HS2 at Crewe

[Joseph_Locke]

I don't believe there is any listing at Crewe,

The 1867 east and west curtain walls, and the buildings on the 1-5 island and 6-11 island are all grade II listed

 

[MarkyT]

The 1867 east and west curtain walls, and the buildings on the 1-5 island and 6-11 island are all grade II listed

Does any heritage listing apply to the buildings on the old island with only platform 12 in use today?

 

[edwin_m]

The 1867 east and west curtain walls, and the buildings on the 1-5 island and 6-11 island are all grade II listed

Thanks. I think all these features could be kept under the sort of scheme I was suggesting, and replacing the roof with something less dominant could improve their setting.

 

[edwin_m]

Why would any post HS2 trains pass Crewe at speed?

Post HS2 phase 2b I think every passenger train would stop, but it would be handy to have freight passing through the station as an alternative to using the much slower Independent lines. Achieving this at a reasonable speed would reduce occupancy on the flat junctions as well as saving a bit of journey time, but I don't think it's essential to keep the existing 80mph speed on the fasts.

Between HS2 phases 2a and 2b the Manchester trains are likely to pass through Crewe non-stop, but as these are taking the turnout route at the North junction their speed through the station itself probably isn't critical. I don't know (possibly nobody knows) how the timescales of Crewe remodelling align with those for HS2 opening.

 

[The Planner]

Unless the freight operators have a massive change in strategy, the vast majority will still go into Basford Hall for crew changes, they won't go through the station. If Crewe happens then it has to be done by the opening of Phase 2A.

 

[BigVern]

Looking at the DfT indicative train service specification (ITSS) for phase 2a it shows just 2 trains per hour calling at Crewe - one to Liverpool and one to Preston.
There are 5 trains per hour that will pass through Crewe without stopping.
3 of these 5 will go to Manchester.
I understand that currently there are no spare paths available between Crewe and Manchester. So will they will be taking paths from trains that currently DO stop at Crewe?
Moving ahead to the ITSS for phase 2b, there are still just the same 2 London trains per hour calling at Crewe. The options involve allowing these 2 trains to split, so that one can go to Liverpool and Preston, and the other Liverpool and Lancaster. Also 4 trains per hour from BIRMINGHAM - 2 to Manchester, one each to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Forgive me for being negative, but I can't see this range of services alone providing the stimulus for any regeneration in Crewe.
But HS2 is also about freeing up capacity on the non-HS2 WCML, and using that capacity for new services - is there an ITSS for that yet?

 

[CheshireCrusty]

I understand that currently there are no spare paths available between Crewe and Manchester. So will they will be taking paths from trains that currently DO stop at Crewe?
QUOTE]

I find that rather strange - surely not between Crewe and Wilmslow with 4tph in each direction and with a passing loop in each direction!

I think the paths may re restricted further in to Manchester, so the paths that will be taken will be from local services not from long distance trains that pass through Crewe!

 

[BigVern]

I think the paths may re restricted further in to Manchester

Of course you are correct. Currently there are 3 Pendolino paths into Manchester, 2 via Stoke and 1 via Crewe. If these are used by the 3 HS2 phase 2a trains then the issue for Crewe is losing that stop on the current path via Crewe.
But that other project, the Northern Hub, is supposed to be sorting out the shortage of paths into Piccadilly, so maybe there will be still be 3 trains from Crewe to Manchester via Stockport in phase 2a.

I must correct my earlier post regarding Phase 2b.
The enhanced proposal for Crewe includes 3 trains per hour from BIRMINGHAM not 4 - the Glasgow and Edinburgh trains are alternate hours.
So that means just 5 stoppers at Crewe from the south per hour, 2 from London and 3 from Birmingham.

 

[6Gman]

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 think any part of Crewe station is Listed.

I also think I've read a suggestion of extensive demolition.

 

[snowball]

I don't think any part of Crewe station is Listed.

Have you read #31?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Does any heritage listing apply to the buildings on the old island with only platform 12 in use today?

I haven't read the listing in detail (perhaps you can?) but it doesn't mention them explicitly; they will probably come under the heading of "significant but not worth listing" - they date from the 1905-8 expansion, I believe.

 

[MarkyT]

I haven't read the listing in detail (perhaps you can?) but it doesn't mention them explicitly; they will probably come under the heading of "significant but not worth listing" - they date from the 1905-8 expansion, I believe.

A link to the official listing record for the 1867 station:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1436435

On the map search, this appears to be the only set of buildings in the immediate vicinity to be listed. The only mention of the platform 12 island is that a hole was cut in the west curtain wall to provide access to the later facilities.

I think that is pretty conclusive that platform 12 island buildings are not protected, so might be demolished more easily for new facilities if that was advantageous.

Interesting, from the history section, that the very first station, since completely removed, was actually to the north of Nantwich Rd.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

A link to the official listing record for the 1867 station:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1436435

On the map search, this appears to be the only set of buildings in the immediate vicinity to be listed. The only mention of the platform 12 island is that a hole was cut in the west curtain wall to provide access to the later facilities.

I think that is pretty conclusive that platform 12 island buildings are not protected, so might be demolished more easily for new facilities if that was advantageous.

Interesting, from the history section, that the very first station, since completely removed, was actually to the north of Nantwich Rd.

You'll need to confirm with a heritage expert, but anything attached to (and fixed inside i.e. ticket counters) a listed building is also listed by default, but not necessarily of any worth, otherwise it would be described in its own right in the listing description. But, in simple terms, Listed Building Consent to demolish, alter or remove would be required. But then we get into Acts of Parliament, Hybrid Bills, permitted development rights and what have you that the rail infrastructure may benefit from.

 

[AndrewE]

You'll need to confirm with a heritage expert, but anything attached to (and fixed inside i.e. ticket counters) a listed building is also listed by default, but not necessarily of any worth, otherwise it would be described in its own right in the listing description. But, in simple terms, Listed Building Consent to demolish, alter or remove would be required. But then we get into Acts of Parliament, Hybrid Bills, permitted development rights and what have you that the rail infrastructure may benefit from.

I thought that most listings specified the actual feature that mattered? My parents told me that it was actually only the one oriel window on their old house in Devon that was marked as vital.

 

[Holly]

... On the map search, this appears to be the only set of buildings in the immediate vicinity to be listed. The only mention of the platform 12 island is that a hole was cut in the west curtain wall to provide access to the later facilities.
I think that is pretty conclusive that platform 12 island buildings are not protected, so might be demolished more easily for new facilities if that was advantageous... .

It definitely would be advantageous to demolish and rebuild the platform 12 island. You could make it double-decker and part of a flyover.

 

[edwin_m]

It definitely would be advantageous to demolish and rebuild the platform 12 island. You could make it double-decker and part of a flyover.

Assuming you're referring to the North junction, that would be very difficult considering the road bridge that passes over and the Indpendent Lines that pass under.

 

[AndrewE]

the road bridge that passes over and the Independent Lines that pass under.

and the river that runs under them!

 

[6Gman]

Have you read #31?

No!

Wasn't aware of that recent listing.

Would have thought it possible to work around much of it though - also worth remembering that being Listed doesn't mean it can't be altered or even demolished. It just means an extra planning process which may, or may not, grant permission.

 

[6Gman]

It definitely would be advantageous to demolish and rebuild the platform 12 island. You could make it double-decker and part of a flyover.

A flyover to do what exactly?

 

[Holly]

(Context of making Crewe station platform 12 island into double-deck)

A flyover to do what exactly?

Provide access to the Manchester lines and the London "Up" lines by flying over other lines so avoiding flat crossings.

Assuming you're referring to the North junction, that would be very difficult considering the road bridge that passes over and the Indpendent Lines that pass under.

So the road bridge would have to be raised. No big deal in the modern age. It's already raised, it can be raised some more.

 

[The Planner]

Id suggest you go look at the Nantwich road at that point, just how high are you expecting it to be raised, based on the fact you are clearing an electrified line with another electrified line and the clearances that requires?

 

[Holly]

Id suggest you go look at the Nantwich road at that point, just how high are you expecting it to be raised, based on the fact you are clearing an electrified line with another electrified line and the clearances that requires?

As high as necessary.
I don't see a problem. As long as it is not so high that it interferes with air traffic.

 

[The Planner]

So how steep is the road down to the roundabout by the Crewe Arms going to be with your plan?

 

[Holly]

So how steep is the road down to the roundabout by the Crewe Arms going to be with your plan?

How about you tell me?
Based on best engineering of minimal clearances of course. GC gauge.

 

[AndrewE]

How about you tell me?
Based on best engineering of minimal clearances of course. GC gauge.

It would be about (or at least) 1 in 4, I would guess!

Better to stick with extra platforms on the Manchester Independent lines and acknowledge that with HS2 and without "to London - as fast as possible" trains there will be almost nothing that should run through Crewe non-stop - except the post office EMUs.

 

[The Planner]

How about you tell me?
Based on best engineering of minimal clearances of course. GC gauge.

It was your idea, at least think it through.....

 

[edwin_m]

This is the same road that passengers use to get into and out of the station, so the road drop-off and probably the ticket hall would have to be rebuilt, resulting in some really long flights of stairs down to the platforms.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So how steep is the road down to the roundabout by the Crewe Arms going to be with your plan?

Rack & Pinion - a world first for road traffic - Britain leading the world in innovative transport solutions with export potential.

 

[Holly]

It would be about (or at least) 1 in 4, I would guess!
... .

Gross exaggeration.
212m. horizontal from Platform 12 to the roundabout
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=53.089462&lon=-2.434931&z=16&m=b

Assuming that the lower and upper tracks are not directly over each other you need only twice the worst case GC vertical gauge clearance. Which is twice 5.1m..
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/def...ng/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf

212/5.1+5.1 == 1 in 20.8
Throw in even a small sprinkling of engineering ingenuity and a workable roadway is easily achieved. The benefits are huge.
You people are such defeatists!

 

[The Planner]

So 1 in 20 to the highest point? So the bridge which currently has the station entrance will have no level section?