Remodelling Crewe?

[Topological]

Being discussed a fair bit in the HS2 to Crewe thread, but if you were going to assume that HS2 trains would need to use classic lines then how would you remodel Crewe?

For the purpose of discussion let us assume the following layout (South is on the left)

<----------------------19--------------------------> Freight Line (not currently available to passengers)
<----------------------18--------------------------> Freight Line (not currently available to passengers)

<----------------------17-------------------------->
<-------14--------| |---------16-------->
<-------13--------| |---------15-------->
<----------------------12--------------------------->
<----------------------------------------------------> Through line(s)
<----------------------11--------------------------->
<--------8---------| |--------10---------->
<--------7---------| |--------9----------->
<-----------------------6--------------------------->
<----------------------------------------------------> Through line(s)
<-----------------------5--------------------------->
<---------4---------|
<---------3---------|
<---------2---------|
<------------------------1--------------------------->

That is 1 to 12 are as currently.

With money as no object then I would move the main WCML across so that 6/11 are the natural southbound platform and 11/12 the northbound. 5 would be the default platform for Avanti to Manchester, but 6 would be available. 5 would no longer have any trains to/from the main WCML. 12 Would be available for both the WCML and Chester. 17 would be Chester only. Chester shuttles would use 15/16 and Shrewsbury would use 13/14 (You could get away with only 1 from each pair)

TfW services would use 5 and 6, meaning 6 still retains the Manchester connection.

9 and 10 become essentially redundant though perhaps one day there will be a Crewe to Liverpool shuttle, or Crewe to Preston shuttle and then these platforms would be ideally placed. Given the short length of 10, that could close.

7 and 8 could be extended for London Midland to terminate essentially in the middle of the formation.

2,3 and 4 remain overkill for the few southbound trains that run.

1 still needs to handle termination from Manchester, but would no longer need to have any longer distance trains coming through.

There are ways based upon this with fewer points and fewer platforms by closing some of the existing ones (e.g. only having one bay per island).

 

[jfollows]

As in the pre-1980 layout, then ?

I exaggerate, but bays for services from Manchester were an understandable oversight.

I couldn’t spell independent when I drew this, but I remember using the western through line before crashing over the points to Manchester.

 

[MatthewHutton]

If more capacity is needed wouldn’t it be relatively cheap to have a couple of platforms on the lower level freight bypass?

 

[jfollows]

If more capacity is needed wouldn’t it be relatively cheap to have a couple of platforms on the lower level freight bypass?

I think that‘s where the Manchester terminators need to go, along with the reinstatement of Sydney Bridge Junction, because crossing on the flat won’t work any more and there’s no room on the up side. But still hardly cheap.

 

[Topological]

As someone whose train (South Wales to Manchester) needs to cross the whole formation at Crewe, the freight bypass would be perfect. However, when this comes up the suggestion is always that the tunnel part is only 15mph and the resulting timetable would be worse. In fairness, the TfWs do not get held that often waiting to arrive or depart.

It would be possible to add an 18 and 19 to my diagram to cover the freight lines.

 

[MatthewHutton]

As someone whose train (South Wales to Manchester) needs to cross the whole formation at Crewe, the freight bypass would be perfect. However, when this comes up the suggestion is always that the tunnel part is only 15mph and the resulting timetable would be worse. In fairness, the TfWs do not get held that often waiting to arrive or depart.

It would be possible to add an 18 and 19 to my diagram to cover the freight lines.

Given freight trains don’t accelerate quickly there’s probably a decent case for speeding up the tunnel part to something somewhat respectable just for that.

And I would have thought the freight route could also be used for the HS2 services to Manchester that aren’t stopping at Crewe. I assume some won’t.

 

[jfollows]

And I would have thought the freight route could also be used for the HS2 services to Manchester that aren’t stopping at Crewe. I assume some won’t.

Although things have been improved with recent changes, it’s a huge diversion, involves going through freight yards first, so I think unlikely. Cross on the flat at Crewe North as always. There used to be a lot of trains which didn’t stop en route to Manchester, now it’s only really seen during things like planned Stockport closure. I had a couple of trundles during the Greek Street closure.

 

[Topological]

Given freight trains don’t accelerate quickly there’s probably a decent case for speeding up the tunnel part to something somewhat respectable just for that.

And I would have thought the freight route could also be used for the HS2 services to Manchester that aren’t stopping at Crewe. I assume some won’t.

I believe the expensive (which should be done) version of HS2 involves remodelling of Crewe.

The cheapest version is just to let the trains pass the platform edges (there are yellow lines) and that is what will happen if there is no rebuilding.

I dont believe there has ever been any thought of the freight tunnels.

 

[Uk02048]

I believe the Crewe independent lines have the restriction mainly to the tunnel build - eg low OHLE and general heath robinson design

 

[The Planner]

There was a remodelling solution agreed as part of the HS2 plans. There is a PWI video somewhere. It has also been discussed previously on here.

The independents are only 15mph at the south end, they are 10 at the north.

 

[Topological]

Very unclear how TfW would get to Manchester, or Chester trains get to "WCML", but my memory was that HS2 was going in the middle and a quick google suggests that was the plan.

There is an image at 2023 New Civil Engineer Article on Crewe HS2

AltText: Image shows artists impression of Crewe station with regional services to the West, HS2 in a central, lower, section, and then 7 platform faces for WCML services to the east. The image also appears to show a Crewe tram system with 4 car trams.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Very unclear how TfW would get to Manchester, or Chester trains get to "WCML", but my memory was that HS2 was going in the middle and a quick google suggests that was the plan.

There is an image at 2023 New Civil Engineer Article on Crewe HS2

AltText: Image shows artists impression of Crewe station with regional services to the West, HS2 in a central, lower, section, and then 7 platform faces for WCML services to the east. The image also appears to show a Crewe tram system with 4 car trams.

That looks awfully expensive.

 

[The Planner]

That looks awfully expensive.

Its not expensive at all, its not being built.

 

[Nottingham59]

The main problem at Crewe seems to me to be the extraordinarily constrained throat at the north end of the station. This allows any-to-any connections for the six lines that meet at Crewe, but severely constrains capacity.

It seems to me that there are two ways to address this:

1. Do what they did at Derby and allocate Western platforms to Chester; Central Platforms to Weaver; Eastern platforms to Manchester, and sort those flows south of the station. That would mean grade separation flyovers on the southern approaches, like they have at Rugby, and probably upgrading the freight tunnels to passenger use.
   
   
2. Alternatively dig a 360km/h twin bore N-S tunnel under Crewe station which solves the whole problem, as most long distance trains will then bypass Crewe completely. This is the solution HS2 Ltd came up with.

My preference would be to do a version of (2) where HS2 goes directly from around Whitmore Heath to a delta junction somewhere around Knutsford and bypasses Crewe completely.

 

[The Planner]

The main problem at Crewe seems to me to be the extraordinarily constrained throat at the north end of the station. This allows any-to-any connections for the six lines that meet at Crewe, but severely constrains capacity.

It seems to me that there are two ways to address this:

1. Do what they did at Derby and allocate Western platforms to Chester; Central Platforms to Weaver; Eastern platforms to Manchester, and sort those flows south of the station. That would mean grade separation flyovers on the southern approaches, like they have at Rugby, and probably upgrading the freight tunnels to passenger use.
   
   
2. Alternatively dig a 360km/h twin bore N-S tunnel under Crewe station which solves the whole problem, as most long distance trains will then bypass Crewe completely. This is the solution HS2 Ltd came up with.

My preference would be to do a version of (2) where HS2 goes directly from around Whitmore Heath to a delta junction somewhere around Knutsford and bypasses Crewe completely.

Independent lines are passenger rated, just very slow.

 

[markymark2000]

If I were to amend Crewe (as it currently stands), I would probably do the following:

Provide a link from the Up Manchester loop into the EMU stabling sidings (off P1). That way trains from Manchester can get into Crewe P1 even if trains are routed towards Manchester from Platform 5. The EMU sidings is hardly used anymore as Northern turn straight around, but if needed, throw a limit of shunt sign up and then you can still use this area to store Northern trains temporarily if needed, but it does make it much more useful as it enables more parallel movements.

I'd then probably also remove Platform 10 as a standalone platform and divert platform 9s track onto the platform 10 trackbed to enable platform 9 to be widened. It wouldn't make any difference pathing wise, but it would massively reduce crowding on Platform 9 and save Avanti staff having to scream at passengers all the time.

The other things to look at are more points and/or higher speeds over points. For example, between Basford Hall and Crewe, and Crewe and Coal Yard, because of where the points are onto the slow lines (essentially to enable trains to run off the fasts, into the freight yard), and the very slow speeds over the points, you can't get very good usage out of the slow lines here. New points which don't conflict with freight movements, and provide decent turnout speeds would work wonders to make full use of the capacity on the slower lines, and save trains queuing to get into the station/waiting to depart, as you could do more parallel movements.


If you were to make Platform 12 area feel part of the rest of the station (and not some kind of abandoned area which feels miles away from the rest of the station), you could probably add a bay platform to the north end (looking at old plans, this seems to be a former platform 2a), and link this bay platform straight to the Chester line, just north of the points which trains from P11 use to get to the north WCML. This would remove 99% of conflicts on the Chester shuttle. And you could do similar on the south end for the Shrewsbury shuttle. But as I say, this would only work if Platform 12 felt part of the rest of the station.

 

[ABB125]

I have deployed my crayons (black biro) and designed the following layout for Crewe. Theoretically it would be compatible with HS2, though that might require more platforms - obviously more detailed design work would be needed!

The following general points/assumptions apply:

• A reasonable proportion of the Crewe Heritage Centre site would be lost
• All of LSL's sidings to the east of their building would have to go, and probably at least one of their sheds as well
• The building in the bushes to the east of the running lines south of the station (presumably an old signal box) would need to go
• The platform 12 island is ignored in this plan, but could relatively easily be added
• The independent lines are ignored
• No changes can be made to the station canopies, or to the platform layout in the immediate vicinity of the canopies due to listed status

I will attempt to explain the reasoning behind this layout - platform numbers refer to present-day numbering:

• All through platforms are bi-directionally signalled
• The fast lines remain as at present through the middle of the station
• The eastern island platform provides two southbound loop platforms (P1, P5) off the fast lines. In addition, the island can be treated as the "Manchester island": P5 is the northbound Manchester platform, P1 is the southbound; or, as the "Stoke island" (more on this later)
• Similarly, the western island provides two northbound loop platforms (P7, P11) off the fast lines. In addition, the island can be treated as the "Chester island": P11 north towards Chester, P7 south from Chester; or, as the "slow/Shrewsbury island" (again, more on this later)
• The eastern island has 2 southern bay platforms, these would need to be a reasonable length (6-8 cars) so a bit of platform extension needed. Potentially the layout could be modified to be the same as now with 3 bays - one longer one, and two shorter ones
• The western island has two southern bays and two northern bays. The southern bays would need to be extended to ~280m to allow termination of full length (non-HS2) services. The northern bays would need to be a reasonable length (4-6 cars)
• There are 6 tracks in the southern throat - these are the slow lines, fast lines and Stoke lines from west to east. The slow lines feed directly into the western island, Stoke lines directly into the eastern island, fast lines through the middle with access to both
• The Shrewsbury line has a double track connection onto the slow lines (approximately the same as what currently exists), and a single track (bi-directional) flyover which crosses both slow and fast lines and lands in the middle of the Stoke lines. This flyover would require some "courageous" gradients, with under 300m of usable distance available between the entrance to Arriva Traincare site and the station, but if it can be done elsewhere in Europe it can be done in the UK. This flyover would enable Cardiff-Manchester services to avoid conflicts with other services. If space is too tight, the flyover could be made southbound only in normal service, allowing a simpler track layout and saving space (though with the ability to run the "wrong way" if absolutely necessary). Northbound services would use the other proposed flyover instead
• The Manchester line would also have a flyover (single track again, bi-directional) to the western island - this would be similarly courageous to the other flyover, but I would argue the site is slightly less constrained (above ground at least!) - there's more open space, and moving a The Food Warehouse tin shed should be simpler than a depot... This flyover would primarily be for London-Manchester services, but would also be a secondary option for Cardiff-Manchester services
• Not shown on the drawing, there would be a grade-separated double-track crossover between the fast and slow lines in the space alongside the yards south of the station

Train service usage:

• Non-stop services stay on the fast lines. Services on the "mainline" (Stafford-Warrington) could call by simply going onto the platform loop (P7, P5)
• London-North Wales and Trent Valley local services would come switch between fast and slow lines at the new crossover and approach on the slow lines. Through services would use the through platforms, terminating services the bays - there should be no conflicts from this. To the north, there would be minimal conflict heading towards Chester. Services from Chester terminating at Crewe would use one of the north side bays
• London-Manchester services would use P7 then the new flyover; southbound would use P1
• Services from the Stoke direction would use the bay platforms on the eastern island. Any through services from this direction towards Manchester (as proposed by WMR) would also be conflict-free
• From Shrewsbury, through services towards Manchester would use either of the flyovers; any terminating services could use the bays on either side of the station
• Stopping services from Manchester would use the north side flyover to terminate in one of the western island north side bays, rather than blocking P1 as at present

Comments/questions welcome!

 

[The Planner]

No one was ever putting flyovers that close to the platform ends, look at GoogleMaps. Courageous gradients for that are impossible. The only plan was the one on the PWI video, and that is firmly in the bin and that increased the platforms so Im unsure why you would reduce them. You would keep the current P12 for a start. You are also incorrect about the canopies, they will get ripped down at some point ss they are falling down.

 

[ABB125]

No one was ever putting flyovers that close to the platform ends, look at GoogleMaps. Courageous gradients for that are impossible.

Düsseldorf Hbf is the best example I can find. Has grade separation on both sides with >300m ramps (in fact, on the south side, in the ~500m between Hüttenstraße and Ellerstraße road underbridges, there's a complete diveunder setup, coming back up to the level of all the other tracks at both ends). https://maps.app.goo.gl/mZp8Fs3F4KAkU1uF6

The only plan was the one on the PWI video, and that is firmly in the bin and that increased the platforms so Im unsure why you would reduce them. You would keep the current P12 for a start.

Two reasons I didn't include the P12 island:

• The station is quite lopsided if you add more platforms over there. Obviously this could be worked around but involve some more significant changes
• More complicated track layout so harder to draw, hence starting with a slightly simpler option

I could have a go at including more platforms though.

You are also incorrect about the canopies, they will get ripped down at some point ss they are falling down.

Interesting - if the current layout can be essentially ignored, that makes things a lot easier

 

[cle]

The p12 island could useful - even if HS2 never gets to Crewe in its full capacity (dive-unders).

What there aren't - are many trains from the Wolverhampton lines towards Chester, which would be a good fit for this island.

But bays could be reinstated for the Chester/Wrexham shuttle, or other North Wales starters. I don't know if there is room for frequency growth there.

The south-facing bays on the 12 island could also be reinstated for services towards Shrewsbury/Wales - and P7-8 could maybe then be extended or consolidated to offer a longer bay towards Stafford, as 12 sometimes is used (like what happened in Edinburgh re full length bays)

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Düsseldorf Hbf is the best example I can find. Has grade separation on both sides with >300m ramps (in fact, on the south side, in the ~500m between Hüttenstraße and Ellerstraße road underbridges, there's a complete diveunder setup, coming back up to the level of all the other tracks at both ends). https://maps.app.goo.gl/mZp8Fs3F4KAkU1uF6

Two reasons I didn't include the P12 island:

• The station is quite lopsided if you add more platforms over there. Obviously this could be worked around but involve some more significant changes
• More complicated track layout so harder to draw, hence starting with a slightly simpler option

I could have a go at including more platforms though.

Interesting - if the current layout can be essentially ignored, that makes things a lot easier

The 1867 platform buildings and screen walls are Grade II listed - the decrepit canopies are a later addition.

A radical proposal of Network Rail some years ago was to build a new 'Crewe Parkway / HS2' station at Basford Hall, with access off the A500, and a modest 'Crewe Town' station on the Chester line. One downside is that Manchester to Cardiff services would need to reverse to serve this new Parkway station.

 

[Nottingham59]

Düsseldorf Hbf is the best example I can find. Has grade separation on both sides with >300m ramps (in fact, on the south side, in the ~500m between Hüttenstraße and Ellerstraße road underbridges, there's a complete diveunder setup, coming back up to the level of all the other tracks at both ends). https://maps.app.goo.gl/mZp8Fs3F4KAkU1uF6

That's really useful, thanks.

The flyover presumably accommodates European loading gauge of ~4.3m plus OHLE clearance of 2x0.3m, plus say 1m for the trackbed above = 6m divergence rail-to-rail. That implies a gradient of 3m in 200m = 1:70 down for the diveunder track and 1:70 up for the flyover track. That's less steep than I would have guessed. (All depending on restrictions on vertical curvature, of course.)

 

[Topological]

The p12 island could useful - even if HS2 never gets to Crewe in its full capacity (dive-unders).

What there aren't - are many trains from the Wolverhampton lines towards Chester, which would be a good fit for this island.

But bays could be reinstated for the Chester/Wrexham shuttle, or other North Wales starters. I don't know if there is room for frequency growth there.

The south-facing bays on the 12 island could also be reinstated for services towards Shrewsbury/Wales - and P7-8 could maybe then be extended or consolidated to offer a longer bay towards Stafford, as 12 sometimes is used (like what happened in Edinburgh re full length bays)

That was my motivation for the OP on this thread.

Grade separation would be brilliant, but the junctions are so constrained.

One area that could be used in the case that HS2 is totally abandoned is north of Crewe where a line from Sandbach could fit across fields and then join the WCML. I did have a quick check to see if there were obvious barriers, but maybe there are some I missed. Such a line could give grade separation for Manchester services and thus help TfW to cross the job.

Otherwise, one train in each direction is going to need to cross on the level. Moving the "WCML" across to default on 6/11 and 11/12 would mean that you would only need to cross one direction before departure and one after. That may be easier than the current arrangement.

 

[mr_jrt]

Could a solution be a multi-level station? i.e. something like HS2 having platforms underneath the conventional station? Or alternatively, some combination of the existing conventional routes on the surface and below it? Could ease the gradients somewhat whilst making the interchange a bit cleaner?

 

[AndrewE]

Could a solution be a multi-level station? i.e. something like HS2 having platforms underneath the conventional station? Or alternatively, some combination of the existing conventional routes on the surface and below it? Could ease the gradients somewhat whilst making the interchange a bit cleaner?

I would have loved that, with Antwerp Central as my inspiration. Crewe is currently quite light and airy, the complete opposite of Bham New St (Or the country end of Liverpool st.)
I am very glad they didn't manage to stick a multi-storey car park above it, which was one proposal.

 

[markymark2000]

The south-facing bays on the 12 island could also be reinstated for services towards Shrewsbury/Wales - and P7-8 could maybe then be extended or consolidated to offer a longer bay towards Stafford, as 12 sometimes is used (like what happened in Edinburgh re full length bays)

The issue with all this is that Platform 12 isn't really treated as part of Crewe station. There is barely anything over there and it feels like you are going to some kind of abandoned, single platform, sister station when you walk over.

The solutions at Crewe don't need big fancy plans and more platforms. Just get the speeds over points sorted out, and reduce conflicts between passenger and freight to get the best utilisation out of the track. Most of Crewe is just held back because of poor track layouts. Not lack of platforms.

 

[The Planner]

A radical proposal of Network Rail some years ago was to build a new 'Crewe Parkway / HS2' station at Basford Hall, with access off the A500, and a modest 'Crewe Town' station on the Chester line. One downside is that Manchester to Cardiff services would need to reverse to serve this new Parkway station.

That was just an optioneering exercise vs doing something at Crewe. It didn't last long.

People are going to be very dissapointed if they are expecting some sort of remodelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was just an optioneering exercise vs doing something at Crewe. It didn't last long.

It also wasn't a great idea because it moved the station away from both the town centre and the various junctions it serves. It might have been easier to build but that's about it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

The issue with all this is that Platform 12 isn't really treated as part of Crewe station. There is barely anything over there and it feels like you are going to some kind of abandoned, single platform, sister station when you walk over.

It's not really any different from going over to the other island in terms of how you get there. It only feels out on a limb because there's that wall between it and the main station. You could remove it (no doubt at massive cost) but wouldn't that then make the main station a bit windswept given that 12 has no overall roof?

Given that it's now mostly used by budget passengers on the WMT Trent service, I would imagine they can cope in return for their cheap fares

 

[ayubdaud]

Given that it's now mostly used by budget passengers on the WMT Trent service, I would imagine they can cope in return for their cheap fares

Looking at RTT since the start of the new timetable it actually looks like the WMT goes into P11 and the Avanti to P12!

 

[MarkyT]

It also wasn't a great idea because it moved the station away from both the town centre and the various junctions it serves. It might have been easier to build but that's about it.

It also raises the question of what to do with the vast complex of the existing station, including its listed elements. A local-only station remaining there likely wouldn't need the number of platforms and range of facilities. The out-of-town station was supported by some local landowners who might have benefited from the redevelopment of parts of the railway land in the freight and depot yard areas.

It's not really any different from going over to the other island in terms of how you get there. It only feels out on a limb because there's that wall between it and the main station. You could remove it (no doubt at massive cost) but wouldn't that then make the main station a bit windswept given that 12 has no overall roof?

There are canopies supported by the wall on the western side that are not heritage listed, so might plausibly be removed and replaced with something more modest but still functional for protection. The wall itself, however, along with another on the eastern side of the station and some platform buildings on the two main islands, is protected by the Grade 2 listing of what remains of the 1867 station complex.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1436435?section=official-list-entry

Summary
A railway junction station comprising two platform buildings, arcades and flanking walls, of 1867 for the London and North Western Railway (LNWR) in Italianate style, of cream and orange brick and terracotta.

Only the 1867 platform buildings, arcades and flanking walls are included in the listing. The Nantwich Road bridge, the booking hall concourse, the platform islands and other structures on them (including the south footbridge), the entire train-shed roof and its supporting columns, the first floor added to the eastern platform building in 1891, and the additions and alterations specified in the details below are excluded from the listing