Bidston Wrexham ORR Judgement on TfW / GBRF

[8H]

Here it is, seems pretty good considering the infrastucture constraints! Even handed to passenger and freight.

ORR Wrexham Bidston Line

Today, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) announced its decision to use railway track capacity between Wrexham and Bidston for Transport for Wales Rail Limited (TfWRL) and GB Railfreight Limited (GBRf). This decision will see both more passenger services and greater certainty for freight trains on the line.

The regulator’s decision delivers a positive outcome for passengers with TfWRL able to run 2 trains per hour for most of the day. This will provide a step change improvement to the passenger service provision in North Wales.

Equally, the decision reflects a positive outcome for freight and the local area. The freight trains which currently serve Padeswood cement works can continue with greater certainty because of the firm contractual basis. Each freight train on this line equates to the removal of 36 HGVs from the roads, bringing associated environmental benefits to the local area...

 

[Roast Veg]

Here it is, seems pretty good considering the infrastucture constraints! Even handed to passenger and freight.

ORR Wrexham Bidston Line

TfW definitely seem like the "winners" here. Are Network Rail satisfied that the total throughput is achievable?

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

TfW definitely seem like the "winners" here. Are Network Rail satisfied that the total throughput is achievable?

The report sided with GBRf though, as the economic results where highly positive and good value where as TfW where poor value and cost would outweigh benefits so have instructed network rail to put all of GBRf requests into practice and only 24 of the 26 TfW requests are being put into place. GBRf may also be getting a new south facing entrance to the yard to save on the engine running around to dee Marsh Junction, so I'm not so sure TfW are winners, it seems both parties have done very well out of it.

 

[8H]

I think so yes! I only read it quickly, ORR also criticise NR for not defining the route as “congested“ given this tussle for paths and for not having produced a plan to sort it.

 

[The Planner]

I think so yes! I only read it quickly, ORR also criticise NR for not defining the route as “congested“ given this tussle for paths and for not having produced a plan to sort it.

In the current climate the ORR shouldn't be surprised, if you declare congested infrastructure you normally end up with a bigger bill.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The report sided with GBRf though, as the economic results where highly positive and good value where as TfW where poor value and cost would outweigh benefits so have instructed network rail to put all of GBRf requests into practice and only 24 of the 26 TfW requests are being put into place. GBRf may also be getting a new south facing entrance to the yard to save on the engine running around to dee Marsh Junction, so I'm not so sure TfW are winners, it seems both parties have done very well out of it.

So in essence we're talking half hourly with two hour long gaps per day for the freight. That's not a terrible outcome, a bit Morecambe-esque.

 

[8H]

The Wrexham Bidston Rail Users Association release says this

“The WBRUA welcomes this long-awaited decision. It is pleased to note that two passenger trains an hour will run for most of the day, albeit that the additional services are being planned as limited stop and will not call at some stations.

It is also pleased to note the benefits of freight traffic over the route to and from Padeswood. Unfortunately, it appears there will be a one hour gap in the passenger service for the foreseeable future to permit the freight paths in the early evening. '

Whilst it is almost certainly too late for TfW to introduce additional trains from the next timetable change on 11th of December, the Association will ask that TfW implements the additional passenger services as soon as possible and not wait until the next timetable change in May 2023.

The Association will also continue to push for line speed improvements which will enable the additional passenger trains to call at more stations together with track and signalling enhancements which will allow two passenger trains an hour to operate throughout the day alongside freight traffic.”

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The ORR report shows an all-too-familiar story of run-down infrastructure to the point where major work is needed to handle increased traffic.
I hadn't realised the outgoing cement traffic was so significant (for Hinckley Point nuclear power station) and has been running for 3 years.
In passing, the trains run via Wolverhampton, Sutton Park, King's Norton and Gloucester, rather than the empty Marches line.
Just as with the timber traffic at Chirk, which has to run via Gobowen, there is no handy crossover at Padeswood/Penyffordd which would greatly simplify access to the cement works.
Sending loaded trains on to Dee Marsh to run round and climb Aston bank back is obviously inefficient.
A southern crossover would save about an hour in line occupation, save the splitting of trains on site and allow longer trains which is Hanson's ambition.

TfW gets its half-hour service, bar a couple of afternoon trips which conflict with the cement trains.
That's if they can manage to find enough working trains.
Without mentioning names, ORR says that other freight operators are looking to use the line.
Speed limits of 40mph because of weak bridges, 25mph for loaded trains, and 12mph up the banks don't suggest a modern railway.
Some extra signalling appears to be needed to supplement the capabilities of Penyffordd box.

 

[Llandudno]

The ORR report shows an all-too-familiar story of run-down infrastructure to the point where major work is needed to handle increased traffic.
I hadn't realised the outgoing cement traffic was so significant (for Hinckley Point nuclear power station) and has been running for 3 years.
In passing, the trains run via Wolverhampton, Sutton Park, King's Norton and Gloucester, rather than the empty Marches line.
Just as with the timber traffic at Chirk, which has to run via Gobowen, there is no handy crossover at Padeswood/Penyffordd which would greatly simplify access to the cement works.
Sending loaded trains on to Dee Marsh to run round and climb Aston bank back is obviously inefficient.
A southern crossover would save about an hour in line occupation, save the splitting of trains on site and allow longer trains which is Hanson's ambition.

TfW gets its half-hour service, bar a couple of afternoon trips which conflict with the cement trains.
That's if they can manage to find enough working trains.
Without mentioning names, ORR says that other freight operators are looking to use the line.
Speed limits of 40mph because of weak bridges, 25mph for loaded trains, and 12mph up the banks don't suggest a modern railway.
Some extra signalling appears to be needed to supplement the capabilities of Penyffordd box.

Ex London Underground 40+ year old trains don’t suggest a modern railway either…!

Mind you they still haven’t entered revenue earning service on Wrexham-Bidston, I wonder if they ever will!

I wonder when TfW will introduce two trains per most hours on the Bidston route, baring in mind they are still only running one train every two hours (three hours in the evening!) on the Chester - Liverpool route!

 

[Parjon]

It's about time someone took Network Rail to task. Their conduct in this matter has been detrimental all round. It's one example of this being made much more difficult and expensive than they should be. Part of why things don't get done, and why our railways are so expensive to build.

The systra report raises some troubling questions. It is notable that the passenger service in fact has an absolute BCR of 4. That the freight service has an even higher BCR isn't a reason to reject either proposal, but instead to address the congestion issues.

 

[The Planner]

It's about time someone took Network Rail to task. Their conduct in this matter has been detrimental all round. It's one example of this being made much more difficult and expensive than they should be. Part of why things don't get done, and why our railways are so expensive to build.

The systra report raises some troubling questions. It is notable that the passenger service in fact has an absolute BCR of 4. That the freight service has an even higher BCR isn't a reason to reject either proposal, but instead to address the congestion issues.

Who is paying? Are the cement works or end customer chipping in for the extra infrastructure as a third party intermodal terminal operator would?

 

[frodshamfella]

Ex London Underground 40+ year old trains don’t suggest a modern railway either…!

Mind you they still haven’t entered revenue earning service on Wrexham-Bidston, I wonder if they ever will!

I wonder when TfW will introduce two trains per most hours on the Bidston route, baring in mind they are still only running one train every two hours (three hours in the evening!) on the Chester - Liverpool route!

Don't I know it !!

Why haven't they started to use these old District Line trains ??!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

baring in mind they are still only running one train every two hours (three hours in the evening!) on the Chester - Liverpool route!

I'd not use that route as an example - it's of extremely limited utility until extended to Llandudno when Merseyrail already run 4 an hour. Yes, slower, but at 4tph it's more likely to suit your trip.

 

[swt_passenger]

So in essence we're talking half hourly with two hour long gaps per day for the freight. That's not a terrible outcome, a bit Morecambe-esque.

Also worked that way at Alton for years. A half hourly service almost all day, but an oil tanker shunt move prevented one of them running around the middle of the day.

 

[Kite159]

Also worked that way at Alton for years. A half hourly service almost all day, but an oil tanker shunt move prevented one of them running around the middle of the day.

Also for Aberdare where the half hourly service has an hour gap due to a freight path for Tower Colliery.

 

[185]

Why haven't they started to use these old District Line trains ??!!

Can we swap them? We'll have Frodsham's 175s and you can have our D-stock

Still, looking at Hanson Cement's Padeswood plant, surely building a new set of points south of the current connection would alleviate the current block-the-line-for-an-hour plans. It's all on the flat, and should need minimal works - but no doubt someone will come up with a £100million pound bill for the works.

 

[plugwash]

Yes, slower

I just had a look on NRE and the two routes from Liverpool Lime Street to Chester seem pretty much neck and neck with the TFW service taking 48 minuites and the merseyrail services normally taking 47 minuites (though one is 50 minuites for some reason)

 

[47421]

ORR pretty critical of NR eg page 16 of the letter:

79. Network Rail’s initial representations were not at the level required for ORR to make an informed decision, although they improved later. We wrote to Network Rail on 26 April 2022 setting out the information needed to take decisions on the applications. Network Rail reacted well to this request in parts but some Network Rail decisions, e.g. on level crossings, were still not timely. ORR considers that much of this information could have been prepared and provided sooner given the time Network Rail knew about the potential for competing capacity demands. We are grateful to the applicants for their cooperation and patience.

 

[8H]

I just had a look on NRE and the two routes from Liverpool Lime Street to Chester seem pretty much neck and neck with the TFW service taking 48 minuites and the merseyrail services normally taking 47 minuites (though one is 50 minuites for some reason)

Don’t get me started again ! Two slow routes is better than one, but limited stop services on the Birkenhead Chester route used to be much faster than current timings until 1967. If you want to get people out of cars you have to do better than that for a 20 mile journey.

 

[Foxcover]

I couldn’t see anywhere in the report which half hours would be skipped - does anyone know if these affect the evening peak connections from Liverpool?

When the draft half-hourly timetable came out earlier this year, there were gaps in both the morning peak to Liverpool, and the evening peak from Liverpool, and the view from west Wirral commuters I know was that it wouldn’t have any benefit for them at all.

Appreciate this is a great step forward for the service otherwise

 

[8H]

I couldn’t see anywhere in the report which half hours would be skipped - does anyone know if these affect the evening peak connections from Liverpool?

When the draft half-hourly timetable came out earlier this year, there were gaps in both the morning peak to Liverpool, and the evening peak from Liverpool, and the view from west Wirral commuters I know was that it wouldn’t have any benefit for them at all.

Appreciate this is a great step forward for the service otherwise

That’s a really important question but I haven’t seen an answer anywhere yet myself.

 

[cle]

I'd not use that route as an example - it's of extremely limited utility until extended to Llandudno when Merseyrail already run 4 an hour. Yes, slower, but at 4tph it's more likely to suit your trip.

It's proven very popular though, but Helsby/Frodsham to Liverpool especially, and of course offers Runcorn/South Parkway too.

I'd like to see it doubled (although splitting seems preferred) - maybe with a faster version for the Cardiff services. But a 2tph standard timetable would be a great thing too. Might be capacity one day when we have Fiddlers Ferry.

 

[OutdoorM]

That’s a really important question but I haven’t seen an answer anywhere yet myself.

I couldn’t see anywhere in the report which half hours would be skipped - does anyone know if these affect the evening peak connections from Liverpool?

When the draft half-hourly timetable came out earlier this year, there were gaps in both the morning peak to Liverpool, and the evening peak from Liverpool, and the view from west Wirral commuters I know was that it wouldn’t have any benefit for them at all.

Appreciate this is a great step forward for the service otherwise

Indeed, that is the vital bit.

My reading - The report did give the timings for some of firm the slots for GBF

6v41 TThO Departure 16.40-17:40 Penyfforrdd Cement - Avonmouth

and

6M42 MWFO Avonmouth - Pennyffordd Cement GBRff 17:15-18:15

Which suggests that some of the useful peak hour slots might be the ones reduced to hourly service. Which is a pain

The track access decision is here (point 27-28 appear to be the vital ones)

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...-bidston-track-access-decision-2022-11-30.pdf

 

[Brissle Girl]

Also for Aberdare where the half hourly service has an hour gap due to a freight path for Tower Colliery.

Even though the freight line has been out of use for a few years now!

 

[Kite159]

Even though the freight line has been out of use for a few years now!

I think those old freight paths are finally getting removed from the December timetable change so no more hour gaps for the phantom freight.

----

As for Chester to Liverpool, I suspect most passengers at Chester wanting Liverpool will be using Merseyrail, not only for being more frequent but being cheaper

 

[mrd269697]

Has any got a link to the draft timetable? To my knowledge, Upton, Heswall, Neston, Shotton, Buckley and Gwersyllt are the only stations to be served by the fast services. Be nice if Hawarden Bridge could be served every hour by the stoppers. Useful for Deeside Industrial Park.

 

[frodshamfella]

I think those old freight paths are finally getting removed from the December timetable change so no more hour gaps for the phantom freight.

----

As for Chester to Liverpool, I suspect most passengers at Chester wanting Liverpool will be using Merseyrail, not only for being more frequent but being cheaper

People do use it from Chester , its the best was to reach South Parkway for Liverpool Airport. Also picks up a lot at Helsby and Frodsham, it needs to get back to hourly asap, current Covid service is ridiculous.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Ex London Underground 40+ year old trains don’t suggest a modern railway either…!

Mind you they still haven’t entered revenue earning service on Wrexham-Bidston, I wonder if they ever will!

I wonder when TfW will introduce two trains per most hours on the Bidston route, baring in mind they are still only running one train every two hours (three hours in the evening!) on the Chester - Liverpool route!

Looks even less likely now, with the news from Vivarail today.

 

[8A Rail]

I ask a simple question, why does the Wrexham to Bidston line require two trains per hour? Are the present one hour trains when operating simply over loaded with passengers? I am sure someone will provide information and reasons for doing so but it seems over kill for the line at things presently stand.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I ask a simple question, why does the Wrexham to Bidston line require two trains per hour? Are the present one hour trains when operating simply over loaded with passengers? I am sure someone will provide information and reasons for doing so but it seems over kill for the line at things presently stand.

It's a political commitment/article of faith to do with developing an NE Wales Metro vaguely comparable with the one around Cardiff.
A new station is to be built at Deeside to serve the industrial units there.
It's not long since the hourly service was run by a single 153, which then went to a 2-car 150.
Line speeds are very low so journey times are long, with very short turnround times at each end.
Station usage is fairly static to declining, like much of the north Wales region.