Cardiff to Manchester Fast Service

[robspaceman]

For sure, although the lines could have joined outside the town. Even today, deviating either the Wrexham (or more likely Crewe) line to join well beyond the station would ease a lot of the alignment issues at the station.

That is in no way an 'easy win' because you'd need a load of custom angle diamonds to cross the Wrexham Lines, and custom S&C for the curvature into the Down Crewe line.

Still easier than rebuilding the station or attempting to connect existing lines across open country outside the town though.

But fair enough. Pl.3 is a long platform, so how about a connection from the northern end of pl.3 to the down through line (which is connected to Crewe)?

 

[Shrop]

For sure, although the lines could have joined outside the town. Even today, deviating either the Wrexham (or more likely Crewe) line to join well beyond the station would ease a lot of the alignment issues at the station.

Yes, joining the Wrexham and Crewe lines could make good sense as discussed upthread, if only it could be funded. It would considerably ease a lot of the track work on that side of the station, it would make Platform 3 very much more usable, and it would remove the huge road/rail conflicts of Harlsecott Crossing.
Joining the Wolverhampton and Hereford lines (on the opposite side of the station), at some distance out is a lot harder to envisage, especially given that the Aberystwyth line also joins only a mile outside the station.

 

[zwk500]

Still easier than rebuilding the station or attempting to connect existing lines across open country outside the town though.

But fair enough. Pl.3 is a long platform, so how about a connection from the northern end of pl.3 to the down through line (which is connected to Crewe)?

The issue with connecting P3 to the Down main before the turnout for the Crewe line is it requires moving the signal back on both the platform and through line, and you then get into issues of overlaps, sighting and standage.

Yes, joining the Wrexham and Crewe lines could make good sense as discussed upthread, if only it could be funded. It would considerably ease a lot of the track work on that side of the station, it would make Platform 3 very much more usable, and it would remove the huge road/rail conflicts of Harlsecott Crossing.

Agree

Joining the Wolverhampton and Hereford lines (on the opposite side of the station), at some distance out is a lot harder to envisage, especially given that the Aberystwyth line also joins only a mile outside the station.

Agree again, although once you've removed the constraints at the north end the constraint at the south end is less pressing. The need to have the unbelievably awkward junctions to access the Down through line would be less pressing (most freight is from Hereford direction), especially if alternative loops are provided elsewhere.

 

[robspaceman]

The issue with connecting P3 to the Down main before the turnout for the Crewe line is it requires moving the signal back on both the platform and through line, and you then get into issues of overlaps, sighting and standage.

Noted - but surely still easier than building new connecting lines in the countryside

 

[30907]

The whole point of the Cardiff-Liverpool service is to extend Halton Curve services and connect Liverpool directly with Wrexham. Routing via Crewe and Runcorn defeats the object of this rationale, or routing via Crewe and Chester requires a reversal at Chester.

Indeed, and Liverpool-Crewe is well served.

I did wonder whether the Crewe Shrewsbury stopper should be hourly, but I don't know the route well enough.

 

[Topological]

I noticed that in the Arriva submission being discussed elsewhere ( https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/arriva-group-5-step-plan-to-fix-britains-railways.274183/ ), one suggestion is speeding up Cardiff to Birmingham (and on to Nottingham). That would suggest the Manchester service via Birmingham achieving some of those objectives.

I am still concerned that all attempts to squeeze a fast train through the Marches either require many more units, or involve reducing the service at many stations.

It is good to see where infrastructure investment could help the existing service be faster. Although anything that touches signalling always brings cost.

 

[zwk500]

Noted - but surely still easier than building new connecting lines in the countryside

Yes, although potentially for the costs involved it may well be better value to build the new line next to the bypass. Although you'd need to change the planning process first to stop it getting dragged into endless legal challenges.

For reference, this is the type of diversion I'm talking about:

 

[Topological]

IF the vision is that all of the land surrounding this line is built on then it makes a lot of sense. Developers will be able to contribute and may even add a station.

Very much in the crayonista area, but if it relieves Shrewsbury then it has advantages for the railway.

It is not like the line is so busy a flat junction with the Wrexham line will be a constraint.

 

[robspaceman]

That route indeed makes logical sense if it could be kept as close as possible to the route of the proposed North West Relief Road (which might eventually get built this century).

 

[Western Lord]

Looking at a map of Shrewsbury it is striking that there is development in the north east, the south east and the south west, but nothing at all in the north west, thus making it easier to crayon in a new line (although this would actually all be north of the town). The River Severn winds it's way around this quadrant, so maybe it is inadvisable to build on it's flood plain (although it also winds around the north east quadrant).

 

[Shrop]

Looking at a map of Shrewsbury it is striking that there is development in the north east, the south east and the south west, but nothing at all in the north west, thus making it easier to crayon in a new line (although this would actually all be north of the town). The River Severn winds it's way around this quadrant, so maybe it is inadvisable to build on it's flood plain (although it also winds around the north east quadrant).

You're right, there is a gap to the northwest of the town. The proposed Northwest Relief Road is scheduled to link across that gap from the A5/A458 junction at Bicton Heath, to the A528/A5124 junction just over 2 miles north of the town centre, and at present the plan is to start construction in 2025, with opening in late 2026. Optimistic, but that's what Shropshire Council presently say on their website. Any new railway linking between the Wrexham and Crewe lines would be well clear of the flood plain.

The route shown by @zwk500 above ties in well in terms of attracting possible developer funding, which I mentioned in post #50 above, perhaps this might even have slightly more merit than just being a crayonista exercise! I should say that I'm not advocating development here and many would oppose it, I'm simply airing what might be an inevitability that eventually seems to happen near to most new roads.

Of course this would do nothing towards the original objective when this thread started, of speeding up the Manchester to Cardiff trains because it would add a couple of miles to the route, however a new route wouldn't necessarily require the existing route to be closed. The new route would have potential to serve a new Park and Rail station and it would usefully allow Platform 3 to be used for northbound trains towards Crewe, which could be for those trains which are less time-sensitive, ie boht slower passenger trains and freight. Meanwhile, trains where time is more critical could continue to use the existing route, but there would be a very useful net benefit in an overall reduction in the number of trains using Harlescott Crossing.

 

[Western Lord]

You're right, there is a gap to the northwest of the town. The proposed Northwest Relief Road is scheduled to link across that gap from the A5/A458 junction at Bicton Heath, to the A528/A5124 junction just over 2 miles north of the town centre, and at present the plan is to start construction in 2025, with opening in late 2026. Optimistic, but that's what Shropshire Council presently say on their website. Any new railway linking between the Wrexham and Crewe lines would be well clear of the flood plain.

The route shown by @zwk500 above ties in well in terms of attracting possible developer funding, which I mentioned in post #50 above, perhaps this might even have slightly more merit than just being a crayonista exercise! I should say that I'm not advocating development here and many would oppose it, I'm simply airing what might be an inevitability that eventually seems to happen near to most new roads.

Of course this would do nothing towards the original objective when this thread started, of speeding up the Manchester to Cardiff trains because it would add a couple of miles to the route, however a new route wouldn't necessarily require the existing route to be closed. The new route would have potential to serve a new Park and Rail station and it would usefully allow Platform 3 to be used for northbound trains towards Crewe, which could be for those trains which are less time-sensitive, ie boht slower passenger trains and freight. Meanwhile, trains where time is more critical could continue to use the existing route, but there would be a very useful net benefit in an overall reduction in the number of trains using Harlescott Crossing.

Although a new route would be a little longer it would not necessarily be any slower as the existing route is subject to an extremely low speed restriction which begins a fair way out, whereas the Wrexham route, without the Crewe line junctions would be virtually straight in to the platforms with a potentially faster approach speed.

 

[zwk500]

Of course this would do nothing towards the original objective when this thread started, of speeding up the Manchester to Cardiff trains because it would add a couple of miles to the route, however a new route wouldn't necessarily require the existing route to be closed.

The justification for the new route would be to allow closure of the existing route to remove the Level Crossing and reconfigure the junction for higher speeds and a more flexibile layout. Without closing the old line in the business case will go from 'wildly optimistic' to 'absolutely bananas'
The new route would be designed for a reasonable approach speed so that the time lost is minimal, and by allowing a higher throughput of trains at Shrewsbury should reduce the overall time required to travel from one side of Shrewsbury to the other.

If we return to the original question, 3hrs is possible with a moderate reduction in stops (not necessarily down to only 2, which would be politically unacceptable). However this would require a major rejig of the timetable between Cardiff and Newport to allow the new paths into Cardiff itself.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Currently on a rammed full 2 car TfW service from South Wales to Manchester Piccadilly, except (bippety - bong!) it's now running 30+ mins down and is going to be terminated at Wilmslow. At least I should be due a wedge of 'Delay Repay'.

Realtime Trains | 0910 Milford Haven to Wilmslow | 30/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 0910 departure from Milford Haven to Wilmslow on 30/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

So, which services do TfW routinely allocate their longer length trains to?

 

[zwk500]

Currently on a rammed full 2 car TfW service from South Wales to Manchester Piccadilly, except (bippety - bong!) it's now running 30+ mins down and is going to be terminated at Wilmslow. At least I should be due a wedge of 'Delay Repay'.

Realtime Trains | 0910 Milford Haven to Wilmslow | 30/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 0910 departure from Milford Haven to Wilmslow on 30/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

So, which services do TfW routinely allocate their longer length trains to?

The 67+MK4 sets are usually on the runs between Manchester and Cardiff only, AIUI.

The trains on this lineup: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...24-09-30/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt with 5 carriages are the MK4 sets.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

We're just about to pass by the old Crewe South Junction signal box for a third time in 15 minutes! YCNMIU(!)

 

[Shrop]

The justification for the new route would be to allow closure of the existing route to remove the Level Crossing and reconfigure the junction for higher speeds and a more flexibile layout. Without closing the old line in the business case will go from 'wildly optimistic' to 'absolutely bananas'
The new route would be designed for a reasonable approach speed so that the time lost is minimal, and by allowing a higher throughput of trains at Shrewsbury should reduce the overall time required to travel from one side of Shrewsbury to the other.

I'm not entirely disagreeing, but neither am I entirely convinced. Of course car drivers will complain about any time that they are delayed by a train, but some of those I've spoken to don't mind being held up sometimes, it's the fact that it happens so often that really bothers them. A fast Manchester to Cardiff train just once each way every two hours would be relatively tolerable, and in any event, this crossing has busy 4-stage traffic lights some 300m to the east which delay the traffic anyway, and a mini-roundabout to the west which is less than 100m away and VERY busy for such a feature. So an occasional breathing space in the traffic might be acceptable (and thus easier to sell for the business case), so long as it isn't too often. I'm only saying this to try to maximise the time-saving potential for faster trains, it would be interesting to know just how costly (in time) it would be to take a new route to join with the Wrexham line, or whether it wouldn't actually cost much time at all, as you suggest.

If we return to the original question, 3hrs is possible with a moderate reduction in stops (not necessarily down to only 2, which would be politically unacceptable). However this would require a major rejig of the timetable between Cardiff and Newport to allow the new paths into Cardiff itself.

Unless one or two of the trains (obviously not all) were terminated at Newport with passengers changing there into the relatively frequent Cardiff service, thereby relieving the need for extra train paths. Okay, it's arguably preferable to provide a through service to Cardiff for all passengers, but this would still be possible on other trains. (And being turfed out early seems to be a perfectly acceptable plan for HS2 passengers at OOC!).

 

[craigybagel]

As I've said many times on different threads - the Marches is a challenging compromise to timetable. You can't keep everyone happy all of the time without a massive investment in infrastructure that the passenger numbers don't really justify.

There should be room to speed up the current Manchester - Cardiff timetables now that virtually all of the MU limits have been removed, but there's not much more that can be eked out with the current traction. A recast allowing better times across the WCML at Crewe and between there and Manchester would be helpful, but isn't likely any time soon.

Still easier than rebuilding the station or attempting to connect existing lines across open country outside the town though.

But fair enough. Pl.3 is a long platform, so how about a connection from the northern end of pl.3 to the down through line (which is connected to Crewe)?

Even easier would be to build platform 3 out over the track so that it accesses the through road (which does have access to both lines). But then you'd lose the ability to loop freight.

I did wonder whether the Crewe Shrewsbury stopper should be hourly, but I don't know the route well enough.

Certainly not as a stand alone service. It's really not that busy.

Although a new route would be a little longer it would not necessarily be any slower as the existing route is subject to an extremely low speed restriction which begins a fair way out, whereas the Wrexham route, without the Crewe line junctions would be virtually straight in to the platforms with a potentially faster approach speed.

All movements around Shrewsbury have the same 15mph limit, part of the mitigation for the rather challenging signalling. The Crewe line does drop down to 20 for about a quarter of a mile before the start of the 15, but as you're always approaching 2 potentially red signals with limited visibility you shouldn't be going much faster anyway.

Approaches on the Wrexham line aren't much better - although in theory the speed is 70 almost all the way to the 15 at the station, the fact that before that you'll find a multi SPAD signal with a fixed distant, at the bottom of a very steep and slippy hill, does put something of a dampener on lively run ins to Shrewsbury.

Realistically, Shrewsbury could do with a full resignalling and a new layout - but that would not come cheap. There's a reason that Severn Bridge Junction is expected to remain in service for decades yet, despite the plans to resignal most of the areas around it.

 

[HSTEd]

Having never actually been there in person, from what I can see from aerial photography and photographs of the station area..... that layout is a complete mess and needs something doing.

Unfortunately given the shortage of signalling capability, cost pressures and the like, I can't see much happening at all.

 

[Jez]

Cardiff to Manchester can be done in about 3 hours and 5 minutes. Before the Covid Tiimetable, many services departed Cardiff at xx05 from Cardiff rather than the current xx49 (for most services). Those services did not call at Craven Arms/Church Stretton/Whitchurch or Nantwich. The other hour when services departed at xx50ish they did call at these stations. With the 2 hourly Holyheads there was a more even pattern of services from Cardiff to the Marches avoiding an hour long gap there is now when there is no Holyhead.

Even though the MK4's make similar calling patterns to the former fast Manchester services by missing out Craven Arms etc they still take around 3 hour 20 mins to get to Manchester rather than about 3 hours 5 mins.

Pesonally im against sending any service via Birmingham as it would just take too long.

In an ideal world there would be an hourly fast service Swansea to Manchester calling at Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Newport, Cwmbran, Abergavenny, Hereford, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow and Stockport with an hourly stopper from Cardiff to Crewe calling at all stops including those above (from Cardiff onwards) plus New Inn, Leominster, Craven Arms etc. It would call at Nantwich and Whitchurch every hour but only the others between Shrewsbury and Crews every 2 hours in place of the stopper.

Cardiff to Holyhead would remain 2 hourly but include less stops as some services may not justify more than 1 call an hour that would be picked up by the Cardiff-Crewe stopper.

Of course then you would get some people complaining that their stop wasnt going to Manchester, only to Crewe. As said above, its a compromise and you wont please everyone.

 

[Topological]

Currently on a rammed full 2 car TfW service from South Wales to Manchester Piccadilly, except (bippety - bong!) it's now running 30+ mins down and is going to be terminated at Wilmslow. At least I should be due a wedge of 'Delay Repay'.

Realtime Trains | 0910 Milford Haven to Wilmslow | 30/09/2024

Real-time train running information for 0910 departure from Milford Haven to Wilmslow on 30/09/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

So, which services do TfW routinely allocate their longer length trains to?

Maesteg

Sadly the number of times you see 3-car on the Maesteg and a 2-car on Manchester is more than it should be.

The aim is 5-car 197s on Manchester so presumably the 3-cars will appear at some point to join the 2-cars. This thread presumes TfW keep the right stock on the fast train.

(In fairness it is delays getting other parts of the new fleet in which are causing 197s to be used in places they will not be used long term. See the 197 thread)

 

[Shrop]

Maesteg

Sadly the number of times you see 3-car on the Maesteg and a 2-car on Manchester is more than it should be.

The aim is 5-car 197s on Manchester so presumably the 3-cars will appear at some point to join the 2-cars. This thread presumes TfW keep the right stock on the fast train.

(In fairness it is delays getting other parts of the new fleet in which are causing 197s to be used in places they will not be used long term. See the 197 thread)

If I was cynical I'd point out that Maesteg is in Wales, whereas Manchester isn't ...

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If I was cynical I'd point out that Maesteg is in Wales, whereas Manchester isn't ...

Indeed. Probably 'inconvenient' though that current day railway geography means that TfW have to send their trains outside of the country, even when operating a through service from South Wales to/from North Wales.

So, should TfW be precluded from running any cross-border trains to/from principal stations such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham or even Cheltenham, or is that a 'Reductio ad absurdum' of an argument?

 

[zwk500]

If I was cynical I'd point out that Maesteg is in Wales, whereas Manchester isn't ...

The Manchester-Cardiff services get the 67+Mk4 sets which are generally seen as the 'premium' TfW Rail rolling stock...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2024 ==

Indeed. Probably 'inconvenient' though that current day railway geography means that TfW have to send their trains outside of the country, even when operating a through service from South Wales to/from North Wales.

So, should TfW be precluded from running any cross-border trains to/from principal stations such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham or even Cheltenham, or is that a 'Reductio ad absurdum' of an argument?

That would definitely be offering a much poorer service to the people of Wales, and would also presumably raise the question of whether that would require XC, GWR, Avanti, etc to terminate at the last station before Wales.

 

[Harpo]

That would definitely be offering a much poorer service to the people of Wales, and would also presumably raise the question of whether that would require XC, GWR, Avanti, etc to terminate at the last station before Wales.

Wales is doing well on cross-border services with all extremities of north, mid and west (especially now Carmarthen) connected to major English cities. Meanwhile in Scotland, unless it's Edinburgh or Glasgow, through daytime services are few in number.

 

[craigybagel]

If I was cynical I'd point out that Maesteg is in Wales, whereas Manchester isn't ...

I'm as cynical as they come, it's a common affliction amongst railway staff. I can also tell you it's complete irrelevant. There are 101 reasons why individual units are allocated to certain services; nationality of destination isn't one of them.

 

[Jez]

Maesteg

Sadly the number of times you see 3-car on the Maesteg and a 2-car on Manchester is more than it should be.

Especially as long term the 197's are not even going to be on Maesteg (or Ebbw Vale) so priority for 3 cars should be given to the Manchester's in my opinion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2024 ==

I'm as cynical as they come, it's a common affliction amongst railway staff. I can also tell you it's complete irrelevant. There are 101 reasons why individual units are allocated to certain services; nationality of destination isn't one of them.

Exactly. Which is why 3 cars should be given priority even if the train is going to an English destination. The Manchester-South Wales route clearly need 3 cars far more than branch lines in Wales.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2024 ==

Indeed. Probably 'inconvenient' though that current day railway geography means that TfW have to send their trains outside of the country, even when operating a through service from South Wales to/from North Wales.

So, should TfW be precluded from running any cross-border trains to/from principal stations such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham or even Cheltenham, or is that a 'Reductio ad absurdum' of an argument?

The franchise is Wales and Borders not just Wales. Many stations on the Marches etc the only TOC that serves them is TFW.

 

[zwk500]

Exactly. Which is why 3 cars should be given priority even if the train is going to an English destination. The Manchester-South Wales route clearly need 3 cars far more than branch lines in Wales.

According to RTT, 6 trains from Cardiff to Manchester are 3 cars, 1 of 4 cars, and 4 formed of the MK4 Sets, with only 3 formed of 2 cars. There is 1 train in the lineup not showing an allocation.

If you restrict it to just trains coming from west of Cardiff, it's 3x 3-Car and 1x 4-car, with 3x 2-Car. Given the need for rotation in the maintenance cycles, I'm not sure it's fair to say priority is being given to Welsh Branch lines over the South Wales - Manchester services, as more trains are 3 cars or longer than 2.

 

[Topological]

The 4 is misleading, it is because 2 2's have to make it to Manchester so that the Mk4 can come out of service.

We are still not at a point where a 4 car goes to Manchester and returns to Cardiff* without any splitting.

The promise is 5-car.

Whether the Mk4 is the premier offering is open for discussion. To me a 5-car 197 is the premier offering because it accelerates better, has a higher percentage of standard class accommodation, less space wasted for a buffet, and has shorter dwells than the Mk4. That is subjective though because some people use buffets and some people prefer the capacity of the Mk4's first. Some people even pay for food on the train (but I would love to see proof that is more than 20 per train, and therefore 200 per day)

@craigybagel is right about maintenance requirements dominating. However, it still seems strange from a layperson's perspective that there isn't enough 3-cars with sufficient mileage to do Manchester instead of Maesteg.

I solve the capacity issue by travelling so early in the morning it does not matter, or being in position to board at Piccadilly.

As noted elsewhere, the present service is not "fast" and the Mk4s are essentially "slower" than the 197s.

 

[cle]

I did wonder whether the Crewe Shrewsbury stopper should be hourly, but I don't know the route well enough.

It should be, and extend to Cardiff/Swansea/MH. Cover all the smaller calls. Done.