Warrington Chapelford - £9m New Station plan

[northwichcat]

Agreed but it would have to slot in the rolling programme, that we do not have, behind the North Trans-Pennine (possibly including Hull and Tees-side extensions) and the Midland Main Line. In addition to Liverpool- Manchester and Hazel Grove-Sheffield electrified links from Doncaster-Cleethorpes, Nottingham - Grantham, Peterborough-Ely-Norwich would need to be infilled.

There was a draft electrification RUS that looked at numerous lines which aren't currently scheduled to be electrified. One option considered was for Manchester Airport-Doncaster to be an electric service and Doncaster-Cleethorpes to be a separate diesel service.

Regarding Liverpool-Norwich there are proposals for additional Manchester-Sheffield services but for faster Manchester-Nottingham service omitting Sheffield. I think one option here for replacing the Liverpool-Norwich service could be:

Liverpool-Manchester-Nottingham (electric)
Nottingham-Norwich (diesel)
Additional Manchester-Sheffield service continuing to Nottingham (electric)

I'm not generally in favour of splitting up useful through services to better utilise OHEs. However, I think the above would more advantages than disadvantages. If you delay electrifying Liverpool South Parkway-Trafford Park and Hazel Grove-Sheffield until a business case is proven for Peterborough-Ely-Norwich then the former will never get done.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was a draft electrification RUS that looked at numerous lines which aren't currently scheduled to be electrified. One option considered was for Manchester Airport-Doncaster to be an electric service and Doncaster-Cleethorpes to be a separate diesel service.

Was there ever an option of an electrified Manchester-Doncaster-Kings Cross service, that could be an alternative electrified route to London in an emergency situation of the WCML being unavailable.

 

[edwin_m]

Can't see it myself. Manchester-Doncaster is about 1.5 hours so it would be totally uncompetitive. With planned electrification schemes (including Paddington via Oxford) there will be duplicate electrified routes all the way from Slade Lane to London.

 

[northwichcat]

Was there ever an option of an electrified Manchester-Doncaster-Kings Cross service, that could be an alternative electrified route to London in an emergency situation of the WCML being unavailable.

Why Kings Cross via the ECML ahead of St Pancras via MML? Manchester-St Pancras was the option undertaken during the major WCML modernisation.

 

[Holly]

... The CLC route has very little capacity to carry any extra traffic, due to the need for both fast and slow passenger services and the lack of overtaking loops. ...

Wouldn't electrification improve the acceleration of the stoppers?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Wouldn't electrification improve the acceleration of the stoppers?

Yep, out of all recognition. Any class 3xx beats any 14x or 150 into a cocked hat. Even 317s.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can't see it myself. Manchester-Doncaster is about 1.5 hours so it would be totally uncompetitive. With planned electrification schemes (including Paddington via Oxford) there will be duplicate electrified routes all the way from Slade Lane to London.

Thank you for your response to my hypothetic engineering diversionary routing, which I remember being discussed as one of numerous options on another website.

In what Control Period do you feel that we will see a fully operational electrified direct route from Slade Lane to either Paddington or to St Pancras ?

 

[edwin_m]

Slade Lane-Styal-Wilmslow-Crewe-Stafford-Birmingham-Coventry-Oxford-Paddington will be possible on completion of the electric spine and is completely separate from Slade Lane to Euston via Stoke. It does share some track with the route from Slade Lane to Euston via Crewe, but those sections can be bypassed by running via Stoke.

An indpendent route to St Pancras would require Hope Valley elecrification which is where this particular discussion kicked off. This isn't even a particularly high priority let alone a committed scheme.

 

[Darren R]

If electrification was pursued, being mindful of the rail-served container base at Trafford Park, would there be any use of the CLC line to offer any possible usage of westward-bound container traffic from there in the Liverpool direction ?

My recollection (possibly erroneous - it was a few years ago) that in a draft RUS NetworkRail were marshalling a business case for electrifying the CLC between Manchester and Liverpool. Since it was the busiest route twixt the two, served the largest population centres of the routes between the two cities, and was basically an extended infill scheme as the wires were already up both ends, it did seem to make more sense than Chat Moss. I seem to remember that when the announcement came that Chat Moss was to be electrified it took everyone by surprise - not least NetworkRail!

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not generally in favour of splitting up useful through services to better utilise OHEs. However, I think the above would more advantages than disadvantages. If you delay electrifying Liverpool South Parkway-Trafford Park and Hazel Grove-Sheffield until a business case is proven for Peterborough-Ely-Norwich then the former will never get done.

Grantham-Nottingham is justifiable as an infill since you would need essentially no new supply infrastructure as you would be able to feed from Nottingham and from the Grantham end through existing GSPs, although some upgrading at the Grantham end might be necessary.

The Breckland line is slightly troublesome, but I understand that many of its other services are self contained, and the line has been resignalled with provision for 100mph running in said signalling equipment, so a Total Route MOdernisation project could be concieved to bring it up to standard.

It would be expensive but I think you could get very high conversion of services to electric. (And significant freight).

 

[edwin_m]

Reasons to prefer the Chat Moss route for electrification are that it is accessible from Manchester Victoria (no capacity for extra services at Piccadilly, and the Northern Hub diverts Transpennine via Victoria) and it has connections to the WCML at Earlestown (Manchester-Scotland electrics plus various electric diversionary and freight opportunities).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Breckland line is slightly troublesome, but I understand that many of its other services are self contained, and the line has been resignalled with provision for 100mph running in said signalling equipment, so a Total Route Modernisation project could be concieved to bring it up to standard. It would be expensive but I think you could get very high conversion of services to electric. (And significant freight).

Some stations on this line have a somewhat limited weekly status, especially that of Lakenheath which has seen a rise in its low passenger footfall on account of the visitors to the RSPB site at Lakenheath Fen.

I wonder what position the Breeckland line holds on the national "to do" list of Network Rail.

 

[edwin_m]

The Breckland line is slightly troublesome, but I understand that many of its other services are self contained, and the line has been resignalled with provision for 100mph running in said signalling equipment, so a Total Route MOdernisation project could be concieved to bring it up to standard.

It would be expensive but I think you could get very high conversion of services to electric. (And significant freight).

Peterborough-Ely carries passenger and freight to/from Ipswich/Felixstowe, as well as the Birmingham-Stansted, and each of these would require significant electrification of other routes to convert to electric. I think the most likely way this could happen would be if there was a push for electric freight on Felixstowe-Nuneaton. Some way off I suggest!