• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Campaign to restore passenger services on the Middlewich Link Line

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
So it is safe to pass one train an hour but not two? If anything, more trains make potential misusers MORE aware, compared to the idea, "it's OK, there's not many trains on this line".
I would guess that the issue is "grandfather rights". NR procedures presumably require the risk assessment for each level crossing to be updated when there is a doubling of service frequency on the line. And then the assessment has to be against the current, more severe, safety requirements. Quite likely these crossings would not be permitted at all on a new or reopened line, even for an hourly frequency.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I thought capacity between Picc and Stockport ruled out the 2nd Mid Cheshire train. Maybe it should start at Stockport or Altrincham? Presume the Middlewich train could go via Styal between Manchester and Sandbach if it is going via Alderley Edge?
I believe that Northern proposed that the second Mid Cheshire train should run between Altrincham and Chester, instead of Piccadilly and Greenbank, to avoid the Piccadilly to Stockport bottleneck. But then Network Rail raised the level crossing concern.

I doubt that there would be capacity for an additional Piccadilly to Sandbach via Styal service, even bypassing the Airport, because of junction conflicts between Slade Lane and Piccadilly.

If WSP is really proposing to extend the existing Wigan to Alderley Edge via Bolton service to Preston via Sandbach, Middlewich and Hartford, that would become a ridiculously long route, looping back on itself at Wigan North Western. And Northern is reportedly intending to extend the other end to Southport. Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Manchester - Stockport - Sandbach - Middlewich - Hartford - Wigan - Preston? Seriously?!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
The user-worked crossings 'issue' is an issue newly created by Network Rail. It wasn't aired when the Buxton line service was doubled recently and that line has lots of them. It's Network Rail's job to come up with solutions to allow the railway to function but it seems instead to be creating obstacles. The public doesn't want to hear reasons why things can't be done, it wants them done. Organisations that don't understand that don't survive.
And you know that it was "created" as fact? Do you know what the issies with the crossings are compared to those on the Buxton line? If they require intevention and there is no cash for it then it doesnt get solved. No one will get sacked and nothing will be reorganised over this.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
The user-worked crossings 'issue' is an issue newly created by Network Rail. It wasn't aired when the Buxton line service was doubled recently and that line has lots of them. It's Network Rail's job to come up with solutions to allow the railway to function but it seems instead to be creating obstacles. The public doesn't want to hear reasons why things can't be done, it wants them done. Organisations that don't understand that don't survive.
The Sectional Appendix shows only three User Worked Crossings between Hazel Grove and Buxton, versus six between Altrincham and Mickle Trafford.
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
"After looking at several possibilities, we are now looking at providing a service running from Manchester, Alderley Edge, Sandbach, Middlewich, Gadbrook Park, Warrington and other stations to terminate at Preston."

Presumably a bi-mode operation given the majority of the route will be under the wires.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
I would agree with the Hon Gentleman.

Crewe - Middlewich - Northwich - Knutsford - Stockport - Manchester makes sense.

This does not.

Ditto.

The only alternative I can think of would be upgrading the track to 40mph and a weekly parliamentary service without a new station and not calling at Northwich northbound. That would get the line reinstated as a regular passenger line at minimal cost. The service itself would be completely useless but it would be progress. Then reinstating Northwich platform 3 and a station for Middlewich could be the focus.
 

SeanM1997

Member
Joined
2 Feb 2016
Messages
369
Could there be a Crewe-Northwich service which attaches/detaches at Sandbach onto the Crewe-Manchester local service. Therefore not taking up an additional path into Crewe, and allow for a link between Northwich (Mid Cheshire Line) and West Coast Mainline?
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
Could there be a Crewe-Northwich service which attaches/detaches at Sandbach onto the Crewe-Manchester local service. Therefore not taking up an additional path into Crewe, and allow for a link between Northwich (Mid Cheshire Line) and West Coast Mainline?
I had the same question at the other end of the line. What is wrong with a 4 car running Manchester to Northwich, splitting: with half continuing to Chester; and the other half continuing to Sandbach (Crewe). Clearly I have missed something here, because it seems such an obvious solution.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I had the same question at the other end of the line. What is wrong with a 4 car running Manchester to Northwich, splitting: with half continuing to Chester; and the other half continuing to Sandbach (Crewe). Clearly I have missed something here, because it seems such an obvious solution.
The track layout at Northwich Station Junction does not enable trains to/from the Middlewich branch to pass through the platforms on the Up Main or Down Main (Chester lines). The only access is to/from the disused platform on the Up and Down Goods line.

I doubt that there is room between the junction and the station for additional crossovers to enable Chester and Middlewich portions to be split/joined in the Chester line platforms. Even if feasible, the track and signalling changes would be very costly.

With the existing track layout, splitting/joining would have to take place at Lostock Gralam rather than Northwich, with the portions running separately between Lostock and Northwich. Even then, I imagine signalling changes would be needed to enable permissive working into Lostock station.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
Could there be a Crewe-Northwich service which attaches/detaches at Sandbach onto the Crewe-Manchester local service. Therefore not taking up an additional path into Crewe, and allow for a link between Northwich (Mid Cheshire Line) and West Coast Mainline?

Would there be a problem in the way of there being no overhead wires between Sandwich and Northwich, as the Manchester - Crewe locals via Stockport are electric?
 

Jack Hay

Member
Joined
18 Aug 2016
Messages
257
The track layout at Northwich Station Junction does not enable trains to/from the Middlewich branch to pass through the platforms on the Up Main or Down Main (Chester lines). The only access is to/from the disused platform on the Up and Down Goods line.

I doubt that there is room between the junction and the station for additional crossovers to enable Chester and Middlewich portions to be split/joined in the Chester line platforms. Even if feasible, the track and signalling changes would be very costly.

With the existing track layout, splitting/joining would have to take place at Lostock Gralam rather than Northwich, with the portions running separately between Lostock and Northwich. Even then, I imagine signalling changes would be needed to enable permissive working into Lostock station.
I know Northwich station well and greybeard is right about the track layout. Northwich Station Junction is very close to the station platforms and in today's layout, the Middlewich line is only connected to (disused) platform 3, and the adjacent loop line. P3 is on the Up & Down Goods and connects to the main line at Northwich East Junction, about a quarter mile east of the station. P3 is signalled for reversible working from all lines in both directions, which is very useful. It is the only line that is. So the simplest way to split/join trains from Middlewich with trains from Chester at Northwich station is to do it in P3, in both directions. We have discussed here before that P3 is fenced off and that the island that it shares with P2 is probably too narrow by modern standards to support two in-use platforms. So here's an idea; why not remove the fence from P3 and fence off P2 instead. Then trains from all lines can be split or joined in the station using this reversible platform road. It does not see so much goods traffic today that timetabling will be impossible. The existing track through P2 should be retained as a Down Through line for non-stop goods and ECS. No trackwork changes are needed at all. Changes to the signalling interlocking at Greenbank signalbox may be needed to enable trains to run into an already occupied platform. It's much better to do the splitting and joining at Northwich where there is a loop clear of the principal running lines than at Lostock where there isn't.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I know Northwich station well and greybeard is right about the track layout. Northwich Station Junction is very close to the station platforms and in today's layout, the Middlewich line is only connected to (disused) platform 3, and the adjacent loop line. P3 is on the Up & Down Goods and connects to the main line at Northwich East Junction, about a quarter mile east of the station. P3 is signalled for reversible working from all lines in both directions, which is very useful. It is the only line that is. So the simplest way to split/join trains from Middlewich with trains from Chester at Northwich station is to do it in P3, in both directions. We have discussed here before that P3 is fenced off and that the island that it shares with P2 is probably too narrow by modern standards to support two in-use platforms. So here's an idea; why not remove the fence from P3 and fence off P2 instead. Then trains from all lines can be split or joined in the station using this reversible platform road. It does not see so much goods traffic today that timetabling will be impossible. The existing track through P2 should be retained as a Down Through line for non-stop goods and ECS. No trackwork changes are needed at all. Changes to the signalling interlocking at Greenbank signalbox may be needed to enable trains to run into an already occupied platform. It's much better to do the splitting and joining at Northwich where there is a loop clear of the principal running lines than at Lostock where there isn't.
This proposal would effectively create a fourth single line section for passenger trains on the Mid Cheshire line, in addition to the existing ones at Cheadle, Navigation Road and Mouldsworth. I very much doubt that Network Rail would consider the performance risk of this to be tolerable.

Although there is only 1tphpd off peak, the services in opposite directions are timed only 4 minutes apart at Northwich, and there is little scope to alter the timings because of the constraints of Stockport - Piccadilly paths and potential conflicts on the other single line sections.

Splitting/joining would increase platform dwell time, with the risk of the platform being blocked if one of the joining trains was late or there was a coupling problem.

Although freight traffic has declined, from time to time freight trains still need to stop on the Goods line and wait there while the loco runs around the train. That would block passenger services in both directions.

This is why I suggested that splitting/joining would have to take place at Lostock Gralam (or maybe even further up the line, e.g. at Knutsford). The Middlewich portion would have to be at the rear Sandbach-bound and at the front Manchester-bound, with a wait of maybe 10 minutes or more at the splitting/joining station to allow time for the Chester portion to get ahead/catch up through the long block sections and to carry out the uncoupling/coupling operation.
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,904
Is a platform 0 like Doncaster possible to the north of Crewe.
I think this was discussed previously where I erroneously thought there was space for this adjacent to the Platform 1 Road. I have been disabused of this notion.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
The user-worked crossings 'issue' is an issue newly created by Network Rail. It wasn't aired when the Buxton line service was doubled recently and that line has lots of them. It's Network Rail's job to come up with solutions to allow the railway to function but it seems instead to be creating obstacles. The public doesn't want to hear reasons why things can't be done, it wants them done. Organisations that don't understand that don't survive.

How do you know the three Buxton Line crossings weren't assessed? It is perfectly possible for them to have been re-assessed against a different service pattern and determined to be still ALARP safe.

Oh, sorry it's a conspiracy, all you need is an absence of evidence ... and the occasional statement by people who do know things that conflict with the theory.
 

Ships

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2013
Messages
337
Ditto.

The only alternative I can think of would be upgrading the track to 40mph and a weekly parliamentary service without a new station and not calling at Northwich northbound. That would get the line reinstated as a regular passenger line at minimal cost. The service itself would be completely useless but it would be progress. Then reinstating Northwich platform 3 and a station for Middlewich could be the focus.

To get the route to 40mph would require total renewal of most of the track, which would cost more than 5 million quid. Hardly minimal cost.
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
275
The thing that annoys me the most is that if plans were afoot for a road bypass through Middlewich, the money would seemingly be found out of nowhere from central Government. However with rail, the excuse always seems to be 'no money available'.

If the Government put the same amount of money into rail improvements as it does road, there would be some significant improvements. I have suggested a few times that the Government should earmark £1 billion a year, over 10 years on re-openings. The money spent on re-connecting those communities most in need of new rail links. In particular, those with the greatest BCR, or social need.

My view is where rails are still in place (like in Middlewich), on a route with a few sizeable communities and that goes from somewhere to somewhere, there should be a service of some kind.

It is ridiculous that some of the tiniest villages can have a 2tph service, yet some large communities in excess of 10,000 have no rail service at all.

Should Middlewich get a rail service? Absolutely.
Will it happen? Probably not (at least for the foreseeable).
 
Last edited:

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
An initial report has been published. In short two options proposed to be taken forward for further analysis

http://www.871candwep.co.uk/latest-...hire-and-middlewich-rail-study-now-available/

Background

The Mid Cheshire and Middlewich Rail Feasibility Study was commissioned jointly by the Cheshire & Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership (C&WLEP), Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaC) and Cheshire East Council (CEC) at the behest of the Secretary of State for Transport to assess various options for re-opening the Sandbach – Middlewich – Northwich line (the Middlewich line) to passenger services, provision of two new stations at Middlewich and Gadbrook Park and consider the interaction with the Mid Cheshire Railway Line and the potential interactions with major stations including Crewe, Chester, Stockport and Manchester

2 options

The North/West Strategic package which would provide 2 trains per hour that link the Middlewich line directly with Birmingham, Crewe, Warrington, Preston and Manchester by 2033, in line with the arrival of HS2 Phase 2b. It assumes a number of infrastructure changes, including line-speed improvements and signalling alterations on the Middlewich line, as well as electrification between Sandbach and Hartford Junction, so that London Northwestern services could run through. The package performed well on the demand forecast with an indicative BCR of 0.59 that is based purely on the standard software forecast demand. Incorporation of wider economic benefits could have the potential for this service package (or similar) to deliver Value for Money over a 60-year appraisal period. The Eastern Local package would provide 2 trains per hour on the Middlewich line between Sandbach and Northwich, with one of the services extending through to Altrincham as a semi-fast. These services can be delivered independently of HS2 and therefore could be introduced before 2027. Once HS2 Phase 2b releases capacity at Crewe Station and on the Crewe – Manchester line, the Sandbach - Altrincham service can be extended into Crewe, although extension into Manchester is likely to be subject to remodelling at Stockport. Simultaneously, the current Manchester – Alderley Edge service could be combined with the Sandbach – Northwich service providing direct connectivity between Northwich, Middlewich, Alderley Edge and Wilmslow – many of the key pharmaceutical and advanced manufacturing hubs in Cheshire. As with the North/West Strategic package, line-speed and signalling improvements are assumed. This package also performed well on the standard software based demand forecast, and gave an indicative BCR of 0.75, demonstrating clear potential with a full appraisal.

Next steps

Given the strong Strategic Case and political importance of this project, along with reasonable indicative BCR’s that do not capture the full range of benefits available, the C&W LEP considers there is merit in progressing this study to the next stage and developing a Strategic Outline Business Case. It is envisaged that this would be completed during the Autumn of 2019. The additional work that would be undertaken to achieve this includes:
• Further development and testing of the service packages with more detailed timetable analysis;
• More detailed demand forecasting using rail industry software, and also analysis of the travel patterns of new users from Middlewich and Gadbrook Park;
• Incorporating the results of the new station demand modelling into the overall demand figures for appraisal;
• Incorporating station quality improvement benefits (using the rail industry’s Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook guidance) into the Economic Appraisal;
• Incorporating environmental and sustainability aspects, including highway de-congestion benefits, into the Economic Appraisal;
• Consideration of Wider Economic Impacts such as Gross Value Added uplift and Land Value Uplift into the Economic Appraisal;
• Further engagement with Network Rail and potential operators
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
However most people think HS2 2b won't happen in the light of the Review and any BCR of less than 1 is borderline for acceptance by the Treasury. Unfortunately I don't see it happening
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
However most people think HS2 2b won't happen in the light of the Review and any BCR of less than 1 is borderline for acceptance by the Treasury. Unfortunately I don't see it happening


In the more detailed part I think there is some reference that not all the benefits were yet included in both options (and the one not replying on HS2 2b is a little less bad at the moment for whatever this is worth). As for HS2 review, well most people want to take a negative view so will jump on anything to re-enforce their point of view.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
However most people think HS2 2b won't happen in the light of the Review and any BCR of less than 1 is borderline for acceptance by the Treasury. Unfortunately I don't see it happening
I think to be approved without question you need a BCR of at least 1.5. Then again I'm no expert
But didn't it have a BCR of 4 before HS2 & Gadbrook Park were added to the mix?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
The thing that annoys me the most is that if plans were afoot for a road bypass through Middlewich, the money would seemingly be found out of nowhere from central Government. However with rail, the excuse always seems to be 'no money available'.

Er, there is a plan afoot for a road bypass. Plans were first drawn up in the early 1990s. Approval has only been granted this year (with Govt providing around 80% of the funding). So hardly a case of money being "found out of nowhere from central Government".
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Er, there is a plan afoot for a road bypass. Plans were first drawn up in the early 1990s. Approval has only been granted this year (with Govt providing around 80% of the funding). So hardly a case of money being "found out of nowhere from central Government".

How would this bypass affect Middlewich in relation to general traffic movements in that area?
 
Joined
8 Aug 2015
Messages
92
The 2008 Railway Consultants report gave a BCR of 5:1. There’s no reason to think it will be less now. I can’t wait to see the figure the new consultants come to once they’ve had chance to factor in all the things the previous consultants took in to account
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
The 2008 Railway Consultants report gave a BCR of 5:1. There’s no reason to think it will be less now. I can’t wait to see the figure the new consultants come to once they’ve had chance to factor in all the things the previous consultants took in to account

I've just had a look at that report. I'm sure the consultants know their stuff, but I can't say I agree with all the costings in it - as I understand it, they say a station could be built at Middlewich for £0.6m, and it also seems to allow very little for track upgrades. I would also question the assessment that a Crewe-Northwich shuttle would generate almost as much demand as a through service to Altrincham or Manchester - 200,000 passengers per year is a pretty busy station in the North in 2008 - can that really be achieved with an hourly shuttle not offering connections at Northwich? Hopefully a good case can be out together for Middlewich but I would put the BCR of 5 in the optimistic bracket.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
How would this bypass affect Middlewich in relation to general traffic movements in that area?

It basically means that traffic from the Sandbach direction could bypass the centre of the town to reach the Holmes Chapel road, and thus the Northwich road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top