Proposed Wrexham North Station

[lancastrian]

While reading the August copy of Modern Railway's, the article "New Services from Chester. (Pages 49 - 51). I noticed on the map on page 50 that it showed 4 proposed stations. These were 'Queensferry' on the North Wales line, 'Deeside Industrial Park' (such a snappy name) on the Borderlands line and Wrexham South & Wrexham North. It was Wrexham North that interested me, as it was the only one which would be on a stretch of single track. This would, I assume cause capacity problems on the Saltney Junction to Wrexham line, despite it being doubled to Rossett.

Wrexham North would be on the single line south of Rossett. Even if only one train an hour called in each direction, that would restrict the capacity of the line simple because the train would be occupying the single line longer. I would have thought that this could cause a problem. I believe that the doubling through from Rossett to Wrexham was not done because the DaFT at some point in the past when building the A483, only built the bridges to single track width. Yet again show the critical narrow minded foresight we have come to expect from those people at DaFT. Having looked on Google Earth (Not actually living near enough to visit. I have come to the conclusion, that the obvious solution to the problem would be to double the line from Wrexham to just past the sight of the Wrexham North station, not only meaning that trains could pass each other at the Wrexham North station, plus the length of single track would be reduced by at least a mile, maybe more, with added capacity benefits.

However the potential site of the station would probably be between the two bridges of the A483 which cross the Wrexham to Chester line. Unless it is possible to get a double track through the most southerly bridge, then there will be capacity problems.

I do have a potential solution to this problem, but I must admit that it is in the realms of fantasy in expecting that the DaFT would realise that the problem was caused by the bridges being built incorrectly and they would use the road budget to rebuild the bridges for double track. This might stop other short sighted solution to save money (and thereby costing more in the future) by doing things right first time. But I wont hold my breath.

Could anyone tell me if it is possible to at least double track through the A483 nearest to Wrexham so that the double track can be extended to the proposed Wrexham North station site, or am I just whistling in the wind.

Thank you all.

 

[The Prisoner]

I live in Rossett. This won’t happen. There is no need for any stops between Chester and Wrexham given that there is a very decent bus service between the two (Arriva sapphire 1) and that the station in Chester is too far from the centre to be of use for short distance days out/commuting.

Only way it may have been viable would have been if the line had remained doubled from here to Wrexham so as not to cause pressure on the single line from here south. Think the viaduct over the A483 north of Wrexham nearish gresford is a single.

There is no indication where the station would actually be. Gresford may have a small case. Suburbs of Wrexham would be pointless.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Network Rail's original plan did involve extending double track up the bank from Rossett and north from Wrexham North Jn, leaving just the A483 overbridge section as single - about a mile as I recall.
The route from Rossett to Wrexham was supposed to be 75mph too (presently 60).
But after NR agreed a price with the Welsh Government (£45 million) for the whole job, they decided it was not enough and demanded £60 million.
The WG refused to offer any more cash, and so the redoubling project was cut back to Saltney-Rossett (and the line speeds there were only partially increased to 90mph, and the new Rossett Jn was installed at 60 rather than 75mph).
The problem was mainly said to be difficult ground and embankment conditions on Gresford bank, and the cost of resignalling at Wrexham.
All the work actually done was within the control area of Chester PSB.
NR said that Saltney-Rossett delivered the capacity that WG asked for (1 extra train per 2h) - this was before the Halton Curve project was approved, which has added to the future services plan.
I think WG have the intention of finishing the job, but I don't believe it has reached the planning stage yet.
We did have a long thread on this about 5 years ago, but it's not been updated since the partial redoubling was finally completed (it took several blockades to implement, new signalling and level crossings being problematic).
Personally, I think all four potential new stations are iffy in terms of business case.
The existing services are slow enough without adding yet more stops into sometimes very long distance services.
As is noted above, Arriva #1 has frequent (4-6bph) services on the parallel main road.

 

[chillyed]

I thought the plan was for a park and ride station by the Rossett junction of the A483, at the bottom of Marford Hill. As is said above there needs to be more redoubling before anything like this could happen.

 

[lancastrian]

Thanks to all responses. It is making sense to me. It would be nice to see the line fully redoubled to improve the capacity of the line. I am really delighted to see all the redouble of the lines that were singled by BR under the direction of the Government of the time. Just proving that we need the railway even more than ever.

 

[sw1ller]

I wouldn’t want to stop half way up that hill in leaf fall season in either direction. That’s rather steep and covered in trees. There’s also the problem that the Chirk log train needs a clear run from Chester to have enough momentum to get up the hill. That, of course, could be fixed by adding a full loop at kronospan. (Entry and exit so it can run in from Shrewsbury and exit via Chester.

 

[The Prisoner]

Can't find any detail anywhere on this Wrexham North station - just mentions of it it the local press with no detail as to where it might be. It wouldn't fit in the Marford Hill/A483 Rossett section mentioned above as it's quite tight between the A483 and existing housing and roads, plus (as mentioned) it is the start of the single line there. Certainly no real room for a park and ride.

Rossett station would be relatively easy to reinstate around 1/3-1/2 mile further north of the Marford Hill site pretty much in it's old position on Station Road just to the north of the pedestrian crossing with a double platform at the junction (this is where the "new" redoubled line to Chester starts). Could fit a decent car park there too. Operationally there are often southbound services being held at the signal waiting for a northbound service to pass before moving onto the single line, so putting a platform in to make use of the slack may be an option.

I really can't see there being a huge business case for Rossett though - as I mentioned above the Arriva bus runs every 10 minutes or through the village during the day from Chester to Wrexham and actually serves the centre of Chester (where my office is). Chester railway station is a 20 minute walk from the centre, so isn't really a commuter option. Would longer distance customers justify the expense? Probably not (although I would have used it to get to Bristol the week before last).

Rossett was named as an option in a Railfutures report back in 2013, but then again so was Chester Business Park and the line doesn't really go near enough for a station to be of any use there. https://www.railfuture.org.uk/dl702

 

[Chester1]

Thanks to all responses. It is making sense to me. It would be nice to see the line fully redoubled to improve the capacity of the line. I am really delighted to see all the redouble of the lines that were singled by BR under the direction of the Government of the time. Just proving that we need the railway even more than ever.

Some of the single section cannot be removed at a reasonable cost due to single track bridges. I believe the single track section was reduced from 9 miles to 3.5 miles. Wrexham-Chester can support hourly Holyhead-Cardiff, hourly Liverpool-Shrewsbury/Cardiff services, daily London services and a small number of freight trains each day.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some of the single section cannot be removed at a reasonable cost due to single track bridges. I believe the single track section was reduced from 9 miles to 3.5 miles. Wrexham-Chester can support hourly Holyhead-Cardiff, hourly Liverpool-Shrewsbury/Cardiff services, daily London services and a small number of freight trains each day.

The single track section is now 4 miles, and there is just the A483 bridge near the top of Gresford Bank which is a single track structure.
The original plan was to have new single track junctions either side of this bridge, leaving about a mile of single track over the bridge.
Rossett would not have had a junction, and the layout at Wrexham station would have been much improved, with access to P2/3 and maybe Central from the north.

Current service is just 1tph Holyhead-Shrewsbury (-Birmingham/Cardiff), with a few extras like the VT London service, "Gerald", and now the couple of Liverpool services.
I think the NR offer that they delivered was for 1.5tph (ie an extra train every 2 hours).
The timetable will be constrained by what happens beyond Chester, as I think clock-face timetables in all directions from Chester won't work.
The Halton Curve single track towards Liverpool is another constraint, not to mention Mickle Trafford-Mouldsworth towards Northwich.
Freight over the section is only the Chirk logs, and that is not daily.
The poor layout at Wrexham station also means that terminators from the north have to run on to Watery Road loop and then reverse back to P2.

 

[Chester1]

The single track section is now 4 miles, and there is just the A483 bridge near the top of Gresford Bank which is a single track structure.
The original plan was to have new single track junctions either side of this bridge, leaving about a mile of single track over the bridge.
Rossett would not have had a junction, and the layout at Wrexham station would have been much improved, with access to P2/3 and maybe Central from the north.

Current service is just 1tph Holyhead-Shrewsbury (-Birmingham/Cardiff), with a few extras like the VT London service, "Gerald", and now the couple of Liverpool services.
I think the NR offer that they delivered was for 1.5tph (ie an extra train every 2 hours).
The timetable will be constrained by what happens beyond Chester, as I think clock-face timetables in all directions from Chester won't work.
The Halton Curve single track towards Liverpool is another constraint, not to mention Mickle Trafford-Mouldsworth towards Northwich.
Freight over the section is only the Chirk logs, and that is not daily.
The poor layout at Wrexham station also means that terminators from the north have to run on to Watery Road loop and then reverse back to P2.

I was refering to the service level planned once the new rolling stock enters service. While the infrastructure isn't idea it is sufficient run the planned services. Building an additional station would complicate the situation but there is not prospect of this happening soon.

 

[driver_m]

Not surprised to see that comment about Chester itself not being an ideal commuter station, more a longer distance station. Its one of those places that could really do with an equivalent of Haymarket or Man Oxford Road to mop up the commuter market down towards the Northgate tunnels/Roodee Jn. Chester is a place that could be much bigger if it’s infrastructure was improved for commuting.

 

[Chester1]

Not surprised to see that comment about Chester itself not being an ideal commuter station, more a longer distance station. Its one of those places that could really do with an equivalent of Haymarket or Man Oxford Road to mop up the commuter market down towards the Northgate tunnels/Roodee Jn. Chester is a place that could be much bigger if it’s infrastructure was improved for commuting.

The road infrastructure cannot support a significantly larger population and there has been a backlash to the large growth in the student population in recent years. The station would benefit from the proposed platform 8 which would allow 7 to be used for DMUs. There is plenty of space for an extra platform. It would be best combined with a resignalling and new layout to prevent conflicts between services using platforms 7 and 8. Those changes would provide more flexibility but redoubling more of the line would be necessary to make a Wrexham North station practical. At Chester I would build a northern entrance and car park to serve Hoole and build a footbridge over the sidings to reach the station.

 

[adrock1976]

The road infrastructure cannot support a significantly larger population and there has been a backlash to the large growth in the student population in recent years. The station would benefit from the proposed platform 8 which would allow 7 to be used for DMUs. There is plenty of space for an extra platform. It would be best combined with a resignalling and new layout to prevent conflicts between services using platforms 7 and 8. Those changes would provide more flexibility but redoubling more of the line would be necessary to make a Wrexham North station practical. At Chester I would build a northern entrance and car park to serve Hoole and build a footbridge over the sidings to reach the station.

Would the new Platform 8 at Chester be specially dedicated for the Merseyrail services?

I believe that the Holyhead facing half of Platform 7 is presently dedicated for Merseyrail at this moment in time.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would the new Platform 8 at Chester be specially dedicated for the Merseyrail services?
I believe that the Holyhead facing half of Platform 7 is presently dedicated for Merseyrail at this moment in time.

Not necessarily, it would probably be accessible to all directions (it would be sited on the existing through freight lines).
It would be fitted with 3rd rail providing an alternative to P7.
One issue is that it would be outside the main station building and might be an unpopular minimalist island platform.
Merseyrail passengers (the majority of Chester's footfall) already grumble about the distance they have to walk from the station entrance to the far end of P7.

 

[Chester1]

Would the new Platform 8 at Chester be specially dedicated for the Merseyrail services?

I believe that the Holyhead facing half of Platform 7 is presently dedicated for Merseyrail at this moment in time.

Not necessarily, it would probably be accessible to all directions (it would be sited on the existing through freight lines).
It would be fitted with 3rd rail providing an alternative to P7.
One issue is that it would be outside the main station building and might be an unpopular minimalist island platform.
Merseyrail passengers (the majority of Chester's footfall) already grumble about the distance they have to walk from the station entrance to the far end of P7.

The two options that have been investigated are an island platform between 3 and 4 and an island platform next to platform 7. I am not sure why they are the only two options. The old parcel platform would be better used as a platform 0 rather than for bike storage and stabling empty units. An extra platform on the car park next to platform 2 would stop Holyhead services reversing in platform 3. Hopefully those two changes would resolve Chester station issues for timetabling services to and from Wrexham.

 

[The Prisoner]

Chester’s car park is totally inadequate - never any spaces past 9am during the week. Has been terrible ever since they sold the land off for the office development.

An extra platform on the car park next to platform 2 would stop Holyhead services reversing in platform 3.

 

[NI 271]

There’s also the problem that the Chirk log train needs a clear run from Chester to have enough momentum to get up the hill. That, of course, could be fixed by adding a full loop at kronospan. (Entry and exit so it can run in from Shrewsbury and exit via Chester.

The Baglan train runs in after midnight and out again at around 0530 (and only twice a week), so doesn't affect any other traffic, and doesn't therefore need any part of the route altered. The Carlisle train is only ever going to run in via Wrexham, and although a groundframe to allow entry at the Whitehurst end of the yard would be very useful, any run-round would need to be done mainline with the loco coming out at the Chirk end as there's not enough room to put another line down there due to buildings and machinery - the train is longer than the yard so needs to be split to be unloaded, once the train has been reformed the front end is maybe 100 yards beyond the points, which are as far to the Chirk end of the yard as they can be. There would obviously also have to be a crossover to the down at the Whitehurst end for departure, I doubt that's ever going to be cost-effective for one train a day, and the required blockage(s) of the long section between Wrexham and Gobowen for those moves to take place is probably even more reason for it not to happen.

 

[driver_m]

The road infrastructure cannot support a significantly larger population and there has been a backlash to the large growth in the student population in recent years. The station would benefit from the proposed platform 8 which would allow 7 to be used for DMUs. There is plenty of space for an extra platform. It would be best combined with a resignalling and new layout to prevent conflicts between services using platforms 7 and 8. Those changes would provide more flexibility but redoubling more of the line would be necessary to make a Wrexham North station practical. At Chester I would build a northern entrance and car park to serve Hoole and build a footbridge over the sidings to reach the station.

Couldn’t agree more, but the traffic congestion is totally out of proportion to the size of the city. Deeside is clearly cashing the demand for housing judging by the number of new housing developments going up over the border, so maybe it’s out of Chester’s hands anyway... Ideally could do with a City Region setup but the politics are never going to allow for that now.