How should Weaver Jct capacity be increased?

[Agent_Squash]

It's often said that Weaver Jct (and the double-track two/from it) is the main obstacle to a local service between Crewe and the North West. What infrastructure upgrades would be best to allow greater connectivity and potentially faster services?

 

[edwin_m]

It may have been said often but I've never heard it. Weaver is a high speed grade separated junction, and the problem is more about the double track sections further south.

 

[Falcon1200]

Instead of the current rather strange (to me) arrangement, full quadrupling between Crewe and Weaver Jc, with the intermediate stations having platforms on the Slow Lines; However HS2 should release the required capacity anyway ?

 

[zwk500]

Weaver Junction isn't the problem, it's the limited utility of the loops at Acton Bridge. Ideal solution would be to 4-track from Crewe all the way through to Weaver Jn, although if Acton Bridge-Weaver is too much then that could be sacrificed. It's the section of 3 stations in quick success that kills capacity between the Avantis.

 

[30907]

Essentially the problem will be Hartford and Winsford, which are on the double track section (plus Acton Bridge on the down, but AIUI that is much less busy). Each stopper effectively occupies 2 extra paths, and there were 2ph pre Covid.
I suspect quadrupling that section would be difficult, which is possibly why it never got done by the LNWR.

 

[Whistler40145]

A major issue with quadrupling Crewe to Weaver Junction would be the double track Viaduct over the River Weaver

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

If one is spending £xbn on a Golborne link to bypass it, one could perhaps spend £0.5x bn to four track the Weaver viaduct and the track South of the there to Crewe. Just thinking out loud here....!

 

[Gareth]

Golborne was supposed to help Weaver Jct by moving the Scotland services away. Did nothing for Liverpool, obviously, but that's HS2 for you.

 

[507020]

What about the double track north of Weaver Junction to Euxton Balshaw Lane?

 

[zwk500]

What about the double track north of Weaver Junction to Euxton Balshaw Lane?

There's 4-track sections from Warrington BQ to Winwick Junction (although the flat crossing moves there is a problem), and between Golborne Jn and Wigan NW. Add in the 'wiggle' via Newton-le-willows and the 2-track isn't of itself much of a problem. It's the flat junctions and low turnout speeds on Slow/Loop lines that really cause the headaches.

 

[507020]

There's 4-track sections from Warrington BQ to Winwick Junction (although the flat crossing moves there is a problem), and between Golborne Jn and Wigan NW. Add in the 'wiggle' via Newton-le-willows and the 2-track isn't of itself much of a problem. It's the flat junctions and low turnout speeds on Slow/Loop lines that really cause the headaches.

So basically due to more complex infrastructure constraints that need sorting out, even with several 4 track sections the line is not functionally 4 track as far as capacity is concerned. Do these slow loops include via Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows, which is of course shared with Liverpool - Manchester traffic…

 

[zwk500]

So basically due to more complex infrastructure constraints that need sorting out, even with several 4 track sections the line is not functionally 4 track as far as capacity is concerned. Do these slow loops include via Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows, which is of course shared with Liverpool - Manchester traffic…

The line changes character more often than an ensemble cast movie between Weaver Jn and Preston. It's difficult to sum up in a single post, but you have Some sections of paired by use, some of paired by direction. Some areas have the slow lines provided by a route physically distant from the fast line but still should be thought of as 4-track, others have sections where the trains can use an alternate route that does give the opportunity to regulate but is shared with a different route and should be thought of as branching off then branching on. Slow crossovers at Golborne and Wigan are probably the single most important restriction on passenger trains using the slows (the points at the north end of the loop platforms at Wigan NW are 10mph) but it's also to do with the service structure as much as the infrastructure.

However that's for a different thread than specifically looking at Weaver Jn - Crewe. The key here would be to 4-track Winsford-Acton Bridge, although if HS2 takes express traffic off that section then the speed difference between an all-stations passenger and a freight isn't so great and the capacity becomes easier to use more efficiently.

 

[507020]

The line changes character more often than an ensemble cast movie between Weaver Jn and Preston. It's difficult to sum up in a single post, but you have Some sections of paired by use, some of paired by direction. Some areas have the slow lines provided by a route physically distant from the fast line but still should be thought of as 4-track, others have sections where the trains can use an alternate route that does give the opportunity to regulate but is shared with a different route and should be thought of as branching off then branching on. Slow crossovers at Golborne and Wigan are probably the single most important restriction on passenger trains using the slows (the points at the north end of the loop platforms at Wigan NW are 10mph) but it's also to do with the service structure as much as the infrastructure.

I know where you mean.

However that's for a different thread than specifically looking at Weaver Jn - Crewe. The key here would be to 4-track Winsford-Acton Bridge, although if HS2 takes express traffic off that section then the speed difference between an all-stations passenger and a freight isn't so great and the capacity becomes easier to use more efficiently.

Could Winsford - Acton Bridge be quadrupled in a similar way to the Euxton area, where the fasts and slows are physically distant? The constraint is likely whether it was that wide originally and whether the trackbed is wide enough, but I don’t think in any circumstances all Liverpool/Warrington - Crewe services will to serve Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford or even Runcorn. What is desperate needed is an Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford - Warrington BQ - Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows - Wigan NW - Preston just for the amount of local connectivity benefits it would bring.

 

[zwk500]

Could Winsford - Acton Bridge be quadrupled in a similar way to the Euxton area, where the fasts and slows are physically distant?

arguably, that's what the Golborne link will do. I don't know thenarea well enough to sat if it could be done in a more conventional manner. Any additional tracks would need to completely bypass Winsford and Hartford, I think.

The constraint is likely whether it was that wide originally and whether the trackbed is wide enough, but I don’t think in any circumstances all Liverpool/Warrington - Crewe services will to serve Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford or even Runcorn.

you wouldn't need every train all stops, although remember HS2 would be answering a significant portion of that demand.

What is desperate needed is an Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford - Warrington BQ - Earlestown/Newton-le-Willows - Wigan NW - Preston just for the amount of local connectivity benefits it would bring.

Technically it's Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge but yes that would be nice. The wiggle through Newton Le Willows would add a fair amount of time for little benefit though, as Crewe would provide an easier interchange to Manchester for the southern section and Warrington northwards all have other services to Manchester and Liverpool.