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

[snowball]

Not only did this give stations like Tamworth, Lichfield and Atherton a regular 1 TPH service to Euston for the first time ever

I assume you mean Atherstone!

 

[furnessvale]

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.

Given that freight pays an access charge per km of train run how was that ever expected or given?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Given that freight pays an access charge per km of train run how was that ever expected or given?

Frankly the freight discussion was all about staying in business - let alone asking for "free" pathways. Before the whole lot hit the proverbial fan - there were some off the record , clandestine , discussions about trying to sort out a reasonable capacity plan on the slow lines from say Camden Jct to Northampton and beyond (which became the officially recorded SLUG - or Slow Lines Users Group) - some careful planning was done which slotted into the much bigger and troubled WCML picture.

Of course - the ORR imposed targets on RT to meet these requirements (from memory 50 extra paths a day south of Crewe towards Willesden) - which created vast quantities of work , as previously mentioned. The off the record specification was 2 x 75 mph paths + a 60 mph freight path , plus a decent Northampton fast , 2 semi fast off MK and a slow passenger service from south of MK) - this was achieved in theory , and more so later. The term "Black Diamond Day" in 1999 spelled the end of many dreams for the WCML upgrade as conceptualised - replaced by very hard graft in may areas for timetable and infastrcuture planning for the next 5+ years.

Anyway - much to be written down somewhere , at some time , by some people.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

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.

Very good points - the 1975 + era PSB's which have served the WCML rather well , do need a well deserved replacement.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I had the misfortune to suffer from the complete closure of Crewe - Wilmsow - Cheadle Hulme from Dec 2005 to Jun 2006 - the blockade was originally intended to be for 12 weeks but difficulties with the Ansaldo signalling meant re-opening was repeatedly postponed. The 'express' bus to Crewe from Wilmslow took over a hour (17 minutes by fast train) because of the indirect nature of the roads and traffic congestion in Wilmslow/ Alderley Edge. The 'stopping' bus was even worse with long detours to serve the intermediate stations. Wilmslow itself retained a hourly train service to Manchester via the Styal line, operating on the 'one -engine-in-steam' principle from the Airport - Wilmslow SB having been demolished with indecent haste right at the start! Passenger numbers took several years to recover from that fiasco as punters became used to other modes. As has been mentioned, resignalling of Stockport itself was also abandoned, so even today Pendolinos are 'belled' through Edgeley in the traditional manner.

 

[Aictos]

However I know the 140mph running wasn't possible due to infrastructure limits ie it needed in cab signalling however wasn't it later stated that Virgin could run up to 135mph without needing in cab signalling?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I had the misfortune to suffer from the complete closure of Crewe - Wilmsow - Cheadle Hulme from Dec 2005 to Jun 2006 - the blockade was originally intended to be for 12 weeks but difficulties with the Ansaldo signalling meant re-opening was repeatedly postponed. The 'express' bus to Crewe from Wilmslow took over a hour (17 minutes by fast train) because of the indirect nature of the roads and traffic congestion in Wilmslow/ Alderley Edge. The 'stopping' bus was even worse with long detours to serve the intermediate stations. Wilmslow itself retained a hourly train service to Manchester via the Styal line, operating on the 'one -engine-in-steam' principle from the Airport - Wilmslow SB having been demolished with indecent haste right at the start! Passenger numbers took several years to recover from that fiasco as punters became used to other modes. As has been mentioned, resignalling of Stockport itself was also abandoned, so even today Pendolinos are 'belled' through Edgeley in the traditional manner.

Good points and well made -the shambles of the South Manchester area , murdered the local rail market for a very long time ......none of this was , of course , considered when PUG2 was approved. Not exactly great planning when a mature and well established commuter / leisure market was thus treated. FNW / Northern etc got a rough deal - frankly beyond 2004 to 2008 , as they were in many cases the bottom of the "to do" heap.

The whole travesty of the Stockport area "resignallng" - is frankly a disgrace - the condition of those boxes was unforgiveable - they had been let go , were terrible places to work (as they had supposedly a short life) -to walk into the interlocking rooms was a challenge - flooded - a way across was on upturned bricks - probably and very likely rat infested. Was ashamed to visit them (But I reckon the signallers clocked who we were) - it may still be absolute block and bells , but the working conditions are very much better now ..

 

[ChiefPlanner]

However I know the 140mph running wasn't possible due to infrastructure limits ie it needed in cab signalling however wasn't it later stated that Virgin could run up to 135mph without needing in cab signalling?

Questionably yes ...but no major time savings in doing so , for many reasons.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

140mph would have banned what is now LNR from the fast lines. I'm not unconvinced that the present 110/125mph split hasn't actually turned out better overall.

 

[Aictos]

Questionably yes ...but no major time savings in doing so , for many reasons.

I don't know the reasons but whatever they were, it's unlikely I think that we will ever see above 125mph on the WCML in my lifetime.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don't know the reasons but whatever they were, it's unlikely I think that we will ever see above 125mph on the WCML in my lifetime.

Really not worth it -as HS2 will deliver more.I mean that sincerely.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

140mph would have banned what is now LNR from the fast lines. I'm not unconvinced that the present 110/125mph split hasn't actually turned out better overall.

A compromise (not a shameful word) -and the LM / LNW 110 mph initiative - not cheap was IMHO a very good action.

 

[Aictos]

Really not worth it -as HS2 will deliver more.I mean that sincerely.

I'm not doubting you, with HS2 using in cab signalling on the captive part of HS2 there's no reason why their services can't operate between 140mph and 180mph which is far more then the WCML can dream of.

 

[thecrofter]

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

AT was indeed in scope for WCRM. Seven new National Grid 400 / 25 kV Feeder Stations being part of that programme. Originally it was to be from North Wembley to Carstairs. Only what was necessary for the December 2008 timetable was completed (Frodsham / Weaver completing in June 2009) and the rest was de-scoped for transfer to NR with additional investment authority. That should have seen the dots joined up between North Wembley and Great Strickland but that has also been cut back due cost savings.

 

[snowball]

140mph would have banned what is now LNR from the fast lines. I'm not unconvinced that the present 110/125mph split hasn't actually turned out better overall.

Have you counted the negatives in that?

 

[swt_passenger]

However I know the 140mph running wasn't possible due to infrastructure limits ie it needed in cab signalling however wasn't it later stated that Virgin could run up to 135mph without needing in cab signalling?

What I recall is them subsequently being told that cab signalling was required for anything greater than 125 mph. Which is completely different to not being required below 140 mph...

 

[Aictos]

What I recall is them subsequently being told that cab signalling was required for anything greater than 125 mph. Which is completely different to not being required below 140 mph...

Which was the original thought however it was discovered that they could operate the 390s at speeds of up to 135mph using the existing signalling ie not cab signalling however for various reasons they didn't go though with it.

Indeed in 2013 Virgin Trains own Chris Gibb announced that they were looking at upgrading part of the WCML near Lockerbie see here for a article from Rail Technology Magazine.

It's also stated here that Virgin Trains were calling for 135mph running in 2013 in order to make the best use of the capacity of the WCML and to better compete with the airlines.

Which I believe is more then enough to state my case...

 

[mr_jrt]

a completely rebuilt Watford with extra fast line platforms (horrendously expensive and lots of land take)

Thank you for such an informative post! Watford has a special place in my heart, so I'm naturally fascinated by the tidbit quoted above.

As it never made it into the project proper I doubt there will be much if any detail on it, but I've considered additional platforms several times over and the sticking point has always been the length of loop required off the fast lines to make them viable/worthwhile. When you mention land take as an obstacle, is that just the platforms themselves, or is that also because you would probably have to widen the entire embankment southwards, not to mention potentially widening the Bushey Arches viaduct (and possibly taking a chunk out of Bushey station), depending on the speed profile desired. Let alone heading north where the Watford tunnels come into play...

 

[Bald Rick]

However I know the 140mph running wasn't possible due to infrastructure limits ie it needed in cab signalling however wasn't it later stated that Virgin could run up to 135mph without needing in cab signalling?

Which was the original thought however it was discovered that they could operate the 390s at speeds of up to 135mph using the existing signalling ie not cab signalling however for various reasons they didn't go though with it.

Indeed in 2013 Virgin Trains own Chris Gibb announced that they were looking at upgrading part of the WCML near Lockerbie see here for a article from Rail Technology Magazine.

It's also stated here that Virgin Trains were calling for 135mph running in 2013 in order to make the best use of the capacity of the WCML and to better compete with the airlines.

Which I believe is more then enough to state my case...

I was in WCRM when we were planning the PUG2 deal in 1997, and it was absolutely certain then that any speeds above 125mph needed cab signalling.

It doesn’t matter that Virgin or Gibby were calling for it, it wasn’t going to happen. Also you have to bear in mind the RailFourms law #6, ‘distrust magazines that include the word “Rail” in their title’

Thank you for such an informative post! Watford has a special place in my heart, so I'm naturally fascinated by the tidbit quoted above.

As it never made it into the project proper I doubt there will be much if any detail on it, but I've considered additional platforms several times over and the sticking point has always been the length of loop required off the fast lines to make them viable/worthwhile. When you mention land take as an obstacle, is that just the platforms themselves, or is that also because you would probably have to widen the entire embankment southwards, not to mention potentially widening the Bushey Arches viaduct (and possibly taking a chunk out of Bushey station), depending on the speed profile desired. Let alone heading north where the Watford tunnels come into play...

Someone, somewhere, will have the initial drawings. The Bushey arches were left as they were. The main changes were in and around the station; memory fails me exactly how I’m afraid. I think the D.C. platforms were reduced in number, and certainly the station building were to go.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

With regards to 140mph running, is the British railway system not already an anomaly in that it's the only one in Europe (maybe even the world) to run over 100mph with the use of traditional LED signals? I know that on the SBB network light signalling runs up until 160km/h, at which point it requires cab signalling, but I can't speak for other European nations. I think German trains use PZB up until the same speed when LZB kicks in, which is technically still a form of cab signalling. I don't know actually, some research may be outdated, but I think British Rail once prided themselves over being the only ones running trains to 110mph on the conventional tracks.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think the AT specification for WCRM changed several times.
It was originally in Railtrack's scope, but was dropped when Network Rail took over, as part of the cost "reduction" to £8 billion.
Then the SRA as "informed customer" seemingly put it back in scope.
Then it was more recently abandoned for Scotland in CP5 because the electric freight plans never took off (and much of that freight has gone anyway).
I'm still unsure which sections are operational and which still in progress - I am still seeing AT insulators without wires on various parts of the WCML.
The new Manchester-Liverpool and Manchester-Preston routes will also have AT capability, although electric traffic is not going to be particularly heavy.

 

[Elecman]

Huyton Wigan and Preston Blackpool aren’t AT but classic boosterless

 

[Joseph_Locke]

* a few other bits and pieces.

• Implementing an Absolute Track Geometry (aka TAD) throughout
• Recovering un-used and occasionally relaying life-expired GF crossovers (but not Lambrigg ...)
• Gauge clearing the North Wales Coast route for 390 (pan down) operation
• Relaying and remodelling Ditton Junction
• Adding a crossover at Euxton Junction
• Numerous new footbridges to replace FP crossings
• Some underline bridge rebuilds for resonance issues
• Upgrade of Route 12 (Via Macclesfield) including slab-tracking Hibel Road tunnel

 

[Joseph_Locke]

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

And me, when that was our work package ... swapped Ditton (so you got the glory).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The answer you get will depend on who you ask - there were many ideas examined that never even got the merest hint of a go-ahead, and they don't count as "cancelled". Grade separating Euxton Jn. got to GRIP1 (ish) before it was stopped and I don't think replacing Floriston LC ever got beyond a comment in a meeting ... some of were around before WCRM was WCRM!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

And me, when that was our work package ... swapped Ditton (so you got the glory).

Good job - merely facilitated it to go on , as it removed an obvious conflict ! - not much glory I assure you , but a bit of satisfaction.

 

[cle]

I remember Virgin touting 135mph and other improvements to cut down Glasgow times; do we think any of those are still going ahead?

I lost the other thread which was about future potential WCML imprvements - other than Colwich, I think the most obvious at the southern end is a rebuild of Watford Junction.

It needs at least one other through island (P5 to start with), and greater ability to turn trains around too. This is to plan for more fasts stopping there but also a higher frequency of inner WCML slows (eg Crossrail OOC plan, more via WLL or for a Crossrail 3) - possibly even directs to St Albans Abbey, or at least a better service.

It’s quiet on whether the Met is officially dead (I fear so) but it would have been a new era for the station. 4tph on the DC lines too, and always. The odd mention of the ELL again. Doubt that or the Bakerloo would work with 4tph DC and I’d argue the Bakerloo will need to turn more intensively at QP once extended.

 

[snowball]

I remember Virgin touting 135mph and other improvements to cut down Glasgow times; do we think any of those are still going ahead?

Presumably at some stage Network Rail / DfT / HS2 Ltd / West Coast partnership / Scottish Government / Transport Scotland will have to start thinking in detail about improvements between Golborne and Glasgow.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I assume you mean Atherstone!

Yes. I realised later, but thought some kind soul would help me out. Thank you.
Incidentally, Atherstone has seen some of the most astonishing growth as a result of the LM/NW service.
It boasted a grand total of 1,425 exits and entries in the ORR figures for 2005-2006.
OK, this had jumped to 4,757 in 2007-2008 ( ie still with the crappy service).
The figures for 2016-2017?
143,476.

 

[70014IronDuke]

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.

WEll, the single-unit service was the result of more or less continuous neglect. AIRI, in 1966 the services was 1 TP2H, run by AM4s which ran Rugby (bays) to Stafford, or perhaps Crewe. Presumably to get rid of the AM4s (granted, probably overkill in terms of accommodation) someone c 1990 had the bright diea of running the 153 from Coventry to Nuneaton and all the way under the wires to Stafford. Or, sometimes, just Lichfield, I think it was.

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. ...

I can believe you are being perfectly fair in this assessment - but if those 30 people were for the bulk of the day - and the six were just very early morning / late evening loadings, the value of the through service would look more impressive. I accept, however, that in terms of value for money, it still may not have been enough to justify the extra investment. Big shame though, considering Nuneaton-Coventry was itself a re-opening.