Kidsgrove to crewe line

[edwin_m]

According to government figures in 2018 there were about 5 deaths for every BILLION miles travelled on the roads.

So to remove just one road death - assuming a straight correlation you would need to replace 200,000 miles worth of road journey. The average motorist drives about 12,000 miles a year - so you would need 16 "average mileage" motorists to change all of their journeys to rail to achieve that 1 reduction in death.

If you think that's going to happen, I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality.

I think you've lost a factor of 1000 somewhere in there. Also the payback could be over several years not just one.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From memory, the single track section is almost entirely on the northern track of the old 2-track formation, with the southern trace still mainly clear.
It also crosses an extended marshy section on a low embankment/viaduct which could well need upgrade/replacement if the route was redoubled to modern standards.
It might not be quite as simple/cheap as it appears at first sight.

WCML diversions won't be common after HS2 opens to Crewe - HS2 itself will allow bi-di working.

 

[Taunton]

According to government figures in 2018 there were about 5 deaths for every BILLION miles travelled on the roads.

So to remove just one road death - assuming a straight correlation you would need to replace 200,000 miles worth of road journey. The average motorist drives about 12,000 miles a year - so you would need 16 "average mileage" motorists to change all of their journeys to rail to achieve that 1 reduction in death.

If you think that's going to happen, I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality.

You have a valid argument but unfortunately a misplaced decimal point, so just for accuracy the 2018 figures are 328 billion vehicle miles and 1,780 fatalities, giving a rate per fatality of 184 million miles. So 15,000 road users would need to totally give up driving to achieve one fatality reduction.

 

[John R]

Not many schemes are this simple. And yet it's seemingly impossible to just get on and do it, in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. For as long as the rail industry is unable to grasp the nettle of efficiency, even the smallest improvements will continue to take forever to be approved.

This reads as though there is a big demand from people (and I mean interested parties, such as MPs, other local representatives, pressure groups) for this scheme, but it's not going forward (which would be true for several other improvement schemes, such as the Hope Valley capacity scheme). Is that demand there? If there isn't, then I'm not sure why it would be on the rail industry's agenda to move forward unless there is some compelling operational reason to do it, which it sounds as though there isn't.

 

[A0]

You have a valid argument but unfortunately a misplaced decimal point, so just for accuracy the 2018 figures are 328 billion vehicle miles and 1,780 fatalities, giving a rate per fatality of 184 million miles. So 15,000 road users would need to totally give up driving to achieve one fatality reduction.

Quite correct - I wasn't very awake when I did those calcs - so thank you for correcting it.

The figures are quite significant to achieve even a minor drop in the road casualty rate - and almost certainly not something the rail network could pick up.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In sheer economic terms the benefits you are seeking to count only produce small numbers - regardless of how obviously good the idea seems to be. So they get lumped together as "Wider Economic Bemefits" in the business case. Sometimes these benefits can help to swing a marginal case, but you'll never manage to justify a project based solely on such benefits.

There is a "double whammy" effect to consider. On the one hand, there are societal benefits if rail becomes a more attractive and feasible option. On the other, a lot more could be done with the same money if gold plating and pointless bureaucracy is eliminated. So a lot more schemes could all become feasible through the fact that things cost less. BCRs could change by a material extent.

Of course I am just projecting a fantasy land that realistically speaking simply won't ever be the case again in this country...

 

[thenorthern]

As others have said it's not used enough to justify doubling. I know though the bridge over the A5020 at Crewe was built so that it can be doubled if needs be.

A problem can happen is if the London and North Western services are delayed they get priority over the East Midlands Railway services which can then cause delays although this is relatively rare.

 

[Taunton]

a lot more could be done with the same money if gold plating and pointless bureaucracy is eliminated.

There are a large number of jobs, including it would appear more than the normal fair share in members here, which depend on gold plating and excessively bureaucratising everything.

A discussion here a while ago about a new station at Brent Cross on the Midland Thameslink line seemed to have an excessive cost, but was for a four platform station. Nothing ever scheduled to stop on the fast line, but the considerable number of defenders of it found doubling the cost, including the full panoply of accessibility lifts to the unused platforms etc, to provide for this quite reasonable ...

 

[John R]

The stretch of single line is less than 3 miles long and takes 3 minutes to cover. It's hard to see how this would be high on anyone's shopping list of improvements even considering its occasional diversionary use given the current service pattern. So I'm not sure why @ForTheLoveOf thinks that the only thing stopping this scheme is gold plating and pointless bureaucracy.

 

[CW2]

Indeed. It seems we are spending a lot of time and energy discussing a problem that scarcely exists.

 

[Mollman]

There's no single track bridges to contend with (a double track one was provided at considerable expense when the A5020 was built). There's only a couple of passenger trains an hour to bustitute (or divert via Norton Bridge) whilst the work is done.

Not many schemes are this simple. And yet it's seemingly impossible to just get on and do it, in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. For as long as the rail industry is unable to grasp the nettle of efficiency, even the smallest improvements will continue to take forever to be approved.

No single track bridges to remove correct but one overbridge to heighten because the single line was slewed to the centre of formation to pass under the middle of a low arched bridge to get clearance of the OLE. Not a biggy really though. Should be a easy, locally led project but we don't live in that world anymore unfortunately.

Although interstingly the level crossing at Mill Lane has been narrowed to single track.

 

[RealTrains07]

The main reason or case for re-doubling would be it would help a lot with the current services especially if either EMR or WMR want to increase the frequency of the crewe via stoke services.

Which is a proposal for WMR once HS2 is complete

 

[CW2]

The main reason or case for re-doubling would be it would help a lot with the current services especially if either EMR or WMR want to increase the frequency of the crewe via stoke services.

Which is a proposal for WMR once HS2 is complete

In what way would it "help a lot"? One short stretch of single track just outside Crewe station is not a major hindrance to traffic timetabling on this route.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The real problem the single section causes is when the WCML is diverted via Stoke. Has happened to me quite a number of times. The capacity to cope with two way diversions on top of the 2tph each way creates backlogs stretching south of Nuneaton and north to Liverpool and Wigan.
I would like to see the costings for redoubling from Radway Green to Crewe (would still have problems at the throat at Crewe and Stoke/Stone - but surely would make a significant improvement).
Perhaps a lesson for HS2 to consider diversionary routes?

As a regular traveller on the WCML I have been on several 'ad hoc' diversions via Alsager during problems in the Stafford area but never experienced significant queuing. How often are trains stacked back to Nuneaton and Wigan?

On a separate note, the rebuilding of Euston started in earnest in January 1963 and wasn't completed for five years. People shouldn't fall for the spin in an old British Transport Film.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

On a separate note, the rebuilding of Euston started in earnest in January 1963 and wasn't completed for five years. People should fall for the spin in an old British Transport Film.

Yes, but it's the overnight erection of the knitting that is an incredible achievement. If you make an omelette you're going to break some eggs, sure, but the industry's current approach is to lob some eggs at the wall and ask people to consider it art.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, but it's the overnight erection of the knitting that is an incredible achievement. If you make an omelette you're going to break some eggs, sure, but the industry's current approach is to lob some eggs at the wall and ask people to consider it art.

Once you've spent years raising the bridges, re-aligning the tracks, putting up the masts and so forth actually 'erecting the knitting' in isolation is pretty straightforward even nowadays. (Various 'progress-ometer' threads about GWML, MML, etc. electrification refer.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but it's the overnight erection of the knitting that is an incredible achievement. If you make an omelette you're going to break some eggs, sure, but the industry's current approach is to lob some eggs at the wall and ask people to consider it art.

In other news, much of the componentry of the OLE at Euston has been replaced overnight in the last few weeks.

 

[RealTrains07]

In what way would it "help a lot"? One short stretch of single track just outside Crewe station is not a major hindrance to traffic timetabling on this route.

It would help because both operators are currently restricted to that one track and so it restricts when each can run their services up and down.

In times of diversions as well it would make it alot easier. All operators would have more time slots to work with

 

[Merle Haggard]

In other news, much of the componentry of the OLE at Euston has been replaced overnight in the last few weeks.

Although I'm not defending BR - I was travelling at the time of the Euston electrification - although the almost total lack of overnight trains now provides such opportunities it was completely different on 1960's BR when night time was very busy. Apart from mail, parcels, merchandise freight and sleepers there was were newspaper trains which conveyed tens of millions of copies from London to everywhere in the country by breakfast-time - or there were 'questions in the House'. All gone now, of course (apart from the Caledonian Sleeper)


The file 'Under the Wires 1965'on Youtube - presumably the BTF film mentioned up-thread - shows how quickly the OLE was be installed, once all the infrastructure was altered. During the GWR electrification, there were stories such as 66's top and tailing a single wagon into a possession for its duration with the wagon carrying just one mast, One can always throw stones.
Some of the delays in station rebuilding on the Euston-Manchester-Liverpool modernisation (it wasn't just electrification, of course) were caused by the economy then being in stop-start mode; for instance during the rebuilding of Manchester London Road work was suspended for about two years because the Government withheld funding.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although I'm not defending BR - I was travelling at the time of the Euston electrification - although the almost total lack of overnight trains now provides such opportunities it was completely different on 1960's BR when night time was very busy. Apart from mail, parcels, merchandise freight and sleepers there was were newspaper trains which conveyed tens of millions of copies from London to everywhere in the country by breakfast-time - or there were 'questions in the House'. All gone now, of course (apart from the Caledonian Sleeper)


The file 'Under the Wires 1965'on Youtube - presumably the BTF film mentioned up-thread - shows how quickly the OLE was be installed, once all the infrastructure was altered. During the GWR electrification, there were stories such as 66's top and tailing a single wagon into a possession for its duration with the wagon carrying just one mast, One can always throw stones.
Some of the delays in station rebuilding on the Euston-Manchester-Liverpool modernisation (it wasn't just electrification, of course) were caused by the economy then being in stop-start mode; for instance during the rebuilding of Manchester London Road work was suspended for about two years because the Government withheld funding.

All fair observations. For the duration fo the Euston work in the 60s much traffic was diverted away of course, including the post trains which went to a temporary station on the down side up by Kilburn High Rd.

 

[6Gman]

On this question of how and why things could be done quicker in the old days:

A while back I read a very interesting book about the electrification of Manchester-Crewe. Two things stick in my mind from that book.

Bridges can't fit the wiring in? Blow them up! (No Listed bridges back then.#)

London Road needs rebuilding. A photograph showing how they removed the brickwork from the top of the old station. Bloke on the roof, no harness, no hard hat, crowbarring the coping stones onto the pavement many, many feet below!

Wouldn't be allowed now. H&S gone mad!



# Okay, a few may have been - Royal Border, Royal Albert etc, but not wayside country roadbridges.

 

[Bevan Price]

But rail replacement coaches are exceptional and usually people are advised to consider if their journey is essential. If anything it highlights the number of "non essential" journeys people make.

It's not a "big negative benefit'" except in your opinion because you don't like rail replacement coaches.

That is not what I wrote.
Just about every train I have used is a lot emptier when part of the journey involves a rail replacement bus/coach section. That means less revenue for "the railway", and probably a lot more cars on busy roads.

 

[A0]

That is not what I wrote.
Just about every train I have used is a lot emptier when part of the journey involves a rail replacement bus/coach section. That means less revenue for "the railway", and probably a lot more cars on busy roads.

But that's for the 1 or 2 days a year when a line is closed necessitating RRBs.

Reality is most lines (yes there are exceptions like the Conwy Valley) are open 95% + of the time with train services running. The cost of putting in place expensive infrastructure to allow for diversions on the less-than 5% of occasions when the line will be closed will never be even remotely off-set by the supposed increased revenue of people travelling by train who would otherwise avoid the RRB.

Has it occurred to you that the RRB may actually be costing the TOC less than running the train in any case ?

 

[The Planner]

But that's for the 1 or 2 days a year when a line is closed necessitating RRBs.

Reality is most lines (yes there are exceptions like the Conwy Valley) are open 95% + of the time with train services running. The cost of putting in place expensive infrastructure to allow for diversions on the less-than 5% of occasions when the line will be closed will never be even remotely off-set by the supposed increased revenue of people travelling by train who would otherwise avoid the RRB.

Has it occurred to you that the RRB may actually be costing the TOC less than running the train in any case ?

And that via Schedule 4 compensation that cost is covered.

 

[HSTEd]

I would say a more sensible way to reduce the need for RRBs would be to reduce the need for maintenance on existing routes rather than building whole new diversion lines for a tiny fraction of the time.

Hell, replacing the entire line with ridiculously overengineered slab track rated for 30 years without serious maintenance would be cheaper than a diversionary route!

 

[furnessvale]

I would say a more sensible way to reduce the need for RRBs would be to reduce the need for maintenance on existing routes rather than building whole new diversion lines for a tiny fraction of the time.

Hell, replacing the entire line with ridiculously overengineered slab track rated for 30 years without serious maintenance would be cheaper than a diversionary route!

That assumes that, whatever route you are discussing, is only a diversionary route and nothing else.

I'm sure in most cases, the possibility for diversionary use is thrown into the mix as a small sweetener.