Crewe/Chester/Warrington electrics

[pemma]

If you divert services from Manchester via Chat Moss and Warrington you will effectively loose all the business on those trains from Manchester, Stockport, Stoke and Wilmslow. Is that worth it to provide a service from Warrington to Crewe?

I said 2 northbound and 2 southbound trains a day.

Does the 06:27 Manchester-London via Macclesfield service really need to go via Macclesfield when it's overtaken by another Manchester-London via Macclesfield service?

On Friday's there's already a London-Manchester service which doesn't call at Stockport, Stoke, Macclesfield or Wilmslow that is overtaken by another service which departs Euston 3 minutes later.

If Virgin don't have any crews who sign via Warrington after electrification then doesn't that defeat the objective of alternative electrified routes for London services to use during disruption?

 

[cle]

I said 2 northbound and 2 southbound trains a day.

Does the 06:27 Manchester-London via Macclesfield service really need to go via Macclesfield when it's overtaken by another Manchester-London via Macclesfield service?

On Friday's there's already a London-Manchester service which doesn't call at Stockport, Stoke, Macclesfield or Wilmslow that is overtaken by another service which departs Euston 3 minutes later.

If Virgin don't have any crews who sign via Warrington after electrification then doesn't that defeat the objective of alternative electrified routes for London services to use during disruption?

Yep and that Friday train is there for a reason. Fact is, these trains are packed and the South Manchester / South of Manchester areas provide the majority of the traffic for morning London trains.

Are P15 and P16 confirmed then?

 

[pemma]

Yep and that Friday train is there for a reason. Fact is, these trains are packed and the South Manchester / South of Manchester areas provide the majority of the traffic for morning London trains.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, but it could be diverted via Warrington (after Chat Moss electrification) without causing any disadvantage to Stockport, Stoke, Macclesfield or Wilmslow passengers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the WAG aren't willing to negotiate an extension to the service they may finish up with North Wales losing direct Manchester services or being told if they want a Manchester service that doesn't continue beyond Manchester then it will have to go via Altrincham.

Hopefully now the WAG has been gifted electrification to Swansea and the Valleys they will have their hands too full to interfere much in the north.
In any case, Cheshire is not their patch, and ATW is not their tame TOC to order about (unlike Scotrail).

There's a long way to go before any of this Northern Hub stuff comes to fruition, including franchise renewal for everybody and more devolution to Cardiff and the PTEs to come, plus a number of rolling stock cascades.

The WAG are on record as wanting more journeys beyond current ATW termini, and Leeds has been mentioned.
You can debate the routes of 2tph from Chester via Chat Moss under Northern Hub and come up with multiple options and stopping patterns.
One going to Piccadilly (or beyond) and another to Victoria (or beyond) would seem a good start.
One of them should be semi-fast - current journey times are too slow.
I'd be happy with a 175 as now to Piccadilly and a 185 semi-fast to Leeds via the Calder Valley, possibly starting from Wrexham.

 

[pemma]

The WAG are on record as wanting more journeys beyond current ATW termini, and Leeds has been mentioned.
You can debate the routes of 2tph from Chester via Chat Moss under Northern Hub and come up with multiple options and stopping patterns.
One going to Piccadilly (or beyond) and another to Victoria (or beyond) would seem a good start.
One of them should be semi-fast - current journey times are too slow.
I'd be happy with a 175 as now to Piccadilly and a 185 semi-fast to Leeds via the Calder Valley, possibly starting from Wrexham.

The new service you're suggesting between Wrexham and Chester is obviously outside the scope of the Northern Hub, so it would require WAG or the local council/MP to put forward a good case for extra services and rolling stock.

Like I said terminating services from the west at Manchester doesn't fit in well with the existing and proposed changes to the infrastructure. This will be more of an issue at Victoria than Piccadilly platforms 13/14 currently if maximum potential from the Ordsall Chord is to be obtained. So somewhere beyond Victoria for the trains to go needs to be found before any Chester/North Wales services are sent there.

 

[merlodlliw]

The new service you're suggesting between Wrexham and Chester is obviously outside the scope of the Northern Hub, so it would require WAG or the local council/MP to put forward a good case for extra services and rolling stock.

Like I said terminating services from the west at Manchester doesn't fit in well with the existing and proposed changes to the infrastructure. This will be more of an issue at Victoria than Piccadilly platforms 13/14 currently if maximum potential from the Ordsall Chord is to be obtained. So somewhere beyond Victoria for the trains to go needs to be found before any Chester/North Wales services are sent there.

With the dual track from Wrexham to Chester due in a couple of years,there will be scope for more traffic, in the meantime we have WG sponsored buses running Wrexham to Chester station every 12 minutes,for around 18 hours a day,

 

[cymro inside]

there are major capacity improvements planned between Chester and Manchester Piccadilly this autumn.ATW have been working on their timetable enhancements for later in the year watch this space....

 

[John55]

I said 2 northbound and 2 southbound trains a day.

Does the 06:27 Manchester-London via Macclesfield service really need to go via Macclesfield when it's overtaken by another Manchester-London via Macclesfield service?

On Friday's there's already a London-Manchester service which doesn't call at Stockport, Stoke, Macclesfield or Wilmslow that is overtaken by another service which departs Euston 3 minutes later.

If Virgin don't have any crews who sign via Warrington after electrification then doesn't that defeat the objective of alternative electrified routes for London services to use during disruption?

I replied talking about 2 trains per day.

The 06:27 is a Manchester - Birmingham - London train which is run for the Wolverhampton - London traffic as much as anything else so not really part of the Manchester - London service as it seems to be overtaken by 4 trains en route. For the same reason useless for Warrington or Crewe traffic to London. I presume there is some odd franchise issue so it runs like this as with the odd Northampton service run by Virgin.

A similar problem would apply to any other service diverted vis Warrington BQ it becomes useless for the end to end traffic as it would be overtaken by the next train out of Piccadilly. The Friday 18:57 is called a relief train and is slightly different as it is coping with lots of passengers to Manchester and is only 5 minutes slower than the 19:00 via Stoke.

It just seems perverse to me to reduce the frequency on the Manchester - London route at the busiest time of day (early morning).

 

[pemma]

A similar problem would apply to any other service diverted vis Warrington BQ it becomes useless for the end to end traffic as it would be overtaken by the next train out of Piccadilly. The Friday 18:57 is called a relief train and is slightly different as it is coping with lots of passengers to Manchester and is only 5 minutes slower than the 19:00 via Stoke.

Virgin are extremely good at getting passengers to travel on the train they want them to travel on with the huge difference in peak and off-peak fares, the non-standard off-peak restrictions and the number of advance tickets on trains.

Warrington-Manchester is 1 hr 44 to 1 hr 52. Warrington Bank Quay to Piccadilly could be done in 32 minutes by a non-stop Pendolino and Virgin would be given priority with paths as has been proved around Stockport, Crewe and Wolverhampton.

The Manchester to London services with the usual calling pattern average 2 hr 8 minutes.

I don't see why this would mean no-one would use the train end to end. By the same logic for Manchester Piccadilly-Liverpool, which has 3 fast trains per hour, no-one would use the EMT service westbound for end to end journeys because it takes 54 minutes and the Northern service that follows it takes 47 minutes.

 

[a22book]

there are major capacity improvements planned between Chester and Manchester Piccadilly this autumn.ATW have been working on their timetable enhancements for later in the year watch this space....

WOW imporvements on this line! about time too, anymore details ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

there are major capacity improvements planned between Chester and Manchester Piccadilly this autumn.ATW have been working on their timetable enhancements for later in the year watch this space....

Do you mean more trains or better infrastructure?
With NR getting into its stride on wiring the Chat Moss line I would be surprised if there were any major changes - plenty of diversions, possibly.

 

[Holly]

duplicate, sorry

 

[pemma]

there are major capacity improvements planned between Chester and Manchester Piccadilly this autumn.ATW have been working on their timetable enhancements for later in the year watch this space....

Considering ATW aren't getting any additional stock I can't see how any changes will be 'major.' All I can see is some trains being re-timed to better suit demand and possibly better utilisation of train carriages to add some capacity to the busiest services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With NR getting into its stride on wiring the Chat Moss line I would be surprised if there were any major changes - plenty of diversions, possibly.

If it's only the Warrington Bank Quay to Piccadilly section affected I can see ATW doing turnbacks at Warrington Bank Quay some weekends and offering stopping replacement bus services between Warrington and Manchester and express bus services between Chester and Manchester. Then Chester-Manchester will opt for the slower Northern service instead of the replacement buses and Manchester bound trains will turn up at Knutsford being too full to pick anyone up - like on previous occasions.

 

[BigVern]

All of which just goes to show how bad the mid-Cheshire line has become consequential to elimination of 25kV at Altrincham and Manchester services cut short to Stockport Station in order to give Piccadilly paths to Virgin.

So bad that it would make sense to electrify Northwich to WCML (all three miles of it!) and run Manchester services from Northwich that way. It would be electric instead of diesel, a lot faster and would take pressure off Stockport viaduct.

Holly - why not electrify Northwich to Sandbach. Extend the Alderley Edge terminators to Northwich. No new paths required between Stockport and Piccadilly.

 

[Holly]

Holly - why not electrify Northwich to Sandbach. Extend the Alderley Edge terminators to Northwich. No new paths required between Stockport and Piccadilly.

You know, I think a circular service would be the way to go if the Middlewich branch were upgraded.

Crewe - Sandbach - Middlewich (re-instated station) - Northwich (reverse) - Greenbank - Acton Bridge (change here for Liverpool) - Warrington Bank Quay - Manchester Oxford Road - Manchester Airport (reverse) - Sandbach - Crewe.
And counter clockwise.

That creates a lot of new travel opportunities and (after electrification and redoubling of Middlewich) solves the problem of commuting time from Northwich to Manchester being too slow to be useful. Of course that's a much bigger project than just electrifying Northwich - WCML which would be a valuable first inexpensive step.

 

[pemma]

You know, I think a circular service would be the way to go if the Middlewich branch were upgraded.

Crewe - Sandbach - Middlewich (re-instated station) - Northwich (reverse) - Greenbank - Acton Bridge (change here for Liverpool) - Warrington Bank Quay - Manchester Oxford Road - Manchester Airport (reverse) - Sandbach - Crewe.
And counter clockwise.

That creates a lot of new travel opportunities and (after electrification and redoubling of Middlewich) solves the problem of commuting time from Northwich to Manchester being too slow to be useful. Of course that's a much bigger project than just electrifying Northwich - WCML which would be a valuable first inexpensive step.

If the Middlewich line was upgraded and electrified it could be used for diverted Pendolinos and not just diverted Voyagers. Of course you'd need more than a weekly freight working to justify electrification.

The problem with changing at Acton Bridge is the current LM paths only allow the 350s to call at 2 out of Winsford, Hartford and Acton Bridge. If Acton Bridge gets an hourly service to Liverpool then Winsford and Hartford would only be able to have 2-hourly services.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Are P15 and P16 confirmed then?

They sure are

 

[Holly]

... The problem with changing at Acton Bridge is the current LM paths only allow the 350s to call at 2 out of Winsford, Hartford and Acton Bridge. If Acton Bridge gets an hourly service to Liverpool then Winsford and Hartford would only be able to have 2-hourly services.

You could solve that by relocating Acton Bridge station to the nearby quad track section at Weaverham. Or Hartford station, or both combined in a Victoria/Exchange long platform arrangement. Of course with new construction someone would then want platforms on the mid-Cheshire line and disabled access routes between. More expense, out of sight.

It has long been the case that Hartford and Acton Bridge station should have been combined and replaced by a better placed station situated on the short quad section between the two. I remember people talking about that as far back as 1952; it never happened. A single construction that is technically two stations overcomes train station closing legalities.

All of which is a long way from just running a few peak hour commuter services between Northwich, Greenbank and Manchester via Warrington, which would provide a lot of the benefits for a tiny fraction of the cost.

 

[stockport1]

You could solve that by relocating Acton Bridge station to the nearby quad track section at Weaverham. Or Hartford station, or both combined in a Victoria/Exchange long platform arrangement. Of course with new construction someone would then want platforms on the mid-Cheshire line and disabled access routes between. More expense, out of sight.

It has long been the case that Hartford and Acton Bridge station should have been combined and replaced by a better placed station situated on the short quad section between the two. I remember people talking about that as far back as 1952; it never happened. A single construction that is technically two stations overcomes train station closing legalities.

All of which is a long way from just running a few peak hour commuter services between Northwich, Greenbank and Manchester via Warrington, which would provide a lot of the benefits for a tiny fraction of the cost.

If winsford-wearver jcn 4 tracking does ever happen hartford should be extended/moved to become an interchange between WCML and mid cheshire lines.

In the event of this stretch being 4 tracked hartford would have to be demplished and the lovely road bridge too.

by moving hartford as suggested there could be a case for closing acton bridge AND greenbank as both are in a reasonable vicinity.

hartford 4 platform WCML with 2 through express lines
and 2 platform on mid cheshire line.

also maybe a chord to connect mid-chesh -> WCML south. the middlewich line is single track. i dont think it has ever been double and the embankments dont look big enough for an extra line.
Also - If middlewich station were ever reinstated another stop built at gadbrook business park - possibly a parkway - should be considered to serve gadbrook and provide park and ride to knutsford/stockport/manchester to relieve A556 congestion.

 

[pemma]

by moving hartford as suggested there could be a case for closing acton bridge AND greenbank as both are in a reasonable vicinity.

Slight issue there.

St Nicholas High School (at the end of Greenbank Lane with 1200 pupils on role) has a catchment area including Mobberley, Knutsford, Plumley, Lostock Gralam, Northwich, Cuddington and Delamere. A number of subsided bus services from these places will be withdrawn as of tomorrow. Can you guess where a few hundred school kids are going to go instead? Yes Greenbank station, along with the Mid-Cheshire and Hartford High school pupils already using it.

So you'll be talking about disadvantaging around 600 school and college age pupils everyday by moving it. I can't see any consultation to do that going down well!

Also - If middlewich station were ever reinstated another stop built at gadbrook business park - possibly a parkway - should be considered to serve gadbrook and provide park and ride to knutsford/stockport/manchester to relieve A556 congestion.

A Rudheath station is already included as a possible phase 2 plan. Phase 1 would be an hourly shuttle between Northwich and Crewe with calls at Sandbach and Middlewich. Phase 2 would see it become an Altrincham-Crewe service.

 

[stockport1]

correct. and hartford high and mid cheshire college.

I used to live on greenbank lane around 35 years ago too so i should have thought of this myself haha
greenbank station was quite nice back then as i remember.
then again whole greenbank area has deteriorated......