Four-tracking Crewe to Weaver Junction

[Nottingham59]

If Phase 2a gets built, the usable capacity of both HS2 and the WCML will increase markedly, and the bottleneck will become the two-track section between Winsford and Weaver Junction. Beyond Weaver, there are two tracks towards Liverpool and four towards Warrington, so this short section will be a significant constraint on the WCML.

It seems to me that it should be relatively straightforward to quadruple this section:

• Some of the section is already four track (Acton Bridge to Hartford Jct, including A49 bridge)
• Many of the main road bridges have been built to allow 4 tracks (A54 at Winsford Station; A556 Nortwhich Bypass; Hodge Lane and Mid-Cheshire line overbridge; Milton Rough bridge at Action Bridge Station)
• Many OHLE portals were also built to accommodate four tracks

NEW STATION AT WEAVERHAM
First step would be to close Acton Bridge station and Hartford Station, which are just 4km apart, and merge them into a new station at Weaverham. I'd build the platforms well back from the existing four lines, and then slew the slows across when the station was commisioned, leaving space for six tracks between the platforms if needed for passing loops in the future. (Cost £100m for 2x1km of new trackbed and £200M for new station).


It would be possible to add an East to North chord from the mid-Cheshire line to grade separate Hartford Junction, and provide a freight route from Crewe to Liverpool via the Middlewich line. (Not costed)




FOUR TRACKS OVER THE WEAVER
Second, build a two-track viaduct over the river Weaver to carry the southbound tracks from Weaver Junction to the site of Acton Bridge station. The bridge at Acton Bridge is wide enough to accommodate four tracks, once the platforms have been removed. (Cost: £200m for 1km viaduct; £200m for 2km new railway; £100m for quadrupling 1km two track line to four.)


Building the new line away from existing tracks where possible would reduce the complexity of building adjacent to a live railway. And preserve the view of the Dutton Viaduct.

FOUR TRACK HARTFORD TO WINSLOW
Move Winsford station 500m to the South, allowing space for four tracks under the A54 bridge. The trackbed through Winsford seems to be wide enough for four tracks all the way, though some demolition might be required in Wharton Bridge road.



Similarly at Hartford, there seems to be space for four tracks, though in this case the (non-listed) bridge would need replacing.

By Jason2035 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=127101473

Cost: New Station at Winsford £200M. New 4km line £400M) Quadding of 2x1km of tracks at Winsford station and at Hartford; and 2km through Winsford town; Retaining walls at Hartford Station. Cost £400M, and very disruptive to WCML traffic when the quadding sections are done.

This makes the total cost around £1.8M £1.8Bn. Not cheap, but much cheaper than HS2 phase 2b.

What do you think? Is it practical. What have I missed?

 

[RT4038]

message redundant now!

 

[Nottingham59]

Do you mean that the total cost is £1.8bn?

oops. Yes lol. Now corrected, thanks

 

[childwallblues]

Winsford to Weaver Junction is two track from Winsford to Hartford LNW Junction then four tracks to Acton Bridge and then two tracks to Weaver Junction. From Weaver Junction the Warrington line is two track to Acton Grange, then four track through Warrington BQ to Winwick Junction were the lines split as two two track railways until they meet up again at Golbourne Junction. From there it is four tracks to just north of Wigan NW,
On the Liverpool line it is two track from Weaver junction through Runcorn and over the Queen Ethelreda Bridge to Ditton Junction. It is four tracks all the way to Lime Street except for a short section from Wavertree Junction to Edge Hill which is two track around Edge Hill Depot.

 

[The Planner]

Only thing in the pipeline along here is resignalling to get the headway down.

 

[Jack Hay]

Interesting ideas, and I think something like this will be needed to deliver capacity by removing the two-track bottleneck. A couple of thoughts; I believe there used to be four tracks through Winsford, so the railway land is wide enough without needing demolition. However the modern A54 bridge which crosses the station platforms is not wide enough for four tracks so there is the extra expense of rebuilding that. There is another idea to add capacity which might be less disruptive to do. Widen the Middlewich branch to double track and use Sandbach-Middlewich-Greenbank as the WCML slow lines (in the same way the Northampton loop is). There is room on railway land for a grade-separated junction at Hartford LNW junction. You'd still need to build the new viaduct across the Weaver as you say. You'd also need to increase the capacity somehoiw at Crewe North Junction, or incease the line speed on the Crewe avoiding lines, to improve access to this new route from the south. The Northwich stretch would be slow - but these will be the slow lines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2024 ==

Only thing in the pipeline along here is resignalling to get the headway down.

That should be very worthwhile!

 

[Nottingham59]

I believe there used to be four tracks through Winsford, so the railway land is wide enough without needing demolition. However the modern A54 bridge which crosses the station platforms is not wide enough for four tracks so there is the extra expense of rebuilding that.

That's a shame. I had assumed from this view off Wikipedia that the A54 bridge had been built with four tracks in mind, but I've never been there.

Rept0n1x, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

I had thought about running the extra tracks around the east of Winsford, but then Winsford Station would have been split into two sites, northbound and southbound. Maybe that would be preferable to the disruption of quadding through the town?

There is another idea to add capacity which might be less disruptive to do. Widen the Middlewich branch to double track and use Sandbach-Middlewich-Greenbank as the WCML slow lines (in the same way the Northampton loop is). There is room on railway land for a grade-separated junction at Hartford LNW junction.

I had considereed that, but the Middlewich route is a very long way round. Maybe the freights could be sent that way, but Winsford station would still have to be on the main route. Unless you moved Winsford Station to Middlewich, of course!

If we're building new freight lines, then a freight line from the slows onto the Chester-Manchester line would give four tracks on the WCML through Warrington all the way to Golborne Junction. Cost: 3km = £300M

 

[Bevan Price]

A few historical comments:
1. There was a short section with additional tracks at the former Winsford Junction, about a mile north of Winsford station. There have never been 4 tracks through Winsford or Hartford stations.
2. The problem with the Middlewich line is not so much the extra distance, it is the painfully slow 25 mph limit now imposed - it used to be 60 mph before passenger services were withdrawn; also the junctions at Sandbach, Northwich & Hartford need to be taken at low speed.
3. There were once 4 tracks all the way from Acton Grange Junction to Warrington Bank Quay - in addition to the still present 2 slow lines passing through the sidings.

With the current level of daytime freight traffic, I don't think that Weaver Junction via Warrington to Golborne Junction creates much of a bottleneck. Having spent much time with a camera at Winwick Junction. there are plenty of longish gaps between trains, easily long enough to permit several more trains per hour. It is how those trains could be accommodated North of Preston and South of Stafford where the bigger problems arise. .

 

[Falcon1200]

It has always surprised me that Crewe/Weaver Jc is not, and never has been, 4 tracks throughout; Also that 4-tracking this section was not AFAIK considered as part of the West Coast Route Modernisation, or promulgated as (another) use for the money supposedly released from the HS2 reduction. Having three stations in the section in particular must eat up capacity.

 

[Nottingham59]

It has always surprised me that Crewe/Weaver Jc is not, and never has been, 4 tracks throughout; Also that 4-tracking this section was not AFAIK considered as part of the West Coast Route Modernisation, or promulgated as (another) use for the money supposedly released from the HS2 reduction.

That surprised me too. It must have been on the cards in the 1980s as all the newish bridges in the area have clearly been built to accommodate four tracks.

Having three stations in the section in particular must eat up capacity.

Yes. Especially as they all avoid the four track intermediate section.

Also, I realise now that it isn't necessary to move Winsford station.
The northbound platform and station building can stay in place. It's only the southbound platform that would need relocating.

Does anyone on here use Winsford? It would be interesting to see how much space there is under the bridge, currently used by the step-free access path to the southbound platform.

 

[JamesT]

Isn't there partial mitigation for only two tracks from Crewe to Weaver in that the Stafford-Manchester line exists?

 

[Nottingham59]

Isn't there partial mitigation for only two tracks from Crewe to Weaver in that the Stafford-Manchester line exists?

The line through Stoke on Trent does provide an alternative, as does the line through Wilmslow. But both of those routes are constrained by the congestion around Manchester. Crewe-Weaver is the only practical route for Liverpool, Preston or Scotland west of the Pennines. It also offers access to Manchester from the west, as Lumo are planning to exploit.

 

[Jack Hay]

That surprised me too. It must have been on the cards in the 1980s as all the newish bridges in the area have clearly been built to accommodate four tracks.


Yes. Especially as they all avoid the four track intermediate section.

Also, I realise now that it isn't necessary to move Winsford station.
The northbound platform and station building can stay in place. It's only the southbound platform that would need relocating.

Does anyone on here use Winsford? It would be interesting to see how much space there is under the bridge, currently used by the step-free access path to the southbound platform.

I use Winsford occasionally, and sorry to say, the newish A54 bridge across the platforms at Winsford station does get in the way of adding an extra track on either side of the line. The bridge abutment (visible behind the train in the photo posted by Nottingham59) is in the way, and it's the same on the other platform. You can however see that Winsford station is of quite light construction, so would not be difficult to remove, and it's not in an especially good position (it's right on the edge of town, not within walking distance for many people) so moving it would not be the end of the world.

The Middlewich route is not much longer and if it was chosen for the slow lines (with doubling and line speed upgrade), you can imagine transferring some of the station stops - from Winsford to Middlewich, and from Hartford to Greenbank - to reduce station calls on the bottleneck double-track fast lines.

 

[Danfilm007]

FOUR TRACK HARTFORD TO WINSFORD

Move Winsford station 500m to the South, allowing space for four tracks under the A54 bridge. The trackbed through Winsford seems to be wide enough for four tracks all the way, though some demolition might be required in Wharton Bridge road.

View attachment 159306

It is an interesting concept - for example, your blue line diversion here that goes right past Moulton, there is a significant lower track level compared to the rest of the area, so you'd likely tunnel the element you've suggested. There are also several old and weight restricted bridges in these areas so likely you'd want to rebuild those where possible.

There should, theoretically, be an easier time of clearing the linesides that currently exist (although by Wharton, you're hemmed in by housing so it would be quite an expensive job to adjust around there) and minimising disruption to farm lands too. Between the exit of Wharton and the farm in Moulton there is already space and spans in for 4 tracks, but after that it is quite narrow again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2024 ==

I use Winsford occasionally, and sorry to say, the newish A54 bridge across the platforms at Winsford station does get in the way of adding an extra track on either side of the line. The bridge abutment (visible behind the train in the photo posted by Nottingham59) is in the way, and it's the same on the other platform. You can however see that Winsford station is of quite light construction, so would not be difficult to remove, and it's not in an especially good position (it's right on the edge of town, not within walking distance for many people) so moving it would not be the end of the world.

The Middlewich route is not much longer and if it was chosen for the slow lines (with doubling and line speed upgrade), you can imagine transferring some of the station stops - from Winsford to Middlewich, and from Hartford to Greenbank - to reduce station calls on the bottleneck double-track fast lines.

The bigger benefit of moving it would be for more parking! The current car park is far too small in reality, although moving it to the Wharton end of Winsford would cause more disruption to the businesses too.

 

[Nottingham59]

I use Winsford occasionally, and sorry to say, the newish A54 bridge across the platforms at Winsford station does get in the way of adding an extra track on either side of the line. The bridge abutment (visible behind the train in the photo posted by Nottingham59) is in the way, and it's the same on the other platform.

Thanks for the input. It looks like that bridge will need widening, then (or lengthening, depending on how you look at it). As it's a concrete beam construction, it may be possible to do this by adding another span to the East side, rather than wholesale demolition and replacement.

your blue line diversion here that goes right past Moulton, there is a significant lower track level compared to the rest of the area, so you'd likely tunnel the element you've suggested.

the blue line is just to indicate that I would build the line slightly away from the existing tracks so that the construction site was not next to a live railway. It wouldn't have to be all the way up the hill towards Moulton. You could also build on the West side of the WCML and slew the tracks across, if that made construction easier.

 

[Krokodil]

This makes the total cost around £1.8M £1.8Bn. Not cheap, but much cheaper than HS2 phase 2b.

Of course it's cheaper, it's no substitute. If anything it's only a substitute for the Golborne spur. Most of the cost of Phase 2B is the tunnel under Manchester, a congested route that widening the WCML north of Crewe won't help.

 

[Nottingham59]

Of course it's cheaper, it's no substitute. If anything it's only a substitute for the Golborne spur. Most of the cost of Phase 2B is the tunnel under Manchester, a congested route that widening the WCML north of Crewe won't help.

It adds to capacity to the North West and to Scotland, and Lumo are planning to use Crewe-Weaver to access Manchester....

EDIT: This image of the bridge at Winsford station shows there might yet be space under the right-hand bay for third and fourth tracks, running behind platform 1.

Photo 6x4 Winsford railway station, Cheshire Opened in 1837 by the Grand c2014 | eBay

Photograph Notes: Opened in 1837 by the Grand Junction Railway on the line from Crewe to Warrington. View north west towards Hartford and Warrington. Condition: New.

www.ebay.co.uk

 

[cle]

Could there be a world where two centre lines (with no platforms) were rated higher than 125mph, for HS2 stock? Long enough to be worth it - from Crewe north even?

Could this even be a future enhancement after Handsacre?

 

[Nottingham59]

Could there be a world where two centre lines (with no platforms) were rated higher than 125mph, for HS2 stock? Long enough to be worth it - from Crewe north even?

With ETCS in-cab signalling, there's no reason the centre lines couldn't be faster than 125mph. It's very straight from Crewe to Acton Bridge, with curve radius of around 20km. But rules about fencing and spacing between lines might make that difficult if the lines are to fit within the existing bridges.

Could this even be a future enhancement after Handsacre?

If they only build HS2 phase 1 to Handsacre, then there's no point. But if (when?) they build phase 2a, even if ony to Madeley, then HS2 has the capacity to deliver 10tph onto the fast lines, and the WCML from Stafford could deliver 10tph onto the slows. Those trains have got to go somewhere, and this would be cheaper than the Golborne spur.

== == == ==

Cost of new railway lines in 2024

What is the current cost of building a new railway in the UK? I'm thinking about the total cost, not just the civil engineering. There's a number of references I can find. Are there any better sources? East West Rail Central Section options Central section capital cost estimate (14.08.2019)...

www.railforums.co.uk

After the discussion here, I think I need to revise my cost estimates, as follows:

• New Southbound platform at Winsford £5m. (Northbound platform can stay in place)
• Four-tracking through Winsford to Hartford LNW junction (8km at £75m/km = £600m. I'm going for a low estimate per km, as most of the land is already owned by the railway; many of the bridges have already been built for 4-tracks; and the alignment seems wide enough to allow safe clearance from running lines.) Includes new bridge and raised trackbed at the site of Hartford station; retaining walls to use the existing side spans of the Mid-Cheshire line bridge and at Hodge Lane; rebuilding minor bridges.
• New 150m twin-track viaduct over River Weaver alongside Vale Royal Viaduct (£30m)
• New station halt at Weaverham (£20M)
• New 4km twin-track railway from Acton Bridge to Weaver Junction (£400m)
• New 500m viaduct over River Weaver alongside Dutton viaduct: (£100m)

Revised total: £1155m. Much cheaper than the Golborne Spur, but effectively gives a four-track railway all the way to Wigan.

 

[Bevan Price]

There are several snags to that plan, of which the worst is that the "safety people" would want to close that section of WCML whilst construction work proceeds -- and that could take as much as 5-10 years...

And ou forgot to mention Preston Brook Tunnel - not very long, but that would need widening, or a new tunnel.

 

[The Planner]

There are several snags to that plan, of which the worst is that the "safety people" would want to close that section of WCML whilst construction work proceeds -- and that could take as much as 5-10 years...

And ou forgot to mention Preston Brook Tunnel - not very long, but that would need widening, or a new tunnel.

You would close it on weekends and have various blockades. It wouldn't require complete closure. It also has a decent set of diversionary routes.

 

[Nottingham59]

There are several snags to that plan, of which the worst is that the "safety people" would want to close that section of WCML whilst construction work proceeds -- and that could take as much as 5-10 years...

I think most of the alignment through Winsford is wide enough to allow the third and fourth tracks to be built safely with separation from the active lines, with very little land take needed. Others may not agree.

Elsewhere, the line is in open country, so space is available for safe separation.

Many of the bridges have already been built to accommodate four tracks with two separate spans, so there is a wall of concrete pillars between any worksite and the running lines.

The main pinch points I can see where you'd have to work close alongside the active railway are the site of Hartford Station, and the A556 bridge which seems to have been built wide enough to accommodate 4 tracks, but under a single span.

And you forgot to mention Preston Brook Tunnel - not very long, but that would need widening, or a new tunnel.

I don't think you can quad through Preston Brook. But with the Liverpool traffic having turned off, a short twin track section might be accommodated by timetabling. And if not, a short frieght spur to the Chester-Manchester line would solve that. See post #7.

 

[The Planner]

I don't think you can quad through Preston Brook. But with the Liverpool traffic having turned off, a short twin track section might be accommodated by timetabling. And if not, a short frieght spur to the Chester-Manchester line would solve that. See post #7.

That really wouldn't as it would cause almighty issues at Acton Grange.

 

[Nottingham59]

That really wouldn't as it would cause almighty issues at Acton Grange.

I was thinking that northbound freights could use the underpass at Grid Iron junction to get back onto the West side of the alignment without conflicting with fast line services. Would that not work?

EDIT: And southbound freights could use the Arpley Feeding Line, with a bit of extra pointwork, to avoid conflicting with northbound. (And we still need to grade separate the slow lines at Winwick Junction, but that's for another thread.)

 

[Krokodil]

You would close it on weekends and have various blockades

Still an awful lot of disruption compared with building the Golborne link, without many of the benefits.

It also has a decent set of diversionary routes.

Diverting never seems easy these days. No more loco-haulage via non-electrified routes (they used to use Chester, didn't they?). Sending trains through Castlefield is surely something to be avoided unless a last resort (as per the Acton Grange blockade). And then there's crew knowledge. Avanti can't even cover their basic service these days, let alone release staff for learning diversions.

A new line is definitely the better option in my view.

 

[The Planner]

Still an awful lot of disruption compared with building the Golborne link, without many of the benefits.

I don't disagree, however it was to point out you wouldn't be closing it for years in one go.

Diverting never seems easy these days. No more loco-haulage via non-electrified routes (they used to use Chester, didn't they?). Sending trains through Castlefield is surely something to be avoided unless a last resort (as per the Acton Grange blockade). And then there's crew knowledge. Avanti can't even cover their basic service these days, let alone release staff for learning diversions.

A new line is definitely the better option in my view.

Its happening this Christmas when Crewe Basford Hall is re-signaled.

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

I was thinking that northbound freights could use the underpass at Grid Iron junction to get back onto the West side of the alignment without conflicting with fast line services. Would that not work?

EDIT: And southbound freights could use the Arpley Feeding Line, with a bit of extra pointwork, to avoid conflicting with northbound. (And we still need to grade separate the slow lines at Winwick Junction, but that's for another thread.)

View attachment 161138

That is a mouse hole in terms of gauge clearance.

 

[Nottingham59]

That is a mouse hole in terms of gauge clearance.

That's useful to know, thank you.

But from Google Maps, it looks like it might be relatively straightforward (though not cheap) to lower the trackbed of the diveunder to give clearance for W12+electrification. Or raise the level of the tracks going over.

 

[The Chimaera]

If memory serves me correctly the whole length between Winsford station and Acton Bridge station has enough space for four tracking as extra land was purchased for exactly that in the 1930’s? Later built over bridges do span the whole formation respecting the Railway land. There would need to be an extra viaduct built at Vale Royal as well as Dutton though. Hartford station would need removing, perhaps resited slightly further north out of the cutting. North of Weaver Jn you have normal two track railway with no extra with two short tunnels at Birdswood (Flyover from Liverpool) and Preston Brook. It’s presently four tracks again from Acton Grange Jn to Winwick Jn and did used to be six to Warrington BQ, and the formation is still complete. At Winwick Jn you are back to two tracks up the hill to Golbourne Jn through the narrow sandstone cutting at Parkside. After Golbourne it’s four track as far as Wigan North then you have an high embankment backed onto by houses which would be awkward to widen. North of that it would be relatively easy to widen through Boars Head to join the old four track formation at Standish and onward into Preston.
In short it would be possible to four track all the way to Preston but I wouldn’t like to think of how much that would cost. Perhaps doing as far as Acton Grange would be affordable and relatively easy as long as traffic levels justified it. The only way to properly develop on HS2 after it’s built to Crewe, which it surely must be, would be a brand new line as far as Preston. I don’t expect to live long enough to see that though!

 

[D7666]

• New Southbound platform at Winsford £5m. (Northbound platform can stay in place)
• Four-tracking through Winsford to Hartford LNW junction (8km at £75m/km = £600m. I'm going for a low estimate per km, as most of the land is already owned by the railway; many of the bridges have already been built for 4-tracks; and the alignment seems wide enough to allow safe clearance from running lines.) Includes new bridge and raised trackbed at the site of Hartford station; retaining walls to use the existing side spans of the Mid-Cheshire line bridge and at Hodge Lane; rebuilding minor bridges.
• New 150m twin-track viaduct over River Weaver alongside Vale Royal Viaduct (£30m)
• New station halt at Weaverham (£20M)
• New 4km twin-track railway from Acton Bridge to Weaver Junction (£400m)
• New 500m viaduct over River Weaver alongside Dutton viaduct: (£100m)

Add ~£1m for every single point end you install, be it new install or relocate existing.

And you need to not just look at track and earthworks, what about signalling beyond points ? ETCS or clockwork it still costs money and I don't see any of that counted anywhere.

And 25 kV traction power supply ? You go from 2 to 4 track and in practical terms you are at least rebuilding the whole existing lot as well as adding new. Power grid implications ? Additional DNO feeds ? Substations ? You want capacity to carry trains => you need the power, more than there is today.

Then consider diversion / protection / mitigation of any water / sewerage / power / gas lines / rivers / streams / etc.

Your new 4 km railway needs all the legal and planning costs not just the civils.

Then on site you find somewhere some form of rare newt species or protected ancient tree.

And then you might get a figure approaching reality => which figure is probably the underlying reason it has not been done to date.

Nice idea, but methinks you are way way off on costs estimate.

 

[Jack Hay]

I agree with your general sentiment here, but if it's really £1M per point end that's installed or moved, then it's time that Network Rail's processes were re-engineered. That is getting absurd and feels like the cost base of a monopoly - no competition to allow a proper cost comparison, no incentive to find a cheaper way of doing it!