Crewe Hub government paper March 2018

[Holly]

Crewe Hub government paper March 2018
Although the paper title says:
High Speed Two: Crewe Hub
Consultation Response
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport by Command of Her Majesty
March 2018

- actually, a lot of the paper is not specifically about HS2.
For example discussion of freight at Crewe and the new platform to be built on the Manchester Independent lines.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...001/crewe-hub-consultation-response-print.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

400m through platforms to allow splitting of HS2 trains, new platform on Independent Lines (or reopen "P13" (old P1), new western and possibly eastern entrances.
HS2 in phase 2a to join current through fast lines south of the station (with another junction to the north allowing HS2 trains to loop through the station).
It gives clarity to NR on how to redesign the station layout for the CP6 resignalling.

No real clarity on new services via the hub, though Stoke/Macclesfield would get an HS2 service using the path vacated by the doubled-up Liverpool/Preston.
It's noticeable that the requests for though HS2 services via the Crewe hub were dominated first by Chester and then North Wales.​

 

[The Planner]

NR led most of it so not sure how it gives us clarity!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

NR led most of it so not sure how it gives us clarity!

Well, maybe the promise(?) of funding!

 

[HSTEd]

Taking over two of the platforms at Crewe for HS2 services seems reasonable.

I assume they will be rebuilt to HS2 compatible gauging so a captive gauged train could call at Crewe on the way to Manchester or similar?

 

[The Planner]

Doubt it, especially when I am still of the belief there won't be captive sets.

 

[6Gman]

A quick read through prompts a few thoughts:

1. They still don't seem to know what the station would actually look like, or how it would operate. If Plats 5 & 6 are to be HS2 platforms how much capacity does that leave for non-HS2?
2. They talk about reopening Platform 13 but how does that help keeping the Manchester - South Wales away from the flat junctions?
3. Is the Platform on the Manchester Independents literally a single platform? Presumably on a Up & Down Road? Can understand the freight operators not being thrilled by that option.

 

[rebmcr]

Doubt it, especially when I am still of the belief there won't be captive sets.

For phase 1 only, or for the whole thing?

 

[The Planner]

2. They talk about reopening Platform 13 but how does that help keeping the Manchester - South Wales away from the flat junctions?
3. Is the Platform on the Manchester Independents literally a single platform? Presumably on a Up & Down Road? Can understand the freight operators not being thrilled by that option.

You have answered your own question, the Manchester South Wales end up on the Independents via the tunnels. It is 1tph in each direction, it isn't going to ruin freight even if it went to 2tph.

For phase 1 only, or for the whole thing?

The whole lot, why have two sets of trains when it will be cheaper and more flexible to just have the one?

 

[6Gman]

You have answered your own question, the Manchester South Wales end up on the Independents via the tunnels. It is 1tph in each direction, it isn't going to ruin freight even if it went to 2tph.

Well, not really because they seem to be talking about (potentially) "reopening" Platform 13, by which they seem to mean what some of us remember as Platform 1, as an alternative to a platform on the Independent(s). If they actually mean two platforms on the Independents then it should be straightforward. If they mean one platform ...

And the Manchester Independents are actually a long way from the rest of the station.

 

[Bevan Price]

A lot of unanswered questions, especially about whether some existing WCML services will remain, or will they all be replaced by services using parts of HS2 ?

And if the existing WCML services go, Liverpool seems to suffer a loss of seating capacity if it only receives "short length (200m. maximum)" trains. And alternatively, how /where would they fit 400 m trains into Liverpool ? Lme Street can just take 11 coach Pendolinos (under 300 m. long) and the site geometry does not permit any easy way to extend platform lengths to 400 m.

 

[edwin_m]

Under all version of the timetable discussed in this timetable, Liverpool gets two London trains every hour compared with one via WCML at present, so it is one of the main beneficiaries in terms of seats as well as frequency.

I assume the "re-opening platform 13" would be building some kind of loop off the Independents, so also avoiding the conflict at the North Junction but being a bit closer for passengers and perhaps interfering with freight slightly less. It looks difficult to do though, unless the trains stop near the south end which is probably further for passengers to walk from the station entrance than if there was a platform on the Independents near the Nantwich Road bridge. If that north end option is achievable the extra walk to the Independents isn't much further than the length of the existing station bridge.

 

[MarkyT]

Well, not really because they seem to be talking about (potentially) "reopening" Platform 13, by which they seem to mean what some of us remember as Platform 1, as an alternative to a platform on the Independent(s). If they actually mean two platforms on the Independents then it should be straightforward. If they mean one platform ...
And the Manchester Independents are actually a long way from the rest of the station.

Perhaps the debate is whether to place the new platform(s) on the existing independent alignment, which is a fair way from the rest of the station, or whether to divert the Manchester lines closer to the station. It might be possible to 'take the lid off' part if the underpass over the low level lines further north and begin the curve and incline into the station further back, hence making possible a new site closer to the station, where the old platform 13 was. I would expect a pair of platforms for the Manchester Shrewsbury axis, although with the length available at Crewe perhaps the two platforms could be arranged end to end 'Cambridge style' along the old #13 with a scissors in the middle. That would avoid a complete new platform for the northbound on the west side with associated new access requirements.

And if the existing WCML services go, Liverpool seems to suffer a loss of seating capacity if it only receives "short length (200m. maximum)" trains. And alternatively, how /where would they fit 400 m trains into Liverpool ? Lme Street can just take 11 coach Pendolinos (under 300 m. long) and the site geometry does not permit any easy way to extend platform lengths to 400 m.

Complete 400m trains are not destined for Liverpool, clearly. One an hour is currently proposed to be a part train, split from a Preston portion at Crewe, while the other will run on its own all the way from Euston. In theory the latter could be train longer than a standard 200m 'half train'. I don't know what the eventual fleet mix will be but it seems likey at least some of the CCs will be Pendolino length equivalents for running singly to Scotland. It's also possible the standard train lengths could be unequal at say approx 250m and 150m respectively to reflect differences in demand for portion working and fit existing platforms while still being able to be combined to form a full 400m consist.

 

[WatcherZero]

The TfGM franchising consultation response on West Coast services was they wanted one fast sub 2 hour service and then the other two should make as many stops as possible en-route.

 

[The Planner]

Don't go into crayonista world with this, it will be the cheapest option. It will be one platform on the existing Independents, not a loop or new lines. HS2 trains will be fixed 200m sets.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't go into crayonista world with this, it will be the cheapest option. It will be one platform on the existing Independents, not a loop or new lines. HS2 trains will be fixed 200m sets.

Near the existing main footbridge, it is approx. 60m from the old platform #13 face to the up Manchester Independent line, not very far at all really and certainly not worth moving the alignment to reduce I agree. It's only about three coach lengths and perfectly acceptable if the walkway is sufficiently protected and attractively designed. What I can't tell for sure is if the Independents are level for a train length in that vicinity. I assume they probably do stay at the same low level as the north junction underpass, as they also pass under the Shrewsbury line bridge south of the station. With such a new platform site on the Independent alignment, surely some sort of new ramped connection through the old depot area will be required to join to the Shrewsbury lines to the east of that bridge, or the trains would have to cross all the freight flows on the flat. New junction configuration would be required in either case. When you say one platform do you imply a single face or a new platform that could actually be an island between the two lines.

Is Crayonista World a new chain of arts and crafts supply outlets?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why wouldn't this new underpass platform also handle London-Wilmslow-Manchester route services (which will increase in frequency during Phase 2a)?
Otherwise these are still crossing the station layout (including the HS2 fast lines) on the flat.

 

[The Planner]

It will be a single face. Not sure why the Manchester services will increase, they will just be replaced.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It will be a single face. Not sure why the Manchester services will increase, they will just be replaced.

Once HS2a reaches Crewe, 2 of the 3tph Euston-Manchester will route via Crewe (won't they?), leaving just one via Stoke.
Plus the extra main line services (Preston, Liverpool), ie more pressure on North Jn.
Maybe the remodelling will address this.

 

[HSTEd]

The whole lot, why have two sets of trains when it will be cheaper and more flexible to just have the one?

Because standardisation of rolling stock is not something the modern railway cares about?
Microfleets are the name of the game now.

And Captive Sets can physically carry more people than CC ones.

 

[MarkyT]

And Captive Sets can physically carry more people than CC ones.

They might not be able to if they're all 2+2 single deckers. A common fleet definitely makes sense at the beginning as the one entirely captive route to Birmingham in phase 1 will employ only a very small proportion of the total initial fleet. I'd say only order trains of a different design in later phases if double deck capacity is warranted by demand build up. CC trains could also plausibly make diversions over conventional lines where that is expedient.

 

[The Planner]

Maybe the remodelling will address this.

Nothing will happen at the north end, this will be as cheap and cheerful as it can be.

 

[driver_m]

Intrigued as to why they've said the south facing bays can only fit 4 car trains. Some can clearly fit more than that. Our 221s have been put in 2, 7 and 8 on occasions. Can't argue with the planners thinking that the cheapest option will be picked, but if 13 was to be reintroduced, wouldn't that require some seriously expensive reworking of the pointwork at the south end of the Station?

Its a pity that the EMU siding can't be turned into a platform to keep pl1 clear for a bit more flexibility. That's a serious capacity eater leaving the 323 in there for periods when it could aid the arrivals into Crewe at about 20 past the hour. (A 350 arrival from Liverpool and 3 pendos arrive in quick succession in a 15 min interval)

 

[rebmcr]

I am still of the belief there won't be captive sets.

For phase 1 only, or for the whole thing?

The whole lot, why have two sets of trains when it will be cheaper and more flexible to just have the one?

Because standardisation of rolling stock is not something the modern railway cares about?
Microfleets are the name of the game now.

And Captive Sets can physically carry more people than CC ones.

They might not be able to if they're all 2+2 single deckers. A common fleet definitely makes sense at the beginning as the one entirely captive route to Birmingham in phase 1 will employ only a very small proportion of the total initial fleet. I'd say only order trains of a different design in later phases if double deck capacity is warranted by demand build up. CC trains could also plausibly make diversions over conventional lines where that is expedient.

I do think it's more likely that compatibles make up the entire Phase 1 order, with cheaper off-the-shelf models augmenting the fleet for Phase 2.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Taking over two of the platforms at Crewe for HS2 services seems reasonable.
I assume they will be rebuilt to HS2 compatible gauging so a captive gauged train could call at Crewe on the way to Manchester or similar?

Definitely not, as that would also require remodelling of the section between Basford Hall and Winsford-ish - they don't fit on the "normal" railway, hence CAPTIVE, on HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Definitely not, as that would also require remodelling of the section between Basford Hall and Winsford-ish - they don't fit on the "normal" railway, hence CAPTIVE, on HS2.

But the two platforms won't bepart of the 'normal' railway any more.
Skimping out on relatively minor regauging works over a few miles of twin track railway sounds like short sighted penny pinching.

They will already be tearing the entire Crewe area apart anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, it sounds as though the existing station is likely to remain in use, which is wonderful news as far as I'm concerned.

 

[The Planner]

But the two platforms won't bepart of the 'normal' railway any more.
Skimping out on relatively minor regauging works over a few miles of twin track railway sounds like short sighted penny pinching.

Yes they will, in the same way Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Liverpool etc etc won't have separate platforms.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

...
Skimping out on relatively minor regauging works over a few miles of twin track railway sounds like short sighted penny pinching.

They will already be tearing the entire Crewe area apart anyway.

Have you ever been to Crewe, or looked at it on a map? Do so, then tell me that moving all the main line tracks at Crewe 600mm further apart for over four miles, plus dealing with the issues with the station canopy, independent lines tunnels, some retaining walls in residential areas and at least one highway over bridge is "relatively minor" - or do you not know what UIC GC looks like?

Who is tearing Crewe apart? Everything mentioned about the scheme so far suggests that the usual cheap half a job will be the order of the day; 1985 all over again.

 

[All Line Rover]

There is a run-down, but not derelict, platform a short distance behind platform 12 - fenced off to the public, but frequented by people who are, presumably, FOC staff. Is this the mooted "platform 13"?