Diversions through Cheadle Health on the ex-Midland

[Philip]

I was wondering has the freight line between Hazel Grove and Cheadle Heath ever been used for Hope Valley diversions in recent years and if not are any DMUs cleared to run over it? I realise it requires a reversal at Northenden but that aside it seems odd to miss out Stockport completely and run via Romiley if it's only the line through Davenport that is unavailable.

 

[DanTrain]

I was wondering has the freight line between Hazel Grove and Cheadle Heath ever been used for Hope Valley diversions in recent years and if not are any DMUs cleared to run over it? I realise it requires a reversal at Northenden but that aside it seems odd to miss out Stockport completely and run via Romiley if it's only the line through Davenport that is unavailable.

Seems a bit ott when the Romiley line is just as fast and not too full. Stockport isn’t a major stop and is a quick change at Manchester, it makes much more sense to just miss it out than undertake some lengthy, faffy diversity I’d have thought?

 

[Philip]

Seems a bit ott when the Romiley line is just as fast and not too full. Stockport isn’t a major stop and is a quick change at Manchester, it makes much more sense to just miss it out than undertake some lengthy, faffy diversity I’d have thought?

I don't know what the journey time is between Hazel Grove and Northenden - does the line speed remain at 90mph all the way to Cheadle Heath curve? If so I doubt it would lose much time, given that it's a crawl over the Hazel Grove chord. But it was more a question of whether it has happened before and whether it could happen in theory (ie. if the rolling stock is cleared and if any traincrew sign the stretch).

 

[LowLevel]

I don't know what the journey time is between Hazel Grove and Northenden - does the line speed remain at 90mph all the way to Cheadle Heath curve? If so I doubt it would lose much time, given that it's a crawl over the Hazel Grove chord. But it was more a question of whether it has happened before and whether it could happen in theory (ie. if the rolling stock is cleared and if any traincrew sign the stretch).

It's now a freight line and has a much lower line speed. No passenger train crew have any route knowledge over it.

Running via Romiley for EMT and TPE or via Huddersfield for TPE are the only diversions used.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't know what the journey time is between Hazel Grove and Northenden - does the line speed remain at 90mph all the way to Cheadle Heath curve? If so I doubt it would lose much time, given that it's a crawl over the Hazel Grove chord. But it was more a question of whether it has happened before and whether it could happen in theory (ie. if the rolling stock is cleared and if any traincrew sign the stretch).

The Cheadle Heath line is 20-45mph, mostly 30mph, so no racetrack.
Not a viable diversion route really.
I fondly remember the climb from there up to Peak Forest in the 60s.

 

[Class 170101]

I was wondering has the freight line between Hazel Grove and Cheadle Heath ever been used for Hope Valley diversions in recent years and if not are any DMUs cleared to run over it? I realise it requires a reversal at Northenden but that aside it seems odd to miss out Stockport completely and run via Romiley if it's only the line through Davenport that is unavailable.

The mainline from Northenden Jn to Stockport is also single track in part so even if the freight line was considered for diversionary purposes I doubt there would be paths for additional trains this way.

As noted a ticket easement via Manchester is better and probably the journey as quick as the Rail Replacement Bus.

 

[Philip]

On a more general point, why are freight lines often limited to such slow speeds? There ought to be some priority for speed even for freight. And on a personal note the sound of a big heavy goods storming along an old set of noisy rails isn't a bad sound to listen to!

 

[Class 170101]

On a more general point, why are freight lines often limited to such slow speeds? There ought to be some priority for speed even for freight. And on a personal note the sound of a big heavy goods storming along an old set of noisy rails isn't a bad sound to listen to!

The slower the speed the less the track wear and track damage caused surely?

 

[Philip]

The slower the speed the less the track wear and track damage caused surely?

Then why not improve the maintenance of freight lines to allow for faster running? Also it seems a bit of a waste of the power of the loco that is pulling the goods train if it is only reaching half or less of its top speed for much of th way.

 

[The Planner]

Then why not improve the maintenance of freight lines to allow for faster running? Also it seems a bit of a waste of the power of the loco that is pulling the goods train if it is only reaching half or less of its top speed for much of th way.

For much the same reasons as for passenger lines. What benefit is there against the cost of doing it? Just because a freight train can do 60mph, does it need to do it? Is it going to suddenly save a vast amount of time or money on a commodity that isn't always time critical?

 

[Philip]

For much the same reasons as for passenger lines. What benefit is there against the cost of doing it? Just because a freight train can do 60mph, does it need to do it? Is it going to suddenly save a vast amount of time or money on a commodity that isn't always time critical?

The rail freight companies are competing against road haulage so speed ought to be a priority. And there really is no place for jointed rail in a safe and modern railway, it should all be welded whether it is passenger or freight-only.

 

[LowLevel]

Then why not improve the maintenance of freight lines to allow for faster running? Also it seems a bit of a waste of the power of the loco that is pulling the goods train if it is only reaching half or less of its top speed for much of th way.

Train load freight which is what you see nowadays is designed to get very large quantities of the cargo to a given location at a specific time. It's up to the railway to run the trains to suit this. An express intermodal service will run mostly via mainlines as quickly as possible. Shifting landfill rubbish or large chunks of Derbyshire around the country is nowhere near as time critical.

You don't need to haul stone trains quickly. They'd smash the railway to bits flying around at 75 mph and would probably be in the sea before you managed to stop them. The same applies to coal - You're inevitably replenishing a stockpile.

The rail freight companies are competing against road haulage so speed ought to be a priority. And there really is no place for jointed rail in a safe and modern railway, it should all be welded whether it is passenger or freight-only.

There's no point in ripping up perfectly serviceable jointed track with life left in it. It will be removed when it's cost efficient to do so as it is indeed a maintenance liability but there are applications for which welded rail is unsuitable, like tight radius curves. There are better things to spend money on.

With respect you appear to have got an idea in your head which you have little or no actual knowledge or experience of. If you think freight is struggling to compete now imagine what it would cost to use if every branch line was maintained to the same standards as the West Coast mainline.

 

[Philip]

Fair enough. I just like to see either closed lines reopen or operational but rarely used lines restored to their former glory. Another example in the area is he Atherton fast lines, why these were taken up and thus an express route to Wigan, Southport and Liverpool removed seems a mystery.

 

[edwin_m]

Fair enough. I just like to see either closed lines reopen or operational but rarely used lines restored to their former glory. Another example in the area is he Atherton fast lines, why these were taken up and thus an express route to Wigan, Southport and Liverpool removed seems a mystery.

Probably because two fast routes between Manchester and Liverpool remain, both serving Lime Street which was the obvious choice to keep open as Liverpool's station for long-distance services. Liverpool trains serving Wigan had a time-consuming diversion off the through line. The Bolton route provides an alternative for Wigan and Southport.

 

[Senex]

Probably because two fast routes between Manchester and Liverpool remain, both serving Lime Street which was the obvious choice to keep open as Liverpool's station for long-distance services. Liverpool trains serving Wigan had a time-consuming diversion off the through line. The Bolton route provides an alternative for Wigan and Southport.

Two fast routes? Neither seems particularly fast to me, with both significantly under mile-a-minute between the two cities. Aren't those of you who are still going to be alive then going to have to wait optimistically for NPR to see fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester?
We do not seem to have come too far in more than a century. In Edwardian times there were three fast routes between Liverpool and Manchester and a fourth route carrying only local traffic. In addition to slow and semi-fast trains, there were hourly fast trains on the LNW line taking 40 minutes Lime Street to Exchange, most of them with a call at Edge Hill. And there were hourly fast trains on the L&Y taking 40 minutes non-stop Exchange to Victoria and using the Wigan Avoiding Line and the fast lines from Crow Nest Jn to Manchester. The CLC's principal hourly service from Central to Central took 45 minutes for most trains because they used the Warrington Loop. The small number of trains using the Straight Line (in 1910 5 eastbound and 2 westbound) took the same 40 minutes as the LNW and L&Y fast services.
The point about concentrating long-distance services on Lime Street as the Liverpool "Hauptbahnhof" is of course a good one and was paralleled by the development of Manchester Piccadilly to serve the same sort of function—now abandoned again so that Manchester's long-distance traffic is split once more between two stations. (And there was a loser in Liverpool, with the closure of Exchange meaning a very substantial slowing between Liverpool and Preston.)
It's interesting to compare services between Liverpool and Manchester to what is now available between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The "Beeching 2" report of 1965 analysed the 5 routes between Manchester and Liverpool (as well as Chat Moss, CLC and L&Y they also had via Tyldesley/St Helens (LNW) and via Lymm/Widnes (also LNW).
They chose the CLC and St Helens routes for development (although the St Helens route was effectively closed soon after as a through route via Tyldesley).
They also envisioned the Tydesley route as the main one between Manchester and the WCML.
There were some poor predictions for future traffic on these routes.
The CLC had "good connections into the Liverpool docks" (not true, and all gone now anyway), and good connections towards Sheffield (Woodhead - ho, ho!).
The coalfields along the St Helens route were supposed to have a "long life expectancy".
The L&Y route was described as "indirect", and Wigan could be served by other lines.
The Lymm route actually carried the heaviest freight.

All this preceded the major terminal rationalisation around 1968 which lost us Central and Exchange stations in both Manchester and Liverpool.
In particular that crippled the CLC route at both ends, and lost us the L&Y routes out of Liverpool (although we got the Link/Loop lines in Liverpool).

 

[edwin_m]

Two fast routes? Neither seems particularly fast to me, with both significantly under mile-a-minute between the two cities. Aren't those of you who are still going to be alive then going to have to wait optimistically for NPR to see fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester?
We do not seem to have come too far in more than a century. In Edwardian times there were three fast routes between Liverpool and Manchester and a fourth route carrying only local traffic. In addition to slow and semi-fast trains, there were hourly fast trains on the LNW line taking 40 minutes Lime Street to Exchange, most of them with a call at Edge Hill. And there were hourly fast trains on the L&Y taking 40 minutes non-stop Exchange to Victoria and using the Wigan Avoiding Line and the fast lines from Crow Nest Jn to Manchester. The CLC's principal hourly service from Central to Central took 45 minutes for most trains because they used the Warrington Loop. The small number of trains using the Straight Line (in 1910 5 eastbound and 2 westbound) took the same 40 minutes as the LNW and L&Y fast services.

Fast is of course relative but your post confirms that the L&Y route was no faster than the others, so keeping it as a through route wouldn't have made much difference to overall journey times.