Mid Cheshire line can't go to 2tph

leonard clive · 7 Sep 2019

Apologies if there is an existing thread on this.
Mid Cheshire line can't go to 2tph due to congestion at at Edgeley, and at the other end at Mickle Trafford.
I can understand the Edgeley one, but the Chester Frodsham line doesn't seem to be too busy to break out onto.
Are 2tph ever likely to happen? There doesn't seem to be the will to do it.

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/promise-second-train-hour-mid-16842251

Transport for the North revealed last October that 'pathing issues' at Stockport meant there would not be enough capacity to run a second Chester to Manchester service an hour.

A new report published by consultants WSP, which considers rail connectivity in mid Cheshire, said: "A number of rail industry stakeholders are unsure about the deliverability of the proposed second service on current infrastructure, due to capacity constraints at Mickle Trafford junction - north east of Chester - and Stockport station/ Edgeley junction.

A spokesman for Northern said: "We have worked extensively with Network Rail to provide the additional services but due to capacity constraints and safety issues on the network, a solution cannot be found at present."

RailUK Forums

Jamesrob637 · 7 Sep 2019

There was a thread but it may be buried in the archives now. However it's the hourly Sunday service which is needed badly also.

Philip · 7 Sep 2019

Would reopening the route (and station) into Northgate be a possibility, to avoid the Warrington line?

scrapy · 7 Sep 2019

I believe the issue is to do with the user worked crossings on the single line between Mickle Trafford and Mouldsworth. They can only be used when there is no train on the single line. This means that at 2tph plus any other freight etc paths they will be out of use for much longer period than they are allowed to be under long standing and legally binding agreements with landowners.

scrapy · 7 Sep 2019

Philip said:
Would reopening the route (and station) into Northgate be a possibility, to avoid the Warrington line?

There are lots of solutions possible. When they say in the article they haven't been able to find a solution, they really mean ' there are plenty of solutions but they cost money'. Northgate reopening would be very expensive and if they had that money they could probably remodel both Edgeley and Mickle Trafford and build bridges to replace the user worked crossings. Northgate would only be convenient for those whose destination is Chester. I'd say 50% of people off the mid Cheshire line are connecting on to other services though.

Djgr · 7 Sep 2019

scrapy said:
There are lots of solutions possible. When they say in the article they haven't been able to find a solution, they really mean ' there are plenty of solutions but they cost money'. Northgate reopening would be very expensive and if they had that money they could probably remodel both Edgeley and Mickle Trafford and build bridges to replace the user worked crossings. Northgate would only be convenient for those whose destination is Chester. I'd say 50% of people off the mid Cheshire line are connecting on to other services though.

Presumably someone will have to demolish the Northgate Arena. Not a chance.

Remember Chester to Frodsham has seen a large increase in traffic with the introduction of Chester-Leeds and Chester-Liverpool. services

Llandudno · 7 Sep 2019

Would this short term fix work:
Hourly service Chester - Manchester, all trains 4 cars
Hourly shuttle service Greenbank - Altrincham with through ticketing onto Metrolink

geoffk · 7 Sep 2019

But was a two train per hour service TO CHESTER ever the intention? I thought the second train would turn back at Greenbank . "There will be 2 trains per hour between Greenbank and Manchester, including off-peak." (DfT December 2015). This doesn't solve the issues at the Manchester/Stockport end, of course.

158756 · 7 Sep 2019

geoffk said:
But was a two train per hour service TO CHESTER ever the intention? I thought the second train would turn back at Greenbank . "There will be 2 trains per hour between Greenbank and Manchester, including off-peak." (DfT December 2015). This doesn't solve the issues at the Manchester/Stockport end, of course.

That was the original plan, but any extra trains to Manchester now seem to be out of the question. Then the idea of running the additional train to Chester appeared, presumably using the unit made redundant by not running to Manchester.

If as it now appears, the line can never have more than 1tph as part of the national network, certainly not to Manchester anyway, I would say that as much as possible should be handed over to Metrolink.

Greybeard33 · 8 Sep 2019

158756 said:
If as it now appears, the line can never have more than 1tph as part of the national network, certainly not to Manchester anyway, I would say that as much as possible should be handed over to Metrolink.

None of the line can be handed over to Metrolink because it carries too much freight.

TfGM has aspirations for Metrolink tram-trains to share the portions of the line within the GM boundary. But south of Hale the line is in Cheshire and too rural.

markymark2000 · 8 Sep 2019

scrapy said:
I believe the issue is to do with the user worked crossings on the single line between Mickle Trafford and Mouldsworth. They can only be used when there is no train on the single line. This means that at 2tph plus any other freight etc paths they will be out of use for much longer period than they are allowed to be under long standing and legally binding agreements with landowners.

There only seem to be 3 crossings here. Of which, there are alternative routes for all of them.

I suppose the way of fixing it would be dual tracking or bridges/underpasses. Are passing points that costly to build as they would split up the sections wouldn't they so that then, if Mouldsworth - Passing Point is occupied, the crossings are locked, but Passing point - Mickle Trafford crossings are open.

markymark2000 · 8 Sep 2019

As for the Stockport end, why can't they couple the Mid Cheshire Line extra to the Buxton service at Stockport? Would that provide a suitable onward link. Advertise it from Chester to Manchester and Stockport to Chester (due to the large variance of stops, it seems daft to make the long announcements and over complicate things).

geoffk · 8 Sep 2019

Agree that the line in not suitable for use by Metrolink but even running one extra stop to Hale would require use of tram-trains over the whole route.

At the Manchester end, is the issue the lack of platform capacity at Piccadilly or along the whole route to Stockport? There is also a franchise commitment to an additional stopper to Macclesfield, for which there must also be no capacity. HS2 will create extra paths, if and when it goes ahead, but years in the future. Conversion of the Rose Hill service to tram-train could remove two trains an hour from Piccadilly but these go from platform 2. I seem to remember Chester trains going from 12 but this is little used now outside the peaks.

Greybeard33 · 8 Sep 2019

markymark2000 said:
As for the Stockport end, why can't they couple the Mid Cheshire Line extra to the Buxton service at Stockport? Would that provide a suitable onward link. Advertise it from Chester to Manchester and Stockport to Chester (due to the large variance of stops, it seems daft to make the long announcements and over complicate things).

No possibility of joining trains at Stockport. There are only two northbound platforms and the timings are too tight.

Greybeard33 · 8 Sep 2019

geoffk said:
Agree that the line in not suitable for use by Metrolink but even running one extra stop to Hale would require use of tram-trains over the whole route.

At the Manchester end, is the issue the lack of platform capacity at Piccadilly or along the whole route to Stockport? There is also a franchise commitment to an additional stopper to Macclesfield, for which there must also be no capacity. HS2 will create extra paths, if and when it goes ahead, but years in the future. Conversion of the Rose Hill service to tram-train could remove two trains an hour from Piccadilly but these go from platform 2. I seem to remember Chester trains going from 12 but this is little used now outside the peaks.

The proposed tram-train service to Hale would be an extension of one of the existing two services to Altrincham and would be additional to the Northern service to Chester.

I believe the capacity issue is paths between Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction.

LOL The Irony · 8 Sep 2019

Llandudno said:
Hourly service Chester - Manchester, all trains 4 cars

I'm sure Buxton can spare a 4 carriage train considering they get them every half hour.

Llandudno said:
Hourly shuttle service Greenbank - Altrincham with through ticketing onto Metrolink

Such a ticket exists but it's £1 more so there would have to be some sort of deal between Northern & tfgm.

Greybeard33 said:
But south of Hale the line is in Cheshire and too rural.

More like it isn't Greater Manchester so tfgm doesn't want to know.

Chester1 · 8 Sep 2019

Building a platform 5 at Stockport to mirror platform 0 would allow services to terminate at Stockport to connect with services to Manchester. Hourly Manchester-Chester and Greenbank-Stockport would be an improvement and provide more options than terminating at Altrincham.

markymark2000 · 8 Sep 2019

Chester1 said:
Building a platform 5 at Stockport to mirror platform 0 would allow services to terminate at Stockport to connect with services to Manchester. Hourly Manchester-Chester and Greenbank-Stockport would be an improvement and provide more options than terminating at Altrincham.

P4 isn't used for the full length often so could you not split platform 4 into 4A and 4B. Or even cut into platform 4 at the southern end to put in another line and make a bay platform (similar to how Colchester P3/4 works) as the top end of P4 isn't uses much at all and it's quite wide so could accommodate a bay platform.

Greybeard33 · 8 Sep 2019

Chester1 said:
Building a platform 5 at Stockport to mirror platform 0 would allow services to terminate at Stockport to connect with services to Manchester. Hourly Manchester-Chester and Greenbank-Stockport would be an improvement and provide more options than terminating at Altrincham.

As recently discussed on the line speed improvements thread:

edwin_m said:
That would probably need bi-di on the Down Slow for the short distance to Edgeley Jn, which in turn would probably trigger re-signalling of the whole area to get rid of the Absolute Block.

EE Andy b1 said:
I think the second try at remodelling/re-signalling the Stockport area and closure of all 5 AB boxes is set for 2026 onward.
It's these old boxes that are restricting capacity and speed through this area, so until renewed i can't see many more paths being available.

So not a near term solution. Stockport area resignalling was originally to be part of the West Coast Route Modernisation project more than 10 years ago, but descoped as too hard. So don't hold your breath!

Chester1 · 8 Sep 2019

Greybeard33 said:
As recently discussed on the line speed improvements thread:

So not a near term solution. Stockport area resignalling was originally to be part of the West Coast Route Modernisation project more than 10 years ago, but descoped as too hard. So don't hold your breath!

It is a long term solution. The signalling won't last forever!

Greybeard33 · 9 Sep 2019

Chester1 said:
It is a long term solution. The signalling won't last forever!

The WCRM remodelling/resignalling plan involved swapping the Up and Down Fast lines through Stockport, in order to reduce conflicts at Edgeley and Slade Lane Junctions. If this is eventually fully implemented, it might free up a path for a Greenbank service to run all the way to Piccadilly, as originally promised.

EE Andy b1 · 9 Sep 2019

Chester1 said:
It is a long term solution. The signalling won't last forever!

Plus Cheadle Hulme to Crewe needs re-signalling again as it's too expensive and unreliable.
Not like Network Rail to get it wrong!!

The Planner · 9 Sep 2019

EE Andy b1 said:
Plus Cheadle Hulme to Crewe needs re-signalling again as it's too expensive and unreliable.
Not like Network Rail to get it wrong!!

That won't get re-signalled for another 25 years.

Ash Bridge · 9 Sep 2019

markymark2000 said:
P4 isn't used for the full length often so could you not split platform 4 into 4A and 4B. Or even cut into platform 4 at the southern end to put in another line and make a bay platform (similar to how Colchester P3/4 works) as the top end of P4 isn't uses much at all and it's quite wide so could accommodate a bay platform.

Actually it would be more a case of reinstating the south facing bay platform that used to be located between platforms 3 & 4. Having said that the layout at that end of the station has probably been remodelled considerable since that was taken out, so perhaps not doable now?

Chester1 · 9 Sep 2019

Ash Bridge said:
Actually it would be more a case of reinstating the south facing bay platform that used to be located between platforms 3 & 4. Having said that the layout at that end of the station has probably been remodelled considerable since that was taken out, so perhaps not doable now?

The southern approach to platforms 3 and 4 is quite constrained and platform 3 cannot be shortened to fit in a new bay platform because it is used by 11 coach Pendolinos. There are 4 tracks next to platform 4. A platform would fit onto the 2 that are furthest away, leaving a track each for platform 4 and the new platform.

Resignalling Stockport would create more paths but they will likely be used by long distance services. Building in the capacity to terminate trains at Stockport would get the mid Cheshire line, or at least part of it, closer to metro frequencies. In the meantime terminating additional services at Altrincham is probably the only way of increasing the frequency.

Greybeard33 · 9 Sep 2019

Chester1 said:
The southern approach to platforms 3 and 4 is quite constrained and platform 3 cannot be shortened to fit in a new bay platform because it is used by 11 coach Pendolinos. There are 4 tracks next to platform 4. A platform would fit onto the 2 that are furthest away, leaving a track each for platform 4 and the new platform.

No, there are only 3, not 4, through tracks to the west of Stockport Platform 4. The Down Slow (P4 line), the Down Loop and the Down Goods Loop. Even if one track were removed, there is not enough width between P4 and Station Road, which is in a cutting below track level, to fit in another platform. If it were that easy it would probably have been built at the same time as Platform 0.

Chester1 · 10 Sep 2019

Greybeard33 said:
No, there are only 3, not 4, through tracks to the west of Stockport Platform 4. The Down Slow (P4 line), the Down Loop and the Down Goods Loop. Even if one track were removed, there is not enough width between P4 and Station Road, which is in a cutting below track level, to fit in another platform. If it were that easy it would probably have been built at the same time as Platform 0.

You are right that its two tracks but there is a larger than normal gap between them and the track into platform 4. The other option would be a platform just north of the station road entrance.

Mid Cheshire line can't go to 2tph

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member