Crewe to Alsager - why was it singled?

[Grumpy Git]

As title, why is this very short section singled? Was it ever twin track?

 

[zwk500]

Fairly sure it's been mentioned before that the budget didn't stretch to rebuilding the bridges that were too low for electrification on two tracks but moving the track to the centre of the arch gave sufficient clearance.

 

[Railsigns]

It was singled as part of the Crewe remodelling scheme in 1985, long before the line was electrified.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Before singling - there was a connection off the Kidsgrove line under the WCML into Gresty Lane Yard , this was removed at the same time due to structural changes in freight traffic.

At the time , and correct me if wrong - there was just a patchy Lincoln - Crewe DMU service.

The electrification was a quick job done to facilitate the SRA strategy to ensure the blockade strategy to try and get PUG 2 done quicker. (Crewe - Cheadle Hulme via Wilmslow, and via the Stoke route) - handy for other electric diversions post this.

 

[edwin_m]

The passenger service terminated at Crewe (and still does) so it's very unlikely one will be departing when another one is due to arrive.

 

[AndrewE]

It was singled as part of the Crewe remodelling scheme in 1985, long before the line was electrified.

No, it was singled to make building the A500 westward extension (new B5472 bridge) cheaper

Before singling - there was a connection off the Kidsgrove line under the WCML into Gresty Lane Yard , this was removed at the same time due to structural changes in freight traffic.

It was removed at the time of the Crewe remodelling, I suspect that (like the S chord at Nuneaton) it could have been quite useful if it had been retained.

At the time , and correct me if wrong - there was just a patchy Lincoln - Crewe DMU service.

The electrification was a quick job done to facilitate the SRA strategy to ensure the blockade strategy to try and get PUG 2 done quicker. (Crewe - Cheadle Hulme via Wilmslow, and via the Stoke route) - handy for other electric diversions post this.

but a full hourly Derby to Crewe service.

The passenger service terminated at Crewe (and still does) so it's very unlikely one will be departing when another one is due to arrive.

Now there are 2 services so there is definitely a regular conflict when one is running late (EM trains usually.) Plus test trains and other traffic... singleing Crewe to Barthomly junction has proved to be a disaster (apart from for the bean-counters.) Thank goodness that (we have been told here) that the first new bridge SE of Crewe has been built with passive provision for redoubling.

 

[norbitonflyer]

but a full hourly Derby to Crewe service.

The Lincoln - Derby service was also hourly, and as I recall most, if not all, ran through to Crewe. At 100 miles in 3 hr 45 it was a long slog, but at least the extension to Crewe got us Cross Country class 120s instead of the rattly 104s we had when they only ran to Derby.
(Mind you, the view through the cab of a 104 was far superior - 104s probably had the largest, and 120s the smallest, windscreens of any 1st gen DMUs)

 

[Railsigns]

No, it was singled to make building the A500 westward extension (new B5472 bridge) cheaper

"No"?
I only wrote when it was singled, not why it was singled.

 

[AndrewE]

"No"?
I only wrote when it was singled, not why it was singled.

My memory is that it was singled for the A500 extension (late '80s?) but the Crewe remodelling was 1985. I particularly remember this singling because I am local and it was yet another example of rail's future being compromised to allow a short-term reduction in the cost of a road improvement.

(On reflection, the cause might have been the bridge on "Main Road" to Weston, part of the same road scheme, which was rebuilt cheaper to force the singled track.)

 

[Railsigns]

My memory is that it was singled for the A500 extension (late '80s?) but the Crewe remodelling was 1985.

The line was singled in conjunction with the Crewe remodelling in July 1985, no earlier and no later.

 

[AndrewE]

OK, but why? What gain did the railway get (apart from a shortish bit of single line, extra points at each end and potential congestion on the approach to a major junction?)

The perception round here was definitely that the cheaper road bridge was what drove the singling. The new (more recent) "rusty" bridge has provision for re-doubling, can the track under the Weston village access road bridge be doubled again?

 

[Railsigns]

I understood that it was singled to help the business case for the Crewe remodelling (lower maintenance costs, and no need for a crossover to access the ordnance sidings).

 

[AndrewE]

I understood that it was singled to help the business case for the Crewe remodelling (lower maintenance costs, and no need for a crossover to access the ordnance sidings).

except that ROF Radway Green is several miles beyond the end of the single-track section (and hasn't had a siding for decades), so completely irrelevant.

 

[Railsigns]

except that ROF Radway Green is several miles beyond the end of the single-track section, so irrelevant.

The connection into the sidings was less than one mile from the end of the single line. Regardless of the distance, a crossover was avoided.

 

[nw1]

It was singled as part of the Crewe remodelling scheme in 1985, long before the line was electrified.

Alton was another line which was I believe singled at the same time.

Astonishing short-termism; did people not think demand might come back in the future?

 

[The Planner]

Alton was another line which was I believe singled at the same time.

Astonishing short-termism; did people not think demand might come back in the future?

At the time, probably not. We are 40 years since the decsion was made.

 

[nw1]

At the time, probably not. We are 40 years since the decsion was made.

Except that presumably the demand probably came back just 10-15 years after the singlings, AFAIK it was the late 90s that demand started growing significantly following the early 90s recession.

Also, as a point of principle, destructive and hard-to-reverse short-termist decisions, which only consider the immediate situation rather than that of the medium- and long-term, are IMO rarely a particularly good idea.

 

[The Planner]

Except that presumably the demand probably came back just 10-15 years after the singlings, AFAIK it was the late 90s that demand started growing significantly following the early 90s recession.

Also, as a point of principle, destructive and hard-to-reverse short-termist decisions, which only consider the immediate situation rather than that of the medium- and long-term, are IMO rarely a particularly good idea.

Unless there are plans to increase the service along there, its not causing massive problems.

 

[Helvellyn]

DfT have form here - given in its various historic guises it would have had to sign-off large scale BR schemes I can hardly see it allowing major re-signalling schemes keeping either massive excess capacity ot passive provision for expansion if that added to the capital outlay at the time.

When I talk about form there are many road schemes where bridges were built for a single carriageway ruling out future dualling. When the M5 was widened between Birmingham and Worcester in the 1990s I am surprised they actually built all the overbridges with such future-proofing!

 

[The Planner]

DfT have form here - given in its various historic guises it would have had to sign-off large scale BR schemes I can hardly see it allowing major re-signalling schemes keeping either massive excess capacity ot passive provision for expansion if that added to the capital outlay at the time.

When I talk about form there are many road schemes where bridges were built for a single carriageway ruling out future dualling. When the M5 was widened between Birmingham and Worcester in the 1990s I am surprised they actually built all the overbridges with such future-proofing!

I think that was a unexpected outcome as the M5 was widened on one side only and the road shifted to one side, so the bridges are wider on one side? It wasn't a conventional widening where both sides are done such as the M40 between 4 and 5.

 

[furnessvale]

Unless there are plans to increase the service along there, its not causing massive problems.

The old chicken and egg situation. How can there ever be plans to increase the service along ANY line when a new restricted capacity has been built into it?

 

[John R]

I think many people have forgotten how few services there were on many lines back in the late 70s or early 80s. The Filton dequadrification in 1984 seems absurd now until you realise that there were often just two trains an hour in each direction between Narroways Jn and Filton.

 

[The Planner]

The old chicken and egg situation. How can there ever be plans to increase the service along ANY line when a new restricted capacity has been built into it?

Because if an uplift in service is deemed strategic, the cost of putting it back in would be factored in.

 

[snowball]

When I talk about form there are many road schemes where bridges were built for a single carriageway ruling out future dualling. When the M5 was widened between Birmingham and Worcester in the 1990s I am surprised they actually built all the overbridges with such future-proofing!

The M5 bridges were not future-proofed. The widening was by a mixture of techniques along the length of the scheme, mostly asymmetrical as The Planner says, involving replacing most of the bridges.

At J4, for example, the treatment was different. The original bridges can still be seen carrying the roundabout. They originally accommodated two lanes and hard shoulder each way underneath, but now there are three lanes with the hard shoulder omitted inside the junction.

Around the road network there are places where future proofing was provided - some where it was later used and some where it never has been. Some where later developments were incompatible with the original idea of the future proofing.

 

[furnessvale]

Because if an uplift in service is deemed strategic, the cost of putting it back in would be factored in.

And if it is not deemed strategic, the traffic goes by road.

 

[nw1]

Because if an uplift in service is deemed strategic, the cost of putting it back in would be factored in.

Even still, it seems better just to leave it in place rather than lifting a track and putting it back later, which to me seems incredibly wasteful.

 

[30907]

Even still, it seems better just to leave it in place rather than lifting a track and putting it back later, which to me seems incredibly wasteful.

You do, of course, have to maintain it if it is to be used

I think many people have forgotten how few services there were on many lines back in the late 70s or early 80s. The Filton dequadrification in 1984 seems absurd now until you realise that there were often just two trains an hour in each direction between Narroways Jn and Filton.

And there are 2tph over the section of track we are discussion, against a capacity of at least 5tph.

 

[AndrewE]

And there are 2tph over the section of track we are discussion, against a capacity of at least 5tph.

If you are still on Crewe (rather than Alton) there are 2 in each direction per hour, plus occasional freight, ECS and test train etc.
Delays on any one of the single line services has a serious knock-on effect on the other services.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Even still, it seems better just to leave it in place rather than lifting a track and putting it back later, which to me seems incredibly wasteful.

To expand on what @30907 has already said, leaving the track in place would not have been a zero cost, or even the minimal cost option. The expense of removing the track would easily have been exceeded by the cost of continuing to manage, monitor and maintain it. Crewe remodelling, like almost every resignalling or remodelling scheme I was involved with during the 1980's and into the 90's, took advantage of whatever rationalisations were possible to achieve the lowest overall infrastructure costs. From BR's perspective at the time, it was wasteful to retain, maintain and renew assets which weren't really required and showed no prospect of being required in the foreseeable future. Occasionally you could make out a costed case for a strategic retention. If there had been a realistic case for retaining both tracks between Crewe and Alsager, I'm sure it would have been made.

Delays on any one of the single line services has a serious knock-on effect on the other services.

I can think of many other rationalisations, at Crewe alone, where that same case can be made. And you could make the same observation at every double junction that was replaced with single leads. But what are the respective costs? Of the delay minutes incurred versus either that of reinstating the double track now, or of having retained, maintained and potentially renewed it since 1985.

 

[The Planner]

If you are still on Crewe (rather than Alton) there are 2 in each direction per hour, plus occasional freight, ECS and test train etc.
Delays on any one of the single line services has a serious knock-on effect on the other services.

Its not serious at all. Its a 3 minute section on the single line.