Does renewal work at Crewe ignore government commitments?

[BigVern]

Having watched a recent recording of a Network Rail presentation about renewal work around Crewe I spotted two disturbing features:

First, there was no mention of the new platform on the Manchester Independent lines.
This, or a re-opened platform 13, would allow Manchester to Cardiff trains to avoid crossing the main line on the level.
Given the increased traffic through Crewe station when HS2 Phase 2a arrives, the extra platform would deliver the required extra capacity.
There is to be a new through platform where platform 13 is, but this will only connect to the Chester line northbound.
This new platform was included in the government's 'High Speed Two: Crewe Hub Consultation Response' dated March 2018.
Have I misread Network Rails plans, or have they quietly abandoned the new platform?

And second, probably as a consequence of the above, when HS2 Phase 2a arrives, Network Rail are reducing hourly capacity for non-HS2 passenger trains on the Crewe to Manchester line from 4 trains to 3.
This despite the ministerial assurance obtained during the passage of the Phase 2a bill through parliament that existing capacity would be maintained.

Are Network Rail able to ignore government commitments, or is it the government's sneaky tool for backtracking with minimum accountability?

 

[Grumpy Git]

First, there was no mention of the new platform on the Manchester Independent lines.
This, or a re-opened platform 13, would allow Manchester to Cardiff trains to avoid crossing the main line on the level.

Is it possible for a Manchester-Cardiff service to avoid the crossing the WCML on the flat at Crewe presently?

 

[Watershed]

Is it possible for a Manchester-Cardiff service to avoid the crossing the WCML on the flat at Crewe presently?

Yes, but only if it didn't call at Crewe!

I've also read that plans for a new bridge over the WCML between Nantwich Road and the Shavington Bypass have been dropped, allegedly "because of Covid". Sounds more like an excuse for cost-cutting if you ask me.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is it possible for a Manchester-Cardiff service to avoid the crossing the WCML on the flat at Crewe presently?

If it runs via Warrington, yes.
It's about 10 minutes slower, misses Wilmslow and Stockport, and puts an additional train into the Castlefield mix unless it went to Victoria.

 

[The Planner]

Having watched a recent recording of a Network Rail presentation about renewal work around Crewe I spotted two disturbing features:

First, there was no mention of the new platform on the Manchester Independent lines.
This, or a re-opened platform 13, would allow Manchester to Cardiff trains to avoid crossing the main line on the level.
Given the increased traffic through Crewe station when HS2 Phase 2a arrives, the extra platform would deliver the required extra capacity.
There is to be a new through platform where platform 13 is, but this will only connect to the Chester line northbound.
This new platform was included in the government's 'High Speed Two: Crewe Hub Consultation Response' dated March 2018.
Have I misread Network Rails plans, or have they quietly abandoned the new platform?

And second, probably as a consequence of the above, when HS2 Phase 2a arrives, Network Rail are reducing hourly capacity for non-HS2 passenger trains on the Crewe to Manchester line from 4 trains to 3.
This despite the ministerial assurance obtained during the passage of the Phase 2a bill through parliament that existing capacity would be maintained.

Are Network Rail able to ignore government commitments, or is it the government's sneaky tool for backtracking with minimum accountability?

The platforms on the independents were binned off very early on. Lots of timetabling amd modelling has already taken place and if the layout works then you aren't going to get extras. I wouldn't be surprised if this layout gets pruned or tweaked either.

 

[tomuk]

Having watched a recent recording of a Network Rail presentation about renewal work around Crewe I spotted two disturbing features:

First, there was no mention of the new platform on the Manchester Independent lines.
This, or a re-opened platform 13, would allow Manchester to Cardiff trains to avoid crossing the main line on the level.
Given the increased traffic through Crewe station when HS2 Phase 2a arrives, the extra platform would deliver the required extra capacity.
There is to be a new through platform where platform 13 is, but this will only connect to the Chester line northbound.
This new platform was included in the government's 'High Speed Two: Crewe Hub Consultation Response' dated March 2018.
Have I misread Network Rails plans, or have they quietly abandoned the new platform?

And second, probably as a consequence of the above, when HS2 Phase 2a arrives, Network Rail are reducing hourly capacity for non-HS2 passenger trains on the Crewe to Manchester line from 4 trains to 3.
This despite the ministerial assurance obtained during the passage of the Phase 2a bill through parliament that existing capacity would be maintained.

Are Network Rail able to ignore government commitments, or is it the government's sneaky tool for backtracking with minimum accountability?

Not sure why you are getting so worked up the current plan as per the presentation is to increase the hourly Crewe-Manchester capacity from 4 to 6 trains for 2a. It will then fall back to 4 trains when the HS2 trains use the CNC and HS2 2b line to Manchester.

Current 1x Avanti, 2x Northern , 1x TfW
Future 2a 3x HS2, 2x Northern , 1x TfW
Future 2b 1x ?, 2x Northern 1x TfW
Overall the required capacity at Crewe will rise from 25tph now to 30tph for HS2 Phase 2a then fall again to 27tph for HS2 Phase 2b

 

[BigVern]

Not sure why you are getting so worked up the current plan as per the presentation is to increase the hourly Crewe-Manchester capacity from 4 to 6 trains for 2a. It will then fall back to 4 trains when the HS2 trains use the CNC and HS2 2b line to Manchester.

Because the 3 HS2 services from London to Manchester will not be stopping at Crewe - at least that's what is projected on page 17 of the 'High Speed Two: Crewe Hub Consultation Response'.
Crewe Hub Response Consultation (publishing.service.gov.uk)
I am aware that the problem goes away once Phase 2b reaches Manchester, assuming the junction north of Crewe gets built. Because then the 2 Birmingham to Manchester HS2 trains will call at Crewe.

 

[tomuk]

Because the 3 HS2 services from London to Manchester will not be stopping at Crewe - at least that's what is projected on page 17 of the 'High Speed Two: Crewe Hub Consultation Response'.
Crewe Hub Response Consultation (publishing.service.gov.uk)
I am aware that the problem goes away once Phase 2b reaches Manchester, assuming the junction north of Crewe gets built. Because then the 2 Birmingham to Manchester HS2 trains will call at Crewe.

Previous HS2 service plans have only ever shown 2 trains stopping at Crewe the Liverpool and the Liverpool/Lancaster splitter. The presentation suggests there will be three calls for 2a and five for 2b. That would appear to be one extra call which I assume is one of the Manchesters. Plus of course this is all 'pre-covid' so anything is on the table, for example Andy Street wants the Birmingham to Manchester via HS2 to start on Phase 2a, so the service could be 1x EUS - MAN Fast, 1x EUS - MAN Wilmslow, 1x BHM- MAN Crewe.

 

[daodao]

so the service could be 1x EUS - MAN Fast, 1x EUS - MAN Wilmslow, 1x BHM- MAN Crewe.

A sensible suggestion for HS2 Phase 2a services to Manchester (given the likely demand), but not what is officially proposed. The plan for HS2 phase 2a includes an additional 1tph HS2 service on the North Staffs line, which accounts for a significant proportion of the current traffic on the London-Manchester trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't think anything at Crewe is a "commitment" until either:
a) it appears in the HS2b (western leg) bill and navigates to royal assent and funding
or b) it appears in Network Rail's periodic CPx plans and similarly is funded

The HS2 consultation is just that, and a statement of DfT intent, no more.
I'd also expect the Integrated Rail Plan to have something to say about Crewe capacity and connectivity.
Avanti, with rights as future HS2/WCML operator, might have also some opinions.
Maybe one day the words "Chester and North Wales" might figure in the plans too.

 

[InOban]

As I understood the video the works at Crewe are associated with phase 2a which has royal assent. 2b has a tunnel under Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

I don't think anything at Crewe is a "commitment" until either:
a) it appears in the HS2b (western leg) bill and navigates to royal assent and funding
or b) it appears in Network Rail's periodic CPx plans and similarly is funded

The HS2 consultation is just that, and a statement of DfT intent, no more.
I'd also expect the Integrated Rail Plan to have something to say about Crewe capacity and connectivity.
Avanti, with rights as future HS2/WCML operator, might have also some opinions.
Maybe one day the words "Chester and North Wales" might figure in the plans too.

Its nothing to do with 2b, its a lot more b) than a). Crewe North junction will appear in the hybrid bill along with the depot.

 

[Starmill]

There wasn't ever committed funding for independent platforms. Sadly.

 

[6Gman]

There wasn't ever committed funding for independent platforms. Sadly.

The Independent Line platforms, while useful in theory, would raise a whole host of issues given how far they would have been from the rest of the station and the height difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2021 ==

Yes, but only if it didn't call at Crewe!

I've also read that plans for a new bridge over the WCML between Nantwich Road and the Shavington Bypass have been dropped, allegedly "because of Covid". Sounds more like an excuse for cost-cutting if you ask me.

The proposed bridge was always a very strange proposal which could only have performed any useful function by channelling traffic down residential streets. As a local I'm glad it's been binned.

 

[Watershed]

The Independent Line platforms, while useful in theory, would raise a whole host of issues given how far they would have been from the rest of the station and the height difference.

There are numerous stations with platforms at different heights. Indeed Bletchley will soon gain new "high level" platforms.

Crewe already has a fairly spread-out layout (albeit no more than Edinburgh for example), so I cannot see how the addition of a pair of new platforms would present a unique problem.

The proposed bridge was always a very strange proposal which could only have performed any useful function by channelling traffic down residential streets. As a local I'm glad it's been binned.

Something needs to be done though, as the traffic on Nantwich Road can be horrendous around "peak" hours (and doesn't exactly present an attractive frontage to Crewe station!). The idea that Covid has smoothed this peak is pure wishful thinking.

 

[Starmill]

Crewe already has a fairly spread-out layout (albeit no more than Edinburgh for example), so I cannot see how the addition of a pair of new platforms would present a unique problem.

I really don't think it would, other than the matter of the cost of the necessary bridges and lift / stairs.

 

[DarloRich]

There are numerous stations with platforms at different heights. Indeed Bletchley will soon gain new "high level" platforms.

Bletchley is a poor comparison. The new platforms are at, roughly, the height of the existing footbridge

The lines discussed at crewe are well below the current station height. Not insumountable of course but more of a pita

 

[Dixie]

The video is very much worth watching, particularly the post HS2 workings shown here:

 

[Martin222002]

The video is very much worth watching, particularly the post HS2 workings shown here:

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Very interesting and impressive.
The relocation of most WCML services to an extended P12 island and allow an HS2 grade-separated junction to the south looks very good.
Presumably Up WCML (classic) trains will be routed into P12 rather than P5 as today, reducing conflict with the Manchester junction.

But...
- no real change to the "turning right to Manchester" problem (more trains doing that with HS2a); Cardiff-Manchester still a problem.
- resignalling, but no redoubling of Crewe-Barthomley
- much made of upgrading the independent line speed - from 10mph to the previous 20mph!
Looks like another major blockade for the core work around 2026.

Hopefully tomorrow's HS2 announcements don't nullify the hard work put in on the scheme so far.

 

[The Planner]

Very interesting and impressive.
The relocation of most WCML services to an extended P12 island and allow an HS2 grade-separated junction to the south looks very good.
Presumably Up WCML (classic) trains will be routed into P12 rather than P5 as today, reducing conflict with the Manchester junction.

But...
- no real change to the "turning right to Manchester" problem (more trains doing that with HS2a); Cardiff-Manchester still a problem.
- resignalling, but no redoubling of Crewe-Barthomley
- much made of upgrading the independent line speed - from 10mph to the previous 20mph!
Looks like another major blockade for the core work around 2026.

Hopefully tomorrow's HS2 announcements don't nullify the hard work put in on the scheme so far.

That layout won't be what is put in, that is what has been come up with to deliver what has been put in a TSS. It will be value managed. Crewe Barthomley will not get redoubled unless an uplift of the timetable is required, which it isn't and is arguably out of Crewe's scope anyway. I would expect to see a good few up trains in P5 based on the HS2 junction at Basford Hall as they will still need the Up Fast.

 

[Dixie]

I guess the most odd thing for me is the complete lack of any thought of moving to ECTS in all this. Surely that would get rid of a lot of lineside signalling renewals in one big go. It's got to happen sooner or later. What is it with this country and moving ahead. If the Swiss can do it, why can't we?

 

[The Planner]

I guess the most odd thing for me is the complete lack of any thought of moving to ECTS in all this. Surely that would get rid of a lot of lineside signalling renewals in one big go. It's got to happen sooner or later. What is it with this country and moving ahead. If the Swiss can do it, why can't we?

ETCS as an overlay isnt discounted yet as far as I know. I suspect it is more train fitment and training led that has stopped it being signals away.

 

[CW2]

I'm slightly disappointed that there is no reinstatement of the former Sydney Bridge Junction planned, i.e. a 2-way ladder linking Slow and Fast Manchester lines just north of the station. With trains towards Manchester potentially originating from Euston via HS2, Euston via WCML, South Wales, Crewe (all stations), plus freight, there is often circumstances where having an overtaking facility between Crewe and Sandbach would be invaluable (as this is the only section of 4-track railway between Crewe and Stockport. It would be so much easier to timetable / operate if the slower trains could actually access the slow lines.