Council want to electrify 5 miles of the Marches line ??? why....

[CheshirePaul]

Cheshire East council have produced local reports on there towns and how they plan to improve everything from housing to transport.

In there plan they want to electrify a 5 mile part of the Marches line from Crewe to Nantwich ! Why would this help local rail travel when the only services on this line are by ATW who dont have any EMU's.

Also all services go to either Shrewsbury using 153 / 150 stock or to south Wales using 175 /158 stock, So the 5 miles between Crewe and Nantwich getting wires would be useless.

The full town plan can be viewed at

http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/file/2282795

Strategy: Transport

• Enhance the town's public transport system by improving the accessibility of services; integrating various modes of public transport; improving the quantity, quality and operating hours of the bus service; and enhancing the railway station, including parking facilities and service provision, potentially supported by electrifying the line between Crewe and Nantwich....

Does any one have any thorts how getting wires between Crewe and Nantwich could improve local rail services.

 

[bluenoxid]

A Crewe to Chester local service will have to go somewhere so Nantwich is not unreasonable.

 

[tbtc]

I've always though of Nantwich as one of those places on a "busy" longer distance line that should really justify a better service if on there were "local" trains on the route.

Abergavenny and Cwmbran are other stations on the Marches line like this - they'd surely justify a stand alone half hourly service if they were on the Valleys network, but as it is they are struggling for seats on longer distance services.

Maybe there's scope for a half hourly Crewe - Nantwich EMU? Thus allowing some longer distance services to be speeded up by avoiding Nantwich? Just a guess.

 

[43167]

Only way I can see it is by extending the Manchester-Crewe locals operated by Northern. If it was done, dont think it would need any alterations to the 323 diagrams, as the sets normally get shunted down the siding until its time for the return service.

And the distance that would actually need wiring is less than 3 miles, as the line is actually electrified up to just past Gresty Lane sidings.

 

[Gareth Marston]

New footbridge at Whitchurch (Shrops) next town south is suppose to be planned with overhead wire clearance in mind.

Sounds like a council not thinking beyond its own boundary's and forgetting the wider picture.

 

[CheshirePaul]

Only way I can see it is by extending the Manchester-Crewe locals operated by Northern. If it was done, dont think it would need any alterations to the 323 diagrams, as the sets normally get shunted down the siding until its time for the return service. .

Yes that could work but the only issue would be that then the northern unit would have to use platform 5 or 6 at crewe to get to the Marches line, and to get there would have to cross the WCML.

Local press have reported the reason that more ATW services from Manchester to south Wales dont stop at Nantwich is because of timing issues of crossing the busy WCML at crewe station

 

[Qwerty133]

Could the London midland Trent valley line service be extended.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Could the London midland Trent valley line service be extended.

A lot like extending the Manchester locals, the problem with that is that you'd block the WCML getting over to the Shrewsbury lines from the east...

 

[43167]

Yes that could work but the only issue would be that then the northern unit would have to use platform 5 or 6 at crewe to get to the Marches line, and to get there would have to cross the WCML.

Local press have reported the reason that more ATW services from Manchester to south Wales dont stop at Nantwich is because of timing issues of crossing the busy WCML at crewe station

Yes, but that happens everywhere.

Look at the ECML at Doncaster at least 3 an hour eachway from Sheffield to Hull/Scunthorpe/Cleethorpes.

 

[tbtc]

Yes, but that happens everywhere.

Look at the ECML at Doncaster at least 3 an hour eachway from Sheffield to Hull/Scunthorpe/Cleethorpes.

Though there are discussions about cutting some of these through services (to allow more London services on the ECML)

 

[Welshman]

It may be worth considering if there is a lot of local and/or commuter traffic between Nantwich and Crewe, particularly if some of that goes on to Stafford, Liverpool or Manchester.

As has been mentioned, stock should not be a problem for any extension from Manchester or Northampton/Rugby as both Northern and LM units seem to sit in Crewe or the siding outside for long periods of time per hour.

Presumably instead of going via Stoke, the LM service could come down the slow line from Stafford and use platform 7 at Crewe to access the Shrewsbury line, so would not conflict with the WCML fast lines. The conflicting moves would be at the north end for trains going towards Manchester, but presumably they would only be twice per hour.

The roads around Crewe always seem to be very busy and the station car-park is usually full, so if an enhanced service would attract motortists from North Shropshire/South Cheshire to use Nantwich rather than Crewe as a railhead, then that seems a good return for electrifying only 3 miles of railway.

 

[The Planner]

It will soon get forgotten when they get told how much it will cost to provide the knitting, turnbacks and associated signalling and how much they are going to contribute.....As part of a scheme to wire Wolves Salop Crewe yes, on its own, mental.

 

[merlodlliw]

The more Councils we have, the more they forget where their boundary is,the line Crewe to Shrewsbury runs through two County Councils,it is on the Wales & Borders franchise, so this also brings in Welsh Government.

The Crewe to Chester line also runs through two County Councils(Cheshire West & Cheshire East ) and of course WG as its also on the Wales & Borders franchise.Of the two lines this one is the most deserving of wires being the busiest by far.

Dreams are nice, until like planner states, the £cost, nice place Nantwich(home of Chatwins cakes ) but only just over 12K live there.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Shall we say it doesnt feature on the present "options for future electrification" list .....

 

[Buttsy]

Just come up with a brilliant solution! Get platforms built on the avoiding line and run the service that way, avoiding conflicts. I look forward to seeing 'Crewe West' opening!

 

[Beveridges]

Avoiding line is hardly used in the day so that would be a good idea

 

[The Ham]

The suggestion to electrify the line comes in the list of "Desirable Infrastructure" after a list of "Essential Infrastructure" and a further list of "Important Infrastructure" (P22 or the 24th page of the PDF which the OP provided the link to).

It is unlikely that they are expecting it to happen any time soon, nor will they push very hard for it, however they should not allow anything to happen that will cause that desire to be blocked or made more difficult/costly.

Of course as soon as the line is announced to be fully electrified the council will claim credit.

 

[Polarbear]

I really can't see where the demand would come from for this idea?

Currently, there are between 5-6 buses each hour between Nantwich & Crewe & at both ends, the respective bus stations are more centrally located than the railway stations. Is there really the demand to properly utilise a 3 car EMU each hour?

Operationally, the only avenue that could realistically work would be to wire Crewe - Chester & run a service through to Nantwich. Anything else would have to cross the layout at Crewe, which is already hamstrung with a notable lack of connections between some lines since the re-design in the mid 1980's.

 

[The Ham]

Operationally, the only avenue that could realistically work would be to wire Crewe - Chester & run a service through to Nantwich. Anything else would have to cross the layout at Crewe, which is already hamstrung with a notable lack of connections between some lines since the re-design in the mid 1980's.

According to NR Crewe to Chester would be a little tricky to electrify given the number of bridges & tunnels along the line unless they used discontinuous electrification:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...native solutions - draft for consultation.pdf

The Network RUS: Electrification Strategy identified the electrification of the line from Crewe to Chester to enable electric traction on London Euston to Chester passenger services as a further option for which the business case might be improved by the usage of alternative solutions such as discontinuous electrification. This case study considers discontinuities in the OLE infrastructure on the Crewe-Chester route in the form of either:
- extended neutral sections where there is insufficient electrical clearance
- gaps in the OLE where there is also insufficient mechanical clearance.

 

[185]

Cheshire East council have produced local reports on there towns and how they plan to improve everything from housing to transport.

......

Also all services go to either Shrewsbury using 153 / 150 stock or to south Wales using 175 /158 stock, So the 5 miles between Crewe and Nantwich getting wires would be useless.

Does any one have any thorts how getting wires between Crewe and Nantwich could improve local rail services.

As usual Cheshire fail to include the bigger picture, they consider anything outside of their county to be nothing to do with them, when infact other counties stating their cases is key to Cheshire getting any extra electrification in the first place.

If they really want to start somewhere, they can stump up funding for stations on some long sections of train lines which run parallel to congested main roads, but have absolutely no stations on them such as Chester-Crewe, Chester-Shotton, Chester-Helsby, Frodsham-Runcorn, Newton-le-Willows-Eccles etc.

 

[merlodlliw]

According to NR Crewe to Chester would be a little tricky to electrify given the number of bridges & tunnels along the line unless they used discontinuous electrification:

I am sure they have had worse problems elsewhere & got round it, BR had when the ton up trains started.

Bob

 

[northwichcat]

As usual Cheshire fail to include the bigger picture, they consider anything outside of their county to be nothing to do with them, when infact other counties stating their cases is key to Cheshire getting any extra electrification in the first place.

The same could be said about TfGM with the exception of a few Derbyshire towns.

In fact Cheshire East ARE looking at the bigger picture. The document linked is a plan for the town of Nantwich with points the town council and the district council will discuss. Mentioning new stations, lines etc. elsewhere is irrelevant for inclusion in this document.

The proposal for reopening the Middlewich branch assumed the Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe service would be extended to Stoke to free up a path for a terminator. However, that is no longer a preferred Network Rail option with instead the Derby-Crewe service being extended to the Airport. So a possible solution is to instead extend the Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe service to Nantwich, which would give Nantwich more direct links to other places in Cheshire, as well as the Airport and free up a terminating path in to Crewe station for a service off the Middlewich branch.

TfGM have refused to work with Cheshire councils on proposals for the Middlewich branch and TfGM have drawn up proposals for tram-trains on the Mid-Cheshire line and a Baguley interchange served by an Altrincham-Stockport shuttle, which doesn't even acknowledge the fact that the Middlewich branch could be brought back in to use.

 

[HSTEd]

We shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

If Chester county council want to marginally improve the cash for teh Welsh Marches line we should oblige them.

Also I am sure there is some reason related to extending the Crewe-Manchester train or somesuch, since it would be a shame to require a DMU to replace a Cl323 diagram to allow this to occur.

2 miles to save 40 miles of under-wire running or something like that?

EDIT:

Also with regards to crossing the WCML, from what I can tell about the Crewe layout from aerial photography, is it not possible to reach the Welsh Marches line from the Manchester-to-Crewe line without crossing the WCML on the flat by using some lines that avoid the station?

There seems to be space around said avoiding lines for a pair of platforms, which could be linked to the main station by a new footbridge.

But that is probably a bit pricey.

 

[sprinterguy]

Also with regards to crossing the WCML, from what I can tell about the Crewe layout from aerial photography, is it not possible to reach the Welsh Marches line from the Manchester-to-Crewe line without crossing the WCML on the flat by using some lines that avoid the station?

There seems to be space around said avoiding lines for a pair of platforms, which could be linked to the main station by a new footbridge.

But that is probably a bit pricey.

Yes, those are the freight only avoiding lines mentioned in post 15 of this thread. They're an awful lot lower down than the level of the main station, and installing additional platforms there would be, as you say yourself, an awful lot of additional expense, for one service of unproven demand.

 

[northwichcat]

If Chester county council want to marginally improve the cash for teh Welsh Marches line we should oblige them.

There is no Cheshire County Council any more.

Warrington and Halton became unitary councils when John Major was in power and the rest of Cheshire was split in to two unitary councils a few years ago.

Nantwich is in Cheshire East.

Chester-Crewe, Chester-Shotton, Chester-Helsby,

Comes under Cheshire West council.

Frodsham-Runcorn

Comes under Cheshire West and Halton councils. Although, I can't see any settlement that isn't served by a station already. Unless you are meaning a new Chester to Runcorn train service opposed to the current Chester to Runcorn East.

Newton-le-Willows-Eccles etc.

Comes under Warrington council.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, those are the freight only avoiding lines mentioned in post 15 of this thread. They're an awful lot lower down than the level of the main station, and installing additional platforms there would be, as you say yourself, an awful lot of additional expense, for one service of unproven demand.

What about the existing Manchester-West Wales services? I know its only hourly but surely those would use the avoiding lines if platforms were put in on them?

What would taking those trains off the main WCML crossing do for capacity on the main line?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As a matter of curiosity, how many level crossings are currently in use in the Nantwich area. Don't forget, there are numerous small farming and rural areas around Nantwich from where high-loaded hay bale lorries pass and I wonder if there were overhead lines installed, would this pose any problem with that traffic and other high-loaded traffic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no Cheshire County Council any more. Warrington and Halton became unitary councils when John Major was in power and the rest of Cheshire was split in to two unitary councils a few years ago. Nantwich is in Cheshire East.

Unlike you and I who both are residents in Cheshire East, perhaps people on this thread from outside this area who are making suggestions about increased transport budgetary targets by this authority may not be aware of the current Cheshire East cutbacks in the public transport finance provision, which would make a mockery of those cuts imposed to fund something like the proposal of this thread.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

As a matter of curiosity, how many level crossings are currently in use in the Nantwich area. Don't forget, there are numerous small farming and rural areas around Nantwich from where high-loaded hay bale lorries pass and I wonder if there were overhead lines installed, would this pose any problem with that traffic and other high-loaded traffic.

3 - Willaston (Gresty Lane; CCTV monitored*) and Newcastle Rd (automatic-half barrier*) north of Nantwich, and the station's level crossing on the south side of the station (Pillory St; manually controlled with barriers*). I would assume that there it's not really a massive issue, of course they could lower the road if necessary, or introduce height restrictions, there's many overbridges which would cover for any loses. Many other overhead electrified rural lines seem to cope, for example Ely-Kings Lynn, the GEML and Newcastle-Edinburgh.

* - I suppose this is irrelevant as it's all changing comes December from what I can gather.

 

[Ploughman]

New footbridge at Whitchurch (Shrops) next town south is suppose to be planned with overhead wire clearance in mind.

Sounds like a council not thinking beyond its own boundary's and forgetting the wider picture.

Not at all.
It is a requirement that all new structures across NWR need to be constructed with possible electrification clearances built in.

The recent installation of a new signal gantry on the NYMR at Grosmont would have had to comply with this requirement if the structure had crossed the Esk Valley line.

 

[Gareth Marston]

long standing angst when i was at RPC was Crewe and connections from Manchester to Cardiff services. They indeed do have to cross the throat using only platforms 5 or 6. BR's working assumption when Crewe was remodeled in 85 was that all Marches trains would terminate at Crewe. Someone forgot to tell the planners that sprinters were round the corner and Manchester to Cardiff was on again for regional railways...