HS2 at Crewe

[AndrewE]

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!

Sorry, was imagining the ramp from the roundabout up to clear the approach to platform 1.

I would argue about the height though. The "Workable roadway" has to allow for the modern high lorries, and the thickness of two decks(one for the road to replace the existing, and another for the rail above that) will take at least another metre.
Anyway, shoving walls of impenetrable infrastructure through existing towns has been found to be a bad idea, especially if they blight their surroundings.

Simpler to go for an Antwerp-type solution (if it needs doing at all...)

 

[Holly]

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

I imagine that the station entrance (the historic booking hall) can remain intact. It just has to become a cul-de-sac since the road can't span platform 12 but must become terminated short. Maybe it could become a pick-up / drop-off loop for cars/taxis?

Obviously there are a lot of engineering details to be worked out. For example there is the question as to whether the roundabout can be raised a metre without problems. Or whether the roundabout is presently at the existing track level or not. My point is that a casual dismissal of a double-decking the platform 12 island as infeasible is plainly wrong.

The benefit of additional platforms with both North and South flyovers is enormous and therefore worth pursuing. Sure there will be costs, but less than the cost of a whole new station methinks.

 

[edwin_m]

With railway finances as they are I imagine we are now looking at a relatively limited re-modelling rather than the sort of rip-it-out-and-start-again project that was originally envisaged for the Hub. If grade separation is required for trains towards the Manchester line (the busiest diverging route) then this can be done by upgrading the Independent lines and providing one or more platforms. A new build, probably a dive-under alongside or instead of the Independents, would be a bit faster but I don't see that as justifying the extra cost and disruption considering that after phase 2b all trains on the Manchester line will stop at Crewe anyway (and most will terminate).

The Stoke line doesn't need grade separation because all its trains terminate and the only likely onward extension is towards Manchester Airport, which can be done by bi-di running through platforms 1 or 5. Similarly the Shrewsbury line trains all terminate or run through to/from the Chester line, excepting the Manchester to South Wales which can use a platform on the Independents.

 

[snowball]

Crew Hub consultation event

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

This consultation seeks views on:

the vision for a hub station at Crewe, as recommended by Sir David Higgins
infrastructure options for enabling more HS2 services to stop at Crewe, provide the opportunity to serve Stoke and potentially other destinations
levels of growth that should be considered for future freight and local and regional passenger services when developing options for a hub
the role the local area could play in realising a Crewe Hub

We are seeking comments from all interested parties including:

local authorities
local enterprise partnerships
devolved administrations
the rail industry
passengers
businesses
communities
other organisations

Responses to this consultation will help inform ongoing development of options for a Crewe Hub and future decisions about whether to take this forward and, if so, what legislation may be required.
Consultation event
Date Venue Time
Tuesday 8 August Crewe Alexandra FC, The Alexandra Stadium, Gresty Road, Crewe, CW2 6EB 2pm to 8pm
Information events
Date Venue Time
Monday 7 August Yarnfield Park Training & Conference Centre, Stone, ST15 0NL 2pm to 8pm
Saturday 12 August Stafford Gatehouse Theatre, Eastgate Street, Stafford, ST16 2LT 11am to 5pm
Wednesday 16 August Whitmore Village Hall, Coneygreave Lane, Whitmore, ST5 5HX 2pm to 8pm
Documents
Crewe Hub consultation (web version)

Ref: ISBN 9781474147705, P002888420 07/17, Cm 9477 PDF, 6.05MB, 45 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.
Crewe Hub consultation (print version)

Ref: ISBN 9781474147699, P002888420 07/17, Cm 9477 PDF, 6.06MB, 48 pages

 

[JamesT]

One thing I'm still not clear on even after reading that, is if a link is added to allow trains to go from Crewe onto HS2 North to Manchester, would this be at UIC gauge? That is, could a Captive HS2 train do Manchester - Crewe - Birmingham, or would it be restricted to the Classic Compatibles?

 

[Holly]

One thing I'm still not clear on even after reading that, is if a link is added to allow trains to go from Crewe onto HS2 North to Manchester, would this be at UIC gauge? That is, could a Captive HS2 train do Manchester - Crewe - Birmingham, or would it be restricted to the Classic Compatibles?

Apparently not.
To achieve that would require UIC gauge platform(s) at Crewe station. Which would require either:
1. Manchester - London trains to use the proposed new platform(s) on the independent lines or
2. Double deck the platform 12 island or
3. Additional platforms elsewhere with Crewe station.
None of which is in the document.

As an aside, I think splitting trains is a good idea but joining trains (other than at a terminus) has a major disadvantage. Which is the obvious problem of what to do about one portion on time and the other portion late. And splitting is still worth doing even if joining is not done.

 

[HSTEd]

Splitting but not joining means there are no real path advantages as far as I can tell.

Because the same number of sets must pass south as pass north into Euston.

 

[Holly]

Splitting but not joining means there are no real path advantages as far as I can tell.
Because the same number of sets must pass south as pass north into Euston.

Same number of sets if you
1. Split only at a junction
2. Join only at a terminus

In the Crewe case this means that the Down service to (for example) Liverpool would have a higher frequency than the Up service. Which is a useful benefit even though it is only in one direction.

The disadvantage of joining is just too great, unlike splitting.

 

[HSTEd]

Same number of sets if you
1. Split only at a junction
2. Join only at a terminus

In the Crewe case this means that the Down service to (for example) Liverpool would have a higher frequency than the Up service. Which is a useful benefit even though it is only in one direction.

So you would run some other service at double length?
This is going to confuse customers no end who will want to know why there is only one train to London but two trains from London

The disadvantage of joining is just too great, unlike splitting.

Well its quite simple about what you do if the set is late - you send the present set into London on its own, and terminate the late running set at Birmingham international, then tip the passengers onto the next train running south.
Then the set couples up at Birmingham International when the set that went into London comes back.

 

[ic250]

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).

According to Historic England, much of the 1867 buildings in the station (including the train shed), are listed at Grade II, so will probably be quite difficult to demolish.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1436435

 

[td97]

£1.5bn contract procurement for 'Crewe Hub' has been delayed by 3 months, until at least 'late June'
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/10042610.article

The launch of a £1.5bn contract to upgrade Crewe station is being delayed, New Civil Engineer can reveal.

Network Rail was scheduled to start procurement in March, but New Civil Engineer has learnt that the contract notice is now being delayed until “at least June”.

The upgrade at Crewe station is needed to accommodate the expected increase in passenger and freight growth following construction of High Speed 2 (HS2).
...
Draft plans for the upgrade include building a transfer deck over the station to increase its development potential. They also include modifications to the track layout to allow the high speed trains to use two existing lines which pass though the station.