North Wales Main Line Electrification

[Along the bay]

A new alignment would be very expensive and its already a project with a barely positive business case.

Doubling Halton Curve would add very little capacity because it is only one and a half miles long. It takes about two minutes for a train to pass through it. There isn't sufficient capacity between Lime Street and the curve for more services than currently planned. Once the Merseyrail timetable is updated following completion of 777 introduction the service via the curve will be at least ten minutes slower.



Do you mean the Voyagers? I was a child when they were introduced and wasn't a train enthusiast, so don't know. The freight line has been used during engineering works more recently. I think the last time was about five years ago. The loop remains in place to allow an hourly service. It was a horrifically slow diversion due to the line speed being 20 mph. I think it took over an hour to run Crewe to Chester.

No Pendolinos have worked to Holyhead whilst being hauled by class 57s.

 

[The Planner]

To allow the number of daily train movements that will need to be scheduled on the Middlewich line, what upgrading works will need to be done to bring that line up to an acceptable passenger standard whilst the stated Chester to Crewe line is closed for several months?

None. You do it as you do now and accept the journey time penalty. The shuttle doesnt run and Avanti run 1tph.

 

[Caaardiff]

What about Train Crew route knowledge? I don't believe TFW drivers sign that route anymore.

 

[RobShipway]

No Pendolinos have worked to Holyhead whilst being hauled by class 57s.

Er... How do you explain

or

I think that it is safer to say that no Pendolino's have been dragged by a class 57 into holiday in the last few years, rather than No Pendolino's have worked to Holyhead!

 

[Neptune]

No Pendolinos have worked to Holyhead whilst being hauled by class 57s.

They most certainly have. I went on one in around 2004 on the way to Ireland.

 

[sprinterguy]

Er... How do you explain

or

I think that it is safer to say that no Pendolino's have been dragged by a class 57 into holiday in the last few years, rather than No Pendolino's have worked to Holyhead!

They most certainly have. I went on one in around 2004 on the way to Ireland.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Along the bay's post was supposed to have a comma after the word "No", which would alter the meaning somewhat.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

None. You do it as you do now and accept the journey time penalty. The shuttle doesnt run and Avanti run 1tph.

Acceptting the time penalty for a short period of time may be acceptable, but not if matters continue for months on end, as intimated in an earlier posting.

 

[Meerkat]

Acceptting the time penalty for a short period of time may be acceptable, but not if matters continue for months on end, as intimated in an earlier posting.

Why would it be months?
if you did a lot of work simultaneously it would just be a handful of week long blockades wouldn’t it?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why would it be months?
if you did a lot of work simultaneously it would just be a handful of week long blockades wouldn’t it?

Can I refer you to what @Chester1 said in his posting #116 and to which my responses have been based, that there are 25+ Victorian bridges that will need required works on the Chester to Crewe line in order electrification can be installed on that line section. The mind boggles at the thought of that part of the required works only needing "a handful of week long blockages" to meet the time requirements

 

[Meerkat]

Can I refer you to what @Chester1 said in his posting #116 and to which my responses have been based, that there are 25+ Victorian bridges that will need required works on the Chester to Crewe line in order electrification can be installed on that line section. The mind boggles at the thought of that part of the required works only needing "a handful of week long blockages" to meet the time requirements

25 Victorian bridges does not equal 25 bridge replacements.

 

[The Planner]

Can I refer you to what @Chester1 said in his posting #116 and to which my responses have been based, that there are 25+ Victorian bridges that will need required works on the Chester to Crewe line in order electrification can be installed on that line section. The mind boggles at the thought of that part of the required works only needing "a handful of week long blockages" to meet the time requirements

You wouldn't do it all at once, you wouldn't get the resource. It would be multiple instances of week or fortnight blocks. Normally a bridge replacement is 4 to 5 days. During which you could be doing all sorts in terms of piling/stanchion installation/signal work/track renewal etc etc...

 

[Chester1]

To allow the number of daily train movements that will need to be scheduled on the Middlewich line, what upgrading works will need to be done to bring that line up to an acceptable passenger standard whilst the stated Chester to Crewe line is closed for several months?

The western end of mid Cheshire line is single track. A coach would have a comparable journey time. The advantage of using Middlewich line is maintaining London services. If there was a long blockade then relaying some of the track might be worthwhile to increase line speeds. Even 40mph would be a considerable improvement.

None. You do it as you do now and accept the journey time penalty. The shuttle doesnt run and Avanti run 1tph.

The shuttle could be replaced by a coach too.

What about Train Crew route knowledge? I don't believe TFW drivers sign that route anymore.

Only Avanti drivers would be need to sign it. There isn't capacity on the Middlewich freight line or mid Cheshire line for more than an hourly Avanti service because both have significant single track sections. Compared with the cost of the work it wouldn't cost much to get drivers signed off again.

25 Victorian bridges does not equal 25 bridge replacements.

Its still a heck of a lot of work! Its a really tough line to electrify and Network Rail doesn't have a good record. Chester to Llandudno would be much easier but Llandudno Junction to Holyhead would be challenging.

 

[Along the bay]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Along the bay's post was supposed to have a comma after the word "No", which would alter the meaning somewhat.

Yes, it was. I too have used a Pendolino on the Coast.

 

[AndrewE]

You wouldn't do it all at once, you wouldn't get the resource. It would be multiple instances of week or fortnight blocks. Normally a bridge replacement is 4 to 5 days. During which you could be doing all sorts in terms of piling/stanchion installation/signal work/track renewal etc etc...

At about the same time that these (apparently listed) bridges were cited as the reason Crewe - Chester couldn't be wired an engineer came up with a system for putting ties across the bottom of the arch and lifting it up whole while you raised the abutments. I thnk they were looking at just a few days line closure after doing the prep works. I thought it was a shame they didn't even pilot it on one bridge.

 

[HSTEd]

It would undoubtedly be cheaper in cash terms to stop the job for several months until the work is done.

However, I doubt the government would look kindly on such disruption.

 

[Krokodil]

None. You do it as you do now and accept the journey time penalty. The shuttle doesnt run and Avanti run 1tph.

Avanti can't even manage 1tph on that route now, let alone with the longer journey time requiring diagrams to be stepped back.

Acceptting the time penalty for a short period of time may be acceptable, but not if matters continue for months on end, as intimated in an earlier posting.

People would tolerate a longer journey for a few months, provided that it's reliable and avoids having to change for a bus.

25 Victorian bridges does not equal 25 bridge replacements.

Here it may well do.

 

[cle]

Could it be quicker or easier to funnel people via Warrington. They take a non-stop ride on the Glasgow, and then there is a longer service waiting for Llandudno/Holyhead in addition to the usual service on that line - which could be non-stop to Chester and then onwards.

Or if that was wired, a reversal (or better via Runcorn if Halton was done?)

 

[AndrewE]

Could it be quicker or easier to funnel people via Warrington. They take a non-stop ride on the Glasgow, and then there is a longer service waiting for Llandudno/Holyhead in addition to the usual service on that line - which could be non-stop to Chester and then onwards.

Or if that was wired, a reversal (or better via Runcorn if Halton was done?)

Apparently those Glasgows are so overcrowded that they can't be allowed to call at Crewe, as so many extra people would use them that it would be unsafe!
(That was the railway's excuse to my MP when he protested after the Crewe stops were withdrawn...) I wouldn't think they would want to encourage Chester and N Wales people to use them as well.

 

[zwk500]

At about the same time that these (apparently listed) bridges were cited as the reason Crewe - Chester couldn't be wired an engineer came up with a system for putting ties across the bottom of the arch and lifting it up whole while you raised the abutments. I thnk they were looking at just a few days line closure after doing the prep works. I thought it was a shame they didn't even pilot it on one bridge.

They tried that or a very similar system on EWR. The problem is that you are raising the crown of the road which causes road traffic and under-road services problems and you risk the settlement of the arch awkwardly on the modified abutments. Given the sensitivity of a brick arch to movement impacting the strength of the structure this is a big problem.
Clearance at the crown of the arch tends not to be a problem, it's clearance on the corners. So replacing an arch with a flat deck means you can clear the railway without adversely impacting the road profile, while also giving a structure that can accept a moderate amount of shifting as it settles onto the abutment.

 

[Cowley]

The Bristol discussions are in a new thread now, which is here:

Will Bristol Temple Meads now get wired?

It was the same announcement. Bristol is one of the few things announced that may well get done, on the basis that most of the difficult work was already completed. mods note - split from this thread Is Bristol TM getting wired then ?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[AndrewE]

They tried that or a very similar system on EWR. The problem is that you are raising the crown of the road which causes road traffic and under-road services problems and you risk the settlement of the arch awkwardly on the modified abutments. Given the sensitivity of a brick arch to movement impacting the strength of the structure this is a big problem.
Clearance at the crown of the arch tends not to be a problem, it's clearance on the corners. So replacing an arch with a flat deck means you can clear the railway without adversely impacting the road profile, while also giving a structure that can accept a moderate amount of shifting as it settles onto the abutment.

OK, then if the bridges really are listed then it's time for a new public debate:

Given that decarbonising rail haulage and encouraging modal shift from road to rail are recognised by most people as quite high priorities (even if not by the PM,) ought we to look at relatively minor landscape features, e.g. brick arch bridges in the Cheshire countryside, and decide whether electrifying the railway is more important?

 

[HSTEd]

OK, then if the bridges really are listed then it's time for a new public debate:

Given that decarbonising rail haulage and encouraging modal shift from road to rail are recognised by most people as quite high priorities (even if not by the PM,) ought we to look at relatively minor landscape features, e.g. brick arch bridges in the Cheshire countryside, and decide whether electrifying the railway is more important?

I suppose you could replace the bridges with architecturally comparable designs, but the listing people really don't like pastiches like that.
Neither do they like them being demolished, so we are at an impasse.

Unless someone wants to relay the railway with slab track!

 

[Krokodil]

I suppose you could replace the bridges with architecturally comparable designs, but the listing people really don't like pastiches like that.
Neither do they like them being demolished, so we are at an impasse.

Unless someone wants to relay the railway with slab track!

Surely you just "accidentally" send an out of gauge load down the line. "Oh dear, they're unsafe, they'll have to come straight down"

 

[The Planner]

OK, then if the bridges really are listed then it's time for a new public debate:

Given that decarbonising rail haulage and encouraging modal shift from road to rail are recognised by most people as quite high priorities (even if not by the PM,) ought we to look at relatively minor landscape features, e.g. brick arch bridges in the Cheshire countryside, and decide whether electrifying the railway is more important?

If you look on the Historic England website, the interactive map doesn't show any listed structures on the railway between Crewe and Chester.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely you just "accidentally" send an out of gauge load down the line. "Oh dear, they're unsafe, they'll have to come straight down"

That will just get you forced to rebuild it brick by brick to the exact same design, using the same methods used originally.

If you look on the Historic England website, the interactive map doesn't show any listed structures on the railway between Crewe and Chester.

You can guarantee that they will be listed the second anyone proposes to demolish them though.

 

[krus_aragon]

Surely you just "accidentally" send an out of gauge load down the line. "Oh dear, they're unsafe, they'll have to come straight down"

Are you suggesting we revert to 57+390 haulage, but with an armour-plated pantograph left up by mistake?

 

[AndrewE]

If you look on the Historic England website, the interactive map doesn't show any listed structures on the railway between Crewe and Chester.

In that case I wonder how that notion got any traction? Maybe the anti-rail lobby were fighting a rearguard campaign using disinformation... I swallowed it!
I suppose it might even have been like the supposed difficulties of wiring Standedge tunnel, a pretend reason for not proceding.

I think the only conclusion we can draw is that there is a deep-seated determination in Whitehall to prevent any rail upgrades or modernisation. Without postulating some sort of determined opposition it's hard to understand why blindingly obvious next steps in the efficiency improvements and reductions in costs of our railways just don't happen.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The Christleton Tunnel (near Chester) under the Shropshire Union Canal is the other tricky issue to resolve with its tight clearances.

 

[snowball]

In that case I wonder how that notion got any traction?

Because somebody posted it on here?

I suppose it might even have been like the supposed difficulties of wiring Standedge tunnel, a pretend reason for not proceding.

And the statements that have frequently been posted on here over the years about the supposed impossibility of wiring the Forth Bridge and the Severn Tunnel.

 

[AndrewE]

The Christleton Tunnel (near Chester) under the Shropshire Union Canal is the other tricky issue to resolve with its tight clearances.

And the statements that have frequently been posted on here over the years about the supposed impossibility of wiring the Forth Bridge and the Severn Tunnel.

Good points... time to wheel out my low-clearance pantograph again! (Not for the Severn Tunnel, obviously.)

Fit a low height, narrow pan as well as the standard one... most places where it is needed have speed restrictions anyway so the full width wouldn't be needed. Either use technology or just trust drivers to drop the big one and put up the lower narrow one for the distance needed...