North West & Wales cross-border alliance

[snowball]

Probably not cheaper, but certainly feasible. Very little infrastructure in the way, pretty much green fields all the way from Chester to the outskirts of Crewe.
And as has been discussed already, the alternative - retrofit to OHLE would be relatively difficult and expensive for the few miles involved. Also the cost of a new ROW could be offset by selling off the old one for development. And a new ROW would be cheaper to maintain than the old one.

If it's pretty much green fields all the way then that suggests there's not much demand for development, so not much would be made by selling off the old route.

 

[6Gman]

Probably not cheaper, but certainly feasible. Very little infrastructure in the way, pretty much green fields all the way from Chester to the outskirts of Crewe.
And as has been discussed already, the alternative - retrofit to OHLE would be relatively difficult and expensive for the few miles involved. Also the cost of a new ROW could be offset by selling off the old one for development. And a new ROW would be cheaper to maintain than the old one.
It might cost a little more, but you end up with a lot more railway for the money spent.

Two observations:

The really, really difficult part is (I suspect) Christleton Tunnel but bypassing that is certainly not "green fields";

Little of the existing railway would be suitable for development (it's open countryside).

 

[sw1ller]

There’s also the two marinas which are quite close to the line as it is. That’s a lot of water to navigate.

 

[Holly]

Two observations:
The really, really difficult part is (I suspect) Christleton Tunnel but bypassing that is certainly not "green fields";
...

That's one of the things that makes a totally new right of way so attractive. North of Christleton and South of Littleton is a gap where little compulsory purchase of buildings would be needed. After that it is green fields to the outskirts of Crewe.
Cost of land would not be too high, it is all farmland and not valuable building land.
So land costs would be a wash, land purchased being offset by similar land sold.
The savings in doing all new construction versus trying to work around an operational railway might actually make a new ROW quite competitive with an upgrading.
Plus, you end up with a LOT more railway when you have finished. UIC gauged to take captive HS2 trains should there ever be a need in the dim and distant future.

 

[driver_m]

If somewhere like Brighton-London can't get the 2nd mainline open I very much doubt there would ever be a business case for rebuilding a new alignment between Crewe - Chester . You'd be as well wiring via Middlewich and speeding it up .

 

[Philip]

There already appears to be a spread-out flight of about half a dozen locks as the canal climbs south-east out of Chester. The rail tunnel is between the last-but-one lock of the series and the last lock. So it would be a matter of moving the last lock to before the tunnel.

Apart from the official problem about the locks being listed structures, something like this would cause huge disruption for boaters and walkers and would close the canal for a considerable length of time. It is a fairly popular route, not least because it is on the way to the Boat Museum at Ellesmere Port, so access to there by boat from the rest of the system would be cut off whilst all this is taking place (unless you go on the Manchester Ship Canal!).

 

[pemma]

You'd be as well wiring via Middlewich and speeding it up .

It would make more sense to increase capacity on the WCML between Crewe and the Hartford area and then sort out provision for Chester services heading westbound from there.

Although, if Middlewich was wired and speeded up it could become a diversionary WCML route (much quicker than diverting units via Manchester) and maybe an electric stopper doing Crewe-Middlewich-Greenbank-Warrington-Wigan-Preston could be introduced?

 

[snowball]

Apart from the official problem about the locks being listed structures, something like this would cause huge disruption for boaters and walkers and would close the canal for a considerable length of time. It is a fairly popular route, not least because it is on the way to the Boat Museum at Ellesmere Port, so access to there by boat from the rest of the system would be cut off whilst all this is taking place (unless you go on the Manchester Ship Canal!).

Is the canal much used in the winter? Other works affecting canals have often been done in the winter time.

 

[6Gman]

Cost of land would not be too high, it is all farmland and not valuable building land.
So land costs would be a wash, land purchased being offset by similar land sold.

I don't think the farmers of the Cheshire Plain are going to sell their prime pasture to you for the same price that you'll get for a long strip of land, bounded by cuttings and embankments, and covered in ballast and 170 years of contamination!

 

[6Gman]

The solution for most of the route (with all those overbridges) is simple.

Use the technique adopted when they electrified Crewe - Manchester.

After close of service Friday place charges; Saturday morning blow up the bridge. Spend the rest of Saturday clearing up. Sunday - install new bridge. Start of service Monday - back to normal service.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think we all know North Wales electrification is impossible, but it's on the Welsh wish list so has to go in.

I would never use the word never (wink wink?) and never say impossible. Extremely difficult and extremely expensive with a BCR of about 0.01 is what I would say. A DEFINITE good use of Bi-modes though.

 

[6Gman]

Could Christleton Tunnel simply be opened up as a cutting? With a new aqueduct for said canal?

 

[Philip]

Is the canal much used in the winter? Other works affecting canals have often been done in the winter time.

Routine maintenance and stoppages take place every winter/off-season, but something like this would take much longer.

In reference to converting from a tunnel to an aqueduct; I don't think the fact it is a tunnel is the problem, I think it is because the canal isn't high enough above the railway at that point to allow the bore to be enlarged enough for the overheads to clear. So it comes back to having to rebuild the locks.

Besides, an aqueduct wouldn't be possible without realignment; it is a tunnel because the railway dives under the canal at skew.

 

[edwin_m]

The OS map shows the remains of a canal deviation at Christleton which looks as if it was made so the canal could be re-routed during construction of the railway tunnel. Perhaps this could be re-used to create a new crossing on less of a skew?

Are the locks really listed - I don't think they are just because they are locks. A road was built across the flight of locks on the Kennet and Avon in Bath during the period of closure, and when re-opened they had to build a double-height lock to replace two existing ones.

 

[6Gman]

Routine maintenance and stoppages take place every winter/off-season, but something like this would take much longer.

In reference to converting from a tunnel to an aqueduct; I don't think the fact it is a tunnel is the problem, I think it is because the canal isn't high enough above the railway at that point to allow the bore to be enlarged enough for the overheads to clear. So it comes back to having to rebuild the locks.

Besides, an aqueduct wouldn't be possible without realignment; it is a tunnel because the railway dives under the canal at skew.

Skew aqueducts can surely be built?

On the underlined part, surely the floor of an aqueduct can be shallower than the overburden of a tunnel?

 

[Holly]

I don't think the farmers of the Cheshire Plain are going to sell their prime pasture to you for the same price that you'll get for a long strip of land, bounded by cuttings and embankments, and covered in ballast and 170 years of contamination!

The farmers won't have a choice of course. Act of Parliament, compulsory purchase, value of farmland as farmland assessed on a per acre basis. Sections of old right of way can be auctioned off, someone will want to build something everywhere it crosses a road.

The solution for most of the route (with all those overbridges) is simple.
Use the technique adopted when they electrified Crewe - Manchester.
After close of service Friday place charges; Saturday morning blow up the bridge. Spend the rest of Saturday clearing up. Sunday - install new bridge. Start of service Monday - back to normal service.

Unfortunately many of the bridges are very old and Cheshire activists will be out in force seeking preservation orders and extraordinary measures. Making it all very expensive and thus making a complete new railway attractive. Much cheaper than the second line to Brighton - too many buildings blocking the route all along the way down near the South coast.
It's not really a matter of which is cheaper - refurb old or build new, the cost is about the same. But there is much less disruption to travellers with a new build and a new railway built to modern design will be hugely better and more valuable than the old when finished.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Cheshire is having a new route across prime farmland - it's called HS2.
Without the backing of an entire strategic railway, there's no chance the Cheshire locals will accept a new railway.
I think there may have to be a new A51 as well to make it palatable (one of the worst motorway link roads in the country).
Depending on the new route adopted for Liverpool, some link off the WCML towards Frodsham might make more sense.
But I don't think the Liverpool route will help if it goes off HS2 east of Warrington.

 

[B&I]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, would a new bypass tunnel at Christleton be easier than modifying the existing one ? Perhaps from just west of the A41 to just east of the A55, and with a local station at one end (in a really ideal world).

Alternatively, is the existing tunnel too long for a coast-through on discontinuous electrification ?

 

[notlob.divad]

The chances of Chester getting a new Railway to it this side of never are slim to none. Liverpool has been fighting tooth and nail to get it's HS2 link for years now and that still isn't fully agreed and funded.

If an electrified line is so desirable and the canal tunnel such an impossible barrier to overcome, it is far more likely that Chester gets a parkway station in the vicinity of the A55, where OHLE Electric trains terminate, than it is to getting a brand new alignment built.

 

[pemma]

Cheshire is having a new route across prime farmland - it's called HS2.
Without the backing of an entire strategic railway, there's no chance the Cheshire locals will accept a new railway.

People would be most likely to accept new local links than HS2. HS2 will see high speed trains tearing through villages which won't be close to a station served by HS2, it will could also directly cause some places to lose their direct London trains meaning it'll take just as long for some people to get to London even post-HS2. If we're talking about a train running through a village at 50mph and a chance to board the train at a station 2 miles away the number of objections would be far lower. The proposed western Airport link has been discussed many times in local media and I've yet to see an objection. Contrast that with the constant stream of objections about HS2 currently and the second runway at Manchester Airport in the past.

 

[6Gman]

Unfortunately many of the bridges are very old and Cheshire activists will be out in force seeking preservation orders and extraordinary measures. Making it all very expensive and thus making a complete new railway attractive.

Having been a councillor in Cheshire for quite some years I would reckon that the outcry from "Cheshire activists" would be far, far, far stronger against a new railway than against the rebuilding of a few old bridges on back lanes of rural Cheshire!

If by a "preservation order" you mean Listing it's always worth remembering that a Listed Building (or other structure) isn't immune to redevelopment, or even demolition; it just means there are more hoops to be jumped through.

 

[driver_m]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, would a new bypass tunnel at Christleton be easier than modifying the existing one ? Perhaps from just west of the A41 to just east of the A55, and with a local station at one end (in a really ideal world).

Alternatively, is the existing tunnel too long for a coast-through on discontinuous electrification ?

Having drove through it many a time, I wouldn't have thought there is even room to place a dead wire in the tunnel. It's incredibly tight. . To reply to Holly as well, it's a totally unrealistic non starter of an idea to build a new line and this park & ride you've mentioned a number of times at Hooton. All you would do with that is move passengers from Chester and Liverpool. Not add extra passengers.

 

[B&I]

Having drove through it many a time, I wouldn't have thought there is even room to place a dead wire in the tunnel. It's incredibly tight. . To reply to Holly as well, it's a totally unrealistic non starter of an idea to build a new line and this park & ride you've mentioned a number of times at Hooton. All you would do with that is move passengers from Chester and Liverpool. Not add extra passengers.

Well the second point's right. A London service serving the south-eastern corner of Wirral, and Ellesmere Port, just isn't justified when there are already metro connections to London services at Liverpool or Chester. An improved and expanded Wirral Line network eg extending Ellesmere Port services to Runcorn, electrifying Bidston-Hawarden Junction and re-opening through Blacon to Chester, would be a better approach.

As to the first point, are you suggesting that the current tunnel dimensions are so limited that a new tunnel would be a better option? Or could the tunnel be removed and replaced with an aqueduct?

 

[sw1ller]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, would a new bypass tunnel at Christleton be easier than modifying the existing one ? Perhaps from just west of the A41 to just east of the A55, and with a local station at one end (in a really ideal world).

Alternatively, is the existing tunnel too long for a coast-through on discontinuous electrification ?

I agree with driver m that the tunnel is tight. I also drive through it a lot. But too tight for a guide wire??? You’re doing 65 through it on the down and it’s not exactly a long tunnel is it. On the up I took a 2 car 175 through it the other day with one engine isolated and I was still doing 45 as I entered it (normally it’s about 55-60 if you haven’t done a running break test) which is plenty to get you through it. I think there’s scope for it but we’d have to wait for a proper report on the dimensions of the arch to fit a pantograph in there.

 

[driver_m]

I agree with driver m that the tunnel is tight. I also drive through it a lot. But too tight for a guide wire??? You’re doing 65 through it on the down and it’s not exactly a long tunnel is it. On the up I took a 2 car 175 through it the other day with one engine isolated and I was still doing 45 as I entered it (normally it’s about 55-60 if you haven’t done a running break test) which is plenty to get you through it. I think there’s scope for it but we’d have to wait for a proper report on the dimensions of the arch to fit a pantograph in there.

I'd personally say it really is that right. To the point where the pan would basically be down. Linslade is also a very tight tunnel nr Leighton Buzzard but it has the advantage of some extra height. Does anyone have the actual dimensions of the tunnel? (And linslade as a comparison.
On the up I usually do the brake test at the tunnel with a Chester starter or a double set coupled at Chester as it's doing roughly around 60-65mph at that point, that way I can get it down the required 10mph and by the time I've got it back to 65 I've cleared the 90 board fully just after .On the down i'm doing 65 with low brake in due to it still being fairly slippy even though the Sanders have made a huge distance. Wouldn't envisage a problem with getting stuck provided CR27 is cleared.

 

[Holly]

... To reply to Holly as well, it's a totally unrealistic non starter of an idea to build a new line and ...

Well, it is all politics of course.

But the obstacles in the way of refurbishing the old route and the simple green fields nature of a new route create a situation where it may actually cost less money to build a new railway than to upgrade and maintain the old.
So given that a new modern railway would obviously be superior it would be the best choice in the long run.

However, hoping to overcome the politics could easily be totally unrealistic, and you may indeed be right about that. This is Britain after all.

 

[snowball]

I don't think there's much chance of a new line from Crewe to Chester. I've never heard it suggested by anyone except Holly. But I note that any such line would probably have to join the existing line for its entry to Crewe at one end and Chester at the other, to avoid demolishing lots of houses. And I suspect that at the Chester end it would approach from a direction more south than east, and so would join the existing line before the canal crossing (and the little bunch of major road crossings).

 

[edwin_m]

It would simplify Crewe quite a bit if the Chester line diverged further north, getting out of the built-up area via the WCML. But I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Philip]

I think the easiest and most practical solution to this would be to leave the line as it is and if the London to Chester service must be electric under the wires, then diagram a couple of locos to hang around in platform 8 or 10 at Crewe until a London to Chester train pulls in. The loco can then drag the EMU to and from Chester abd get back to Crewe in time for the next turn; the second loco on hand whenever one of the locos has to make a trip up the coast to Holyhead.

 

[sw1ller]

I'd personally say it really is that right. To the point where the pan would basically be down. Linslade is also a very tight tunnel nr Leighton Buzzard but it has the advantage of some extra height. Does anyone have the actual dimensions of the tunnel? (And linslade as a comparison.
On the up I usually do the brake test at the tunnel with a Chester starter or a double set coupled at Chester as it's doing roughly around 60-65mph at that point, that way I can get it down the required 10mph and by the time I've got it back to 65 I've cleared the 90 board fully just after .On the down i'm doing 65 with low brake in due to it still being fairly slippy even though the Sanders have made a huge distance. Wouldn't envisage a problem with getting stuck provided CR27 is cleared.

Regards the RBT, I don’t know what you drive but I’ve never got to 65 before the 90 bored on the up main. You can easily get to 90 before an RBT BUT I TEND TO DO IT AT 50, before I get to the tunnel.