Halton Curve upgrade is on

[mpb56125]

The track re-joins the original formation under the busway bridge. Possibly slewed for a slightly higher speed at Halton Junction or to do with new point's going in at Halton Junction.

Mark

 

[frodshamfella]

Those photos appear to show that the track is being completely relaid? Is that really necessary? I was under the impression it just needed signalling, and work at the junctions at the two ends of the line to allow it to be bi-directional?

Pictures look great, nice to see the investment going in.

 

[B&I]

Hold on a minute. Is money really being spent to prevent the line being redoubled in future ? Isn't that a teensy bit short-sighted ?

 

[driver_m]

Hold on a minute. Is money really being spent to prevent the line being redoubled in future ? Isn't that a teensy bit short-sighted ?

Not really .There's nothing insurmountable, say, like the bridge over the A483 near Wrexham which prevented full redoubling of the Chester-Wrexham line .Like the Planner said, there's no need for it at the moment. You'd only need it if the service at Runcorn was regularly getting stitched up which is unlikely with a one an hour service.

 

[mpb56125]

Not really .There's nothing insurmountable, say, like the bridge over the A483 near Wrexham which prevented full redoubling of the Chester-Wrexham line .Like the Planner said, there's no need for it at the moment. You'd only need it if the service at Runcorn was regularly getting stitched up which is unlikely with a one an hour service.

Just checked the rest of the line and there is still room for double track further down if required.

Mark

 

[B&I]

Not really .There's nothing insurmountable, say, like the bridge over the A483 near Wrexham which prevented full redoubling of the Chester-Wrexham line .Like the Planner said, there's no need for it at the moment. You'd only need it if the service at Runcorn was regularly getting stitched up which is unlikely with a one an hour service.

I appreciate it's nothing that can't be reversed, but if you have 2 ways of doing things, and 1 of them involves work which would have to be undone to increase capcity in future, and this way of doing it does not create any immediate operational benefits, why would you do it that way ?

 

[The Planner]

Because the decision has been made on the basis on perceived growth over the next 40 years on how many services are likely to be needed. The chord isnt long enough to require doubling in my opinion, it would easily do 2tph in each direction and more.

 

[B&I]

Because the decision has been made on the basis on perceived growth over the next 40 years on how many services are likely to be needed. The chord isnt long enough to require doubling in my opinion, it would easily do 2tph in each direction and more.

The chord could have 4 TPH an hour - 2 stoppers between Liverpool and Chester, a Liverpool-South Wales and a Liverpool-North Wales service. Surely we're not going to have to wait 40 years to see that level of provision ? And quite apart from that, why design things in the first place in a way that limits future expansion without further work being required to undo the work you've already done ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Doubling the junctions at either end would be expensive.
There's probably still scope to create a loop facility on the single line without changing the junctions, if needed.
Traffic levels have yet to be proved.

 

[The Planner]

The chord could have 4 TPH an hour - 2 stopperd between Liverpool and Chester, a Liverpool-South Wales and a Liverpool-North Wales service. Surely we're not going to have to wait 40 years to see that level of provision ? And quite apart from that, why design things in the first place in a way that limits future expansion without further work being required to undo the work you've already done ?

Is there a proven demand for that level of service? The chord isnt exactly long to require doubling.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The chord could have 4 TPH an hour - 2 stopperd between Liverpool and Chester, a Liverpool-South Wales and a Liverpool-North Wales service. Surely we're not going to have to wait 40 years to see that level of provision ? And quite apart from that, why design things in the first place in a way that limits future expansion without further work being required to undo the work you've already done ?

Designing things in a way that allows future expansion - especially allowing for possible doubling of single track sections - certainly seems sensible. But the devil is in how much extra cost that adds to the current works, and whether that would have made the works unaffordable. I doubt any of us have enough information to tell that reliably. However, my (very uninformed) guess would be that if they'd rebuilt the line slewed over to make way for future double-tracking, that would imply building the track on ground that hasn't had track directly on it for a long time, and which therefore may require additional checks and works to ensure it is strong and stable enough for track to be laid on it. There may also be additional vegetation clearance costs. I've no idea how much that would have added to construction costs, but it seems plausible that ground stabilisation costs could be significant.

I still remain puzzled as to what might have been wrong with the existing track that would require relaying it.

 

[B&I]

Doubling the junctions at either end would be expensive.
There's probably still scope to create a loop facility on the single line without changing the junctions, if needed.
Traffic levels have yet to be proved.

That's all fair enough. I don't expect 4 TPH or the infrastructure to support it from day 1 (though I wonder why anyone is bothering eith the project at all if it is never going to enable more than 1 Liverpool-Chester stopper per hour). If no change was being made to the current track, I could understand why it was not being doubled at this stage.

The point I am trying to make is, why is infrastructure being REPLACED in such a way that the replacement infrastructure will have to be ripped out if higher traffic levels are going to be accommodated ?

 

[B&I]

Designing things in a way that allows future expansion - especially allowing for possible doubling of single track sections - certainly seems sensible. But the devil is in how much extra cost that adds to the current works, and whether that would have made the works unaffordable. I doubt any of us have enough information to tell that reliably. However, my (very uninformed) guess would be that if they'd rebuilt the line slewed over to make way for future double-tracking, that would imply building the track on ground that hasn't had track directly on it for a long time, and which therefore may require additional checks and works to ensure it is strong and stable enough for track to be laid on it. There may also be additional vegetation clearance costs. I've no idea how much that would have added to construction costs, but it seems plausible that ground stabilisation costs could be significant.

I still remain puzzled as to what might have been wrong with the existing track that would require relaying it.

That's the bit which puzzles me too. If the intention was to do this as a quick low cost project, why not just do the bare minimum to get the existing track back into service ? Why move the formation at all ?

 

[cle]

Agreed, best to get it done and operational. And then the market will show us.

I'd think 1tph slow and 1tph fast-er would be a good enough service. They could play with 2 hourly termini of Wrexham, Llandudno and Holyhead in various combinations, as well as Chester. I don't think there is demand for South Wales, and in any event it would be best via Crewe.

What might a LSP and Runcorn only journey time from Liverpool to Chester would be?

 

[frodshamfella]

I appreciate it's nothing that can't be reversed, but if you have 2 ways of doing things, and 1 of them involves work which would have to be undone to increase capcity in future, and this way of doing it does not create any immediate operational benefits, why would you do it that way ?

Yes kind of makes sense, if your going to do it, do it with the future in mind.....mind you we aren't too good at that in the UK ! But whatever I'm just glad its happening.

 

[The Planner]

The point I am trying to make is, why is infrastructure being REPLACED in such a way that the replacement infrastructure will have to be ripped out if higher traffic levels are going to be accommodated ?

Why will it need to be ripped out again? It is less than 2 miles long and 4 minutes is ample to cover the line, add in reoccupation of 3 minutes to be generous and you could have 4 tph over it with no problem.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Now we've seen the Crewe Hub plans and services from the Shrewsbury direction will end up at Platform 13 or even a new station on the Manchester avoiding lines a through service to Liverpool over the curve from Shrewsbury via Wrexham might be more attractive than changing at Crewe West to walk to Crewe.

 

[driver_m]

NR don't like fitting diamond crossings anyway. There isn't room to put a Saltney Junction style of crossing at Halton, you have to likely stick another set of points in further down to effectively create a long loop. If trains were to regularly be held at Ditton to prevent stitching the main line up at Runcorn then yeah, double it, but I agree with the planner. What's there could easily cope with an hourly North Wales and an Hourly South Wales service .Don't forget the new layout at Lime st only allows 3 extra services and most of them seem to be already spoken for .

 

[daikilo]

What I have assumed from the start is that the cost is a result of a top-down set of assumptions turned into fact starting from a single one-way 150 once a week (i.e. nothing) to an hourly bi-di of any sort including possible loco-hauled. If it had been a bottom-up I suspect it could have been much cheaper but would not have a 50-year life.

 

[The Planner]

Now we've seen the Crewe Hub plans and services from the Shrewsbury direction will end up at Platform 13 or even a new station on the Manchester avoiding lines a through service to Liverpool over the curve from Shrewsbury via Wrexham might be more attractive than changing at Crewe West to walk to Crewe.

Its a new platform on the Independents, not a station, it will just link to the existing/new buildings.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Its a new platform on the Independents, not a station, it will just link to the existing/new buildings.

Given the distance it will be from the two currently used island platforms it will have to have different minimum interchange times to the rest of the station*. Journey time from Shrewsbury to Liverpool Lime St is currently highly variable via Crewe ranging from the odd service at around 90 minutes to others over two hours. A consistent through journey time via Wrexham/Chester/Halton maybe more attractive.

* though off thread I don't think the current Southbound Anglo Scottish to Marches connections of 11 minutes will be possible anymore.

 

[frodshamfella]

I was thinking this morning of another single track line I know, and the Exmouth line came to mind. Obviously this is much longer than the curve, however I seem to think it was just once an hour at one time, its now twice, and is heavily used. They seem to cope with it being single with passing places, although I imagine the scope to increase frequencies must be put into question.
So if the Halton curve went to two per hour at some point, serving different destinations in Wales (little point just going as far as Chester in the long run). There are 3 trains per hour plus freight on the Liverpool to Runcorn line now, I have kind of lost track on how many service will run on the North Wales line through Frodsham, its one at the moment. What would the capacity be for all of these sections of line, and what's planned ?

Historically what was the usual pattern on the North Wales line when the Halton Curve was open in the past ??

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Historically what was the usual pattern on the North Wales line when the Halton Curve was open in the past ??

Irregular, typical LNWR mix of peak commuter stoppers and the odd long distance service from Llandudno.
My 1958 timetable shows about 12 Chester-Liverpool services, but very bunched in the peaks, with only a couple of through trains from the coast.
Some of the very early/late trains were connections at Chester into boat train services.
There were long 3-4 hour gaps off peak and evening, and only 2 late trains on Sundays other than the overnight ferry connections.
Some trains are shown to start from Helsby, and were effectively extensions of the Birkenhead-Helsby branch service.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

I was thinking this morning of another single track line I know, and the Exmouth line came to mind. Obviously this is much longer than the curve, however I seem to think it was just once an hour at one time, its now twice, and is heavily used. They seem to cope with it being single with passing places, although I imagine the scope to increase frequencies must be put into question.
So if the Halton curve went to two per hour at some point, serving different destinations in Wales (little point just going as far as Chester in the long run). There are 3 trains per hour plus freight on the Liverpool to Runcorn line now, I have kind of lost track on how many service will run on the North Wales line through Frodsham, its one at the moment. What would the capacity be for all of these sections of line, and what's planned ?

Historically what was the usual pattern on the North Wales line when the Halton Curve was open in the past ??

Don't forget from December that there will be the hourly each way service from Chester to Leeds through Frodsham as well. We have the hourly North Wales/Manchester service and then the extra peak services from Chester to Manchester.
Would there be much scope for freight over the Halton Curve? Can't think of much at the moment but with Liverpool Port expansion and that incinerator at Runcorn there could be some paths required in the future?

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Irregular, typical LNWR mix of peak commuter stoppers and the odd long distance service from Llandudno.
My 1958 timetable shows about 12 Chester-Liverpool services, but very bunched in the peaks, with only a couple of through trains from the coast.
Some of the very early/late trains were connections at Chester into boat train services.
There were long 3-4 hour gaps off peak and evening, and only 2 late trains on Sundays other than the overnight ferry connections.
Some trains are shown to start from Helsby, and were effectively extensions of the Birkenhead-Helsby branch service.

Is there anything to gain from running the third rail down to Helsby and providing an interchange with Merseyrail? I have heard on the grapevine that the Ellesmere Port services to Helsby and WBQ may be retimed to interface better with the Manchester services in the new May timetable so I suppose these could be a gauge of future usage?

 

[frodshamfella]

Is there anything to gain from running the third rail down to Helsby and providing an interchange with Merseyrail? I have heard on the grapevine that the Ellesmere Port services to Helsby and WBQ may be retimed to interface better with the Manchester services in the new May timetable so I suppose these could be a gauge of future usage?

Personally I think running a 3rd rail so the Merseyrail terminates at Helsby is an ace idea. Stopping it at Ellesmere Port is missing an opportunity.

 

[frodshamfella]

I do wonder why anyone really though it was a good idea to mothball the Halton Curve in the 70s, its seems a crazy idea and very short sighted , remembering in those days you had to change at Hooton to reach Chester from Liverpool too.

 

[frodshamfella]

Is there anything to gain from running the third rail down to Helsby and providing an interchange with Merseyrail? I have heard on the grapevine that the Ellesmere Port services to Helsby and WBQ may be retimed to interface better with the Manchester services in the new May timetable so I suppose these could be a gauge of future usage?

Will the new Merseyrail fleet be able to run for while on battery ?

 

[B&I]

Is there anything to gain from running the third rail down to Helsby and providing an interchange with Merseyrail? I have heard on the grapevine that the Ellesmere Port services to Helsby and WBQ may be retimed to interface better with the Manchester services in the new May timetable so I suppose these could be a gauge of future usage?

Have I heard right that Merseyrail are planning to wodge batteries onto one of their new trains and extend some Ellesmere Port services to Helsby using it ? It is an obvious missing link ij the network, creating a complete loop from Liverpool round both banks if the Mersey, and allowing a much better Ellesmere Port-Helsby service.

 

[B&I]

I was thinking this morning of another single track line I know, and the Exmouth line came to mind. Obviously this is much longer than the curve, however I seem to think it was just once an hour at one time, its now twice, and is heavily used. They seem to cope with it being single with passing places, although I imagine the scope to increase frequencies must be put into question.
So if the Halton curve went to two per hour at some point, serving different destinations in Wales (little point just going as far as Chester in the long run). There are 3 trains per hour plus freight on the Liverpool to Runcorn line now, I have kind of lost track on how many service will run on the North Wales line through Frodsham, its one at the moment. What would the capacity be for all of these sections of line, and what's planned ?

Historically what was the usual pattern on the North Wales line when the Halton Curve was open in the past ??

NR don't like fitting diamond crossings anyway. There isn't room to put a Saltney Junction style of crossing at Halton, you have to likely stick another set of points in further down to effectively create a long loop. If trains were to regularly be held at Ditton to prevent stitching the main line up at Runcorn then yeah, double it, but I agree with the planner. What's there could easily cope with an hourly North Wales and an Hourly South Wales service .Don't forget the new layout at Lime st only allows 3 extra services and most of them seem to be already spoken for .

In the long run, the obvious step is to integrate local services on the Liverpool-Runcorn line (whether to Chester or Crewe) into Merseyrail, with Merseyrail-like frequencies (at least 4 TPH to Runcorn, and 2 stoppers each to Crewe and Chester from there), and similar steps taken with the other local services into Lime Street high level (which would then have more than enough room to accommodate long-distance trains).

That would require the Edge Hill Spur or something like it to be built at the Liverpool end. But that project is 50 years overdue as it is.

These local services should be in addition to hourly longer distance trains to North Wales, and via the Marches to South Wales. Hopefully the Crewe line, and the 2 track Weaver Junction-Winsford section in particular, will by then have been bypassed by a new high speed line.

No doubt in a moment someone will come along and question the demand. In response to which, I would point to the well-patronised 4 TPH services Merseyrail run on their existing lines.