Crewe-Chester HS2

[Chris125]

That's the point really. Upgrading to OHLE has various benefits, biggest one being electric trains to London. But upgrading to HS is not that much more expensive than upgrading to OHLE if all those road bridges have to be replaced anyway.

Gauge clearing for HS2 captive stock is much more expensive as it's not just an issue of overall height - as can be seen with the HS1-2 link, not only do the running lines have to be slewed to allow for the extra width required, but our platforms and continental high speed rolling stock are fundamentally incompatible. The extra work required surely makes a viable business case highly unlikely.

Chris

 

[Holly]

Gauge clearing for HS2 captive stock is much more expensive as it's not just an issue of overall height - as can be seen with the HS1-2 link, not only do the running lines have to be slewed to allow for the extra width required, but our platforms and continental high speed rolling stock are fundamentally incompatible. The extra work required surely makes a viable business case highly unlikely. ...

New, longer, platforms are needed anyway with longer trains. It makes little difference that they are incompatible with existing platforms.
Track is being relaid regularly as part of maintenance. It's not that much more expensive to lay it at a wider separation if you are doing major civil work anyway (as is required for OHLE).

Yes, there is little or no business case for HS Crewe-Chester when viewed in isolation. But when it viewed as an added enhancement built at the same time as already committed OHLE infrastructure that is an entirely different equation. Deciding to build new infrastructure (bridges being most of the expense) on an existing right of way is a much bigger hurdle than the marginal cost of building it a little bit taller and little bit more offset when you are already committed to a new build.

The only thing that makes HS to Chester even somewhat financially viable is that 125mph OHLE of the same route would be more expensive than most routes, but Chester-Bangor-Holyhead electrification cannot really be done without it.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Face it you're never going to fill a 400m long double decker Captive train at Chester or even get anywhere near filling it. So why not just settle for OHLE and a Compatible service that is just a few minutes slower because it'll run at HS speed from Crewe southwards.

In fact I'm not even sure whether the curves round Bunbury etc might be too sharp for HS Captives and the geography totally wrong for building straighter/wider.

 

[Chris125]

New, longer, platforms are needed anyway with longer trains. It makes little difference that they are incompatible with existing platforms.

Building new platforms and associated infrastructure which can't be used by other services, slewing the track along the whole length with associated changes to S&C, reconstruction of most if not all bridges for both the extra height and width required... the cost is far from insignificant and just not justified.

As Chester is not realistically going to justify a high frequency HS2 service, nor the extra capacity provided by Captive sets, it surely makes more sense to use Classic Compatibles - both on cost grounds and the potential to serve Bangor and Holyhead too.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

Problem with that argument is that you sacrifice capacity to places like Birmingham International at the same time.

Chester may not justify the captive set capacity gains, but what about the path you squander on classic compatibles that could be spent on captives that coudl carry extra people to intermediate destinations.

EDIT:

Additionally Liverpool-Crewe and Chester-Crewe are not directly comparable.
In the former case far greater lengths of track would have to be converted to the enlarged loading gauge, several intermediate stations would have either be converted to entirely low level platforms, have seperate through lines provided, or atleast have the edge of the existing platform cut off, and all the existing overhead wiring would have to be replaced. Additionally providing a 400m platform at Liverpool Lime Street without massive building works would be an exercise in futility.

Meanwhile, on Chester-Crewe route, there are no intermediate platforms to get in the way, there is no overhead wiring that would have to be replaced to operate captives but that will be entirely adequate for compatible operations and there is room for a pair of 400m through platforms at Chester without demolition of non railway properties.

 

[johnb]

It is strange that HS2 Limited claim they can deliver a new high speed line between York and Newcastle for a similar price to GC clearing the ECML along the same route....

The figure they quote is £3.5-4bn .... which is £34m/km.... which is rather lses than what the current HS2 project costs.

If we can deliver routes at that price.... the prospects for a national network improve drastically.

The thing is, there's really not very much between York and Newcastle. HS2 phase 1 is v expensive because it goes from London via the SE to Birmingham, with expensive land, expensive tunnels, and even more expensive compensation packages, public inquiries and lawyers. Phase 2 will be slightly less so - and Phase 3 will be significantly less than either...

 

[merlodlliw]

Meanwhile, on Chester-Crewe route, there are no intermediate platforms to get in the way, there is no overhead wiring that would have to be replaced to operate captives but that will be entirely adequate for compatible operations and there is room for a pair of 400m through platforms at Chester without demolition of non railway properties.

[/QUOTE] HSTed

I am sure the the old down platform is still in use by Network Rail for their own use at Beeston Castle, although this about five years ago, it was gated.

 

[Chris125]

Problem with that argument is that you sacrifice capacity to places like Birmingham International at the same time.

If a captive set was needed due to demand en-route it would seem far more likely such a service wouldn't start at Chester than go to all the expense of gauge clearance, new platforms etc.

Realistically Chester is only ever going to warrant a limited service, perhaps only off-peak, so changing from Compatible to Captive will make little overall difference and as i said before such a service is far more beneficial running to Bangor and Holyhead.

Chris

 

[Martin222002]

Problem with that argument is that you sacrifice capacity to places like Birmingham International at the same time.

I have to second Chris125. There will never be the demand for a 400m captive set to serve Chester, and there would only be Crewe and Birmingham Interchange/International to serve on route to London.

Personally I can't see why would couldn't have a double 200m classic sets split at Crewe with one portion heading to Chester and the other portion heading to Preston or Liverpool, thus using one of the current Liverpool or Preston paths. This would keep the number of paths to the current level proposed of 17tph (discluding the Heathrow services), and as such would make a better use of the path as it would be a double 200m set instead of a single 200m or 260m set (using the current proposed classic set lengths).

 

[steamdrivenand]

Oh and going to Classic OHLE Crewe to Chester means you can potentially benefit from the improved electric service well before the 20 years for HS2, with through running to Bangor and Holyhead if appropriate. Once HS2 arrives then there'll be potential for a Compatible service to London that only takes a few minutes longer than if Captives could run through to Chester.

The thought of taking an HS line along the North Wales coast and over the Menai Straits with the need for mountain tunnels, a relatively straight route and bridges near Conway and over Menai would be a brilliant engineering challenge but a nightmare to finance.

 

[D365]

Would make the case for a Holyhead-Dublin tunnel all the better :P

 

[anthony263]

Would make the case for a Holyhead-Dublin tunnel all the better :P

I have been waiting for someone on this forum to mention that tunnel idea again

 

[Holly]

... Additionally Liverpool-Crewe and Chester-Crewe are not directly comparable. In the former case ...
Meanwhile, on Chester-Crewe route, there are no intermediate platforms to get in the way, there is no overhead wiring that would have to be replaced to operate captives but that will be entirely adequate for compatible operations and there is room for a pair of 400m through platforms at Chester without demolition of non railway properties.

That's about the size of it.
Future proofing for relatively little extra cost, due to the nature of the route.

Of course if every penny must be squeezed regardless of the long term then that is different. As well as business as usual in postwar Britain. But as the Americans say "What goes around comes around".

 

[tbtc]

That's about the size of it.
Future proofing for relatively little extra cost, due to the nature of the route

Should we do all of the CP5 electrification to be "HS2 ready" in that case?

 

[steamdrivenand]

Future proofing for relatively little extra cost, due to the nature of the route.

I'm sorry but what are you 'future proofing'?

I can see no way that high speed lines will become the norm in this country. It will always remain a network connecting a sparse number of regional stations. Those regional stations require large populations to make the whole thing worthwhile.

Secondary population centres will feed into that network either by passengers changing onto Captive high speed trains or maybe via Compatible services providing they don't clog up the network too much and reduce its capacity.

The high speed lines will not spread out and take over existing tracks like a creeping amoeba. Leaving aside areas north of the current plans the only additional spurs I can see that might spring off HS2 in the future would be Liverpool and Hull and then only if the passenger traffic grew to warrant it.

Chester doesn't justify such a spur by a long, long chalk either on passenger numbers or time saved. It's a total non-starter.

 

[HSTEd]

It is also worth noting that in the Liverpool case, the optimum approach for a High Speed line is not to diverge at Crewe.

The optimum choice is to leave the main Manchester "branch" of HS2 somewhere in the vicinity of Ashton-in-Makerfield and approach from the North East.
Using green tunnels you can get quite close to the centre without any bored tunnels by going through Parkland and then you can have a "complex curve" turn into a rebuild Lime Street. (or you can have an all new station if you can work out where to put it).

This only requires ~20km of track compared to the 50km for a direct line.

It's far cheaper, requires less tunnels and no Mersey Crossing and still gives you a reduced journey time compared to the current line.

You could keep serving Crewe by putting in an north facing "slip" to get trains back onto the high speed line after leaving the station, which would have to have atleast some platforms rebuilt to accept Captive trainsets.

 

[Holly]

Should we do all of the CP5 electrification to be "HS2 ready" in that case?

Only where the costs of gauge clearance are substantially the same. Possibly Wigan-Huyton.

There are several foreseeable things for eventual extension and expansion around West Cheshire. For example HS to Birkenhead. Or big gauge international freight for Airbus. But more important are the unforeseen things. Times change to be sure, the world is approaching some kind of tipping point and the form of change is unforeseeable or at least unforeseen.

 

[tbtc]

There are several foreseeable things for eventual extension and expansion around West Cheshire. For example HS to Birkenhead

If Coventry, Sheffield, Nottingham, Liverpool and Bradford aren't big enough to have a direct proper HS2 service then... Birkenhead?

 

[D365]

If Coventry, Sheffield, Nottingham, Liverpool and Bradford aren't big enough to have a direct proper HS2 service then... Birkenhead?

Might overtake Birmingham someday, let's plan for the unexpected and what-nots could-happens :P

 

[Holly]

If Coventry, Sheffield, Nottingham, Liverpool and Bradford aren't big enough to have a direct proper HS2 service then... Birkenhead?

Birkenhead is in practice a suburb of Liverpool. Less than 5 minutes by train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Might overtake Birmingham someday, let's plan for the unexpected and what-nots could-happens :P

Totally.
As long as the cost is small.

 

[merlodlliw]

Birkenhead is in practice a suburb of Liverpool. Less than 5 minutes by train.

Birkenhead may well be a few minutes by train from Liverpool, but a suburb of Liverpool never.

 

[Holly]

It is strange that HS2 Limited claim they can deliver a new high speed line between York and Newcastle for a similar price to GC clearing the ECML along the same route....
The figure they quote is £3.5-4bn .... which is £34m/km.... which is rather lses than what the current HS2 project costs. ...

So it would cost roughly £1100m to build an HS2 Crewe-Chester along a totally new right of way through rural Cheshire.

Does anyone know how much was the estimated cost of OHLE and signalling upgrade of Crewe-Chester?

The point being that Crewe-Liverpool is 36 miles by rail but Chester-Birkenhead is only 15 miles (and was once upon a time quad track).

 

[Gareth]

Birkenhead may well be a few minutes by train from Liverpool, but a suburb of Liverpool never.

Then Birkenhead must be unique in the world for being only a few minutes away from a city centre and not being a suburb of it.

That said, I don't think Liverpool's HS2 station should be in a suburb anyway, so it makes no odds in this context.

 

[transmanche]

Then Birkenhead must be unique in the world for being only a few minutes away from a city centre and not being a suburb of it.

Gateshead...?

 

[snowball]

Salford?

 

[HSTEd]

The only reasonable ways to get Liverpool onto the network I can see is either this Birkenhead proposal (which has ancillary benefits to north wales but means you haev a 15 minute transfer from a station in the Vicinity of Birkenhead North into central Liverpool) or simply approach Liverpool from the North as an extension of the part of HS2 that runs to Wigan.

A mirror of the current approach to Liverpool just requires too much extra track and an extra crossing of the Mersey to justify the cost.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A mirror of the current approach to Liverpool just requires too much extra track and an extra crossing of the Mersey to justify the cost.

A new Mersey (road) crossing is quite high in the planning process (to supplement the Runcorn-Widnes bridge).
Wouldn't it be nice if the DfT planners remembered to include a rail deck.
I think it is going to be well to the east of the present bridges, somewhere like Preston Brook-Fiddlers Ferry.
This was the Grand Junction's planned route to Liverpool before they decided to go via Warrington and Earlestown to save money.

 

[pablo]

Deleted.

 

[Holly]

...
Wouldn't it be nice if the DfT planners remembered to include a rail deck.
I think it is going to be well to the east of the present bridges, somewhere like Preston Brook-Fiddlers Ferry. ...

A dual purpose bridge (HS and road) would cost more than two separate bridges. Partly because the optimum place for road is different from rail (they need different approach infrastructures).

None of which answers even in part the cost of Crewe-Chester signalling and OHLE upgrade versus building a whole new (Crewe-Chester) railway on a new right of way.

Since any Crewe-Chester upgrade is reportedly replete with expensive engineering challenges but a wholly new railway would not be.

 

[HowardGWR]

One thing has occurred to me about this thread which applies to all OHLE schemes. Is it the case that bridge replacement is now almost automated so relatively cheap to do with pre-fabricated sections? The other point is that would it not be a strategic cost so that big /tall box containers have a greater range (so reducing the business cost for pax services)?