Whenceforth for the WCML?

[The Planner]

Why would Wrexham to Bidston be particularly congested, or is there some political reasoning behind this?

Its slow with absolute block and you can't robustly increase the train service.

 

[Nottingham59]

Only between Euston and Rugby. Things will come to a screeching halt at Handsacre if you are putting 7tph HS2 on. Even to the point that you may never get past 1tph for LNWR for example.

Agree. I can't see more than one fast and one stopper north of Litchfield on the Trent Valley lines. Which would give 6-7xHS2, 2xTV and maybe 2-3 freights per hour through Colwich if you're lucky.

But at least it would be possible to give Litchfield TV a wonderful 2tph 125mph commuter service to London.

Crewe Weaver can do 3 minutes now AIUI, but the section immediately north of Crewe cannot.

OK. How many more trains could get through the two-track Winsford to Weaver if ETCS were introduced?

Its north of Preston you need to deal with (though that is in hand)

Good

Diesel is cheaper and you cannot force a FOC to use the wires.

If necessary the rules need to be changed to enforce minimum power / weight ratios. How the FoCs choose to meet those requirements is up to them.

Hopefully with the advent of class 93 and class 99, freight on the WCML will migrate to electric over time anyway, and the slowest paths will be replaced by more, faster, freight paths.

You have to declare congested infrastructure first. As it stands there are only four places declared, Castlefield, Euston to Ledburn, Wrexham to Bidston and Leicester to Cricklewood.

Then Network Rail should declare Colwich Junction as congested infrastructure too, as everyone knows it's going to be.

(And Luckily there is already a preferred infrastructure intervention available to relieve the situation.)

 

[snowball]

Why would Wrexham to Bidston be particularly congested, or is there some political reasoning behind this?

I think there's also the problem of the layout at Padeswood making slow access to the cement works and reducing the capacity for passenger trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

It maybe me, but I really do think that both the NHS and Network Rail should just have bodies that just say to the Government that we need x amount of money this next year and leave them to decide how that money is spent,

For Network Rail, thats exactly what the ORR do, every 5 years (most recently in October).

Why would Wrexham to Bidston be particularly congested, or is there some political reasoning behind this?

To declare congested infrastructure NR ‘simply’ has to demonstrate that it expects (or there already are) more train paths to be bid for than the infrastructure can accommodate. Which is what happened for Wrexham Bidston. This process provides the guidance (to long to quote reasonably).

 

[The Planner]

OK. How many more trains could get through the two-track Winsford to Weaver if ETCS were introduced?

Impossible to answer without understanding how many freight paths are required vs stoppers vs fasts. ETCS could well get the headways down to 2½ minutes, but more likely 3 with any approach control at Coal Yard etc effectively removed. Winsford Weaver isnt on Warrington PSBs patch and isnt in the ETCS plan.

Then Network Rail should declare Colwich Junction as congested infrastructure too, as everyone knows it's going to be.

(And Luckily there is already a preferred infrastructure intervention available to relieve the situation.)

Its a double edged sword though, declaring it means it has to be resolved. That is either a timetable re-write from scratch or a infrastructure intervention. The latter normally being an enhancement which needs funding. Colwich is being looked at but anyone expecting Waitrose is going to get Lidl, there is no money.

 

[HSTEd]

Its a double edged sword though, declaring it means it has to be resolved. That is either a timetable re-write from scratch or a infrastructure intervention. The latter normally being an enhancement which needs funding. Colwich is being looked at but anyone expecting Waitrose is going to get Lidl, there is no money.

Hard to see what can be done without getting very very expensive indeed if I'm honest.

Too many trains seem to have to go to Stafford and not enough straight to Stone, otherwise I'd suggest rebuilding the lines south of Colwich to paired by use rather than direction from a more complicated Hansdacre layout

But that requires at least one and probably two new platforms and a remodelling at Rugeley and that will dial the cost up quick.

 

[The Planner]

Hard to see what can be done without getting very very expensive indeed if I'm honest.

Too many trains seem to have to go to Stafford and not enough straight to Stone, otherwise I'd suggest rebuilding the lines south of Colwich to paired by use rather than direction from a more complicated Hansdacre layout

But that requires at least one and probably two new platforms and a remodelling at Rugeley and that will dial the cost up quick.

Not necessarily, any plan has long had Colwich moving south onto a straighter piece of track but not as far as Rugeley. Though it really leads to grade seperation or you just have another Slade Lane.

 

[AlastairFraser]

In short, no. Platform lengthening to allow more than 11 cars might be though. Some services may already be feasible at near to 400m, e.g. a Euston-Crewe-Glasgow with no other stops, though only two platforms at Euston are long enough for that.

The reduced, regularised south WCML commuter service since COVID has helped a bit. More passenger capacity could be obtained by running more of it 12-car, though not all of it can be due to P9/10 at Euston being shorter ones. A similar approach (regularisation) might make sense on the north WCML, as would be banning underpowered freights that eat paths on Shap - these should really have two locomotives to ensure they can maintain full speed.

Talking of Euston's shorter platforms, I wonder if it might be feasible to lengthen them to take 11.390/12.350/10.730 if the ramps were removed and replaced with escalators and lifts? Though that may be dangerous with the "scrum".

If HS2 P1 does become a Wolmarised "Aston-Acton shuttle" i.e. not go to Euston, one option might be to merge the LNR and Avanti Birmingham service to become something a little more Chiltern like, say 4tph with different stopping patterns all run with 10.730 or 12.350, on the assumption that the people wanting the cachet of the fast service will go to Old Oak on the Lizzie?

What about 12 car double deckers replacing the 350s?
Some structural modification would have to be done, but a 12 car 350 takes 738 seated at max. capacity.
In contrast, 12 cars of a SNCF Z5600 would take 1,712 seated.

That would soak up some of the demand, plus extend Chiltern London to Birmingham services to 8 cars (Warwick, Kings Sutton and Dorridge would need extending - I think you'd have to extend the service through Snow Hill Tunnel to Snow Hill station, unless you reconfigured the Moor St platforms).
I am aware the latter suggestion does not relate directly to the WCML, but it could help take passengers off the WCML.

Same with making every Cross Country service passing through Reading to Birmingham and points north at least an 8 car voyager - this would slightly relieve pressure on the WCML from people avoiding XC via London with another 186 seats an hour.
Make it a 10 car Voyager and that means an extra 246 on a 5 car Voyager.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What about 12 car double deckers replacing the 350s?
Some structural modification would have to be done

"Some" would be quite a lot as the track centres would need to be moved apart a bit; it's not just bridges, tunnels and platform edges unfortunately.

 

[The Planner]

What about 12 car double deckers replacing the 350s?
Some structural modification would have to be done, but a 12 car 350 takes 738 seated at max. capacity.
In contrast, 12 cars of a SNCF Z5600 would take 1,712 seated.

That would soak up some of the demand, plus extend Chiltern London to Birmingham services to 8 cars (Warwick, Kings Sutton and Dorridge would need extending - I think you'd have to extend the service through Snow Hill Tunnel to Snow Hill station, unless you reconfigured the Moor St platforms).
I am aware the latter suggestion does not relate directly to the WCML, but it could help take passengers off the WCML.

Same with making every Cross Country service passing through Reading to Birmingham and points north at least an 8 car voyager - this would slightly relieve pressure on the WCML from people avoiding XC via London with another 186 seats an hour.
Make it a 10 car Voyager and that means an extra 246 on a 5 car Voyager.

"some structural modification"? It would be literally every overhead structure. Moor St gets altered as part of Midlands Rail Hub.

 

[cle]

If HS2 paths into Handsacre are capped, then I would think some more 2x200 splitting at Crewe might be called for.

If Lichfield is a watershed, then I would wonder if that could be rebuilt to have four platforms (two islands?) - if it was terminating a lot more services. Problem is, they wouldn't feed onto HS2 or the northern WCML.

Or, lines become paired to 'grade separate' - ostensibly - and the legacy WCML only feeds the line to Stone after Lichfield. 1-2tph legacy Manchester services, basically.

 

[AlastairFraser]

"some structural modification"? It would be literally every overhead structure. Moor St gets altered as part of Midlands Rail Hub.

Still cheaper than the HS2 cancellation though.
Thanks for the answer on Moor St

"Some" would be quite a lot as the track centres would need to be moved apart a bit; it's not just bridges, tunnels and platform edges unfortunately.

I can't see any other realistic cheaper way to significantly increase capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still cheaper than the HS2 cancellation though.
Thanks for the answer on Moor St

I can't see any other realistic cheaper way to significantly increase capacity.

Pretty much every possible other way! You're talking about a full structural rebuild and rewire including every station.

HS2 in full including East would be considerably cheaper.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Pretty much every possible other way! You're talking about a full structural rebuild and rewire.

HS2 in full including East would be considerably cheaper.

Are you sure? GWML electrification came in at £5.5 billion, plus that was over budget and from scratch.

The West Coast Main Line would be around £17 billion adjusted for inflation today.
Even if you add another £20 billion, that gets you to £42 billion.

HS2 in full would cost you £70 billion plus (less if built on time and to spec, but you can't change the past).

Edit: Reopening Matlock to Derby and running through EMR services to Manchester would also cost you significantly less than HS2 in full.

 

[JamesT]

Are you sure? GWML electrification came in at £5.5 billion, plus that was over budget and from scratch.

The West Coast Main Line would be around £17 billion adjusted for inflation today.
Even if you add another £20 billion, that gets you to £42 billion.

HS2 in full would cost you £70 billion plus (less if built on time and to spec, but you can't change the past).

GWML electrification wasn't trying to rebuild the existing railway to continental loading gauge. You'd be looking at altering almost every part of the railway and making it unusable whilst you did it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you sure?

Yes.

You'd not just be having to re-electrify the whole thing, but raise all the bridges, widen all the tunnels, move all the station platforms (even ones not intending to be served by the new UIC gauge double decks), replace all the regional rolling stock to accommodate the platforms further back from the line....

It would cost an absolute fortune - that's why HS2!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

making it unusable whilst you did it.

That too. How does the WCML closed for ten years sound?

 

[The Planner]

Are you sure? GWML electrification came in at £5.5 billion, plus that was over budget and from scratch.

The West Coast Main Line would be around £17 billion adjusted for inflation today.
Even if you add another £20 billion, that gets you to £42 billion.

HS2 in full would cost you £70 billion plus (less if built on time and to spec, but you can't change the past).

Edit: Reopening Matlock to Derby and running through EMR services to Manchester would also cost you significantly less than HS2 in full.

GWML electrification wasn't trying to rebuild the existing railway to continental loading gauge. You'd be looking at altering almost every part of the railway and making it unusable whilst you did it.

That too. How does the WCML closed for ten years sound?

This, and the fact you would be paying compensation to operators whilst you did it and decimating any revenue streams that would take multiple years to recover as you have closed the railway for multiple years.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes.

You'd not just be having to re-electrify the whole thing, but raise all the bridges, widen all the tunnels, move all the station platforms (even ones not intending to be served by the new UIC gauge double decks), replace all the regional rolling stock to accommodate the platforms further back from the line....

It would cost an absolute fortune - that's why HS2!

This, and the fact you would be paying compensation to operators whilst you did it and decimating any revenue streams that would take multiple years to recover as you have closed the railway for multiple years.

You could close for rebuilding section by section, but I get your point about revenue.
We do need to collectively recognise we are talking about the potential for increasing WCML capacity post-majority of HS2 cancellation, so HS2 is not an option here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

As I said, you could also relieve the WCML by reopening Buxton to Matlock and running LNWR-style semifast Manchester services 1tph as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We do need to collectively recognise we are talking about the potential for increasing WCML capacity post-majority of HS2 cancellation, so HS2 is not an option here.

HS2 is the only way to do double deck. Converting UK domestic lines to UIC gauge to make it feasible isn't itself feasible, which is why it hasn't been done.

If you want more seats in one path, replacing the rolling stock is probably the way, Pendolinos aren't very internally space-efficient. The idea of running 400m trains from Euston splitting at Crewe or Carlisle (as per the HS2 plan) is probably achievable, too, it would only require platform extensions at some stations, and it might well be possible to install 400m classic platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, though you'd need a flyover to get the WCML trains onto the "platform -1 to -4" side. (The space is available - it's presently a car park and Network Rail portakabin area).

Much as I hate the idea of 3+2, another way might be to build new classic stock with wider vehicles, which would mean 18 or 20m (so more bogie cost) but would make 3+2 viable in a super-economy class of some sort as Virgin were initially proposing but wouldn't really work in 2.7m wide stock with a tilt profile. You can get to 2.82m width* in a 20m vehicle that can basically go anywhere, and if you make the sidewalls thin like 350s that'll gain you another 3-4" on the width too. I'm really not sure, other than services to Scotland, how important 125 with tilt is. Nobody seems to be bothered, for instance, about the Liverpool services now being in 110mph non-tilt paths. (The present Pendolino service is running in the 80x path).

* Some or all Mk2s were 9ft 3in which is basically 2.82m or just short of it. Class 150s, which near enough fit the whole network, are 2.816m wide.

 

[The Planner]

You could close for rebuilding section by section, but I get your point about revenue.
We do need to collectively recognise we are talking about the potential for increasing WCML capacity post-majority of HS2 cancellation, so HS2 is not an option here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

As I said, you could also relieve the WCML by reopening Buxton to Matlock and running LNWR-style semifast Manchester services 1tph as well.

Still decimates capacity if you do that, as it does now whenever blocks need to be taken. Where is the capacity coming from on the MML and into Manchester for those extra trains?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Still decimates capacity if you do that, as it does now whenever blocks need to be taken. Where is the capacity coming from on the MML and into Manchester for those extra trains?

Splitting a 10 car St Pancras - Sheffield 810 at Derby to sort the MML issue (run the other service as 10 car), at the Manchester end run in the path of the 3rd Hope Valley service (extend all remaining Hope Valley services to 6 car).
Run via Chee/Peak Dale, Chapel Milton and Disley tunnel to avoid issues with Buxton line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

HS2 is the only way to do double deck. Converting UK domestic lines to UIC gauge to make it feasible isn't itself feasible, which is why it hasn't been done.

If you want more seats in one path, replacing the rolling stock is probably the way, Pendolinos aren't very internally space-efficient. The idea of running 400m trains from Euston splitting at Crewe or Carlisle (as per the HS2 plan) is probably achievable, too, it would only require platform extensions at some stations, and it might well be possible to install 400m classic platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, though you'd need a flyover to get the WCML trains onto the "platform -1 to -4" side. (The space is available - it's presently a car park and Network Rail portakabin area).

Much as I hate the idea of 3+2, another way might be to build new classic stock with wider vehicles, which would mean 18 or 20m (so more bogie cost) but would make 3+2 viable in a super-economy class of some sort as Virgin were initially proposing but wouldn't really work in 2.7m wide stock with a tilt profile. You can get to 2.82m width* in a 20m vehicle that can basically go anywhere, and if you make the sidewalls thin like 350s that'll gain you another 3-4" on the width too. I'm really not sure, other than services to Scotland, how important 125 with tilt is. Nobody seems to be bothered, for instance, about the Liverpool services now being in 110mph non-tilt paths. (The present Pendolino service is running in the 80x path).

* Some or all Mk2s were 9ft 3in which is basically 2.82m or just short of it. Class 150s, which near enough fit the whole network, are 2.816m wide.

3 + 2 is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would work for premium services like Avanti.
I think my 8 car idea for the Chiltern Main Line, coupled with potential electrification + four tracking to the historical extent to increase frequency, is your only viable plan to increase capacity significantly for the West Mids at least.

As for Manchester and north, I agree with your 400m idea, in addition to reopening the Buxton-Matlock line for an hourly 5 car as above split at Derby (200 + seats an hour is not an inconsiderable amount.)

 

[The Planner]

Splitting a 10 car St Pancras - Sheffield 810 at Derby to sort the MML issue (run the other service as 10 car), at the Manchester end run in the path of the 3rd Hope Valley service (extend all remaining Hope Valley services to 6 car).
Run via Chee/Peak Dale, Chapel Milton and Disley tunnel to avoid issues with Buxton line.

So we are reopening a line for 1tph 5 car train? Where does all current the freight go from the Peak quarries and all the money spent on the Hope Valley improvements are for nothing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think my 8 car idea for the Chiltern Main Line, coupled with potential electrification + four tracking to the historical extent to increase frequency, is your only viable plan to increase capacity significantly for the West Mids at least.

I'd agree that the Chiltern line is underused and should be electrified and set up for 240m trains (12x20m or 10x24m, doesn't really matter).

 

[cle]

I'd agree that the Chiltern line is underused and should be electrified and set up for 240m trains (12x20m or 10x24m, doesn't really matter).

I think it's under-serviced and could provide a lot of good development for the towns along the way, and suppressed demand. And could build out more of a hub at Oxford.

But I don't think it's much of a HS2 or long distance solve - unless very tangentially (e.g. using Moor St more, XC relief via EWR maybe or XC into Moor St even) - - - - it can't relocate WCML trains which will make space for HS2 ones.

 

[AndrewE]

Surely, it's not THAT had to work out if you're qualified enough to actually be the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately it seems that (almost uniquely) to be Prime Minister no qualification is required at all...

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think it's under-serviced and could provide a lot of good development for the towns along the way, and suppressed demand. And could build out more of a hub at Oxford.

But I don't think it's much of a HS2 or long distance solve - unless very tangentially (e.g. using Moor St more, XC relief via EWR maybe or XC into Moor St even) - - - - it can't relocate WCML trains which will make space for HS2 ones.

I'd agree that the Chiltern line is underused and should be electrified and set up for 240m trains (12x20m or 10x24m, doesn't really matter).

It could provide significantly increased capacity to the West Midlands, in conjunction with phase 1 HS2.
You could then use as many WCML paths as possible for services down the Trent Valley north of Rugby (recognising the constraints that exists on that line too).

Edit: Forgot to mention - hand over Aylesbury stoppers to LUL and run 1tph through Princes Risborough to Aylesbury Vale Parkway to release capacity at Marylebone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

So we are reopening a line for 1tph 5 car train? Where does all current the freight go from the Peak quarries and all the money spent on the Hope Valley improvements are for nothing?

I'd also extend the 1tph of the Buxton stopper to Derby, joining with the Matlock stopper, and route the Liverpool to Norwich this way.
Then you can extend the New Mills stopper to Sheffield.
The freight can be worked around as there are multiple routes to be taken after Chee Dale.

 

[cle]

I don't think Chiltern to West Midlands will even be a secondary route.

If the two track section of the WCML is a bottleneck - remember that even worse, we have single track around Kenilworth (and not wired) - and Coventry is under an hour from Euston. It'd be 50% more from Marylebone.

So I'm not sure what it would do, if more services ran via Coventry - and current services via Coventry were sent from Rugby up to Lichfield, at least.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think Chiltern to West Midlands will even be a secondary route.

If the two track section of the WCML is a bottleneck - remember that even worse, we have single track around Kenilworth (and not wired) - and Coventry is under an hour from Euston. It'd be 50% more from Marylebone.

So I'm not sure what it would do, if more services ran via Coventry - and current services via Coventry were sent from Rugby up to Lichfield, at least.

To be fair we're going to have HS2 P1 - I doubt that will be canned even if it reverts to "Aston-Acton". That'll take some of the traffic.

Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland are the main issues, primarily the latter two as Manchester already has 3tph.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don't think Chiltern to West Midlands will even be a secondary route.

If the two track section of the WCML is a bottleneck - remember that even worse, we have single track around Kenilworth (and not wired) - and Coventry is under an hour from Euston. It'd be 50% more from Marylebone.

So I'm not sure what it would do, if more services ran via Coventry - and current services via Coventry were sent from Rugby up to Lichfield, at least.

Why would you send Chiltern services through Coventry into New St?
You'd send them into Moor St as current, then if you wanted destinations further on, it's a 5 min walk to New St.

 

[Meerkat]

In short, no. Platform lengthening to allow more than 11 cars might be though. Some services may already be feasible at near to 400m, e.g. a Euston-Crewe-Glasgow with no other stops, though only two platforms at Euston are long enough for that.

My favoured option would be to reconfigure the HS2 order to 275m or 300m units with ASDO or maybe a combination of the two.

Lengthen platforms and ASDO. With few stops and lots of advance booking being in the wrong part of the train shouldn’t be an issue as long as the same end can be off at ASDO stations. If it is then compulsory reservations.
At Piccadilly could you widen the throat (on viaduct with temp buildings on currently) to extend the fast platforms without building more platforms nor a flyover?