HS2 at Crewe

[Muzer]

Am I right in thinking that the current plans have no HS2 station at Crewe; just some extra platforms at the classic Crewe station (round the back where the goods lines are) for trains joining the WCML?

 

[The Planner]

Crewe is not a HS2 scheme, it is a DfT enhancement.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Am I right in thinking that the current plans have no HS2 station at Crewe; just some extra platforms at the classic Crewe station (round the back where the goods lines are) for trains joining the WCML?

HS2 Phase 2a will have a junction south of Crewe with the WCML, thus linking to the existing station, which will, as of yesterday but subject to change as the 'hub' evolves, two new through platforms. The future through HS line (Phase 2b) will end as a south end tunnel portal with a headwall.

 

[AndrewE]

I think that we should be looking at Antwerp-type solutions to fitting modern high-speed lines and extra platforms into Victorian Infrastructure. What the Belgians did there is brilliant, and it's a pity it wasn't copied at St Pancras.

Crewe could both have through tunnels and be connected into the existing station if the powers-that-be looked at a national connectedness strategy, rather than just business cases which inevitably prioritise London services at the expense of all the rest of the UK.

 

[The Planner]

Crewe could both have through tunnels and be connected into the existing station if the powers-that-be looked at a national connectedness strategy, rather than just business cases which inevitably prioritise London services at the expense of all the rest of the UK.

Im confused, that is what is happening at Crewe, junction to the south and tunnel underneath as part of 2B.

 

[AndrewE]

Im confused, that is what is happening at Crewe, junction to the south and tunnel underneath as part of 2B.

but no platforms on the new through lines within the existing station footprint, unlike at Antwerp. The current station layout is pretty well full (and we are told that HS2 is intended to make more capacity - i.e. trains - available on the classic network) so I would have though that extra platforms would be needed to allow HS2 and the upgraded WCML services to all fit in.

HS2 platforms on the independent lines would have to either go over the culverted river like the current surface lines (and bulldoze the heritage centre) or burrow beneath it, meaning a new low-level station that would wipe out the independents.

 

[MarkyT]

Antwerp is an amazing station but was a unique case where the original station was a terminus on a very constrained site, but the new line needed through platforms. There was clearly no room for additional platforms at ground level while the terminus layout made projecting such lines northwards impossible. I'm pleased they did what they did rather than routing high speed away from the city centre and I'm sure that plugging in so intimately to the city and it's local transport as it does provides a most useful service and hopefully a very successful result in terms of passenger numbers. In Crewe, keeping the station where it is, (whatever the extent of the rebuild) is the best result for local connectivity, to the town itself and to the wider rail network. In addition, there is plenty of rail land in the corridor for expanding the existing station site with additional through platforms. The high speed tunnels beneath such a complex need only carry non-stop traffic so do not require expensive platforms underground.

 

[AndrewE]

Antwerp is an amazing station but was a unique case where the original station was a terminus on a very constrained site, but the new line needed through platforms. There was clearly no room for additional platforms at ground level while the terminus layout made projecting such lines northwards impossible. I'm pleased they did what they did rather than routing high speed away from the city centre and I'm sure that plugging in so intimately to the city and it's local transport as it does provides a most useful service and hopefully a very successful result in terms of passenger numbers. In Crewe, keeping the station where it is, (whatever the extent of the rebuild) is the best result for local connectivity, to the town itself and to the wider rail network. In addition, there is plenty of rail land in the corridor for expanding the existing station site with additional through platforms. The high speed tunnels beneath such a complex need only carry non-stop traffic so do not require expensive platforms underground.

a terminus on a very constrained site

reminds me of Euston, St Pancras, etc... what costs we are taking for refusing to consider going deeper!

But at Crewe, what of the knock-on effects? If you stick at current ground level how do you avoid cutting the current Chester independents, or bulldozing the Heritage Centre? maybe that's just the price we have to pay?

 

[Kettledrum]

but no platforms on the new through lines within the existing station footprint, unlike at Antwerp. The current station layout is pretty well full (and we are told that HS2 is intended to make more capacity - i.e. trains - available on the classic network) so I would have though that extra platforms would be needed to allow HS2 and the upgraded WCML services to all fit in.

HS2 platforms on the independent lines would have to either go over the culverted river like the current surface lines (and bulldoze the heritage centre) or burrow beneath it, meaning a new low-level station that would wipe out the independents.

I'm not sure about the current station layout being pretty much full.
Crewe station is on a big site and has some very long platforms that have fallen into disuse. Whilst it may be a challenge to utilise this space for HS2 services it needs to be done. I suspect some of the issues may be conflicting moves across the throat of the station, and how do you get High speed services out to the North and onto part 2b without another tunnel at Crewe.

There can't be a huge amount of money available for Crewe, so an austerity solution needs to be found. It's going to take lots of brain power and very innovative thinking

 

[The Planner]

HS2 would call at the existing station, any new platforms will be for Cardiff Manchester Id wager, they are the services now that cause all the problems at Crewe.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a rather vague consultation on the DfT website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/crewe-hub-options-for-building-on-existing-connectivity

The consultation asks for views on:
a. The vision for a hub station at Crewe, as recommended by Sir David Higgins in 2014, and set out in paragraphs 3.3 - 3.7
b. Providing 400m platforms at Crewe station in 2027 which could enable longer HS2 trains to and from London to split and join at Crewe, meaning other destinations, such as Stoke-on-Trent, could be served by a high speed service, as set out in paragraphs 5.8 - 5.18
c. Providing a junction north of Crewe station to connect the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the high-speed line, in 2033 as part of HS2 Phase 2b. This could enable northbound high speed connectivity from Crewe, providing more seats between Crewe and London, as set out in paragraphs 5.19 - 5.28
d. Levels of future freight growth that should be considered in planning a Crewe Hub
e. Levels of growth in local and regional passenger services that should be considered in planning a Crewe Hub
f. The role the local area could play in realising a Crewe Hub, including by way of local funding contributions and evidence for potential levels of growth

It seems to be aimed mainly at statutory consultees, though anybody can respond.

Ideas include a platform on the Independent lines, so the South Wales to Manchester doesn't have to cross everything else on the flat. Several of the platforms are not far off 400m now and I get the impression they are looking at tweaking the existing station rather than a more radical option of flattening it and starting again.

Item (c) would be integrated with the new site for the HS2 depot north of Crewe, and allows stopping trains to join HS2 northwards as well as south. Non-stop trains would still pass through the tunnels under the station at close to maximum speed - which will have to be very deep to pass under the Independent lines and the stream I believe is somewhere underneath them.

 

[AndrewE]

There is a rather vague consultation on the DfT website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/crewe-hub-options-for-building-on-existing-connectivity

Item (c) would be integrated with the new site for the HS2 depot north of Crewe, and allows stopping trains to join HS2 northwards as well as south. Non-stop trains would still pass through the tunnels under the station at close to maximum speed - which will have to be very deep to pass under the Independent lines and the stream I believe is somewhere underneath them.

I hadn't twigged that it might just be the Cardiff services that would get new platform(s?) presumably on the existing Manchester Independent lines. That might be a good idea anyway if they were within a reasonable distance of the rest of the station.

To see the "stream" I suggest you walk a few hundred yards down Macon way from the station and look at it! After almost any amount of rain it floods all the valley upstream of Macon Way and after a flood I am always surprised that it hasn't destabilised the whole embankment under Crewe North Junction... now that would be a Lamington crisis multiplied many times!

 

[edwin_m]

I hadn't twigged that it might just be the Cardiff services that would get new platform(s?) presumably on the existing Manchester Independent lines. That might be a good idea anyway if they were within a reasonable distance of the rest of the station.

To see the "stream" I suggest you walk a few hundred yards down Macon way from the station and look at it! After almost any amount of rain it floods all the valley upstream of Macon Way and after a flood I am always surprised that it hasn't destabilised the whole embankment under Crewe North Junction... now that would be a Lamington crisis multiplied many times!

Thanks for the info on the stream - it's a long time since I've visited Crewe other than to change trains, and I don't recall ever going to that area.

Looking at aerial photography it looks like a walkway could be built from the west end of the ticket hall alongside Nantwich Road, or there could be a separate entrance off the road to access one or more platforms where the Independent lines pass underneath. It's a bit of a trek from the existing station but perhaps acceptable as a temporary arrangement. We don't of course know what the Hub proposal does with the area in between - it's possible more platforms will be under construction here in which case the Independent lines will just end up as the last platform of the new station, though at a somewhat lower level.

In theory trains towards Manchester could use the Independents too, both the non-stopping HS2 services and whatever stopping service remains. This could even be some sort of temporary station during the rebuilding of the main one (passenger trains used the Independents during the 1980s remodelling, though without platforms). Yet to be seen how many platforms are proposed here and how long they are.

 

[DPWH]

A quick back of an envelope calculation. Anything done is likely to be done on a budget and be a bit of a fudge,

The problems:

1. Some platforms are not quite long enough for splitting 400m trains
2. There are some disused (or little used) platforms, 2, 7, 8, 10.
3. Down Manchester trains have to cross the Up Main.
4. Up Chester trains have to cross the Down Main.
5. Shrewsbury-Manchester passenger trains, and Manchester-Shrewsbury passenger trains have to cross the up main and down main lines.
6. There are too few platforms on the east (up) side of the station.

Potential solutions:

• Platforms on the goods lines would mean Shrewsbury-Manchester trains no longer having to cross the Main Lines. This reduces conflict and frees up platforms in the main station, and reduces signalling and track complexity.
• I think there is also the opportunity for Down London-Manchester trains to use a new platform on the goods lines. This also reduces conflict and frees up platforms in the main station.
• Terminating Manchester-Crewe services in the new platforms on the goods lines potentially frees up platforms on the east side of the station, where space is constrained, and where there are suitable no north-facing bay platforms.
• Platforms 6 and 11 can be extended to 400m by removing platforms 7 and 8 and maybe 10.
• It is critical that platform 5 is extended, as it's the only long platform on the east (up) side of the station
• It will be difficult to extend platform 1.
• It should be straightforward to extend platform 12 and maybe provide a platform 13 on the west side as well.

What is the grade of the goods lines and are they suitable for putting platforms on?

This leaves the following problems:

• 
  Up Chester trains still have to cross the Down Main.
• Terminating London-Crewe trains have to cross over either the Up Fast (on arrival) or the Down Fast (on departure)
• Consequently to the above 2 a fly-over south of the station may be a future desirable.
• Stoke-Crewe trains still have to cross over platform 1 to reach their terminating bay platforms. Building terminating platforms on the industrial estate/car park to the east of the station may allow platform 1 to be extended and avoid conflict.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure some of the things you have highlighted are big enough problems to warrant massive infrastructure interventions, apart from the Wales Manchester services which is a problem regardless of HS2 turning up. New Independent line platforms won't simplify track or signalling either as you wouldn't remove any existing functionality in the existing station because of that.

The only real problem on the up side is that platform 5 is too short and the turn out at the London end is too slow, platform capacity isn't really an issue.

Down London Manchester trains (that don't get moved to HS2) will always use the main station and won't get shunted to any new Independent line platforms.

The rest is just overkill for eradicating conflicts, going into the bays, on either side, once an hour isn't stopping the job.

 

[AndrewE]

Not sure some of the things you have highlighted are big enough problems to warrant massive infrastructure interventions, apart from the Wales Manchester services which is a problem regardless of HS2 turning up. New Independent line platforms won't simplify track or signalling either as you wouldn't remove any existing functionality in the existing station because of that.

The only real problem on the up side is that platform 5 is too short and the turn out at the London end is too slow, platform capacity isn't really an issue.

Down London Manchester trains (that don't get moved to HS2) will always use the main station and won't get shunted to any new Independent line platforms.

The rest is just overkill for eradicating conflicts, going into the bays, on either side, once an hour isn't stopping the job.

I have said before (and got shouted down for it) that lengthening p5 southwards looks quite straightforward, in fact it's a shame that the cheapo Crewe remodelling left us where we are now.

Just move the S&T stuff that has been built in the wrong place since then, take out the current departure end turnout (if wished) and run the platform line south until it meets something sensible to join up with.

Currently Up trains often are delayed in the platform until the up through is clear, with knock-on effects on subsequent calling trains - unless they can be routed through p1, which again delays trains while passengers make the long walk south!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that we should be looking at Antwerp-type solutions to fitting modern high-speed lines and extra platforms into Victorian Infrastructure. What the Belgians did there is brilliant, and it's a pity it wasn't copied at St Pancras.

Crewe could both have through tunnels and be connected into the existing station if the powers-that-be looked at a national connectedness strategy, rather than just business cases which inevitably prioritise London services at the expense of all the rest of the UK.

There's no need for that at Crewe as there is plenty of unused land to put extra platforms on.

By contrast it would be something that would be good (albeit too expensive) at Birmingham, having a New St Low Level instead of having a separate Curzon St.

 

[AndrewE]

There's no need for that at Crewe as there is plenty of unused land to put extra platforms on.

...except that on the up side there is the big brick retaining wall, the Crewe Arms Hotel and lots of other commercial premises at a higher level (not to mention the new station entrance) in the way. Leaving the station on the down side it is a long way back over to the northbound running lines, and the Down Liverpool Independent and the Heritage centre are both in the way too!

 

[AndrewE]

By contrast it would be something that would be good (albeit too expensive) at Birmingham, having a New St Low Level instead of having a separate Curzon St.

Why too expensive? What has Crossrail cost? To me, a deep level through HS2 station in Brum with foot/travellator connections out to New St, Snow Hill and maybe Moor St too is a no-brainer, given the passenger congestion in the area already.

"Expensive" is only a relative term - and if we were talking about Bank station in "the City" do you think it would be thought too expensive? Just compare the amount of rail connections in the business districts of the two cities! I think Glasgow has a better network than Brum, although Centro isn't half bad...

 

[The Planner]

Would you keep Birmingham Interchange if that was the case? Or would you be proposing removing the Birmingham spur and making it the main line and effectively being in tunnel from around Solihull to the other side of Wolverhampton?

 

[AndrewE]

Would you keep Birmingham Interchange if that was the case? Or would you be proposing removing the Birmingham spur and making it the main line and effectively being in tunnel from around Solihull to the other side of Wolverhampton?

Sounds worth exploring to me... (too late now of course) if they can put extra miles of tunnel in for the NIMBYs in the Chilterns, why not through a major conurbation? Especially if it achieves a better-connected network.

A pity it isn't (quite) what is now proposed for Leeds. I do like the continental way of making a new connection by tunnelling the approaches and having a new main-line through station where you want it (Antwerp, Lille Europe, Barcelona Sants). Selling the airspace above (Plymouth, Liverpool St) is a bad idea unless you keep it big and airy enough not to be claustrophobic though...

p.s. I'll say it before anyone else points it out, both Barcelona Sants and Lille E have no connectivity, but at least they are right in the cities!

 

[HSTEd]

The advent of a Crewe northwards connection to HS2 opens up interesting service pattern possibilities.
Since HS2 Crewe-Manchester likely only has five or six trains per hour at most, it has plenty of space.

You could do all sorts of interesting things, like converting the London Midland EUS-Crewe trains to pseudo 395s and having them run a mad dash from Crewe to Manchester to provide connectivity that might be lacking post HS2.

Whilst it is much slower as far as Crewe, the end to end journey is not catastrophically slower because of the significantly faster leg north from Crewe to Manchester.

Indeed it is a pity that the Wigan branch is to be dropped and would not route from north of Manchester Airport anyway - the idea of diverting WCML trains from Crewe to Manchester Airport to Wigan would be interesting.

EDIT:
2hr MKC to Crewe, ~15-20 minutes from Crewe to MAnchester Picadilly.

That is about 2hr15-20, which is much slower than existing journeys.
However from Rugby you are looking at ~1hr40 to Crewe, so under 2hr to Picadilly - which is 15 minutes slower than existing trains, although we get a credit here in that our train is direct and I don't think there are any direct trains at the moment.

At Nuneaton this train is faster, largely due to a paucity of fast trains at the moment.

So it does provide useful connectivity even if it is slower than the existing fastest pure-classic services.
It also removes changes that would otherwise be required.

 

[edwin_m]

Getting back to Crewe...

After HS2 phase 2 practically every passenger train will stop there so through speed isn't too much of an concern.

I reckon the key would be to re-align the junctions both ends so the Fast lines run through platforms 6 and 11 either side of the middle island. By dispensing with the bays I think both could be extended to 400m as the main platforms for HS2 splits and joins. However they would probably no longer be accessible to/from Manchester.

5 would remain as the Up Slow and be lengthened southwards as suggested. By getting rid of the roof, it could also be built out over most of its length to what is now the Up Fast. The north end could keep its existing alignment to form a bay for Manchester terminators, but this may be incompatible with extension of the main platform to 400m. Unless routed via the Independents, Manchester trains would use one side or other of this island and cross over further south. The Stoke line would use southern bays 2 to 4 as today.

12 would become the Down Slow, also a 400m platform. The former bays and other through face of this island could be re-activated as required for Shrewsbury and Chester terminators and/or North Wales through trains. Again through trains to or from Chester would cross to/from this side south of the station.

If through roads were required there could be one for Up trains along the current Down Fast, between the new Up Fast and Up Slow, and for Down trains the through track between 11 and 12 which conveniently falls between the new Down Fast and Down Slow.

Finally there would be one or two platforms on the Indpendents for use by Manchester-Shrewsbury and possibly through services towards Manchester. The latter would require a much better route from the main lines rather than having to wind through Basford, as well as a longer platform, but would create a non-conflicting route for these trains at the north end of the station and provide a Down counterpart to platform 1 for Manchester trains.

 

[DPWH]

Yes, I like the additional suggestion of removing the fast lines as they would be superfluous. Doing so would mean that the slow turnout out of platform 5 could be completely eliminated. However, because of the nature of the roof pillars I think you'd be unable to move the central part of the platforms themselves, although they could be gently curved from the point the roof pillars stop.

I don't think the basic station layout can be rearranged much through its core without demolishing the whole lot which I presume is listed. The LNWR built everything on the cheap and there are spindly pillars holding up random bits of roof everywhere.

The question is then what is the best layout in the remaining space available? I would think that there are about 3-4 possible arrangements; depending on how many platforms are needed and where they would be best located.

 

[NotATrainspott]

What would be ideal would be for any northbound connection to be designed such that captive gauge trains could use it in future. It doesn't necessarily need to be fully segregated, and if there aren't any major tunnels or bridges (both under- and over-bridges, given gauge constraints) it might not be that difficult to clear a GC gauge. That would give maximum flexibility for the future.

 

[MarkyT]

What would be ideal would be for any northbound connection to be designed such that captive gauge trains could use it in future. It doesn't necessarily need to be fully segregated, and if there aren't any major tunnels or bridges (both under- and over-bridges, given gauge constraints) it might not be that difficult to clear a GC gauge. That would give maximum flexibility for the future.

Agreed. As long as the platforms for HS2 trains at Crewe are dedicated to that use they can be built to GC clearances with conventional network compatible HS trains using their extending steps to reach out to them. As long as the junction back onto HS2 is south of Winsford, there would be no other station platforms on the shared section where non GC gauge trains needed to stop, so GC clearance throughout should be feasible.

 

[The Planner]

HS2 won't get dedicated platforms, I'd put money on that, NR won't accept it.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

What would be ideal would be for any northbound connection to be designed such that captive gauge trains could use it in future. It doesn't necessarily need to be fully segregated, and if there aren't any major tunnels or bridges (both under- and over-bridges, given gauge constraints) it might not be that difficult to clear a GC gauge. That would give maximum flexibility for the future.

Have you actually been north of Crewe?

HS2 also won't be running captive trains on NR's network - since they are wider and taller they won't fit (they bang together on a standard sixfoot, so that's all the S&C relaid ...) and no-one will want spend the money solving the issues, that's what the compatible trains are for.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, I like the additional suggestion of removing the fast lines as they would be superfluous. Doing so would mean that the slow turnout out of platform 5 could be completely eliminated. However, because of the nature of the roof pillars I think you'd be unable to move the central part of the platforms themselves, although they could be gently curved from the point the roof pillars stop.

I don't think the basic station layout can be rearranged much through its core without demolishing the whole lot which I presume is listed. The LNWR built everything on the cheap and there are spindly pillars holding up random bits of roof everywhere.

I don't believe there is any listing at Crewe, but the yellow brick buildings on platforms 5 and 6 are potentially rather nice and I assume are the original station. However they have been hacked about considerably.

I would say most of the roof is of little historic merit and like Rugby it could be removed. This may be necessary for aerodynamic reasons anyway if trains are to pass non-stop anywhere other than the existing Fast lines (which have open air above them).

 

[HSTEd]

Why would any post HS2 trains pass Crewe at speed?