Crewe-Chester electrification

[Lampshade]

It is still possible, all you need to do is make Manchester Airport Station a through station and link it to the Stcokport to Altrincham line, and there you have it, Manchster Airport to Chester, without going through Manchester.

There's an airport in the way

 

[lancastrian]

There's an airport in the way

Well the answer is to tunnel under the airport, it worked at Stanstead.

 

[Nym]

Or just tunnel under the GTI and T2 approach roundabouts and skirt the M56 Spur round to M56 J7 and to the south of Hale Barnes, and pick up the Mid Cheshire Line...?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Referring back to my posting # 90 on this matter

I now remember the person who replied to my query a few weeks ago saying that the particular proposal for a line from the mid-Cheshire line to Manchester Airport would have left that line in the region between Mobberley and Ashley....not between Ashley and Hale as I had originally thought.

 

[krus_aragon]

One hopes that the GWML electrification is the scheme that gets the ball rolling now, then...

To Aberystwyth by 2040!!

Surely the ERTMS issues won't delay your train for that long? :P

 

[lancastrian]

Or just tunnel under the GTI and T2 approach roundabouts and skirt the M56 Spur round to M56 J7 and to the south of Hale Barnes, and pick up the Mid Cheshire Line...?

Well stay above ground until it is necessary to go into a tunnel. But I am OK with your suggestion. I would personally suggest that the line goes underground before the current station, it would be extended to a new, 4 platform (2 islands) between Terminals 1 & 2 (linked to the station by travelators. Then the line could continue underground, coming to the serfice alongside the M56, just after passing under the A538 Wilmslow Road, about J6, following the M56 until it joins the Mid Cheshire line between Ashley & Mobberley.

 

[Holly]

... would personally suggest that the line goes underground before the current station, it would be extended to a new, 4 platform (2 islands) between Terminals 1 & 2 (linked to the station by travelators. Then ... .

If there is to be a stop at Manchester Airport then there needs to be high-speed avoiding lines (presumably four tracks) for trains that do not stop.

And if there are high-speed avoiding lines then the stopping lines does not need to be four-tracked. Two long platforms is sufficient. That will be a lot cheaper.

 

[Nym]

There is a line that avoids the airport, it's called the Mid Cheshire Line, or the Styal line, they both avoid the airport...

 

[lancastrian]

If there is to be a stop at Manchester Airport then there needs to be high-speed avoiding lines (presumably four tracks) for trains that do not stop.

And if there are high-speed avoiding lines then the stopping lines does not need to be four-tracked. Two long platforms is sufficient. That will be a lot cheaper.

I would have thought that any service actually passing through Manchester Airport would actually be stopping there. I would not have thought that running trains staright through without stopping would make any sense at all.

Don't forget that a lot os trains start from Manchester Airport, unless you are going to start them back from the Mid Cheshire line, they will continue to do so. Especially those which will be electric services. Mcr Airport to Balckpool North, and Scotland for example. Not forgetting those Trans Penine services that start from Mcr Airport.

 

[185]

Or just tunnel under the GTI and T2 approach roundabouts and skirt the M56 Spur round to M56 J7 and to the south of Hale Barnes, and pick up the Mid Cheshire Line...?

That was mentioned within GMPTE not so long ago, and still has some support. There was also talk of extending Metrolink south of Altrincham to Knutsford, single line from Ashley, and bring in the new Airport spur line at Ashley single line side-by-side to Knutsford too. That would remove the congestion at Stockport the Chesters currently cause. There was some mention of converting Nav Road-Cheadle-Stockport to Metrolink too with additional stops on it, but the costs would spiral.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Or from Birmingham/London via Chester and Rock Ferry to the presently unused 130metre Platform 2 at Liverpool James St,

Good try, Holly. It needs ideas like this to keep all the forum members on their toes....trying to find reasons not to understand your concept. Do you remember when Rock Ferry had terminating trains from the opposite direction?

Birkenhead in the days when steam was the king of motive power had some very good connections to the national rail network, that can be only dreamt of today. I am old enough to have travelled southwards from Birkenhead many times in those long-off days.

 

[Polarbear]

Going back to the proposal for electrifying Crewe - Chester, I cant help but feel this is a case of the tail wagging the dog.:roll:

In the early 1980's, British Rail drew up an (ambitious) electrification programme for the network. Due to various factors, only parts of the overall plan have since come to fruition. However, the idea was nationally based & portrayed as being for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Today, we have proposals to wire a 21 mile section of line in order to satisfy a local demand. Yes, I know that demand on the Chester - London services has shot up since the introduction of the hourly service, but the electrification proposal only deals with this one aspect - it doesn't fit into any overall strategy for the UK rail network.

I recall when the line between Stockport & Hazel Grove was wired, the then chairman Sir Peter Parker was quoted as saying, "Lets hope the Midland Mainline isn't authorised in 2.5 mile setions". Well, we're still waiting for the MML to be wired, but it does seem that Sir Peter's phrophicy has come true, at least to some extent!.

On an similar theme, it could be argued the the GWML electrification is being done in a similar vein. Piecemeal to serve the interest of the current TOC & government objectives rather than as part of a long term plan to make things more efficient all round.

 

[Zoe]

Piecemeal to serve the interest of the current TOC & government objectives rather than as part of a long term plan to make things more efficient all round.

I wouldn't say it's piecemeal as it is allowing every High Speed route except Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance to go over to EMU/bi-mode operation.

 

[bluenoxid]

Unfortunately, every project needs to be looked at individually, then in conjunction with other projects.

 

[tbtc]

Going back to the proposal for electrifying Crewe - Chester, I cant help but feel this is a case of the tail wagging the dog.:roll:

In the early 1980's, British Rail drew up an (ambitious) electrification programme for the network. Due to various factors, only parts of the overall plan have since come to fruition. However, the idea was nationally based & portrayed as being for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Today, we have proposals to wire a 21 mile section of line in order to satisfy a local demand. Yes, I know that demand on the Chester - London services has shot up since the introduction of the hourly service, but the electrification proposal only deals with this one aspect - it doesn't fit into any overall strategy for the UK rail network.

I recall when the line between Stockport & Hazel Grove was wired, the then chairman Sir Peter Parker was quoted as saying, "Lets hope the Midland Mainline isn't authorised in 2.5 mile setions". Well, we're still waiting for the MML to be wired, but it does seem that Sir Peter's phrophicy has come true, at least to some extent!.

On an similar theme, it could be argued the the GWML electrification is being done in a similar vein. Piecemeal to serve the interest of the current TOC & government objectives rather than as part of a long term plan to make things more efficient all round.

I take your point, but this short "local" section in Cheshire would allow 21 Voyagers to move from Virgin to XC (with drags for the token Holyhead service) - it has big national impact.

 

[Nym]

Would need 21 more 390s ordering though. (30 more would be nice)

 

[tbtc]

Would need 21 more 390s ordering though. (30 more would be nice)

Yup, but since we can't get new DMUs ordered it seems to be cheaper to tackle DMU crowding by electrifying lines. I'm not sure of the maths, in fact I think this needs a separate thread...

 

[Nym]

Well, as far as I can see it, knitting to chester would release a lot of voyagers to XC (for them to ruin them by disabling TASS), or onto either EMT, TPE, FGW, theres many a company that would be able to use them to displace reigonal DMUs.

Some sensible places to send them would be

Cross Country, either to strengthen their current services or displace some turbostars.
First Great Western: Portsmouth - Cardiff, displace 158s

Transpennine Express: Hear me out on this one...

15 of the units to Transpennine Express would be able to replace like for like the current Newcastle and Middlesburough diagrams.

The're powerful enough to get over the pennines with ease, and these diagrams are limited stop.

The 9 turbostars currently in the mitts of TPE would be transfered out to Scotrail in exchange for some of their sprinters to come to Northern, or send the turbostars diectrly to Northern.

The other 6 221s could either be used to further strengthen the TPE fleet (Airport - Barrow runs), or get sent to XC to join their classmates for extra capacity.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yup, but since we can't get new DMUs ordered it seems to be cheaper to tackle DMU crowding by electrifying lines. I'm not sure of the maths, in fact I think this needs a separate thread...

So do I....can you organise one, please.

To use your words to me recently, don't start your new thread question as if you were setting an essay

 

[tbtc]

So do I....can you organise one, please.

To use your words to me recently, don't start your new thread question as if you were setting an essay

Have done

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=697118#post697118

 

[Nym]

And here...

http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=46728

 

[387star]

Great news if it comes a reality but given Birmingham-Scotland is all set for electric trains but is still being run by voyagers I won't hold my breath. Why were diesal trains ordered was it simply because it fell under the XC franchise then?

Also why do both voyagers and class 57 dragged pendolinos run to North Wales? Is that down to shortage of stock? Do voyagers and pendolinos share the route with the voyagers being doubled up? They must be doubled up because they operate from Euston.


Had a 9-car Voyager and Super Voyager combo to Bournemouth on Firday very nice Shame about the poor leg room though... class 444 leg room is a lot more generous! And the bar under the voyager seats is useless? Only supports one foot!

I heard someone say leg room has decreased since they were reconfigured is this true?

 

[Welshman]

Also why do both voyagers and class 57 dragged pendolinos run to North Wales? Is that down to shortage of stock? Do voyagers and pendolinos share the route with the voyagers being doubled up? They must be doubled up because they operate from Euston.

Currently there is only one scheduled 57-hauled pendolino drag to Holyhead - the 0850 ex Euston and 1438 return [both Sats. only]. I think this is not so much because of shortage of super-voyagers as such, but to maintain knowledge of the use of the coupler at Crewe in case of future need. It is also a convenient way of exchanging the 57 used on the WAG express from Holyhead to Cardiff on Mondays to Fridays. [If that does become 67-hauled [see other threads], then it is debateable whether the pendo drag will continue].

All other Holyhead/North Wales-Euston services are super-voyagers. During the peak they are strengthened at Chester by another unit [including the working to and from Wrexham], but as far as I know, all services from North Wales and off-peak services from Chester are single units to/from Euston.

Occasionally there are variations. A little while back, during the time when ATW drivers exercised their right not to work Sunday overtime, resulting in ATW services being cancelled [see many previous threads], Virgin announced their 1355 Holyhead-Euston would be a double unit throughout, meaning it was unable to stop at Prestatyn as the platform there is temporarily shortened due to the building of a new footbridge!

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Or from Birmingham/London via Chester and Rock Ferry to the presently unused 130metre Platform 2 at Liverpool James Street.

I'm not sure how else you could get an electric train from London to Liverpool via Chester.

Redouble the Halton Curve, replace the points/diamond crossings and electrify from Chester to Runcorn. Direct access from Chester to Liverpool.
I suppose whilst they were at it, electrifying the Chester to Warrington stretch would not cost too much more.

The issues regarding access on the WCML from Runcorn and rolling stock etc are far beyond my knowledge, but direct access to Liverpool from Chester/North Wales is easily done. It is the money that is the issue.

 

[Nym]

theres shortly to be two knitted routes into lime st. Do we really need three?

 

[The Planner]

Ive stated before that wiring up Chester to Runcorn/Warrington makes good operational sense. It allows more diversionary options and allows for better maintenance blocks on the WCML proper.

 

[Holly]

I've just read how Virgin service to/from Holyhead does not even slightly mesh with Stena Line service to/from Holyhead.

If Virgin wants to end service at Chester then doesn't it make sense for ATW to consider reinstating the ancient (not the modern) Irish Mail Holyhead-Euston sleeper service? With some non-sleeper cars in the rake. To actually mesh with Stena Line service.

This is really very little different from Scotrail running sleepers into Euston.

 

[bluenoxid]

Why is Virgin running a Pendolino to Holyhead when it is running Voyagers under the wires to Scotland?

 

[ukrob]

Why is Virgin running a Pendolino to Holyhead when it is running Voyagers under the wires to Scotland?

Read the post about five up from yours...

 

[bluenoxid]

A very expensive way of ensuring competency