Four-tracking Crewe to Weaver Junction

[Nottingham59]

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

Going to four tracks all the way between Winsford and Weaver will eliminate point ends at the four places where the current line goes from 4 to 2 tracks and simplifies the signalling.

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.

Generally included. The main input to the costs come from here:

• East West Rail Central Section options Central section capital cost estimate (14.08.2019) estimated £60m per route km in 2017.
• The cost of HS2 phase 2a is now suggested at £7bn for 59km over open countryside. That's £120m/route km.

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.

My thinking is that the aspects of cost are likely to be much less for new tracks paralleling an existing line, on land that is (mostly) already owned by the railway, than for a new build line such as HS2. Don't you agree?

But I think the point stands that it would be much cheaper to four track Winsford-Weaver than building an equivalent length of HS2, with a similar capacity uplift.

Anyway, the costs are based on the discussion in this thread:

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

Very happy to continue the discussion there, if you like.

 

[Krokodil]

Going to four tracks all the way between Winsford and Weaver will eliminate point ends at the four places where the current line goes from 4 to 2 tracks and simplifies the signalling.

And there won't be any crossovers?

 

[Nottingham59]

And there won't be any crossovers?

Of course there will. As there are crossovers already, even within the four-track section between Acton Bridge and Harford LNW junction.

But with four tracks, there will be less inter-mingling between fast and slow traffic than there is now, where all the fast and all the slow traffic has to merge and demerge at each of the two-track sections. So I would be surprised if the total point count were that much greater on a four-track railway, compared to what we have now. And at £1M per point, 5 additional point count would take the cost to £1.16Bn, up from £1.155Bn.

Which is still cheap to accommodate an additional 5tph on the WCML north of Crewe.

 

[D7666]

Going to four tracks all the way between Winsford and Weaver will eliminate point ends at the four places where the current line goes from 4 to 2 tracks and simplifies the signalling.

ITYF you still need c.£1m per point end to eliminate them from the signalling system - removing a point end is as complex a change w.r.t. signalling as installing a new one.

Your suggestion might well simplify the signalling (although, overall, I do not see how doubling a 2 track section to a tracks does anything but complicate it), but you still have to pay for that simplification to be carried out.

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

Of course there will. As there are crossovers already, even within the four-track section between Acton Bridge and Harford LNW junction.

But with four tracks, there will be less inter-mingling between fast and slow traffic than there is now, where all the fast and all the slow traffic has to merge and demerge at each of the two-track sections.

I don't get that either. Unless you are suggesting fully segregated FL and SL without any connections anywhere I suggest you have an exceedingly difficult case to convince anybody of the benefits of this.

Like I said, you have a good idea here, the underlying concept is sound, but it is far far FAR more complex hence costly than you are estimating. Which - again like I said - is why it has not yet been done.

 

[snowball]

Winsford to Weaver Junction is a similar distance to Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe, which will have no intermediate fast/slow connections.

 

[The Planner]

Does this include some sort of bi-directional signalling to be able to maintain the tracks? as if its paired by direction then you need a similar solution to the Trent Valley.

 

[D7666]

Winsford to Weaver Junction is a similar distance to Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe, which will have no intermediate fast/slow connections.

Maybe. But are the traffic levels and speed levels AND the relative speed between the fast-er and slow-er trains comparable ?

Basingstoke to Winchfield, Winchfield to Farnborough are probably longer, but [a] look what a mess that can get into and citing examples where something is not as good as it should be is no reason to implement something new and just as not as good as it should be.

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

Does this include some sort of bi-directional signalling to be able to maintain the tracks? as if its paired by direction then you need a similar solution to the Trent Valley.

Seconded.

Need that too.

 

[Nottingham59]

Winsford to Weaver Junction is a similar distance to Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe, which will have no intermediate fast/slow connections.

Unless you are suggesting fully segregated FL and SL without any connections anywhere

I'd expect

• Fast-slow crossovers near Weaver Junction to allow fast trains to access Liverpool, and slow trains to get to Warrington and vice versa (8 switches).
• A single-lead trailing staircase between Hartford LNW Junction and Acton Bridge to allow freight from Middlewich to reach the down slows. (7 switches, including the chord turnout)

And that's it. The existing switches north of Crewe station allow trains on the Liverpool Independent tunnels to reach both fasts and slows; and trains coming through the station to do likewise.

I don't know how much extra that will cost, given that we'll be resignalling Crewe-Weaver soon anyway.

 

[D7666]

TBH, if, as predicted, piping HS2 traffic into WCML is going to be a big problem all the way. Already there are path issues with freight north of Preston, especially over Beattock where almost every passenger following a freight is on the tail lamps of that freight by the time it gets to the next location where the freight ether diverges or recessed. 4 tracking Winsford / Weaver might only move any problem further north and compound existing problems.

Like I said, nice idea, in concept sound, not so sure about overall costs, cost/benefit, payback, etc and repeat if it is so simple why it not been done already ? and does such an idea feature in any NR plan or aspiration ?

 

[Speed43125]

TBH, if, as predicted, piping HS2 traffic into WCML is going to be a big problem all the way. Already there are path issues with freight north of Preston, especially over Beattock where almost every passenger following a freight is on the tail lamps of that freight by the time it gets to the next location where the freight ether diverges or recessed. 4 tracking Winsford / Weaver might only move any problem further north and compound existing problems.

Like I said, nice idea, in concept sound, not so sure about overall costs, cost/benefit, payback, etc and repeat if it is so simple why it not been done already ?

But you would remove the bottleneck for Liverpool/Manchester trains, enabling more trains (LNWR style or HS2) to those destinations.

 

[Nottingham59]

TBH, if, as predicted, piping HS2 traffic into WCML is going to be a big problem all the way. Already there are path issues with freight north of Preston, especially over Beattock where almost every passenger following a freight is on the tail lamps of that freight by the time it gets to the next location where the freight ether diverges or recessed. 4 tracking Winsford / Weaver might only move any problem further north and compound existing problems.

True. And would have been worse if HS2 had gone all the way to Wigan. It was a deficiency of HS2 planning that it did not seem to take account of the needs of the wider network.

Like I said, nice idea, in concept sound, not so sure about overall costs, cost/benefit, payback, etc and repeat if it is so simple why it not been done already ? and does such an idea feature in any NR plan or aspiration ?

I think NR has been working on the assumption that HS2 would solve all its problems on the West Coast. Pity it was such an expensive design.

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

Does this include some sort of bi-directional signalling to be able to maintain the tracks? as if its paired by direction then you need a similar solution to the Trent Valley.

Good idea. Bi-directional centre tracks would make a lot of sense to allow maintenance.

That would need a fast-fast crossover just south of Weaver, for another 4 switches. The existing trackwork just north of Crewe Station is enough, provided that everything goes through the station itself.

How are / were they planning to signal the new four-tracking between Huntingdon and Peterborough to enable the new ECML timetable?

 

[waverley47]

How are / were they planning to signal the new four-tracking between Huntingdon and Peterborough to enable the new ECML timetable

They aren't.

 

[Ben427]

My thinking is that the aspects of cost are likely to be much less for new tracks paralleling an existing line, on land that is (mostly) already owned by the railway, than for a new build line such as HS2. Don't you agree?

But I think the point stands that it would be much cheaper to four track Winsford-Weaver than building an equivalent length of HS2, with a similar capacity uplift.

Based on TRU costs then no - upgrades are not necessarily cheaper, are more disruptive and generally will not deliver as much of an uplift as new build

 

[Nottingham59]

Based on TRU costs then no - upgrades are not necessarily cheaper, are more disruptive and generally will not deliver as much of an uplift as new build

So why are they doing TRU then, rather than a new build line?

 

[zwk500]

I'd expect

• Fast-slow crossovers near Weaver Junction to allow fast trains to access Liverpool, and slow trains to get to Warrington and vice versa (8 switches).
• A single-lead trailing staircase between Hartford LNW Junction and Acton Bridge to allow freight from Middlewich to reach the down slows. (7 switches, including the chord turnout)

At the moment the Down Slow at Hartford LNW Jn is on the 'inside' which allows Freight to cross the Up line and then wait for an onwards Down Path. Although having the Down Slow continuing further will ease this pressure having to cross Up Slow and Both Fasts in one move will be a potential bottleneck. Look at Lichfield and Nuneaton on the Trent Valley.

So why are they doing TRU then, rather than a new build line?

Because the Geography makes building a new line through the Pennines no easier - both physical relief and the economic geography of the Towns and Cities.

 

[Jack Hay]

At the moment the Down Slow at Hartford LNW Jn is on the 'inside' which allows Freight to cross the Up line and then wait for an onwards Down Path. Although having the Down Slow continuing further will ease this pressure having to cross Up Slow and Both Fasts in one move will be a potential bottleneck. Look at Lichfield and Nuneaton on the Trent Valley.

Because the Geography makes building a new line through the Pennines no easier - both physical relief and the economic geography of the Towns and Cities.

There is room on railway land, I understand, to construct a flyover for the down CLC connection at Hartford LNW junction to bring it to the down (west) side of the formation, if that is a cheaper solution.

 

[Nottingham59]

There is room on railway land, I understand, to construct a flyover for the down CLC connection at Hartford LNW junction to bring it to the down (west) side of the formation, if that is a cheaper solution.

It looks like that would be feasible (see second image in post #1), but I don't think it would be on railway land. It is across open fields, which could be compulsorily purchased.

With four tracking from Acton Bridge to Weaver Junction, that would give a segregated freight route from Crewe via Middlewich. Which would be a cheaper than extending the four tracks through Winsford. (But not add as much slow line capacity)

 

[The Planner]

It looks like that would be feasible (see second image in post #1), but I don't think it would be on railway land. It is across open fields, which could be compulsorily purchased.

With four tracking from Acton Bridge to Weaver Junction, that would give a segregated freight route from Crewe via Middlewich. Which would be a cheaper than extending the four tracks through Winsford. (But not add as much slow line capacity)

Freight would just bid through the two track section. Its too much of a dog leg via Middlewich.

 

[Nottingham59]

Freight would just bid through the two track section. Its too much of a dog leg via Middlewich.

So declare it congested infrastructure and impose additional access charges until freight choose to go through Middlewich.

 

[Dr Hoo]

So declare it congested infrastructure and impose additional access charges until freight choose to go through Middlewich.

I thought that Congested Infrastructure actually had to be, err, congested in the sense that applications for paths have to be declined for genuine reasons.
I didn’t think that Network Rail can just arbitrarily declare a route congested and jack the access charges up.
Are there any other routes that you would declare Congested just to get rid of freight?

 

[Nottingham59]

Are there any other routes that you would declare Congested just to get rid of freight?

East Coast Mainline.
Castlefield.
Shap and Beattock.
Hope Valley.
Colwich Junction after HS2 phase 1 opens.

Freight should use these routes generally after around 8pm and before 7am. Or at least keep off them in the morning and evening peaks, like on the southern WCML. And I'm not saying to get rid of freight at such times. Just ensure that there is some financial consequence to having a path in the timetable, so that the freight industry does not sit on capacity at busy times because any paths they win have no cost to themselves.

Don't get me wrong. Freight is important to the country and more of it should go by rail. But not with the current set up, where the mechanism that was set up to allocate capacity in the most economically efficient manner had never been used.

 

[The Planner]

So declare it congested infrastructure and impose additional access charges until freight choose to go through Middlewich.

They won't, they will still see the time vs resource and bid the quicker path if its Intermodal.

East Coast Mainline.
Castlefield.
Shap and Beattock.
Hope Valley.
Colwich Junction after HS2 phase 1 opens.

Freight should use these routes generally after around 8pm and before 7am. Or at least keep off them in the morning and evening peaks, like on the southern WCML. And I'm not saying to get rid of freight at such times. Just ensure that there is some financial consequence to having a path in the timetable, so that the freight industry does not sit on capacity at busy times because any paths they win have no cost to themselves.

Don't get me wrong. Freight is important to the country and more of it should go by rail. But not with the current set up, where the mechanism that was set up to allocate capacity in the most economically efficient manner had never been used.

Doesnt work like that, if its congested it applies to everyone.

 

[Kite159]

East Coast Mainline.
Castlefield.
Shap and Beattock.
Hope Valley.
Colwich Junction after HS2 phase 1 opens.

Freight should use these routes generally after around 8pm and before 7am. Or at least keep off them in the morning and evening peaks, like on the southern WCML. And I'm not saying to get rid of freight at such times. Just ensure that there is some financial consequence to having a path in the timetable, so that the freight industry does not sit on capacity at busy times because any paths they win have no cost to themselves.

Don't get me wrong. Freight is important to the country and more of it should go by rail. But not with the current set up, where the mechanism that was set up to allocate capacity in the most economically efficient manner had never been used.

More of it should go by rail, but you are wanting to introduce more restrictions in when freight can run. Make rail less appealing by increasing journey times and companies will switch back to using the road.

Going via Middlewich is all fine and dandy, but isn't the line speed something like 20mph which will add in a large time penalty to save running between Crewe & Hartford?

 

[Jack Hay]

More of it should go by rail, but you are wanting to introduce more restrictions in when freight can run. Make rail less appealing by increasing journey times and companies will switch back to using the road.

Going via Middlewich is all fine and dandy, but isn't the line speed something like 20mph which will add in a large time penalty to save running between Crewe & Hartford?

I think we should assume that if greater use is going to be made of the Middlewich line, the line speed will have to be raised as part of the project.

 

[185]

Despite much of the potential savings and capacity improvements four tracking could bring, any savings in time are subsequently totally destroyed by anything going anywhere near Crewe.

The only real solution in cost-effective terms for exponentially increasing capacity, improving performance and eliminating needless delays is to totally destroy everything at Crewe including the station, signal box, all signals, track layout, the heritage train company yard that squishes & obstructs the West Coast Mainline and just rebuild the whole lot. Anything listed, if it can't be modernised or it's in the way, move it to the museum.

Nantwich Road bridge should be demolished and the road rerouted in a round arc 100m north to give the station footprint a wide berth.

I know a chap in Pyongyang who can do the demolition quite quickly and put and end to the UK railway's most infamous, pointless, shambolic red light district.

 

[zwk500]

Despite much of the potential savings and capacity improvements four tracking could bring, any savings in time are subsequently totally destroyed by anything going anywhere near Crewe.

The only real solution in cost-effective terms for exponentially increasing capacity, improving performance and eliminating needless delays is to totally destroy everything at Crewe including the station, signal box, all signals, track layout, the heritage train company yard that squishes & obstructs the West Coast Mainline and just rebuild the whole lot. Anything listed, if it can't be modernised or it's in the way, move it to the museum.

I know a chap in Pyongyang who can do the demolition quite quickly and put and end to the UK railway's most infamous, pointless, shambolic red light district.

There's a perfectly viable corridor for a bypass fast line to the east of the town, with a chord to Manchester if you need. That then frees up space at Crewe to rebuild for more platforms and more flexibility in routings. No need for the nuclear option.

 

[185]

I think if HS2 ever gets built then yes, this could be useful, however that would only fix the Stafford Wilmslow services leaving trains using the other four arms of Crewe's snowflake still trundling through.

Nuclear option... deffo

 

[Nottingham59]

I was in the area, so went to have a look at the A54 bridge at Winsford. It was definitely built for four tracks. The east span is the same width and shape as the west, which carries two tracks with electrification.



And the pillars give clearance for safe working alongside the live railway.


The central pillars align with the highest point of the roadway above, so the bridge has been designed to be rotationally symmetrical.


Which means Winsford station could be four tracked by just building new two tracks plus a new southbound platform and footbridge.

 

[Meerkat]

If Salford and Parkside terminals take the container trains away from Castlefield can Crewe-Earlestown cope with the extra trains? Especially as a lack of south western chord means southbound freight would cross on the flat at Winwick

 

[Nottingham59]

If Salford and Parkside terminals take the container trains away from Castlefield can Crewe-Earlestown cope with the extra trains? Especially as a lack of south western chord means southbound freight would cross on the flat at Winwick

2tph passenger and quite a few freights leave the twin track Northbound WCML at Weaver, so the two-track railway from Weaver to Acton Grange and Warrington cannot be full. So there should be some capacity at Winwick, but I haven't really studied the timetable.

Winwick is a particularly inefficient layout. All southbound traffic from Earlestown has to cross both the northbound and the southbound fasts to get to the soutbound slow line. After four tracking Crewe-Weaver, the next step to unlocking the WCML should be an East to South chord at Newton-le-Willows which will grade-separate Winwick Junction for Manchester-Crewe flows.