West Coast Modernisation: What was actually delivered and what was cancelled?

[Jorge Da Silva]

I know the West Coast was modernised in the early 2000's but what projects were completed and what projects were cancelled in the process seen as it overran. I know that Rugby, Coventry and Stafford were remodelled and several speed improvements were made but what else was completed? or was suppose to be completed but later cancelled.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I am a bit mixed on the WCML modernisation. The fact we've only got it up by about 15mph at best for a project that was vastly over time and budget leaves the initial 140mph Pendolino runs to be desired. In fact I fail to see why the railway needed much of a speed upgrade since the Class 390 is a member from a tilting train family that was designed to run on existing infrastructure without much needed investments. One could argue the investments, for what we got, was a bit of a loss at best, a waste of money at worst.

 

[swt_passenger]

I know the West Coast was modernised in the early 2000's but what projects were completed and what projects were cancelled in the process seen as it overran. I know that Rugby, Coventry and Stafford were remodelled and several speed improvements were made but what else was completed? or was suppose to be completed but later cancelled.

There’s a fairly good DfT report here about exactly what was done:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DfT_WCMLProgress2006.pdf
As you’ll see from that report “Coventry” was not part of it. Stafford/Norton Bridge seems to have been the major deferrment of work, as it wasn’t finalised at that time .

 

[Hadders]

Bear in mind that much of the infrastructure on the WCML was life expired so doing nothing was not an option.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A lot was and is still being converted to AT - auto transformer which is probably a good thing.

 

[swt_passenger]

A lot was and is still being converted to AT - auto transformer which is probably a good thing.

Well yes, but is that actually a postponed part of the 2000s WCRM, or a separate more recent project?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well yes, but is that actually a postponed part of the 2000s WCRM, or a separate more recent project?

Great question and the truthful answer is “ I don’t know”

 

[swt_passenger]

Great question and the truthful answer is “ I don’t know”

Me neither. Everything just seems to merge together...

 

[InOban]

Didn't quite a lot of the route get either three or four tracks?
I admit the endless disruption is the best argument for HS2, ie building a new route.

 

[LOL The Irony]

In fact I fail to see why the railway needed much of a speed upgrade since the Class 390 is a member from a tilting train family that was designed to run on existing infrastructure without much needed investments.

Going over 125MPH requires in-cab signaling. That was where the speed upgrade was going to come from.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Going over 125MPH requires in-cab signaling. That was where the speed upgrade was going to come from.

What a waste that seemed to be then.

 

[Elecman]

No AT is part of a general power supply upgrade , the ole works on WCRM was final removal of what remained of compound catenary and of worn ole wire renewal

 

[snowball]

Didn't quite a lot of the route get either three or four tracks?

As far as I know the only additional tracks were between Rugby and Colwich:

Rugby to Brinklow: fourth track reinstated

Brinklow to Attleborough (just before Nuneaton): remained 3 tracks

Attleborough to Lichfield: remained 4 tracks

Lichfield to Armitage: widened from 2 to 4 tracks

Armitage to Colwich: remained 4 tracks

Colwich to Stafford: remained 2 tracks.

This was in 2004-8.

 

[swt_passenger]

As far as I know the only additional tracks were between Rugby and Colwich:
Rugby to Brinklow: fourth track reinstated
Brinklow to Attleborough (just before Nuneaton): remained 3 tracks
Attleborough to Lichfield: remained 4 tracks
Lichfield to Armitage: widened from 2 to 4 tracks
Armitage to Colwich: remained 4 tracks
Colwich to Stafford: remained 2 tracks.
This was in 2004-8.

That’s all shown fairly well in the before and after sketches in the report I linked to earlier.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is one of my specialised subjects.

The answer depends on when you start the clock. Assuming you start in 1996 (when the Passenger Upgrade (PUG) deal was done with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising), it was no more than what was necessary to support a half hourly Manchester service (with a 2h timing) and reduced times to Birmingham / Liverpool / Glasgow. There were no other extra paths for any other services. The scope was:

* Renewal of life expired track, OLE and signalling along the route when it was due for renewal
* where the above assets were not due for renewal, upgrade to track and OLE, plus re-siting of signals to support higher line speeds (up to max 125mph) Euston - Birmingham / Manchester / Glasgow (fast lines only).
* some work on Northchurch and Stowe Hill tunnels to enable 125mph
* upgrade or closure of all ‘passive’ footpath / accommodation level crossings for linespeeds above 100mph
* power upgrade
* minor remodelling at Manchester Picc to make better use of platforms 10, 11 and 12
* Some changes at Wigan
* remodelling of Proof House Junction (Birmingham)
* remodelling of Euston, and reduction to 15 platforms.
* TASS tilt authorisation and speed supervision system

That was it. Stuff like the remodelling of Ledburn Jn and the new Bourne End Jn were covered under renewals, as the relevant existing junctions were life expired. As was the new Saltley control centre - this was to cover the renewal of the route as and when it happened.

Then Virgin came along.

The Passenger Upgrade 2 deal was done, which saw the promise of 4 trains an hour to Birmingham, hourly to Chester and Glasgow (I think)...), 140mph running and a few minutes knocked off all the headline journey times. The extra scope was:

* more power upgrades, this time big ones
* Rugby - Brinklow 4 tracking
* Lichfield - Armitage 4 tracking
* Nuneaton flyover (reinstatement) and remodelling
* closing the level crossings between Birmingham and Coventry
* amendment to Euston Remodelling to keep all 18 platforms, and add in some other extras
* remodelling at Tring and MK to add in a couple of extra platforms
* TCS signalling (the same concept as ETCS, but without the E, and without any evidence it actually existed.)
* replacement of all convential track crossings on the 140mph sections with swing nose crossings
* closure of all level crossings on sections above 125mph
* gauge clearance for the Pendolinos

Then there were some huge arguments with ORR and the freight guys. The former, quite reasonably, wanted to ensure that existing access rights (ie existing train paths) were not disadvantaged. (Of course in BR days this would not have been done). The freight guys wanted more extra capacity for free.

The outcome of all that argument was a slow line upgrade to 100 mph south of Hanslope Jn, more 4 tracking (Tamworth - Lichfield), some minor work at Rugby, and some remodelling at Birmingham International. Plus the AT power system, and a whole load of extra renewal work that by now had become due.

Then after more ‘discussion’, and the realisation that TCS (with or without the E) wasn’t going to come along, the project was rebaselined. At this point, Euston, Proof House and Piccadilly had already been done, and the track, OLE and power upgrades were in full swing. Renewal of the signalling south of Rugby was also underway, with Ledburn Jn already remodelled, and Bourne End junction in detailed planning. The changes at this point were:

* abandon the 140mph (as it gave very little benefit for the cost, and in any event, without (E)TCS) and some draconian platform closures, it wasn’t going to happen)
* add in major remodelling at Rugby (which gave as much journey time benefit as max 140mph from Watford to Rugby)
* electriifcation Crewe to Kidsgrove
* a few other bits and pieces.

So when people say it was over budget, that was mostly because a lot more was added into the project. Not least much renewal that wasn’t officially in the budget to start with.

There’s lot of things that were considered in the WCRM, but not ever formally included. For example Colwich Jn remodelling (too difficult with only minor benefit resulting from what was possible), a completely rebuilt Watford with extra fast line platforms (horrendously expensive and lots of land take) Stockport / Manchester South remodelling (over specified by the local team which killed it), a Stafford bypass (the rough line of which is now taken by part of HS2 phase 2a), and a complete rebuild of Crewe.

As far as I’m aware, nothing was actually started that was cancelled. The closest to this is Manchester South / Stockport. But as above, it never really got going.

That’s how I remember it from a distance of 15-20 years; happy to take corrections.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That’s how I remember it from a distance of 15-20 years; happy to take corrections.

That's as good a summary of WCRM as I've ever seen.
Richard Bowker (who would have known more than most) once said no one knew the whole story.

Some other bits and bobs from my observations:
The North Staffs route had a lot of work and is much better than it was (used to be 85mph max), but no improvements to the slow junctions on the route.
Stafford itself was not fully remodelled, just renewed as was, with the grade separation at Norton Bridge being the game-changer.
Crewe was untouched, Crewe-Manchester never even got TASS.
There was also talk of TASS on the Northampton loop to speed up diversions, but it never happened. There is still a lot of 75mph slow line operation on the WCML.

North of Crewe, Weaver Jn was remodelled and upgraded to 100mph towards Liverpool, and the Fast was relaid at Hartford.
Improvements on the Liverpool branch were minimal and are only just coming now with the resignalling (always the Achilles heel).
Despite many blockades, nothing was touched Acton Grange-Wigan (no TASS/EPS), and the promised 3rd line at Coppull never appeared.
Similarly, Preston and Carlisle were untouched, although Euxton Jn was doubled.
Hardly anything was done north of Carstairs.
Also remember lots of money was also spent on the G&SW and S&C routes to keep traffic off the WCML, most of it nugatory now coal has vanished.
The many rakes of coal hoppers that plied the length of the northern WCML are now, sadly, parked up in Walton Old Jn Sidings at Warrington.

Bushbury-Stafford is the only stretch of the WCML allowing 125mph for non-tilt trains.
And the non-Virgin operators never acquired tilting stock to take advantage of EPS speeds, and thus clog up the Fast lines at 110mph.
Arriva XC even removed tilt from its 221s, negating much of the benefit of the North Staffs upgrade.

All this is going to give the WCP people much food for thought, feeding 350km/h capable HS2 trains into the 110mph northern WCML by 2026.
Despite all the high-tech resignalling there are still too many control points on the WCML (6 through Stockport alone!).
We haven't mentioned Watford and Bletchley, but resignalling these areas was descoped out of WCRM and took another 5 years of disruption to complete.
And no sooner was WCRM "finished" than the spectre of disruption from HS2 preparations began to loom large!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The closest to this is Manchester South / Stockport. But as above, it never really got going.

Stockport remodelling was started ...there was considerable ripping up of track at the Macclesfield end and some repositioning , which was then in turn ripped up and the older formation replaced. The planned resignalling was finally aborted after the failure of the Ansoldo scheme at Cheadle Hulme , and the Edwardian mechanical signalboxes were refurbished and life extended. In between , the "new" platform 0 languished for a very long time , unconnected to the working sections.

There is a major book to be written here - some of which is presumably too painful to recall , in terms of failed specifications and indeed failed hopes. Dare I say it - the triumph over huge challenges of the 2004 Timetable which at least gave stability and improvements.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Very interesting to read some of the above - written by folks with far greater knowledge on the subject than myself.
Might I just add (and kindly correct if I've got it wrong):

One positive result not mentioned so far - the changes, especially the four tracking, allowed the introduction of the LM* semi-fast Euston-Crewe service via Northampton (originally), Trent Valley, Stoke and Kidsgrove.
Not only did this give stations like Tamworth, Lichfield and Atherton a regular 1 TPH service to Euston for the first time ever, it hugely improved general connnectivity along the route. Prior to this, for example, it was impossible to travel from Trent VAlley stations to Rugby/Northampton/M Keynes or Watford for much of the day, except via Birmingham or Coventry, with change(s).
* Not sure if it was called LM at the time.

This great improvement was to some extent counterbalanced by one huge negative result: the descoped work at Nuneaton meant Coventry - Nuneaton services were reduced to a simple shuttle, and so ended through running to Leicester - Nottingham - Lincoln.

Obviously, the need to change trains at Nuneaton (and a mere 1TPH service) greatly stymied the attractions for passengers from Coventry (and Bedworth) to the East Midlands - and v v.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Very interesting to read some of the above - written by folks with far greater knowledge on the subject than myself.
Might I just add (and kindly correct if I've got it wrong):

One positive result not mentioned so far - the changes, especially the four tracking, allowed the introduction of the LM* semi-fast Euston-Crewe service via Northampton (originally), Trent Valley, Stoke and Kidsgrove.
Not only did this give stations like Tamworth, Lichfield and Atherton a regular 1 TPH service to Euston for the first time ever, it hugely improved general connnectivity along the route. Prior to this, for example, it was impossible to travel from Trent VAlley stations to Rugby/Northampton/M Keynes or Watford for much of the day, except via Birmingham or Coventry, with change(s).
* Not sure if it was called LM at the time.

This great improvement was to some extent counterbalanced by one huge negative result: the descoped work at Nuneaton meant Coventry - Nuneaton services were reduced to a simple shuttle, and so ended through running to Leicester - Nottingham - Lincoln.

Obviously, the need to change at Nuneaton from a mere 1TPH greatly stymied Coventry (and Bedworth) connections to the East Midlands.

The Trent Valley semi-fasts were (and are) a great success - it was born from the ashes of a very resource led single unit which did random movements as the bare minimum that was contractualized in 1996 for Central Trains. The long period of withdrawal was painful , but in the medium - long term very worthwhile.

The cross Nuneaton serices in the Leicester direction were another "overlooked" service in PUG2 (unsurprising perhaps when Silverlink could have been forced off the fast lines entirely !) * - so the options of grade seperation at NN for the hourly 2 car DMU were painfully looked at by the RT /NR ream and deemed "not value for money" as the cross passenger flows ranged from a handful of people to about 30 per train. The later plan to rebuild the flyover from Abbey Junction and build the new HL Nuneaton platforms was , in my view , the right answer for overall capacity and service planning.

(* the original PUG2 agreement , happily signed off by the ORR , gave Virgin almost full excusivity for the fast lines for 140 MPH running - including messing up the then Railnet services - RT/NR were then forced into huge amounts of work to prove or unprove this assumption , some ideas of which were "blue sky" thinking to say the least , and completely unfunded.

 

[DarloRich]

I know the West Coast was modernised in the early 2000's but what projects were completed and what projects were cancelled in the process seen as it overran. I know that Rugby, Coventry and Stafford were remodelled and several speed improvements were made but what else was completed? or was suppose to be completed but later cancelled.

I am a bit mixed on the WCML modernisation. The fact we've only got it up by about 15mph at best for a project that was vastly over time and budget leaves the initial 140mph Pendolino runs to be desired. In fact I fail to see why the railway needed much of a speed upgrade since the Class 390 is a member from a tilting train family that was designed to run on existing infrastructure without much needed investments. One could argue the investments, for what we got, was a bit of a loss at best, a waste of money at worst.

I suspect neither of you have the first clue about this massive project. I would read the very informative post by @Bald Rick - as has also been pointed out the existing infrastructure was life expired.

 

[HowardGWR]

Reading the above, (for which thanks), it sorts out the discussion for HS2 justification, conclusively. We've gone from 'high speed' to 'all about capacity' and the above brings it back to 'both' again. Can one now add back in the third justification, which is 'opportunity to revive WCML improvements as well', particularly signalling?

 

[Senex]

The planned resignalling was finally aborted after the failure of the Ansoldo scheme at Cheadle Hulme , and the Edwardian mechanical signalboxes were refurbished and life extended.

Does anyone know what the problems were? I seem to recall that round about the same time Ansaldo were doing a truly massive re-signalling of Roma Termini which all settled in with very little trouble indeed. But Siemens too had all sorts of trouble when first trying to enter the British signalling market, didn't they? Was it just major compatibility problems between the way the British did things and the way everyone else in Europe did things?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for the above comments, some of which have ticketed the synapses and prompted a few corrections.

The ‘changes at Wigan’ I mentioned - don’t think they happened.

North Staffs resignalling - this was a straight renewal, albeit with signals in the right place for higher speeds. There were a few changes around Stoke to raise the speeds around the station, and work in the tunnels further north for gauge clearance. The resignalling all got done around 2002/3, and managed to avoid the big rebaselining.

Nuneaton - there’s a whole conference worth of material there. Lots of options were looked at. But it is wrong to say the project was ’descoped’ in a way that prevented the Leicester - Cov service. Whilst options that retained that service were looked at, they were never formally included. And rightly so. I commuted that route for 6 months in the early 90s and the best timed morning peak train had around 8 of us going across Nuneaton. Absolutely not worth the expense of doing something very expensive, and extremely difficult Technically.

The LM Trent Valley service would not have been possible without the 4 tracking of the whole corridor. This is was almost seen as a by product to the extra freight capacity, but with hindsight is very much more important than that now.

The main problem with South Manchester’s was that it went way over budget, and the Ansalado equipment was proving difficult to get approval in the U.K. (partly due to different electrical systems, I think). A portion of the blame for going over budget rests with the local route team up there who insisted on over specificying what was required, because they were using someone else’s money to do so.

Indeed the whole WCRM project is a salutary lesson in ownership of project requirements and programme budgets. Too many people / organisations had too much power to add scope in without any responsibility for the budget.

 

[jhy44]

I think the biggest lost opportunity with this project wasn't also quadroupling the Birmingham - Coventry line, or putting in an additional 2 or 4 platforms at Coventry. It would have massively bolstered local services allowing a 10 minute frequency and new stations, whilst giving much more contingent/slack space both on track and platforms for when disruption occurs, which isn't uncommon in that part of the world.

Leicester - Cov service [ ] the best timed morning peak train had around 8 of us going across Nuneaton. Absolutely not worth the expense of doing something very expensive, and extremely difficult Technically.

Perhaps, but it's also worth bearing in mind that rather than this being indicative of 'no demand', it may be 'suppressed demand' due to the poor connections/service. Coventry and Leicester are important cities, and a Cov-Leicester-Nottingham service would probably more than hold its own with passenger numbers. Hopefully this will be looked at in the future. It'll be interesting to see how the planned improvement of the Cov-Nuneaton to 2tph affects this flow.

 

[edwin_m]

The ‘changes at Wigan’ I mentioned - don’t think they happened.

Didn't Wigan get a new west side parallel track so trains to and from Liverpool could serve the station without using the main lines?

 

[swt_passenger]

Didn't Wigan get a new west side parallel track so trains to and from Liverpool could serve the station without using the main lines?

That’s described in section 10.11 of the report I linked in post #2.

By the way, I found that report (on the railways archive site) with Google, but it is only one of many relevant items they have, from SRA, ORR, DFT etc. The side bar on the summary page has links to many of them:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=487

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Didn't Wigan get a new west side parallel track so trains to and from Liverpool could serve the station without using the main lines?

It did - that was my idea ! , handily placed for future electrification , which also was "influenced" by myself.

 

[Ianno87]

Didn't Wigan get a new west side parallel track so trains to and from Liverpool could serve the station without using the main lines?

Yes, it did.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Must not forget either that "asset replacement" was a massive job - the SRA brokered the major blockades of Norton Bridge - Cheadle Hulme and Crewe - Cheadle Hulme , which were planned to give 24/7 access for major renewals , added in also the wiring of the Crewe - Stoke via Radway Green (for smart diversions) , assisted with the major renewals south of Rugby , and held the line on requirements for total shutdown Oxenholme - Carlisle and within Scotland north of Gretna Junction. (it was asked for in High Summer , so a crunch meeting stopped that idea !)

There were key bridge works down on the ScR (sorry - old BR) section , and the replacement of junctions at places like Lesmahagow Jct (knowhere near the place ..) - ideally Carstairs would have been remodelled , but as I recall the now awake ORR pushed back a few things , so this was left out.

Do not forget either the new platform at Wolverhampton HL.

As I said before , there is huge book to be written - not all of it palatable to many people.

The absolute winning work , IMHO, was the train planning team - parachuted in especially at the old BR Offices in Rail House , Crewe , working across all operators which compromised and improved the train plan offer over a lengthy period which gave the 2004 TT , which worked incredibly well from day one.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It did - that was my idea ! , handily placed for future electrification , which also was "influenced" by myself.

Yes, it's very beneficial for the Liverpool-Wigan local service.
Warrington-Wigan-Balshaw Lane is still a messy railway though, with the slow lines switching sides repeatedly.
Maybe it's a good job the promised freight volumes have not happened.
Meanwhile the signalling north of Weaver Jn is now 45 years old and will have to be replaced soon, hopefully with some of these layout issues resolved.
Ansaldo has also become Hitachi of course, and is a key player in NR's ERTMS roll-out.