consider if their journey is essential. If anything it highlights the number of "non essential" journeys people make.

It's not a "big negative benefit'" except in your opinion because you don't like rail replacement coaches.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

According to government figures in 2018 there were about 5 deaths for every BILLION miles travelled on the roads.

So to remove just one road death - assuming a straight correlation you would need to replace 200,000 miles worth of road journey. The average motorist drives about 12,000 miles a year - so you would need 16 "average mileage" motorists to change all of their journeys to rail to achieve that 1 reduction in death.

If you think that's going to happen, I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality.

Reduced RTC deaths are just part of the benefits. It may well be that the decrease in injuries and deaths is not sufficient to justify risking additional rail workers' lives, but at the moment no attempt seems to be made to even try and work this out.

 

[CW2]

Reduced RTC deaths are just part of the benefits. It may well be that the decrease in injuries and deaths is not sufficient to justify risking additional rail workers' lives, but at the moment no attempt seems to be made to even try and work this out.

In sheer economic terms the benefits you are seeking to count only produce small numbers - regardless of how obviously good the idea seems to be. So they get lumped together as "Wider Economic Bemefits" in the business case. Sometimes these benefits can help to swing a marginal case, but you'll never manage to justify a project based solely on such benefits.