Chester station - potential remodelling of eastern approaches

[krus_aragon]

I'm searching for a recent (past decade or so) study of a proposed remodelling of Chester railway station, specifically the track at the eastern end of the station. At present the layout makes for some conflicting moves (iirc), and it was identified in this study that an increase in trains may require a redesign to allow trains to arrive and depart for the Helsby direction at the same time. It wasn't anything big, just a page or two in a larger document.

Now that the Halton Curve has reopened for services to Liverpool Lime Street, and Northern have started their hourly service to Manchester Victoria and Leeds, I found myself thinking of that study again. The trouble is that I can't find it.

I thought that it was in a Network Rail study, but I've checked the Route Plans for 2009 (route 22), 2010 (route L), the 2011 update, and 2016 (Welsh route study) without luck.

Does anyone else happen to recall where it is?

 

[Teithiwr]

There are some proposals for improvements to the eastern side of Chester, and additional platform capacity, in the Welsh Route Study from 2015 - page 79

 

[krus_aragon]

There are some proposals for improvements to the eastern side of Chester, and additional platform capacity, in the Welsh Route Study from 2015 - page 79

That's the one, thanks. It seems to have been included in the 2015 draft, but replaced with just options for an extra platform in the later 2016 one.
2015:

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We sat on the approach to Chester yesterday from Helsby on an ex-Leeds service, at the last stop signal, for a full 8 minutes before being allowed into P6.
I think there might have been some signalling problems, but the severe approach control always means a slow arrival.
Meanwhile the passengers waiting to depart on the return to Leeds were stood on P5...

Despite being a huge and well-endowed station, operation at Chester seems full of constraints.
There are those "no AWS" signs on all approaches.
I don't know how much that restricts movements.
The signalling installation dates from about the same time as at Crewe (1985), when BR was at its meanest with upgrades.
The busiest platform (Merseyrail) is also one of the furthest from the concourse, and is the only one which can handle the DC electrics (hence the P8 proposal).

 

[The Prisoner]

Chester station is terrible for sitting at signals on the approach. It's not **that** busy and yet every time it seems to be a five minute wait for a platform and nobody saw you coming. Adding the Leeds and Halton curve services has probably blown their minds.

 

[jamesst]

It's a minor miracle if you can make it into Chester station without being held outside, defo a track layout that badly needs redesigning

 

[Polarbear]

Chester has been like that since the rationalised layout & PSB was opened. The approach control is particularly restrictive, with a clear run in from either the Crewe or Manchester lines being as common as hens teeth!

I also recall some talk about making the layout less restrictive at the eastern end-probably about 5-10 years back.

 

[krus_aragon]

When is Chester currently planned to be resignalled? (notwithstanding slipping schedules, etc.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When is Chester currently planned to be resignalled? (notwithstanding slipping schedules, etc.)

I'm pretty sure there are no funded plans.
I think the Crewe area is in CP6 which should sort out the long section between Crewe Steel Works and Beeston Castle.
Maybe the potential station alterations will deliver some improvements.
There used to be 6 boxes in the station area before the PSB arrived.
Fairly recent PSB extensions have included Saltney-Connah's Quay, Hooton, and Saltney-Wrexham North.
There is some sort of plan to transfer control to Manchester ROC, but that is years away.

 

[edwin_m]

There is some sort of plan to transfer control to Manchester ROC, but that is years away.

Given the operational interfaces I'd have thought Cardiff would make more sense.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given the operational interfaces I'd have thought Cardiff would make more sense.

Chester is part of LNW Route (or North West/Central Region as it will become).
Its control area does extend into Wales a little.
Cardiff does have Shrewsbury to sort out one day!

 

[catfordbags]

If the Eastern Approaches were re-modelled, would it be worth turning the parcels platform into an operational platform ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Apart from parking empty trains there, the platform space is used by TfW for varied things like catering stores and the 175 simulator (and access to the car park).
It also hosts the bike store.
None of this is permanent though.
The track and platform are in poor condition though.
It suits the Crewe direction, so not much need for another bay.
But the architectural restoration of the old frontage there does anticipate something grander than a staff-only purpose.
A west-end bay would be more use, or the planned new island P8.
It isn't that long since BR and its successors wanted to abandon the P4-7 island and concentrate on the long single through platform (P3) and the bays.
Meanwhile the old GW section (P2) at the west end remains a complete eyesore with the disused Post Office access path running through it.
There are still gaps in the P2/3 canopy where they yanked out the old roof supports.
There's currently some large-scale excavation work going on in front of the P5/6 east end bays.
Anybody know what that is about?

 

[krus_aragon]

If the Eastern Approaches were re-modelled, would it be worth turning the parcels platform into an operational platform ?

An extra bay platform at the eastern end (making a total of four) could be useful if the number of trains terminating from the east increases. I don't expect that to happen though.

We've currently got up to 2tph terminating from the Crewe direction, and 2tph from Manchester. (The Liverpool services will become through workings to Llandudno/Shrewsbury in a few years time, so won't use a bay platform any more.) I think the current bay platforms at that end is ample for that kind of service pattern. It's every other type of platform (western bay, or through) that would be useful.

 

[edwin_m]

Moreorless by definition the Crewe shuttle and the Euston can't be in the station at the same time, being about 30min apart from each other. So they don't need a platform each. And I presume in the hours the Euston splits for Holyhead the portion left behind still waits in a through platform to attach to a portion coming back from Holyhead, which means that platform must be vacant in some hours and the way the service repeats it is probably therefore vacant in all hours.

 

[mmh]

Moreorless by definition the Crewe shuttle and the Euston can't be in the station at the same time, being about 30min apart from each other. So they don't need a platform each. And I presume in the hours the Euston splits for Holyhead the portion left behind still waits in a through platform to attach to a portion coming back from Holyhead, which means that platform must be vacant in some hours and the way the service repeats it is probably therefore vacant in all hours.

No, the Holyhead directs are mostly mono-directional, e.g. there aren't return services in the evening. The rear units on those services either become the next Chester to Euston or go on to Wrexham.

Two westbound bays for the Crewe direction aren't needed for the current timetable, but having an extra one would potentially allow an extra Chester to Crewe, or in an ideal world some new destination on or via the WCML

 

[cle]

No, the Holyhead directs are mostly mono-directional, e.g. there aren't return services in the evening. The rear units on those services either become the next Chester to Euston or go on to Wrexham.

Two westbound bays for the Crewe direction aren't needed for the current timetable, but having an extra one would potentially allow an extra Chester to Crewe, or in an ideal world some new destination on or via the WCML

In an ideal world the Altrincham line would be quicker, and higher frequency. Given the markets it connects along there, it really should be more like a metro... (well, 3-6 tph, not 30 tph!)

 

[PHILIPE]

No, the Holyhead directs are mostly mono-directional, e.g. there aren't return services in the evening. The rear units on those services either become the next Chester to Euston or go on to Wrexham.

Two westbound bays for the Crewe direction aren't needed for the current timetable, but having an extra one would potentially allow an extra Chester to Crewe, or in an ideal world some new destination on or via the WCML

Westbound bays for the Crewe direction ???

 

[krus_aragon]

Westbound bays for the Crewe direction ???

Via Shrewsbury, perhaps.

 

[mmh]

Oops, *blush* Of course I meant east

 

[sw1ller]

One of my ideas is to cut out part of 7B and make a bay platform for a 3 car merseyrail. We don’t see many 6 cars in and on the few occasions we do get them, they can still use 7/7A which would still be big enough for an 8-9 car through train for most of the day. Could have the Liverpool-Llandudno services there where they’ll be out the way and not blocking 4 or 3.

 

[Meerkat]

There is space for another west facing bay next to platform 2 in the car park isn’t there?

 

[driver_m]

The long signal section prevents extra trains running between Chester and Crewe, there are quite a few moves back to Crewe at around 2100 and more often then not there’ll be something sat waiting at Beeston Castle for the Steel Works to give Train out of Section. If this was to be Axle Countered throughout then you could release the demand which would justify the extra East bay. It would be needed if there’s a failure in platform 1 though, or late running. It’s a very constrained layout now and is probably holding back any further expansion of services through there. There’s a conflicting move with our Holyhead bound service in the day on pl.3 (VT), it has to usually wait for something to/from Wrexham to access 2 and then we can go out. A lot of our services here are given a decent amount of slack at Chester for splits, even those which don’t and a simple run into pl.2 from Saltney could avoid this conflict by adding a short section of track from Saltney Jn to Roodee Jn and speed up a number of services. The 1985/86 resignalling was not BR’s finest hour.

 

[MarkyT]

The 1985/86 resignalling was not BR’s finest hour.

In common with other schemes of the Thatcher era, the project teams were probably facing impossible demands from the treasury to dramatically reduce the capital costs of ongoing schemes, so may have had little choice but to cut out many facilities in new layouts. Other examples of cost saving measures of the period:

Exeter resignalling - While work at Exeter St Davids was already too far advanced to make significant changes, later phases of the scheme were dramatically downgraded from the original plans with a target to reduce the number of point ends by around 50%. That led to the rather lobotomised layouts that still exist at Taunton and Newton Abbot and cause no end of problems with today's traffic levels. I saw the original scheme plans for these locations as a new trainee in the signalling drawing office at Reading in 1983. What was eventually built a few years later was simplified to a great degree.

Three Bridges - Changes to budgets withdrew track renewal funds for a new simpler but better layout from this scheme and resulted in the old 'steam age' layout at Redhill being retained in its entirety. Thus the new signalling locked in that old configuration for many decades to come.

There are bound to be many other examples around the UK. Remember this period saw British Rail experience some of its worst ever passenger usage and revenue figures, the damaging flexible rostering dispute, and the government had only recently commissioned the devastating Serpell Report.

 

[edwin_m]

Crewe and the Leicester power box area would be other examples of over-rationalisation in the 1980s. Leicester area is gradually getting back most of the tracks that were taken out at that time, Crewe has had one platform restored to use but still has various constraints. By contrast I think the York and Tyneside schemes got it mostly right a few years later. A lot of ironmongery was taken out of the station throats but the new layouts were a lot faster, matching the acceleration/deceleration of the trains, so getting through the throats in less time meant capacity was probably about the same as before but journeys were a bit faster.

 

[driver_m]

Probably be a good thread done separately to ask best and worst resignalling schemes. One of the aspects of Chester that is hard to fathom is the provision of 2 aspect signalling for quite some distance to Beeston, then a large AB section to Crewe Steelworks. If ever a scheme looked like it ran out of budget, this part was it. realistically, how many more 2 aspects would they have needed to put in to fringe to Steelworks and how much would it have cost in the 80s?

 

[sw1ller]

Probably be a good thread done separately to ask best and worst resignalling schemes. One of the aspects of Chester that is hard to fathom is the provision of 2 aspect signalling for quite some distance to Beeston, then a large AB section to Crewe Steelworks. If ever a scheme looked like it ran out of budget, this part was it. realistically, how many more 2 aspects would they have needed to put in to fringe to Steelworks and how much would it have cost in the 80s?

That section was a trial section if I’m getting it right. They’ve put in telephones every 40 chains between steelworks and Beeston. It was a test to see if they could save money that just hasn’t been rectified since the invention of NRM & GSMR.

I’m not entirely sure what they were trying to achieve with it though and it desperately needs at least one more section, I’d stick in 3 sections to future proof the line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is space for another west facing bay next to platform 2 in the car park isn’t there?

You could reinstate all the western end bays (3), but the routes under Hoole Way bridge arches are now very constrained, and the turnouts from the main line would be complicated - and you would lose the west end car park.
The real problem there is the Post Office depot, once umbilically connected to the station (in fact, built on old sidings) but now completely independent of the railway.
The Merseyrail service should really come into one of those bays, but the layout now effectively precludes that.
The down slow line out towards Northgate is also disused (though it still has stop lights staring into the undergrowth).

 

[sw1ller]

Can we stop trying to get rid of our car parks!! Trains already leave late as it is because staff can’t find a space, if anything, we need more car parks.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Can we stop trying to get rid of our car parks!! Trains already leave late as it is because staff can’t find a space, if anything, we need more car parks.

I've given up trying to find space at Chester unless it's for the early departures.
I can't count the times I've failed to find a space, driven to Bache and failed there (in the tiny car park) and then driven to Hooton where there's always a (cheap) space and 4tph to Chester or 6tph to Liverpool.
These days I usually head for Hooton to start with.
Chester could really do with opening up the north side of the station (plenty of space in the little-used goods area).
But Hoole Road is also a pest to navigate.
It's amazing how much space used to be owned by the railway in the area, and how poorly it is used today.