Halton Curve

[WatcherZero]

Merseytravel are proposing to take the Halton Curve beyond GRIP 3 to nearly Grip 4 during 2014/15 at a cost of £500,000 though they are hoping for other local authorities to contribute to the cost later. It ranked near the bottom on Merseytravels scheme prioritisation list (28th out of 36) as most of the benefits wernt in Merseyside but elsewhere in the region. A update on the 2009 demand estimate will be published in the first quarter of 2014, its waiting on a statistical release to be published in February.

The scheme has been priced at £16m by Network Rail but theyve advised that if it can be done at the same time as Weaver and Wavertree Junctions in 2016 then economies of scale will reduce the cost to £10.5m. Amusingly in the same way Network Rail renamed the Manchester Hub to the Northern Hub to make it more palatable Merseytravel are proposing that Halton Curve be renamed the Mersey Dee Link to promote its benefits outside the borough of Halton.

http://moderngov.merseytravel.uk.net/documents/s10894/Halton Curve Outline Design.pdf

 

[The Planner]

GRIP4 being single option selection, that is nearly the tipping point of "we are going to do it".

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I notice it doesn't say anything about a station on the curve, or specify what services are envisaged.
It sounds as though this is a "once only" opportunity to do something.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Seems like this is all part of the moves by local government to work closer together especially on schemes that have little benefit for a single authority but as joint projects could boost the local economy and services available.

In this case with the possibility of electrification reaching Chester and perhaps eventually the North Wales Line, the scheme makes sense. However, should the scheme go forward, it begs a number of questions,
a) Does it have any effect on proposals to upgrade the Bidston to Wrexham line including electrification?
b) In the longer term would the introduction of additional local passenger services running on the curve and beyond not cause a potential bottle neck between it and Ditton, especially if HS2 compatible trains are routed this way?

 

[YorkshireBear]

It seems they have seen the 6 million saving and gone, we will do it now and think about services and rolling stock after. NOTE TODMORDEN.

Where work was undertaken earlier than expected rolling stock release due to combining possessions with Holme Tunnel to save MONEY.

There is more to life than rolling stock.

 

[merlodlliw]

The scheme has been priced at £16m by Network Rail but theyve advised that if it can be done at the same time as Weaver and Wavertree Junctions in 2016 then economies of scale will reduce the cost to £10.5m. Amusingly in the same way Network Rail renamed the Manchester Hub to the Northern Hub to make it more palatable Merseytravel are proposing that Halton Curve be renamed the Mersey Dee Link to promote its benefits outside the borough of Halton.

http://moderngov.merseytravel.uk.net/documents/s10894/Halton Curve Outline Design.pdf

[/QUOTE]

The Wrexham redouble was supposed to have commenced last October when equipment was on site saving substantial amounts,however, politics intervened, I hope the Halton curve does not suffer similar meddling. The link shows Taith support,alas however Taith is soon to disappear along with the other three consortia in Wales.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

I notice it doesn't say anything about a station on the curve, or specify what services are envisaged.
It sounds as though this is a "once only" opportunity to do something.

I agree and it is important that it is taken. Getting the infrastructure in place to be able to run services across the curve should be the priority followed by any additional stations (Beechwood?) which can follow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Wrexham redouble was supposed to have commenced last October when equipment was on site saving substantial amounts,however, politics intervened, I hope the Halton curve does not suffer similar meddling. The link shows Taith support,alas however Taith is soon to disappear along with the other three consortia in Wales.[/QUOTE]

A shame really. I know the link mentions Liverpool to Llandudno but Liverpool to Wrexham is possible over the Curve.

 

[merlodlliw]

A shame really. I know the link mentions Liverpool to Llandudno but Liverpool to Wrexham is possible over the Curve.

[/QUOTE]

Indeed it is, the current AM for Clwyd West Daren Millar, is really pushing for a North Wales/Liverpool direct service, I hope the link goes ahead,

 

[Holly]

I agree and it is important that it is taken. Getting the infrastructure in place to be able to run services across the curve should be the priority followed by any additional stations (Beechwood?) which can follow. ...

As I understand it, the proposal is for Halton Curve to become single track bidirectional.

Which considering there is only one and a half miles of track involved and new crossovers needed anyway will probably cost just about as much as two tracking would.

But NR presumably has their reasons for wanting it that way and has sweetened the pot.

Single track bidirectional will certainly make it a lot more difficult and expensive to add a station later, quite possibly makes it less likely, not more likely that there will ever be a station on the curve.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As I understand it, the proposal is for Halton Curve to become single track bidirectional.

Which considering there is only one and a half miles of track involved and new crossovers needed anyway will probably cost just about as much as two tracking would.

But NR presumably has their reasons for wanting it that way and has sweetened the pot.

Single track bidirectional will certainly make it a lot more difficult and expensive to add a station later, quite possibly makes it less likely, not more likely that there will ever be a station on the curve.

You could put a loop in for the station. And i think half hourly each way could afford a single platform quite easily. Based on my experiences at Castleford.

 

[6Gman]

Indeed it is, the current AM for Clwyd West Daren Millar, is really pushing for a North Wales/Liverpool direct service, I hope the link goes ahead,[/QUOTE]




Could an enthusiast for Halton Curve reopening please explain what the timetable would look like?

 

[The Planner]

As I understand it, the proposal is for Halton Curve to become single track bidirectional.

Which considering there is only one and a half miles of track involved and new crossovers needed anyway will probably cost just about as much as two tracking would.

Doubt it, as it would mean less point ends as single track. Why does it need to be twin track? Say the connections get put in at 40mph then you are looking at 3 minutes to cover the distance, hardly a capacity killer.

 

[Holly]

Doubt it, as it would mean less point ends as single track. Why does it need to be twin track? Say the connections get put in at 40mph then you are looking at 3 minutes to cover the distance, hardly a capacity killer.

What is planned (if I understand it correctly) is two crossovers. Facing crossover at the North end and trailing crossover at the South end. For a total of four points bidirectional operation. This is in addition to the existing points.

Two track would involve two points and two diamond crossings. Arguably cheaper plus about one mile of two tracking. Again, in addition to the existing points. After signalling (two track signalling is less complex than bidirectional signalling) not a lot more money.

But a lot more for the money. The biggest benefit being a reduced likelihood of blocking the WCML branch while a Southbound train sits waiting for the bidirectional road. That definitely could be a problem with cascading delays if the service grew.

Much the same cost but much less benefit. So there has to be a reason why NR wants it that way. My guess, only a guess, is that the two crossovers is something that it is nice to have at someone-else's expense for purposes unrelated to Halton curve.

Perhaps it saves money to do bidirectional in some way. But it does not seem to be construction or operating cost. And building bidirectional and then adding a station loop later would cost more than building two track in the first place.

 

[YorkshireBear]

What is planned (if I understand it correctly) is two crossovers. Facing crossover at the North end and trailing crossover at the South end. For a total of four points bidirectional operation. This is in addition to the existing points.

Two track would involve two points and two diamond crossings. Arguably cheaper plus about one mile of two tracking. Again, in addition to the existing points. After signalling (two track signalling is less complex than bidirectional signalling) not a lot more money.

But a lot more for the money. The biggest benefit being a reduced likelihood of blocking the WCML branch while a Southbound train sits waiting for the bidirectional road. That definitely could be a problem with cascading delays if the service grew.

Much the same cost but much less benefit. So there has to be a reason why NR wants it that way. My guess, only a guess, is that the two crossovers is something that it is nice to have at someone-else's expense for purposes unrelated to Halton curve.

Perhaps it saves money to do bidirectional in some way. But it does not seem to be construction or operating cost. And building bidirectional and then adding a station loop later would cost more than building two track in the first place.

Yes the diamonds may be cheaper but have you thought about the re installation of a second track? That is quite expensive you know.

You are seeing a conspiracy where there is not one. The reason it is not double track is because there is no demand for it. It can easily take a half hourly service. It needs no more than that. Yeah it would be nice to forward think now and get it double track but..... 10 million for this solution. Fine. Two track may be 20 million and that isn't available so it never gets done. There is only so much money we can't go spending it willy nilly.

 

[Holly]

Yes the diamonds may be cheaper but have you thought about the re installation of a second track? That is quite expensive you know. ...

It would be nice to see the numbers, if pricing both could be part of the next phase.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It would be nice to see the numbers, if pricing both could be part of the next phase.

I have no numbers as i am nothing to do with the project. I am just saying we cannot just go building things. It is being taken to GRIP4 an amazing achievement and initial reactions are. We want more. Its just silly in my eyes.

 

[driver_m]

Looks like merseytravel is using some common sense after reading the report. They mention the urgency of getting it done which tallies with the line being resignalled 2016/17. There's no way that a shiny new ROC is going to have a tail lamp camera on a one way line using absolute block (then again you never know with NR) so it's sensible for merseytravel to take advantage of this and try and get a service running which would be of benefit to the North West and North Wales.

 

[The Planner]

What is planned (if I understand it correctly) is two crossovers. Facing crossover at the North end and trailing crossover at the South end. For a total of four points bidirectional operation. This is in addition to the existing points.

Two track would involve two points and two diamond crossings. Arguably cheaper plus about one mile of two tracking. Again, in addition to the existing points. After signalling (two track signalling is less complex than bidirectional signalling) not a lot more money.

No, diamond crossings are not put in new installations unless nothing else is possible. They are a maintenance nightmare and a lot of work is being done now splitting out junctions into point ends where diamonds are, a lot of the WCML blockade last year was to do that. If you double track the curve then you need 8 point ends.

Signalling wise all you are going to have is probably two 3 aspect signals in each direction on the chord. You might only get two aspect Y/G and R/G.

But a lot more for the money. The biggest benefit being a reduced likelihood of blocking the WCML branch while a Southbound train sits waiting for the bidirectional road. That definitely could be a problem with cascading delays if the service grew.

That is what a carefully planned timetable is for, you don't go out and try to put a re-occupying train as soon as one leaves the line unless you can help it.

Much the same cost but much less benefit. So there has to be a reason why NR wants it that way. My guess, only a guess, is that the two crossovers is something that it is nice to have at someone-else's expense for purposes unrelated to Halton curve.

Perhaps it saves money to do bidirectional in some way. But it does not seem to be construction or operating cost. And building bidirectional and then adding a station loop later would cost more than building two track in the first place.

That is what the CBR is for, unless twin track comes out at 2.0 or more it ain't got a chance.

 

[cle]

Do people really think only 1tph in each direction is the total demand?

Liverpool (+airport) and North Wales are hugely linked, and I think there could be a lot of suppressed demand. Wrexham could have a service at 1tph and then you could have a fast and a slow (say all stations to Chester, although that could be the Wrexham) - you'd want to serve Llandudno but then Bangor and Holyhead might be useful too. I could see this supporting at least 2tph each direction, possibly 3 in the longer term.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Do people really think only 1tph in each direction is the total demand?

Liverpool (+airport) and North Wales are hugely linked, and I think there could be a lot of suppressed demand. Wrexham could have a service at 1tph and then you could have a fast and a slow (say all stations to Chester, although that could be the Wrexham) - you'd want to serve Llandudno but then Bangor and Holyhead might be useful too. I could see this supporting at least 2tph each direction, possibly 3 in the longer term.

I'm sure there is suppressed demand for Liverpool, but I always find the area rather poor in its use of existing services.
Frodsham and Helsby are sizeable places with good services to Warrington/Manchester and Chester/North Wales, but they don't seem to generate much traffic for their size.
Runcorn East is much busier.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No, diamond crossings are not put in new installations unless nothing else is possible. They are a maintenance nightmare and a lot of work is being done now splitting out junctions into point ends where diamonds are, a lot of the WCML blockade last year was to do that. If you double track the curve then you need 8 point ends.

Signalling wise all you are going to have is probably two 3 aspect signals in each direction on the chord. You might only get two aspect Y/G and R/G.

Why is that so? Why are they a nightmare?

They have just put some in on the Hallam Line don't they make the junction more efficient?

 

[Tomnick]

The arrangement mentioned above - with four point ends - provides the same flexibility operationally (parallel moves both ways) without the diamond crossing.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The arrangement mentioned above - with four point ends - provides the same flexibility operationally (parallel moves both ways) without the diamond crossing.

Oh of course, sorry the junctions i were thinking of were originally single lead junctions.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The arrangement mentioned above - with four point ends - provides the same flexibility operationally (parallel moves both ways) without the diamond crossing.

The downside is you need extra length for the overall junction layout.
That's a problem for Frodsham Jn because you are immediately onto the Weston viaduct westbound.
No problem at the Runcorn end (Halton Jn).
Both junctions are going to be painfully slow (curvature and cant), whether single or double.

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed. Personally, I can't see a single line being too restrictive, at least when things aren't going badly wrong - it might even make it easier to open a new station. Single lead junctions (onto a double line) are rather inflexible, but a medium-speed example would probably be better than a traditional double junction with really restrictive approach control and a very low speed over the diverging route.

 

[Dunc108]

I'm sure there is suppressed demand for Liverpool, but I always find the area rather poor in its use of existing services.
Frodsham and Helsby are sizeable places with good services to Warrington/Manchester and Chester/North Wales, but they don't seem to generate much traffic for their size.
Runcorn East is much busier.

Would extending the Lime St - Warrington BQ to Chester or Llandudno be a logical move & it'd also give Helsby, etc 2tph to Warrington.

 

[Eagle]

I thought the Liverpool–Warrington shuttle was being removed once electrification is complete in December (diverted to Manchester presumably).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would extending the Lime St - Warrington BQ to Chester or Llandudno be a logical move & it'd also give Helsby, etc 2tph to Warrington.

I thought the Liverpool–Warrington shuttle was being removed once electrification is complete in December (diverted to Manchester presumably).

They tried that in First North Western days and had to cut it back to Warrington (with peak extensions to Ellesmere Port) because it performed so badly.
For a brief period, the Llandudno-Manchester skipped Helsby/Frodsham/Earlestown, but glumly the stops came back when the Liverpool was canned.

It's not clear what will happen to the Liverpool-WBQ service next year.
It might get extended to Manchester Vic (as opposed to being diverted at Earlestown).
Depends on how many EMUs are available I suppose.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would extending the Lime St - Warrington BQ to Chester or Llandudno be a logical move & it'd also give Helsby, etc 2tph to Warrington.

I don't think many would use a Liverpool-Warrington-Chester end-to-end, as I imagine it'll be a fair bit slower than Merseyrail. It might be an idea to have some of the Lime St-Victoria services to run via Bank Quay and a reversal- maybe in the peaks at least. The new stock for Merseyrail might be the best opportunity to re-jig some services in that part of the country- with wires being put up from Ellesmere Port to Helsby or even round the Halton Curve to Runcorn with maybe 2tph running a Liverpool loop-E. Port-Runcorn and all shacks to Lime Street 'circular'. Though we'll be well into CP6 before that'll even be possible!

 

[cle]

As an EMU, could it extend to Crewe providing more of a local service along the WCML?

Maybe it could run a bit more fast through the Liverpool suburbs.