Network Rails North Wales Plans

[krus_aragon]

What is the point in that? You already have a service from wrexham to Shotton on 2 different routes and an hourly service to Chester what a waste of money!

I'd guess the idea is more of a Hope/Cefn y Bedd etc - Chester service. As an aside, there are only a handful of Wrexham-Chester-North Wales services that call at Shotton: most of the time you'd have to change at Chester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Chester-Crewe is a Network Rail headache for electrification. The cost of standard continuous electrification is substantial due to their being 20-30 low bridges to deal with. The most viable solution is dis-continuous electrification which would mean West Coast trains running with two pantographs up on that section. However, that would likely meaning all ATW services on that section would remain as diesel due to the difficulty and expense in designing an up to 4 car EMU which works on two pantographs which would only be used on one line.

Do you really need two pantographs up, isn't the idea behind did-continuous electrification that the train would coast under the bridges and pick up power again on the other side? Doesn't the recent branch-line electrification on ScotRail have a neutral section under one of the bridges, do they have two pantographs up on the EMUs now used (which don't have all that many coaches, it was a single 156 before wiring according to Modern Railways)?

Councils/ PTEs (etc) aren't allowed to pay for a free service which competes with a commercial service

Indeed, and I think that can be a very damaging law. It has also caused Aberystwyth - Carmarthen, one of the core routes of the TrawsCambria/TrawsCymru network, to be removed from that network since the commertial operation that has taken over is no longer branded as part of the network. It also means the six brand new Optare Tempo buses ordered for the TrawsCymru Aberystwyth - Carmarthen service have never been used, to my knowlage.

 

[merlodlliw]

Rediculous proposal, if anything expand the parking at Wrexham, cheaper and a much higher population, Chiltern have done a a great job of expanding car parks at mostly their own cost at their key stations!

The Park & Ride at Rossett appeared in the feasibility study evaluation and analysis of the potential of the proposed line redouble carried out a few years ago. It was met by fierce opposition from locals, some of whom would like to see the line closed altogether. Im not sure if a station is still on the cards at Rossett, although Rossett has acres of land owned by NR.

I agree Wrexham has the population to warrant much larger car parking facilities, but not the land.

 

[northwichcat]

Do you really need two pantographs up, isn't the idea behind did-continuous electrification that the train would coast under the bridges and pick up power again on the other side? Doesn't the recent branch-line electrification on ScotRail have a neutral section under one of the bridges, do they have two pantographs up on the EMUs now used (which don't have all that many coaches, it was a single 156 before wiring according to Modern Railways)?

The Network Rail summary evaluation of electrification of Crewe-Chester did mention trains needing two pantographs:

The Network RUS: Electrification Strategy identified the electrification of the line from Crewe to Chester to enable electric traction on London Euston to Chester passenger services as a further option for which the business case might be improved by the usage of alternative solutions such as discontinuous electrification. This case study considers discontinuities in the OLE infrastructure on the Crewe-Chester route in the form of either:
 extended neutral sections where there is insufficient electrical clearance
 gaps in the OLE where there is also insufficient mechanical clearance.

To traverse these discontinuities the rolling stock might have to be adapted as follows:
 more than one pantograph per train for short discontinuities less than 50 metres, which would mitigate the risk of gapping
 an additional safety critical automatic control system to lower and raise pantographs where there is insufficient mechanical clearance (irrespective of gap length)
 energy storage for longer discontinuities greater than 50 metres. This assumption was made to develop the case study. In reality a risk based approach would be taken to determining the maximum coasting distance based on the factors at the particular location.

Extended neutral sections and gaps greater than 50 metres in the OLE along the route for
structures too complex to gauge clear. This scenario assumes:
 no OLE in Chester station
 pantograph lowering for gaps where there is also insufficient mechanical clearance
 two pantographs per train
 sufficient energy storage (supercapacitors) for trains to depart Chester station
 bespoke rolling stock would be required.

The key drivers of the business case are the energy storage operating costs versus the avoided OLE infrastructure capital expenditure. Costs associated with the avoided OLE infrastructure includes:
 additional extended neutral sections
 contact wire terminations
 providing trains with more than one pantograph
 pantograph control systems where there is insufficient mechanical clearance to raise pantographs.

The concept could become financially feasible with longer life and a lower cost of energy storage.

The point at which this occurs has been assessed through sensitivity analysis.

However, the number and proximity of gaps in the OLE infrastructure mean that the scenario is not thought to be technically feasible over this route. While the number of gaps could have been reduced to make the solution technically feasible this would have reduced the infrastructure savings and therefore any benefit of using discontinuous electrification

So it seems the reason for needing 2 pantographs is to cover any gaps in the wires greater than 50m and the overall conclusion seems to be electrification at this moment in time is not a viable option. Presumably the Scotrail example you've come up with has one gap of less than 50m which then doesn't require the additional pantograph.

 

[Holly]

... There's an Aintree Coachline/Helms of Eastham employee who goes by the name of Tracy who's signed up to some forums defending the poor little defenceless Aintree Coachline and been quite abusive in reply to posts criticising what Aintree Coachline have done - in one case saying free town/city centre buses have contributed to the country going in to recession.

Absurd.
It now costs the council more to subsidise the profiteering service than it used to cost them to provide free service. (Merseyrail and others used to chip in on the free service but don't on the rip off service, which falls entirely on the council to subsidise).

The people wanted privatisation, so now they have got it and it costs and arm and a leg.

 

[merlodlliw]

Absurd.
It now costs the council more to subsidise the profiteering service than it used to cost them to provide free service. (Merseyrail and others used to chip in on the free service but don't on the rip off service, which falls entirely on the council to subsidise).

The people wanted privatisation, so now they have got it and it costs and arm and a leg.

Yes the free service(no rail ticket you paid) was subsidized by three of the four tocs that use Chester, I dont think Northern was involved, I used the service many times.

Indeed, and I think that can be a very damaging law. It has also caused Aberystwyth - Carmarthen, one of the core routes of the TrawsCambria/TrawsCymru network, to be removed from that network since the commertial operation that has taken over is no longer branded as part of the network. It also means the six brand new Optare Tempo buses ordered for the TrawsCymru Aberystwyth - Carmarthen service have never been used, to my knowlage. Rhydgaled

It is interesting & kept quiet now, WG paid for the buses, as they paid for the Wrexham/Barmouth stock which still run.

 

[pablo]

That's a very poor analysis by NR of the Chester-Crewe electrification potential. By my count there are 18 overbridges of one sort or another in the 18 miles between the end of the wires at Crewe MPD and Chester station. It just looks as though 'they' don't want to do it. Negativity; the British disease?

 

[507 001]

Extended neutral sections and gaps greater than 50 metres in the OLE along the route for
structures too complex to gauge clear. This scenario assumes:
 no OLE in Chester station
 pantograph lowering for gaps where there is also insufficient mechanical clearance
 two pantographs per train
 sufficient energy storage (supercapacitors) for trains to depart Chester station
 bespoke rolling stock would be required.

sounds like Sci-Fi to me!

I can understand that there might be a need to have extended neutral sections etc, but not fitting Chester with OHLE just seems daft. It will probably cost more to develop and build bespoke trains with "supercapacitors" than it would to just electrify the whole goddamn route.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes the free service(no rail ticket you paid) was subsidized by three of the four tocs that use Chester, I dont think Northern was involved, I used the service many times.

All 4 TOCs serving Chester were involved in the funding - ATW, Merseyrail, Northern and Virgin. I don't know how the share of revenue divided though as what was originally First North Western's share would have been split between ATW and Northern. And then Virgin and Merseyrail both significantly increased the number of their services serving Chester.

As a result of an ATW decision to install ticket barriers that retained tickets the bus that was free for rail users and bus pass holders only became free for everyone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sounds like Sci-Fi to me!

I can understand that there might be a need to have extended neutral sections etc, but not fitting Chester with OHLE just seems daft. It will probably cost more to develop and build bespoke trains with "supercapacitors" than it would to just electrify the whole goddamn route.

I wonder if it's something to do with platform 7 and the approach from the Hooton direction being DC electrified.

Would that cause any issues for making platforms 4-6 AC electrified or the Chester depot AC electrification?

And if the Chester-Crewe shuttle, Manchester-North Wales services and North Wales/Chester-London services all switched to AC would they all be able to avoid using platform 7 given that's not practical on the current timetable under normal circumstances?

If the DC is the issue would a solution be for Merseyrail to have dual voltage trains for Chester and for Hooton-Chester to have DC replaced by AC?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absurd.
It now costs the council more to subsidise the profiteering service than it used to cost them to provide free service. (Merseyrail and others used to chip in on the free service but don't on the rip off service, which falls entirely on the council to subsidise).

The people wanted privatisation, so now they have got it and it costs and arm and a leg.

Just to add to that a council doesn't pay 1p for non-bus pass holders to travel on a commercial bus service. However, they pay to subside bus pass holders and a large number of users of the Aintree Coachines services are bus pass holders.

I actually feel sorry for whoever were the bus drivers when the Aintree Coachline service started. The passengers not holding bus passes would have expected a free bus, only to board the bus and the driver to have to explain it's £1 to travel the short distance on their buses. To make matters worst ATW and Merseyrail didn't revise their literature at the next timetable change to remove references to the free bus in Chester so the free bus was publicised for around a year after it ended.

 

[merlodlliw]

That's a very poor analysis by NR of the Chester-Crewe electrification potential. By my count there are 18 overbridges of one sort or another in the 18 miles between the end of the wires at Crewe MPD and Chester station. It just looks as though 'they' don't want to do it. Negativity; the British disease?

#
Its very much NR, dont want to do it,so overprice it, or look for problems,not problem solve, thats the impression I get.

Chiltern went their own way, what was £13M for a job by NR,cost Chiltern £5M im not sure of the job , but I recall a station Parkway costings on TV highlighting this.

All 4 TOCs serving Chester were involved in the funding - ATW, Merseyrail, Northern and Virgin. I don't know how the share of revenue divided though as what was originally First North Western's share would have been split between ATW and Northern. And then Virgin and Merseyrail both significantly increased the number of their services serving Chester.

JC Collins

Yes I now recall, Northern did pay after the FNW split, then the ATW barriers eating tickerts

 

[jones_bangor]

Its very much NR, dont want to do it,so overprice it, or look for problems,not problem solve, thats the impression I get.

Chiltern went their own way, what was £13M for a job by NR,cost Chiltern £5M im not sure of the job , but I recall a station Parkway costings on TV highlighting this.

Getting rid of Network Rail, and handing the rails to the TOCs, would be a sure way to cut costs. 3 quotes for every job....all this preferred / term contractor nonsense is the biggest scam yet.

I wonder how much a similar project would cost in the rest of Europe!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Park & Ride at Rossett appeared in the feasibility study evaluation and analysis of the potential of the proposed line redouble carried out a few years ago. It was met by fierce opposition from locals, some of whom would like to see the line closed altogether. Im not sure if a station is still on the cards at Rossett, although Rossett has acres of land owned by NR.

I agree Wrexham has the population to warrant much larger car parking facilities, but not the land.

NIMBYs, don't you just love them!

 

[TDK]

The Park & Ride at Rossett appeared in the feasibility study evaluation and analysis of the potential of the proposed line redouble carried out a few years ago. It was met by fierce opposition from locals, some of whom would like to see the line closed altogether. Im not sure if a station is still on the cards at Rossett, although Rossett has acres of land owned by NR.

I agree Wrexham has the population to warrant much larger car parking facilities, but not the land.

Nor does Beaconsfield or Hight Wycombe on the Chilterns but they managed 2 multi storey car parks to accomodate the extra demand. Rosset is in the middle of nowhere with a sparce population, you know my thoughts on the redoubling Bob, a complete waste of money that could be spent elsewhere where the demand is greater, what Wrexham needs is to get on to ATW to get some more maybe 1 train every 2 hours going to Manchester vice Holyhead then this would warrent the redoubling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

#

Chiltern went their own way, what was £13M for a job by NR,cost Chiltern £5M im not sure of the job , but I recall a station Parkway costings on TV highlighting this.

Warwick Parkway and Chiltern are expanding it even further with more car parking space
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a very poor analysis by NR of the Chester-Crewe electrification potential. By my count there are 18 overbridges of one sort or another in the 18 miles between the end of the wires at Crewe MPD and Chester station. It just looks as though 'they' don't want to do it. Negativity; the British disease?

I think you will find there are more than 18 structures, possibly over 40, if the line is electrified to Chester it will need to be electrified to Holyhead also, is there a positive plan and a budget to do this?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Nor does Beaconsfield or Hight Wycombe on the Chilterns but they managed 2 multi storey car parks to accomodate the extra demand. Rosset is in the middle of nowhere with a sparce population, you know my thoughts on the redoubling Bob, a complete waste of money that could be spent elsewhere where the demand is greater, what Wrexham needs is to get on to ATW to get some more maybe 1 train every 2 hours going to Manchester vice Holyhead then this would warrent the redoubling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Warwick Parkway and Chiltern are expanding it even further with more car parking space
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think you will find there are more than 18 structures, possibly over 40, if the line is electrified to Chester it will need to be electrified to Holyhead also, is there a positive plan and a budget to do this?

Wales did very well this time (CP5) will it next time? I've heard it said that Cheryl Gillian was persuaded it (Welsh wires) would divert money from HS2 so she fought tooth and nail for it as Welsh Sec! Personally I think there was an element of the coalition in London saying ha you cant moan about us not investing in Wales now to Labour/Welsh Govt.

 

[merlodlliw]

Nor does Beaconsfield or Hight Wycombe on the Chilterns but they managed 2 multi storey car parks to accomodate the extra demand. Rosset is in the middle of nowhere with a sparce population, you know my thoughts on the redoubling Bob, a complete waste of money that could be spent elsewhere where the demand is greater, what Wrexham needs is to get on to ATW to get some more maybe 1 train every 2 hours going to Manchester vice Holyhead then this would warrent the redoubling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Warwick Parkway and Chiltern are expanding it even further with more car parking space
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think you will find there are more than 18 structures, possibly over 40, if the line is electrified to Chester it will need to be electrified to Holyhead also, is there a positive plan and a budget to do this?

Indeed TDK we beg to differ on the redouble, however without the redouble no extra services could run, I agree we need more Manchester Services.
however where is the demand greater for twin tracking in Wales? plus if the £30M already ringfenced by the previous Minister IWJ had been stolen for use elsewhere, all hell would have broken out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wales did very well this time (CP5) will it next time? I've heard it said that Cheryl Gillian was persuaded it (Welsh wires) would divert money from HS2 so she fought tooth and nail for it as Welsh Sec! Personally I think there was an element of the coalition in London saying ha you cant moan about us not investing in Wales now to Labour/Welsh Govt.

Yes Ive also heard this about Gillians motives.

 

[tom1649]

By the time this 'bespoke rolling stock' was designed and ordered it will probably have been cheaper to pay the extra for standard electrification!

 

[Chris125]

That's a very poor analysis by NR of the Chester-Crewe electrification potential. By my count there are 18 overbridges of one sort or another in the 18 miles between the end of the wires at Crewe MPD and Chester station. It just looks as though 'they' don't want to do it. Negativity; the British disease?

They don't want to do it for the perfectly sensible reason that with only limited benefits there's no practical low cost option which those benefits could justify - that doesn't mean that Network Rail (or indeed anyone else) are against electrification of Crewe-Chester but it would have to be part of a larger scheme which the WAG are now pursuing.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

They don't want to do it for the perfectly sensible reason that with only limited there's no practical low cost option which the benefits could justify - that doesn't mean that Network Rail (or indeed anyone else) are against electrification of Crewe-Chester but it would have to be part of a larger scheme which the WAG are now pursuing.

Chris

This is it. Given the pattern of services, any partial electrification plans around the Holyhead/ Chester/ Crewe/ Shrewsbury/ Newport area are going to either fail to convert sufficient services to EMU to make electrification worthwhile (i.e. a large number of diesel services would continue to run, which weakens the case for wiring) or would see some links cut.

Wire *just* Crewe to Chester but you'd still have roughly half of the services on the line run by (diesel) Voyagers which are needed for the Holyhead section (not all services continue to Holyhead, but the diagramming would be hard to split out).

Do it all or don't bother.

 

[Ironside]

This is it. Given the pattern of services, any partial electrification plans around the Holyhead/ Chester/ Crewe/ Shrewsbury/ Newport area are going to either fail to convert sufficient services to EMU to make electrification worthwhile (i.e. a large number of diesel services would continue to run, which weakens the case for wiring) or would see some links cut.

Wire *just* Crewe to Chester but you'd still have roughly half of the services on the line run by (diesel) Voyagers which are needed for the Holyhead section (not all services continue to Holyhead, but the diagramming would be hard to split out).

Do it all or don't bother.

Sound reasonable, so leave it until either political will or economy of scale, by which so much or the rest of the rest of the network has been done that the numbers start to add up.

 

[HSTEd]

Getting rid of Network Rail, and handing the rails to the TOCs, would be a sure way to cut costs. 3 quotes for every job....all this preferred / term contractor nonsense is the biggest scam yet.

And then we return to the days of coal trains being "accidentally" routed onto the fast lines in front of express trains run by other companies.
Or trains simply not being permitted to use paths that make use of the top speed of the rolling stock.

That would fragment the system to a degree that even the privatisation nuts thought was insane.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Wire *just* Crewe to Chester but you'd still have roughly half of the services on the line run by (diesel) Voyagers which are needed for the Holyhead section (not all services continue to Holyhead, but the diagramming would be hard to split out).

The Euston - Holyhead/Bangor service is rather 'lumpy', at hour intervals at times and then a very long gap. Couldn't it be evened out to every two hours all day, with at least as many services each way as now? Then, if you wired Crewe - Chester it wouldn't take many diesel locomotives to drag the north Wales - Euston services between Chester and Bangor/Holyhead (and Virgin supposedly proposed replacing all their Voyagers using such tactics, presumably without Crewe - Chester electrification).

 

[tbtc]

The Euston - Holyhead/Bangor service is rather 'lumpy', at hour intervals at times and then a very long gap. Couldn't it be evened out to every two hours all day, with at least as many services each way as now? Then, if you wired Crewe - Chester it wouldn't take many diesel locomotives to drag the north Wales - Euston services between Chester and Bangor/Holyhead (and Virgin supposedly proposed replacing all their Voyagers using such tactics, presumably without Crewe - Chester electrification).

The demand seems to be heavily in favour of journeys to London in the morning and journeys away from London in the afternoon (rather than many people wanting to go to Holyhead for a day out), which makes the timetabelling awkward.

Ideally you'd have the scenario that you talk about, with say two trains west of Chester providing a consistent bi-hourly service.

 

[merlodlliw]

And then we return to the days of coal trains being "accidentally" routed onto the fast lines in front of express trains run by other companies.
Or trains simply not being permitted to use paths that make use of the top speed of the rolling stock.

That would fragment the system to a degree that even the privatisation nuts thought was insane.

Not as such, we are talking cost of infastructure, which NR simply apply the highest cost, the example of Nr quoting £13M for a station improvement on the Chiltern line, the same job managed by Chiltern cost £5M.

 

[tbtc]

Sound reasonable, so leave it until either political will or economy of scale, by which so much or the rest of the rest of the network has been done that the numbers start to add up.

Agreed.

As each bit gets wired up the case for the next bit improves, e.g. Cardiff - Newport improves the case for the Marches line, but the mess of services through Shrewsbury and Chester makes it hard to do it incrementally.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

The demand seems to be heavily in favour of journeys to London in the morning and journeys away from London in the afternoon (rather than many people wanting to go to Holyhead for a day out), which makes the timetabelling awkward.

Ideally you'd have the scenario that you talk about, with say two trains west of Chester providing a consistent bi-hourly service.

Agreed, I think that the London service from N Wales is pretty good and at the most suitable times...and during the long gap in the middle of the day from London there are good connections at Chester. I think that the planners have realised that the market for people from London wanting to experience a day out in Holyhead really isn't there!

 

[brianthegiant]

Not as such, we are talking cost of infastructure, which NR simply apply the highest cost, the example of Nr quoting £13M for a station improvement on the Chiltern line, the same job managed by Chiltern cost £5M.

I do agree that NR costs are very high, piles of overhead. However, I would be careful of comparing with Chiltern, who's evergreen project had to be taken over by NR because it was getting so delayed.

NR do have a lot of overhead, but they also have a lot of experience of how to run railway civils projects

 

[Holly]

... Wire *just* Crewe to Chester but you'd still have roughly half of the services on the line run by (diesel) Voyagers which are needed for the Holyhead section (not all services continue to Holyhead, but the diagramming would be hard to split out).
Do it all or don't bother.

50% of the total benefit for implementing less than 25% of the total project sounds like a reasonable deal to me.
Not to mention opening up a possibility of getting a few trains per day Chester to London HS2 Classic Compatible trains added.

Also, I have a suspicion that between Chester and Crewe there are rustic bridges used almost entirely for farming that could be simply demolished. Eliminated by buying out the local landowners to do without them cheaper than it would be to rebuild everything.

 

[merlodlliw]

50% of the total benefit for implementing less than 25% of the total project sounds like a reasonable deal to me.
Not to mention opening up a possibility of getting a few trains per day Chester to London HS2 Classic Compatible trains added.

Also, I have a suspicion that between Chester and Crewe there are rustic bridges used almost entirely for farming that could be simply demolished. Eliminated by buying out the local landowners to do without them cheaper than it would be to rebuild everything.

But who would pay to buy them out? and what would you do with the land,several motorways & A roads have agricultural bridges, that have been improved, so replace the cow bridge with higher ones, that's the cheapest option. Cheshire has some of the highest priced agricultural land in the UK, plus sacking farm staff is not an option for this project

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Although the article sounds more like a 'wish list' than hard political/financial commitment, it is nevertheless to be welcomed.
Would this be CP6 or separate (Welsh Government spending) in CP5?

In order for this to go ahead and be viable, it would have to include electrification from Chester to Manchester/Crewe, meaning that the Welsh Government spending would have to be matched on the English side.

There is no separate Welsh/English spend on major rail projects - it's all UK money defined in the England and Wales (DfT) HLOS, and the matching NR plans.
Wales lobbies for its bits but so do the English authorities.
Indeed they do have to match or we would be in stupid land.
The Wales NR Route actually covers plenty of mileage in England (eg Abergavenny-Hereford-Salop-Crewe/Chester).

Investment in North Wales/Marches also has an impact as far away as Euston/Paddington/Birmingham/Manchester so you can't take these things in isolation.

It's a good thing the WG is pushing for North Wales electrification, but I think several miracles have to occur simultaneously for it to happen.
The planned resignalling is a precursor, but is only really clearing up some of the modernisation backlog from pre-nationalisation days.

 

[Welshman]

The Euston - Holyhead/Bangor service is rather 'lumpy', at hour intervals at times and then a very long gap. Couldn't it be evened out to every two hours all day, with at least as many services each way as now? Then, if you wired Crewe - Chester it wouldn't take many diesel locomotives to drag the north Wales - Euston services between Chester and Bangor/Holyhead (and Virgin supposedly proposed replacing all their Voyagers using such tactics, presumably without Crewe - Chester electrification).

Agreed, the Holyhead/Bangor-Euston & vv service pattern is indeed "lumpy" but it seems to fit the demands for through services to London - ie out in the mornings and back in the evenings, with one or two during the daytime.

I remember there used to be a regular [Cl.37-hauled] service from North Wales to Birmingham New St via Crewe and Stafford - much quicker than the present ATW service via Shrewsbury. Could not this be reintroduced, and electrically-powered, so that the direct peak-time London services would still go via the Trent Valley as now, but at other times go via Birmingham?

This would then produce an hourly North Wales-London service - direct during the peak times and via Birmingham at other times, and not only give better services to Birmingham but also present a stronger case for electrification of the N.Wales route through to Holyhead?

 

[jones_bangor]

Agreed, the Holyhead/Bangor-Euston & vv service pattern is indeed "lumpy" but it seems to fit the demands for through services to London - ie out in the mornings and back in the evenings, with one or two during the daytime.

I remember there used to be a regular [Cl.37-hauled] service from North Wales to Birmingham New St via Crewe and Stafford - much quicker than the present ATW service via Shrewsbury. Could not this be reintroduced, and electrically-powered, so that the direct peak-time London services would still go via the Trent Valley as now, but at other times go via Birmingham?

This would then produce an hourly North Wales-London service - direct during the peak times and via Birmingham at other times, and not only give better services to Birmingham but also present a stronger case for electrification of the N.Wales route through to Holyhead?

Ah...fond days, watching the Class 37 ahead curve round the brick viaducts out of Birmingham...

There's no doubt that the current Holyhead - Birmingham route is a slow route, those in the know - and without an hour to spare - take the Virgin service to Crewe and catch another to Birmingham. The fares on the "slow" route are much cheaper however.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a good thing the WG is pushing for North Wales electrification

The WG aren't really pushing for North Wales electrification, I don't think the current Transport Secretary gets rail, and is very road focused....he seemed quite good when he first got the job, but I suspect now it's beyond his capability to deliver for rail - the current Wrexham - Saltney redoubling is the result of his predecessors hard work. Cheryl Gillan, ex Welsh Secretary, delivered South Wales wires.....

The driver is there now because the Welsh Secretary - part of UK Government and an MP for Clwyd West on the route - is pushing hard.