beleben

die belebende Bedenkung

HS2 chairman: “Don’t repair Crewe station”

with 3 comments

According to the Crewe Guardian, HS2 Ltd chairman David Higgins advised that the town’s station was in need of repair, but should not be repaired.

[“The chairman of HS2 sees a dedicated hub station in Crewe as central to the £45.6 billion railway line”, Matthew Taylor, Crewe Guardian, 17 March 2014]

[…] Mr Higgins said the previous methods of linking Phase One to the existing rail network at Birmingham, ahead of Phase Two’s completion, were ‘sub optimal’, and identified Crewe as the key site for a hub station to bring benefits to the north sooner.

He added that Crewe station was ‘in need of repair’.

“The roof was badly damaged in the storms. Rather than repair the station; build a new one south of Crewe allowing connectivity to the rest of the network, linking the north west and north Wales,” he said.

Crewel Mr Burns

Option Your estimate here
(£)
Repair roof
of current
Crewe station
Build entirely new HS2 station south of town
centre, and alter all the tracks so that other trains can
reach it
Advertisements

Written by beleben

March 18, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Posted in HS2

Tagged with ,

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. A new station at Crewe is not needed but an upgrade is. However, the major bone of contention is the conflicts of trains on the flat crossing from one direction to another. This reduces capacity and speeds. What is really needed is a bypass, overpass or underpass for non-stop passenger and freight trains. The two former are cheaper but make a greater environmental impact. The underpass, for trains to Manchester and Warrington and Scotland; will be more expensive but as it will last over one hundred years its benefit will be more greatly acknowledged as the right solution to be applied.

    Stephen Cryan

    March 19, 2014 at 11:51 am

  2. I agree with Higgins and suspect that he might be fishing for a very major development. A new station at Crewe would be an excellent idea if it was constructed in such a way as to allow proper access to the high speed network in both northerly and southerly directions – e.g. in the manner of Toton or Meadowhall. Such an arrangement would provide Crewe with a potential maximum of 12 trains per hour (more realistically 4-6), 12,000 seats per hour, and high speed access to London, Brum, Brum Airport, Manc, Manc Airport, L’pool (probably), Scotland (eventually) and all destinations on the eastern limb of the Y (via Brum Interchange). By contrast, the existing plans provide Crewe with only 2 tph, 1000 seats, and access to nowhere other than (you’ve guessed it) London. A further advantage of the Higgins plan is that it would allow far greater flexibility in terms of train-paths, thus allowing HS2 to “sweat” the maximum benefit from its assets, e.g. by coupling 200m units and offering additional stops and services. The most obvious example of this would be the way in which it would allow better utilisation of the 300% surplus capacity on the Manchester-London trains – i.e. by allowing them to stop at Crewe and thereby serve passengers from Cheshire, Staffordshire, North Wales and the northern Midlands. The current Manchester “train three” (for example) could easily be composed of two 200m units, separating at Brum Interchange, with one unit travelling to Manc via Stoke and Stockport, and the other travelling via Crewe and Manc Airport. Huge benefits to everyone at little additional cost. It’s a no brainer, really: there’s no point in rebuilding Crewe station (cost £750,000,000 ++ ?) unless you’re going to massively improve its connections and functionality.

    matthew jones

    March 28, 2014 at 8:51 pm

  3. Odd? Grade separated junctions needed at Crewe? Perhaps someone can explain what happens to those 2 lines that drop down into tunnels either side of the WCML North of Crewe, and the double track tunnel that is linked to the Wilmslow (Manchester) line all apparently popping out above ground behind Gresty Road car park. Seems to be plenty of space to make an improved passenger connection from the South? (currently I suspect the alignments and clearances might restrict speeds)

    Dave H (@BCCletts)

    May 1, 2016 at 3:39 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: