F i n a l R e p o r told.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/transportation/rail/cws...10.1 DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTING .....138 10.2 TRIP RATE CALCULATION.....138 CHESTER – SHREWSBURY

Chester – Shrewsbury Rail Partnership The Chester – Wrexham – Shrewsbury Line Study

F i n a l R e p o r t

19 March 2007

Scott Wilson Railways “Scott Wilson Railways wishes to be recognised by the UK rail industry as the preferred source of high quality, multi-functional consultancy services and plans to become a significant and reputable emerging player in an international context”.

The Chester – Wrexham – Shrewsbury Line Study Final Report 19 March 2007

Project Manager: Ernest GodwardJob Title: Railway Economist

Scott Wilson Railways Ltd16 Toft Green

YorkY01 6JT

Tel: 01904 650599Fax: 01904 619503

Email: [email protected]

This study is dedicated to David Lloyd, who died on 28th September 2006, MBE, Shropshire County Councillor, Oswestry Borough Councillor and Parish Councillor for Whittington. He was an enthusiastic supporter of local rail, and was largely responsible for the restoration and improvement of Gobowen station and improvement of rail service to it, and ran the ticket office and the Severn-Dee Travel Agency at Gobowen Station.

CHESTER – SHREWSBURY RAIL PARTNERSHIP

Final Report

A012027 Page 3 of 185 23 March 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................ 9

1.1 ENHANCING THE SINGLE TRACK SECTION BETWEEN CHESTER AND WREXHAM..................................................................................................................9

1.2 EXISTING STATION ASSESSMENT.............................................................10

1.3 OPENING/RE-OPENING OF RAIL STATIONS..............................................10

1.4 LINE SPEED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................10

1.5 STAKEHOLDER REVIEWS ...........................................................................10

1.6 THE MARKET FOR FREIGHT ON THE RAILWAY........................................11

1.7 THE MARKET FOR THE PASSENGER RAILWAY........................................12

1.8 RE-OPENING OF THE GOBOWEN-PARK HALL-OSWESTRY LINE ...........12

2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 13

2.1 SCOTT WILSON RAILWAYS’ STUDY BRIEF ...............................................13

2.2 CURRENT PASSENGER SERVICES............................................................14

2.3 CURRENT FREIGHT SERVICES ..................................................................14

2.4 EXISTING STATIONS....................................................................................15

2.4.1 CHESTER STATION...............................................................................15

2.4.2 WREXHAM GENERAL STATION ...........................................................15

2.4.3 RUABON STATION.................................................................................16

2.4.4 CHIRK STATION.....................................................................................16

2.4.5 GOBOWEN STATION.............................................................................16

2.4.6 SHREWSBURY STATION ......................................................................16

3. POLICY CONTEXT .............................................................................. 17

3.1 POLICY SUMMARY TABLE...........................................................................17

3.2 POLICY CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS .............................................................20

3.3 INDIVIDUAL COUNTY COUNCIL POLICY ANALYSIS..................................21

3.3.1 CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL LTP 2001-2006 ...................................21

3.3.2 WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL LTP 2001-2006................23

3.3.3 SHROPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PROVISIONAL LTP 2006-2011.....25

3.3.4 NATIONAL AND WELSH POLICY ..........................................................26

3.3.5 OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY REPORTS ...............................................29

4. PREVIOUS STUDIES .......................................................................... 32

4.1 REVIEW OF OSCAR FABER LINE STUDY...................................................32

4.1.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................32


Final Report

A012027 Page 4 of 185 23 March 2007

4.1.2 CONSULTATION EXERCISE .................................................................32

4.1.3 MAIN FINDINGS .....................................................................................34

4.2 SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES .............................................39

4.2.1 TRANSMODAL FREIGHT STUDY (MDS, 1999).....................................39

4.2.2 WELSH NORTH TO SOUTH TRANSPORT LINKS STUDY (JACOBS BABTIE, 2000) ......................................................................................................40

4.2.3 SHREWSBURY PARKWAY STATION STUDY (MOUCHEL PARKMAN, 2003) 41

4.2.4 SHROPSHIRE RAIL STUDY (PETER BRETT ASSOCIATES, 2004) .....42

4.2.5 BORDERLANDS RAIL STUDY (FABER MAUNSELL, 2006)..................44

5. STAKEHOLDER REVIEW.................................................................... 46

5.1 NON-NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATIONS....................................................46

5.2 NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATION ...............................................................54

6. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS.................................................................. 55

6.1 TIMETABLE ANALYSIS .................................................................................55

6.1.1 EXISTING SITUATION............................................................................55

6.1.2 PASSENGER ANALYSIS........................................................................55

6.1.3 FREIGHT ANALYSIS ..............................................................................56

6.1.4 REVISED TIMETABLE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........57

6.2 LINE SPEED ANALYSIS................................................................................62

6.3 BASE CASE STATIONS ................................................................................64

6.4 PROPOSED STATIONS ................................................................................68

6.5 INITIAL ANALYSIS OF PATRONAGE AS A RESULT OF LINE SPEED IMPROVEMENTS .....................................................................................................71

7. PERMANENT WAY STUDY................................................................. 74

7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................74

7.2 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................74

7.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................74

7.4 APPRAISAL OF EXISTING TRACK...............................................................74

7.5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................75

7.6 PHOTOGRAPHS............................................................................................76

7.7 USAGE OF THE CHESTER – SHREWSBURY ROUTE................................95

8. STATION / STATION SITE APPRAISALS............................................ 97

8.1 CURRENT STATION APPRAISALS ..............................................................97

8.1.1 CHESTER STATION...............................................................................97

8.1.2 WREXHAM STATIONS...........................................................................99

8.1.3 RUABON STATION...............................................................................103


Final Report

A012027 Page 5 of 185 23 March 2007

8.1.4 CHIRK STATION...................................................................................107

8.1.5 GOBOWEN STATION...........................................................................109

8.1.6 SHREWSBURY STATION ....................................................................113

8.2 ENGINEERING REVIEW OF PROPOSED STATION SITE APPRAISALS..114

8.2.1 SALTNEY (TO SERVE LACHE)............................................................114

8.2.2 SALTNEY/GREEN LANE (TO SERVE LACHE)....................................115

8.2.3 GREEN LANE (TO SERVE LACHE) .....................................................115

8.2.4 ROSSETT .............................................................................................115

8.2.5 JOHNSTOWN .......................................................................................117

8.2.6 WESTON RHYN....................................................................................119

8.2.7 WHITTINGTON .....................................................................................120

8.2.8 BASCHURCH........................................................................................121

8.2.9 BOMERE HEATH..................................................................................122

9. PROPOSED STATION SURVEY ........................................................125

9.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY..........................................................................125

9.2 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.................................................................125

9.2.1 GENDER OF RESPONDENTS.............................................................125

9.2.2 AGE OF RESPONDENTS.....................................................................125

9.2.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD .................126

9.2.4 AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER HOUSEHOLD ...........................126

9.3 RAIL USAGE ................................................................................................126

9.3.1 EXISTING RAIL USAGE .......................................................................126

9.3.2 STATION USE.......................................................................................128

9.3.3 LEVEL OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR NEW STATIONS ...............128

9.3.4 PREFERRED AREA FOR A ROSSETT STATION ...............................128

9.3.5 OPTION VALUE OF NEW STATION PROPOSALS .............................129

9.4 TRIP ANALYSIS...........................................................................................129

9.4.1 MAIN DESTINATIONS ..........................................................................129

9.4.2 TRIP LENGTHS ....................................................................................132

9.4.3 TRIP PURPOSES .................................................................................133

9.4.4 MODAL SPLIT.......................................................................................134

9.5 RAIL TRIP RATE ESTIMATES.....................................................................134

9.5.1 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................134

9.5.2 TRIP RATE ESTIMATES ......................................................................135

9.5.3 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................136

10. PROPOSED STATION OUTLINE BUSINESS CASES........................138

10.1 DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTING ................................................138

10.2 TRIP RATE CALCULATION.........................................................................138


Final Report

A012027 Page 6 of 185 23 March 2007

10.3 REVENUE CALCULATION ..........................................................................139

10.3.1 FARE REVENUE...................................................................................139

10.3.2 OTHER REVENUES .............................................................................139

10.3.3 TOTAL REVENUES ..............................................................................139

11. BACKGROUND PASSENGER GROWTH...........................................140

11.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................140

11.2 METHOD OF ESTIMATING BACKGROUND GROWTH .............................140

11.2.1 OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................140

11.2.2 RIFF MODEL.........................................................................................140

11.2.3 DATA INPUTS.......................................................................................141

11.2.4 SELECTED ELASTICITIES...................................................................141

11.2.5 RIFF RESULTS.....................................................................................142

12. COSTS................................................................................................143

12.1 STATION SPECIFICATION..........................................................................143

12.2 CAPITAL COSTS .........................................................................................143

12.3 OPERATING COSTS ...................................................................................143

12.3.1 MAINTENANCE COSTS .......................................................................144

12.3.2 STAFF COSTS......................................................................................144

12.3.3 STATION ACCESS COSTS..................................................................144

12.3.4 TRAIN OPERATING COSTS ................................................................144

12.4 TOTAL COSTS.............................................................................................144

13. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED STATIONS.................145

13.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................145

13.2 DEVELOPMENT OF A COST/BENEFIT MODEL ........................................145

13.3 RESULTS OF COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS..................................................146

14. THE MARKET FOR FREIGHT AND OPERATIONS............................147

14.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................147

14.2 MARKET STRUCTURE................................................................................147

14.3 ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC .............................148

14.3.1 PHYSICAL LAYOUT .............................................................................148

14.3.2 AXLE LOADS ........................................................................................149

14.3.3 GAUGE .................................................................................................149

14.3.4 ROUTE CAPACITY...............................................................................150

14.4 CURRENT FREIGHT OPERATIONS...........................................................150

14.4.1 CHIRK – KRONOSPAN ........................................................................150

14.4.2 SHOTTON – CORUS ............................................................................151

14.4.3 PENNYFFORD – CASTLE CEMENT....................................................151


Final Report

A012027 Page 7 of 185 23 March 2007

14.5 OTHER TERMINALS....................................................................................152

14.5.1 SHREWSBURY.....................................................................................152

14.5.2 WHITTINGTON OIL SIDING .................................................................152

14.5.3 GOBOWEN ...........................................................................................153

14.5.4 CHIRK – CADBURY..............................................................................153

14.5.5 WREXHAM WATERY LANE .................................................................153

14.5.6 SHOTTON PAPER LTD ........................................................................153

14.5.7 TOYOTA DEESIDE...............................................................................153

14.6 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................154

15. TRANSPORT PATTERNS AND DEMAND FORECASTS...................155

15.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................155

15.2 OVERVIEW OF LOCAL AREA.....................................................................155

15.3 EXISTING TRANSPORT FACILITIES AND SERVICES ..............................155

15.3.1 REGIONAL ROAD NETWORK .............................................................155

15.3.2 BUS/COACH SERVICES ......................................................................155

15.3.3 INTEGRATING PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES..............................158

15.3.4 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES ............................................................160

15.3.5 EXISTING AND FUTURE FORECAST TRAVEL PATTERNS ..............161

15.3.6 ROAD TRAFFIC FLOWS ......................................................................162

15.3.7 GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT TRIPS.............................................163

15.3.8 RAILWAY-SPECIFIC TRIPS .................................................................164

15.3.9 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND THE RESULTS OBTAINED .....167

15.3.10 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC APPRAISAL...................................168

16. INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS, PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES AND DEMAND FOR RAILWAY SERVICES .................................................169

16.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................169

16.2 PROPOSED LINE UPGRADE OPTIONS.....................................................169

16.3 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES .............................................................171

16.4 THE DEMAND FOR RAIL SERVICES .........................................................173

16.5 RAIL PLANNING ASSESSMENT.................................................................173

17. RE-OPENING THE GOBOWEN – OSWESTRY LINE.........................176

17.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................176

17.2 CURRENT SITUATION................................................................................176

17.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTEGRATION AND CONNECTIONS ....................176

17.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................178

18. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................180

18.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................180


Final Report

A012027 Page 8 of 185 23 March 2007

18.2 STATIONS....................................................................................................180

18.3 RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE....................................................................181

18.4 LINESPEED INCREASES............................................................................181

18.5 TRAIN SERVICE LEVELS............................................................................182

18.6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................182


Final Report

A012027 Page 9 of 185 23 March 2007

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the spring of 2006, Scott Wilson Railways were commissioned by the Chester – Shrewsbury Rail

Partnership to undertake a study of the railway line between Chester, Wrexham and Shrewsbury.

The main aims of the study were:

• To assess the feasibility of enhancing the single track section of track between Saltney Junction

and Wrexham via passing loops or by double tracking the section

• To inventory and assess the amenities, multimodal capabilities, and accessibility of stations on the

line

• To assess the operational impacts of line speed improvements along the entirety of the route

• To assess the existing and potential market for rail in the region

• To undertake engineering and financial appraisals for the possible opening/re-opening of stations

at various sites along the corridor

• To identify existing and potential opportunities for integrated transport

• To undertake stakeholder reviews to assess support for changes on the line

• To understand the current rail freight situation and any future opportunities

• To assess the economic and technical viability of re-opening the Gobowen-Park Hall-Oswestry

line

Our expert team of transport economists, planners, and engineers undertook all aspects of the study in

accordance with Network Rail and DfT guidelines to ensure a robust methodology and accurate

results.

1.1 ENHANCING THE SINGLE TRACK SECTION BETWEEN CHESTER AND WREXHAM

Options were identified for infrastructure improvements to the single-track section in order to allow

greater capacity and a half-hourly service between Chester and Wrexham. The following options were

originally proposed:

1. Do-minimum option (signalling renewal only)

2. Linespeed upgrade to 90 mph on single line

3. Single short passing loop at approx halfway along single line

4. Two short passing loops at approx one third and two thirds along single line

5. Long passing dynamic loop of an appropriate length along single line (between A483 structures)

6. All single track converted to double track

After operational analysis options 3 and 4 were replaced with option 7, three passing loops; this option

would permit the introduction of half hourly service while construction of one or two loops would not.


Final Report

A012027 Page 10 of 185 23 March 2007

An additional option 8 includes the double tracking of the entire line except the two bridges over and

under the A483, and an additional option 9 includes option 5 plus double tracking between the

northernmost A483 structure and Saltney Junction.

Preliminary capital cost estimates for each of these options appear in this report. As the optimal length

and location of the three passing loops determined from operational research includes both of the

bridges that cross the A483, which may be costly to alter or replace, this option would appear to offer

only a marginal cost saving over double-tracking the whole section, which would provide increased

operational flexibility.

1.2 EXISTING STATION ASSESSMENT

Staff visited each station to assess its current amenities, multimodal capabilities, and accessibility;

recommended improvements appear in chapter 8 of this report.

1.3 OPENING/RE-OPENING OF RAIL STATIONS

After a high level appraisal of numerous possible sites, Scott Wilson railways decided to take forward

five station options. These were at Lache (Chester Business Park), Rossett, Johnstown, Whittington

and Baschurch.

Whilst we found no insurmountable engineering issues with the construction and operation of stations

at these sites, our economic and financial analysis suggest that only three proposals should be given

further consideration. The site at Lache in particular produced extremely positive results, partly due to

the high numbers of employees and expected growth at the Chester Business Park. Rossett produced a

less conclusive result but is still worth further evaluation.

The site at Johnstown also produced positive results, and we would certainly recommend this site for

further investigation. However the robustness of this business case may be sensitive to the promoters

approach in terms of marketing and operational issues.

1.4 LINE SPEED IMPROVEMENTS

Using ‘Scott Wilson’s Integrated Future Timetabling Tool’ (SWIFTT), we were able to model the

entire route and analyse the effects of raising the Permanent Speed Restrictions (PSRs) to various

speed limits. In order to fully understand the benefits, this process was carried out using both Class

158s and Class 175s which currently operate on the line.

The results of this analysis showed that significant time savings can be made by raising the line speed,

and we would suggest that 90 mph across the route would be sufficient. Our analysis also revealed

that by using the Class 175s large time savings can be made which could also have knock-on benefits

on the whole journey from Cardiff-Holyhead. However, it must be noted that any changes to journey

times will affect the current standard pattern timetable.

1.5 STAKEHOLDER REVIEWS

Scott Wilson Railways sought to consult with a wide range of industry stakeholders, ranging from

Welsh Assembly Members and county councillors to private operators (e.g. EWS). We felt that this

was an extremely useful exercise and enabled us to focus on those issues which were at the heart of

local concern.

We would like to thank all of those who participated in this process, and acknowledge the enthusiasm

and support for improvements to public transport in the region.


Final Report

A012027 Page 11 of 185 23 March 2007

1.6 THE MARKET FOR FREIGHT ON THE RAILWAY

The route is connected to the Borderlands Line at Wrexham giving access to freight customers at

Shotton at Pennyfford.

All lines between Shrewsbury and Chester, as well as Wrexham to Shotton, can accommodate traffic

rated at RA 10, which represents an axle load of 25.4 tonnes, the heaviest permitted on the UK rail

network. The routes from South Wales and the West Midlands to Shrewsbury, and Chester to Crewe,

Northwich and Warrington and thence the West Coast Main Line and Manchester area, are all rated at

RA 10, which means that the Chester – Shrewsbury route could act as a through route for traffic

between main UK traffic centres.

The route from Chester to Wrexham is cleared only to W7 (capable of conveying containers of 8’

height). This is linked at Chester to the Crewe and Warrington to Holyhead routes, which are cleared

to W8, to handle the former Irish container traffic to Holyhead Freightliner terminal. The rest of the

route from Wrexham on to Shrewsbury is only rated at W6, and there does not appear to be any

possible business case that would justify increasing this at the moment. The route from South Wales

to Crewe via Shrewsbury is rated at W8, and sees daily container traffic, but as Crewe is the natural

destination and major Freightliner traffic base, possible diversion of this traffic to Chester does not

present any better opportunity. There is little prospect of this route being increased in gauge terms in

the foreseeable future. There is therefore little prospect of the route becoming a major container

carrier, though it might be feasible to provide a feeder service to the Wrexham area from Chester.

The Chester – Wrexham route already carries regular freight trains, and at least one freight path is

used in each direction in some hours of the day over all double line sections of the route, while one

unidirectional path per hour on the single line from Chester to Wrexham is already available. The

maximum linespeed of freight trains is 75 mph, though the majority of trains running on the route

today convey wagons rated at a maximum running speed of 60 mph, which is well within the

maximum permitted speed of the route. There is sufficient route capacity at the moment for freight

operations (1 path per hour is sufficient for all foreseeable needs and is comparable with other similar

routes).

The only active customer on the line of route itself is Kronospan PLC, at Chirk. Kronospan is a long-

term rail customer, and the current volume of trains can be expected to continue or even increase in the

future. Outbound product movements ought to represent an opportunity to double total rail volumes in

the future, and should be considered when making plans for capital investment on track and rail

Shotton will continue to generate inwards flows of steel coil into the long term, for as long as the

works remains a key production unit. There is further, but possibly limited, potential for additional

outwards traffic, which would be routed via Wrexham and then on either north or south dependent on

destination.

Castle Cement will continue to generate limited volumes of rail traffic on a regular basis, but that there

could be forwardings of product or clinker in the future if the market conditions and commercial

approach were correct. Other potential sites, out of use sidings, and possible customers who lack rail

connections on the route include the following:

� Shrewsbury

� Whittington Oil Siding

� Gobowen

� Chirk – Cadbury

� Wrexham Watery Lane

� Shotton Paper Ltd

� Toyota Deeside


Final Report

A012027 Page 12 of 185 23 March 2007

This report demonstrates that the rail freight volumes passing along the Chester – Wrexham –

Shrewsbury line are broadly static, and assuming no major change in the basic industries served (steel,

cement and board manufacture) can be expected to extend at the same levels into the future. Freight

operators are likely to require similar levels of access (broadly one train path per hour in each

direction) in the long term, and this is likely to satisfy foreseeable needs.

There is potential demand from some existing customers that could be successfully secured to rail.

Customers spoken to have confirmed that they are open to offers, which would have to be

economically and logistically attractive to be acceptable to them. They are however playing a passive

role in this, and would expect the rail freight industry to come to them with firm proposals. The

initiative to generate freight growth in the area therefore rests with the rail freight industry.

1.7 THE MARKET FOR THE PASSENGER RAILWAY

• In 2005 AM Peak Hour highway flows were fairly modest, ranging from about 50 to 900 highway

trips passing through or around the area. These flows are estimated to grow by about 17% in 10

years. Road capacity should therefore not be an issue with these modest levels of flows.

• The corresponding highway-based public transport trips (i.e. bus and coach) during the 2005 AM

Peak Hour are somewhat more modest, ranging from 10 to 130 trips. These trips, however, are

estimated to fall in 10 years. This is a reflection of the limited bus services in the area.

• Rail-based trips in the 2005 AM Peak Hour, however, are much higher than bus and coach,

averaging between 110 to 190 trips from Chester to Shrewsbury and vice versa. These trips are

estimated to grow by about 15% in 10 years.

• The modal share of car trips in the area was 59% in 1991, rising to 62% in 2001 and is predicted

to further increase to 64% by 2011. This rate of growth is above UK national averages.

� The modal share of bus movements was 8% in 1991, falling to 7% in 2001 and is predicted to

remain at about this level by 2011. These market shares are below UK national average levels.

� However, the modal share of rail journeys in the area is predicted to grow from 2% in 1991 and

3.5% in 2001 up to 5% by 2011. This healthy increase is above UK national averages.

Background passenger growth is estimated to rise at 1.23% per annum.

1.8 RE-OPENING OF THE GOBOWEN-PARK HALL-OSWESTRY LINE

Oswestry was formerly served by a single track branch line (GNQ1) from the Chester-Shrewsbury line

at Gobowen. The line was recently acquired by Shropshire County Council, and Scott Wilson

Railways were requested to evaluate the potential for rail traffic on the line if it were reopened.

Oswestry now appears to be well served by bus transport, which provides frequent, regular and rapid

service between Oswestry and Gobowen, as well as to other destinations. It is unlikely that rail

service will be able to usefully augment this service, particularly as the level crossing over the A5(T)

is likely to reduce the possible speed of the service. A full analysis of this issue appears in chapter 8

of this report.


Final Report

A012027 Page 13 of 185 23 March 2007

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 SCOTT WILSON RAILWAYS’ STUDY BRIEF

Scott Wilson Railways’ study brief set out the overarching requirements for the study, as follows:

• Analyse the cost and benefits of increasing capacity on the single-track section between Wrexham

and Saltney Junction, whether this be by double tracking the entire route or introducing passing

loops(s)

• Identify the costs benefits of potential line speed improvements and where those improvements

may best be implemented

• Identify the ‘market’ for rail and to provide recommendations for an integrated transport network.

This analysis will include but not be limited to:

• The identification of current rail journeys and purpose

• Identification of new journey opportunities

• Identification of new markets

• Identification of mode of transport to access railways stations along the line

• Analysis of the use of travel planning for bus/rail journeys

� Identify any sites for new stations, whether these be ‘old’ or ‘new’ station sites, and analyse both

the current and future potential of those sites.

• In Shropshire there is demand to revisit sites where new stations may be viable.

• In Wrexham the Oscar Faber report identified Johnstown as a possible new station site; we

looked at the line afresh to analyse potential sites that would be viable.

• In Cheshire the growth of the Chester Business Park and the continued growth and popularity

of the city may lead to a potential station at Lache to serve the business park and ease

congestion.

• All station recommendations will be subject to the Disability Discrimination Act.

• Assess rail freight usage and predictions for the future. This will incorporate, but not be

constrained by:

� Identification of manufacturing and retailing industries along the corridor whose products

/materials could be moved by rail

� What goods are currently brought into the area by road that could switch to rail

� Identification of potential freight terminal sites

� What policies the local authorities along the line have in addressing rail freight, with reference

to WAG and ODPM planning policy guidelines

� Recent work of FTA, Freight on Rail, Rail Freight Group and Network Rail’s Freight

Utilisation Strategy on future demand for freight services

• Promote and analyse the requirements for sustainable transport (cycling and walking).

• Give recommendations on the viability of re-opening the Gobowen-Park Hall-Owestry line.


Final Report

A012027 Page 14 of 185 23 March 2007

2.2 CURRENT PASSENGER SERVICES

The Chester – Wrexham – Shrewsbury (CWS) Railway serves communities and populations in

Shropshire, North East Wales and part of Cheshire. Passenger services are currently provided by

Arriva Trains Wales (ATW). The table below shows the number of trains provided over the route.

Route section Monday to

Friday Saturday Sunday

Weekly Total

[ {(M to F) x 5}

+ Sat + Sun]

Shrewsbury to Wrexham to

Chester 19 19 8 122

Wrexham to Chester 2 2 4

Chester to Wrexham to

Shrewsbury 18 18 7 115

Chester to Wrexham 1 1 2

TOTAL 40 40 15 255

These services are operated by Class 158 and 175 diesel units. The Class 158 units were built between

1989 and 1992, and while their interiors are clean and in reasonably good repair, though worn, they

can be noisy, and very bumpy for passengers. This does not create an impression of quality services,

especially to motorists who could be encouraged to transfer from car to rail. The Arriva Trains Wales

Class 158 fleet reliability for 2005 – 6 indicates between 9,026 and 10,206 miles between casualties.

A casualty is defined where there is a fault on a train causing a delay of more than 5 minutes and

where the root cause of the fault is a technical or maintenance defect on the train. These figures are an

improvement upon the two previous years. The latest figures in this analysis must be cause for

concern to the train operator – Arriva Trains Wales. The table below illustrates the miles per casualty

figures for the both the Class 158 and Class 175 fleets. Whilst not the best, the performance of the

Class 158 units is good when compared to similar rolling stock operated by other franchises.

Fleet Fleet/Sub-

fleet

2006/7

P7 MP5MD

2005/6

P7 MPC

2005/6

P7 MAA

2004/5

P7 MAA

Class 158 ATW 4,141 9,930 7,098 5,554

Class 158 Wales Not analysed 10,206 7,248 6,440

Class 158 Cambrian Not analysed 9,026 6,948 4,668

Class 175 8,692 8,000 5,186 2,375

Source: Roger Ford. Informed Sources. NFRIP Special. Reliability – the new EMUs start to deliver.

Pp36 – 46. Modern Railways January 2007. Note: MAA – Moving arithmetic average, MPC – Miles per casualty, MP5MD – Miles per 5 minute delay

The Class 175 units were built more recently between 1999 and 2000 and have a more modern

exterior and interior appearance. Until December 2006 part of the fleet has been sub-leased back to

the Trans-Pennine Express franchise from whence these units came. On completion of delivery of

TPE’s new fleet of trains ATW will operate these units on their Manchester – North Wales and North

Wales – Cardiff services. For those concerned with train performance the difference between the

newer and older fleets must be considered.

2.3 CURRENT FREIGHT SERVICES

In addition to ATW's passenger service, the line is also used by a number of freight services serving

Birkenhead, Dee Marsh and Penyfford. At the end of 2004 freight usage required 45 train paths per

week (seven of which were conditional paths). These consist of booked trains transporting hot rolled

coil, general freight from Warrington, and coal trains to Castle Cement near Penyffordd, as well as

engineering trains.


Final Report

A012027 Page 15 of 185 23 March 2007

We believe that it will be critical to understand the contribution that freight makes to the finances of

the line, and the likely future demand for freight on the line.

2.4 EXISTING STATIONS

Along the Chester – Wrexham – Shrewsbury stretch of line there are currently six operational stations:

• Chester

• Wrexham General

• Ruabon

• Chirk

• Gobowen

• Shrewsbury

2.4.1 Chester Station

Chester Station is situated in the city of Chester, in the North West of England. It is currently operated

by Arriva Trains Wales, with Merseyrail, Northern Rail and Virgin Trains also running services there.

It is situated to the north-east of the city centre and was previously known as Chester General station.

Historically, Chester General station was a joint station between the Great Western Railway (GWR)

and the London and North Western Railway. The station dates from 1848, and has an Italianate

frontage designed by Francis Thompson. After 1875 Chester was also served by Chester Northgate

station (owned by the Cheshire Lines Committee); however, this station was closed in 1969 and is

now a leisure centre.

Most of the platforms are not electrified, but Platform 7, which Merseyrail services run from, has third

rail electrification.

2.4.2 Wrexham General Station

Wrexham General Station serves the city of Wrexham in North Wales. There have been two railway

station buildings on the site, the original being built by the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway in the

Jacobean style with Dutch gable pediments. The architect for the station was Mr Thomas Penson of

Wrexham, who also designed the Shrewsbury and Gobowen stations. It was built on the edge of

Wrexham, a town which at the time, was heavily industrialised and had many coal mines and

steelworks to attract the railway companies.

The second station building was constructed by the GWR in 1912; the company decided the increasing

rail traffic needed newer and more efficient facilities, so it was rebuilt to a standardised GWR 'French

Pavilion' design. This station design used stonework from the original building instead of standard red

brick. The station survived the Beeching cuts of the 1960s as the line was a through route for steel

produced in Shotton and wood for the Chirk MDF factory. In 1997 a derailed wagon hit the platform,

damaging it and the station canopy. This prompted a massive refurbishing, including new canopies, a

jetwash of the sandstone buildings, and platform retiling.

Wrexham General Station has four working platforms. Platform 4 serves ATW services on the

Borderlands route between Wrexham Central and Bidston. Platforms 1 and 2 serve ATW services to

Shrewsbury and onwards to Cardiff and Birmingham and Chester respectively. Platform 3 provides a

link line between the CWS and Borderlands route. Bay platforms are now unused, but served trains to

Barmouth up until the 1960s. These unused bay platforms may see use in the future as the Wrexham

Shropshire and Marylebone Railway plans to terminate trains there.


Final Report

A012027 Page 16 of 185 23 March 2007

2.4.3 Ruabon Station

Ruabon Station serves the village of Ruabon in the County Borough of Wrexham, Wales, as well as

the larger town of Llangolllen in Denbighshire. The station is managed by Arriva Trains Wales, and

all services are also operated by Arriva Trains Wales. This station has two platforms; northbound (up)

platform access is not stepfree. The station building is no longer in railway ownership.

2.4.4 Chirk Station

Chirk Station serves the town of Chirk in the County Borough of Wrexham, Wales, and the Ceiriog

Valley. The station is managed by Arriva Trains Wales, and all services are also operated by Arriva

Trains Wales. This station has two platforms; northbound (up) platform access is not stepfree.

2.4.5 Gobowen Station

Gobowen Station serves the village of Gobowen in Shropshire, in the West of England. It is the

nearest railway station to the town of Oswestry, about three miles (5 km) to the south-west. All

services are operated by Arriva Trains Wales.

The station has two platforms and two principal buildings, one on each platform. These buildings are

no longer in railway ownership, and belong to Advantage West Midlands. There is an additional,

smaller building on platform 1. The main building on platform 1 was extensively renovated in 2005

and serves as the booking office and waiting room, while the building on platform 2 is used as office

space for a private company.

All buildings date from the 19th century, and are of an Italianate style. A footbridge connecting the

platforms, which was a prominent feature of the station for many years, was demolished in 1987;

access between platforms is now via a path painted on the road at the level crossing.

2.4.6 Shrewsbury Station

Shrewsbury Station is Shrewsbury's only railway station. The station was originally built in 1848 for

the county's first railway - the Shrewsbury to Chester Line. It is unusual in that the station was later

extended in 1901 by the construction of a new floor underneath the original station building. The

station's platforms also extend over the River Severn.

Today, the station is operated by Arriva Trains Wales as one of their network hubs. It has five

platforms, numbered 3 to 7 (1 and 2 are out of use permanently), with a public ticket office, public

enquiry office, British Transport Police offices, a café between platforms 4 and 7, and offices for some

of the railway companies that use the station. The platforms are connected by a tunnel running

underneath the station, rather than the overhead bridge which is more usual for a British railway

station. In addition to ATW, Central Trains also provide stopping services to Birmigham from

Shrewsbury.


Final Report

A012027 Page 17 of 185 23 March 2007

3. POLICY CONTEXT

Scott Wilson Railways undertook a review of the three relevant Local Transport Plans (LTPs) for the

region.

3.1 POLICY SUMMARY TABLE

Source Railway Infrastructure Policy

Cheshire County Council

LTP (2001-2006)

Local rail infrastructure, including signalling systems,

requires an upgrade and investment strategy; the region’s

congestion problems also need to be addressed.

Wrexham County Borough

Council LTP (2001-2006)

Local government shall collaborate and contribute towards

specific infrastructure remedial measures on the route serving

this Borough, although no specific works were noted in the

LTP programme.

Shropshire County Council

Provisional LTP (2006-2011)

The main concerns expressed in the LTP were the need for

greater integration between rail and bus, better service to

London and Birmingham, improvements to car parking

facilities and secure stations. All of these issues were

mentioned in the 2001-2006 LTP.

Source Railway Passenger Services Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

WCML was in the process of being upgraded and it was

anticipated that this would permit improvements in frequency

and journey times. But the council suggested that the upgrade

of the WCML should also favour local and regional services,

i.e. opportunities would become available to introduce more

local as well as long distance services.



It was noted that most rail journeys not involving direct

service result in passengers changing trains at Chester for

Manchester, London, and other destinations such as Liverpool

and Scotland.



Shropshire County Council and surrounding partners will

continue to lobby for direct rail services to London and

Birmingham International Airport as well as other

destinations to encourage local economic growth and attract

business to the area.

Source Railway Freight Services Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

The LTP recommended that rail freight tonnage per kilometre

should be increased by 50% by 2011, that more freight is to

be transferred from road to rail in the long-term, that support

should be made available to those making applications for a

‘Freight Facilities Grant’ (FFG), and that major

warehousing/distribution centres should only be granted

where they can be accessed by rail or maritime transport.


Final Report

A012027 Page 18 of 185 23 March 2007



It was suggested that rail corridors through Chester are seeing

increasing flows of freight traffic although no statistics

backed up this claim.

The Borough currently has one key railfreight distribution

centre at Chirk, shipping wood products to and from Scotland.

The report noted that one train a day served the site, but it was

hoped this would increase to two trains per day. However,

logistical issues at the Scotland end limit its use of the Chirk

site (p.42).

The Plan clearly identifies the need for “New and improved

facilities to enable increased proportions of freight to be

transported by rail and sea” (p. 41.)



As in the previous LTP, Shropshire would like to see more

freight transferred to rail by means of new facilities, but this

is subject to commercial viability.

Source Railway Stations Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

The Local Authority would join forces with other bodies to

undertake feasibility studies for new stations; new

infrastructure could be funded by the private sector. including

TOCs.



A new rail station was to be erected at Wrexham Central as

part of the LTP programme.

It was argued that traffic on less-used stations in the area

could be increased by providing adequate connections to long

distance services heading south to London and Wales (p.35).



The RUS programme report states that it will address existing

crowding issues on the rail corridor to Birmingham in

addition to increasing the line speed and implementing direct

service to London from Shrewsbury, both of which were

highlighted in the previous LTP. There was also mention of

increasing train lengths, but the RUS did air some concerns

about a parkway station being constructed at Brinsford and

these issues were also expressed by Shropshire County

Council as they feel it may affect other local stations in the

area as well as encourage longer car journeys.

Source Public Transport Integration Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

Aspirations were in place to either introduce a simplified

ticketing structure including add-on fares to other modes of

transport or to develop a unified seamless travelcard for the

whole of Chester in the near future.


Final Report

A012027 Page 19 of 185 23 March 2007



“The transportation network will be developed to provide an

integrated range of travel options to and from the principal

residential, commercial, employment and education centres

by making the best use of the existing road and rail network,

with any necessary improvements, and by the

encouragement of public transport, cycling and walking”

(p.23).

It was noted that there is a requirement for an integrated

approach to ticketing across modes:

“The council wishes to investigate greater opportunities in

the provision of through ticketing between rail and bus

operators with one strand focusing in on tourism promotions”



In order to achieve the vision and priorities of the LTP, an

overarching transport strategy is being developed which

covers areas such as access, equality, meeting the needs of

rural settlements both for young and older people, improving

road safety at all levels, supporting the continuous

development of a strong economy and protecting the natural

environment and beauty of Shropshire.

Source Accessibility Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

The LTP states that it shall help people develop their lives in

a positive manner by reducing the barriers of mobility and

developing an inclusive public transport network.



The Local Authority will ensure where possible that all

stations and the rail services serving them are fully accessible.

The only station in this area that provides disabled provision

is Wrexham Central; other stations pose difficulties for both

disabled and able-bodied persons including those using

pushchairs and prams.



The LTP notes improvements to accessibility of railway

stations in the Shropshire area although the report does

express disappointment that no stations within Shropshire

were identified in the recent publication of “Railways for All”

or identified to receive “Modern Facilities at Stations”

funding.

Source Car Ownership/Use Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

None noted.



The LTP states that “reductions are required in the usage of

the private car, but NOT ownership”. One in ten people

questioned have no access to the private car at all while two-

thirds questioned own their own vehicle.


Final Report

A012027 Page 20 of 185 23 March 2007



The Local Authority seeks to manage traffic levels in order to

reduce the environmental effects that congestion can generate.

This would be achieved by encouraging responsible vehicle

use, monetary measures like car parking levies and

enforcement and addressing ongoing congestion in

Shrewsbury. Road accident levels can be reduced by higher

maintenance practices, implementation of more safety

schemes such as speed cameras, educational training and

publicity awareness, and lighting and CCTV.

The LTP also aims to encourage more cycling and walking

through improvements to safety, security and quality of

routes.

Source Environmental Policy


LTP (2001-2006)

One of the LTP’s overarching aims is to:

“Adopt and promote a caring attitude for the whole

community and environment, which would include

implementing measure, that mitigate the impact of transport

on local environment and communities”.

This is further supported by the LTP’s Main Aims, one of

which is:

“To protect and enhance the environment”.



The Council has set itself eight key objectives for the period

covered by the LTP, including:

• Reducing pollution levels

• Safeguarding the environment

• Making transport accessible to all

• Reduction in the number of road accidents



The plan seeks to improve the overall environment and

support sustainable tourism in the County’s historic towns

and villages.

3.2 POLICY CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS

From our analysis of the three Local Transport Plans there appears to be a broad consensus with the

aims of:

• Improving passenger rail services through the upgrading, refurbishment or introduction of stations

• Improving the marketing and commercial systems for the passenger railway, via ticketing systems,

advertising campaigns or accessibility issues, or other methods

• Assessing and upgrading the rail infrastructure where viable in order to relieve operational constraints

faced by both the passenger and freight railways

• Promoting the use of rail for freight purposes and thus reducing the number of commercial vehicles on

the region’s roads

• Promoting the integration of all modes of public and private transport through Park and Ride schemes,

integrated ticketing systems etc.

• Promoting ‘environmentally friendly’ or sustainable modes of transport e.g. cycling and walking

It is our opinion that the aims and objectives of the Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury Rail Study align

with those of both the involved local authorities and the Government/National stakeholders.


Final Report

A012027 Page 21 of 185 23 March 2007

3.3 INDIVIDUAL COUNTY COUNCIL POLICY ANALYSIS

3.3.1 Cheshire County Council LTP 2001-2006

One of the main railway hubs in the Cheshire region is Crewe Station, which provides rail services to

London, Cardiff, Holyhead, Liverpool and Manchester, and other destinations. However, a key

problem in entering and leaving Crewe station is the amount of localised road congestion particularly

on the A534. The LTP proposed that measures be taken to mitigate this congestion.

The Cheshire local authority planned to work closely with neighbouring councils and organisations to

tackle and improve rail transport in the North West conurbation, including the following measures:

• Improvements to the existing Trans-Pennine Express service to/from Manchester Airport as well

as enhancing links with those services running between Chester and Warrington to the Airport

• New freight depots in Garston/Speke, Trafford Park and Warrington

• Implementation of check-in provision for Manchester Airport at local rail stations

• Upgrade and investment strategy of railway infrastructure, including signalling

• Measures to decrease local traffic congestion

• Feasibility studies for new stations, with new infrastructure being funded by the private sector

Railway Franchising

The Cheshire 2001-2006 LTP was compiled in the period of the SSRA (Shadow Strategic Rail

Authority) regime during which the council urged the new organisation to incorporate a minimum set

of standards into the franchise renewal programme. Recommendations included enhancements to

services serving Congleton and Styal as well as a new service between Chester and Liverpool (via

Runcorn). It was suggested that all services should be integrated with those operating and serving the

main line routes, as this would encourage local economic growth. It was also felt that the letting of any

franchise contract should be subject to requirements for improvements, including the provision of both

fast and slow services. The franchise should also include:

• The provisional staffing of all stations in the region

• Improved connections including integration with other modes

• Improvements to the availability of information

Other Information

At the time of writing the LTP, it was noted that the WCML was being upgraded and it was

anticipated that it would lead to improvements in frequency levels and journey times. But the council

suggested that the upgrade of the WCML should also favour local and regional services, e.g. introduce

more local as well as long distance services.

The LTP cited a provisional plan by the former Railtrack to develop a new rail link to Chester via

Nantwich/Altrincham from Manchester Airport. In addition, suggestions were made to upgrade the rail

route between Sandbach-Middlewich-Northwich. If implemented, this would enable greater capacity

to be freed up on the Crewe to Manchester line as well as the development of new services

commencing between the Airport/Llandudno and Sheffield.

Another proposed link noted for upgrade works is the line operating between Hartford and Mid-

Cheshire, which joins the WCML. This would enable direct service between Liverpool and the


Final Report

A012027 Page 22 of 185 23 March 2007

Manchester Airport etc. The council was in favour of all the proposals outlined above, in addition to a

new station at Middlewich. Other proposed rail improvements included:

• A railway interchange development at Allerton station (currently under construction)

• Higher frequencies, improved publicity, better stations and information provision for Chester-

Shrewsbury and Bidston-Wrexham rail corridors

• Hourly service between Ellesmere Port and Helsby

• “Total Route Modernisation” for the North West

• Safeguarding of sites that could be used for the development of a new route or station i.e. Beeston

near Tarporley

• Station improvements in quality and security under the “Ten Point” minimum plan

• Improved station maintenance

• Improvements to Crewe station

• £100,000 funding for station modernisation projects for the local area

One key point that came out of the LTP was that the Council was not prepared policy to provide

revenue support for local rail services although they would consider participating in bids under the

“Rail Passenger Partnership” programme which funding would be provided. The council also supports

any RPP strategy that sees higher frequencies etc on the North-Wales to Manchester rail corridor. That

said, the council would prefer to see any enhancements made to the network through franchise

contract and strategy.

Other Rail/Transport Improvements

In addition to what was discussed above, Cheshire County Council would like to see the following

proposals implemented:

• A 24hr “Touch Screen” system in Crewe, Chester, Nantwich and Wilmslow, and later other

stations, which will offer information relating to rail services operating in the region

• A study to look at ways of marketing local rail services to a wider audience

• A simplified ticketing structure including add-on fares to other modes of transport

• A unified seamless travelcard for the whole of Cheshire

It was proposed that a “Chester Deeside Transport System” be implemented, a new guided busway

system operating as a park/ride provision running along the former Mickle Trafford to Shotton

Railway Line into Chester. This scheme underwent a TWA in 2000 and was granted permission with

the opening to take place in 2003.

Freight by Rail

The principal rail route for the region goes through Cheshire and provides links with the South, Crewe,

and other parts of the North West as well as the Channel Tunnel. But it was noted this rail route was

congested and that improvements were needed although it was anticipated that it would get worse

during the LTP period of 2001-2006. The main issue with the railfreight network has been the inability

to adapt itself as a major freight player derived from the past, although steps are being taken to reverse

this trend and become more responsive to change.

In addition, Basford Hall south of Crewe station was in the process of being redeveloped and it was

hoped that it would turn into a major railfreight hub for the Northwest region. Furthermore, Cheshire

County Council expressed disappointment with the future use of railfreight in the region in that there

is limited scope for more capacity particularly since an agreement was made between Railtrack and

Virgin West Coast, which would use most of the spare capacity. However, it should be noted that this

element of the original upgrade proposal of the WCML has been changed since the writing of the LTP.


Final Report

A012027 Page 23 of 185 23 March 2007

Aspirations for railfreight included the following:

• That railfreight tonnage per kilometre should be increased by 50% by 2011

• More freight to be transferred from road to rail in the long-term

• On completion of the Basford Hall railfreight hub noted above, talks to take place in developing a

Freight Quality Partnership for this area

• Continuous support to be pledged by the local authority in upgrading the WCML, particularly

those services heading to continental Europe via the Channel Tunnel

• Support to those making applications for a “Freight Facilities Grant” providing they can bring the

necessary tangible benefits

• Support to improve the Sanbach-Middlewich-Northwich rail route by means of extra capacity and

better links in the Mid-Cheshire boundary

• Support to improve railfreight to Humberside/Holyhead for container traffic in addition to

improving cross country links to Humberside, Felixstowe and Harwich in partnership with the

former Railtrack, North Wales local authorities etc.

• Major warehousing/distribution centres will only be granted where it can be accessed by rail/water

transport

Conclusions

The main thing that appears to come out of the 2001-2006 LTP programme is the pro-rail attitude and

endorsement of possible improvements, which seems to be the main approach of all the councils in

this outlying area i.e. Shropshire, Flintshire and North Wales. The main conclusions that come from

this LTP include:

• Aspirations to improve rail frequencies for the whole area

• Rail infrastructure improvements to enhance rail’s market share

• Freight services earmarked for enhancement and development

• Better integration with other modes i.e. seamless ticketing systems

• Inclusiveness for all

• Methods to reverse the declining rail freight trend

• Improved accessibility to rail transport information

• Enhancement plans for the railfreight hub at Crewe Basford Hall

• Safeguard measures to secure possible sites for future rail use.

• More railfreight depots in the Cheshire region e.g. Garston

The WCML upgrade would play a crucial part in the development of the local rail network

enhancement programme under this LTP.

3.3.2 Wrexham County Borough Council LTP 2001-2006

Consultations In order to prepare the LTP, the council consulted with various stakeholders and local people who

were asked a number of questions relating to specific policies. While stakeholders were pursuing

policies in favour of the local railway network, few actions were proposed for rail.


Final Report

A012027 Page 24 of 185 23 March 2007

Participants were asked to rate each policy in order of preference and to rate policies as a percentage in

terms of satisfaction levels.

Subject Area Policy % Importance Level

Railways Safeguard old rail route for cycling/walking 77% 11th

Freight Transport Develop Freight Quality Partnerships 73% 4th

Freight Transport Carry out a freight study of the area 77% 4th

Cycling Provide adequate cycle parking provision 80% 5th

Cycling Consider the needs of cyclists 80% 6th

Cycling Provide adequate lighting on cycle routes 82% 5th

Walking Provide adequate street furniture seats/signposts 77% 4th WCBC LTP 2001-2006: p .8.

It is worth noting that the consultations make little reference to railways and the implementation of rail

policies.

Other notable facts from the LTP include the following:

� One in 10 people questioned have no access to a private car.

� Two-thirds questioned own their own vehicle.

� A quarter of people stated that they had access to another person’s private car.

� Approximately one-third questioned own or have access to a bike.

� Four percent own or have access to a motorbike.

� Half of those people travelling to work, school, etc. travel within the outlying area of Wrexham

town.

� Three in 10 people travel within the Borough of Wrexham, but outside Wrexham town area.

� Two-thirds of those questioned stated that the implementation of cheaper fares would improve

public transport.

� Two in five people stated that the provision of Park and Ride lots, bus fleet modernisation and an

increase in fleet size would enhance public transport.

Railway Aspirations and Key Facts Key aspirations of the plan include the following:

� Hourly service from Wrexham via Chester to Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport

� Half hourly service on the Wrexham to Bidston line with high quality connections available at

Shotton and Wrexham

� Half hourly service on the Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury line alternating with service to Cardiff

Central and Birmingham New Street, thus providing an hourly service to these destinations; the

implementation of this measure would then allow Birmingham service to be extended to

Manchester and Cardiff service to Holyhead

� Two hourly service from Holyhead to London with high quality connections at Chester to

Wrexham and beyond

� Half hourly service between Crewe and Chester with integrated connections for those travelling to

and from London

� A partnership task force between the train companies and local authorities

� Infrastructure and station improvements on routes serving this area

� Ways to secure non-commercially viable services like those operating in evenings and on Sundays

particularly those operating between Bidston and Wrexham

The levels of capital expenditure earmarked for rail related projects are as follows:

� Bus/Rail Interchanges: £0.3m


Final Report

A012027 Page 25 of 185 23 March 2007

� New Rail Station at Johnstown: £1.0m

� Network Ticketing etc.: £0.4m

The Local Authority is also considering ways to market rail in a more efficient and productive manner

by:

� Enhancing roadside and shelter timetable displays

� Building on improvements in timetable and leaflet design

� Commissioning a general guide and map for public transport both within and outside the Borough

� Promoting and offering large type and Braille timetables

� Advertising the key benefits of using rail, e.g. service and frequencies offered

Conclusions It seems that Wrexham County Borough Council wish to see rail service and infrastructure improve,

but that railway operations in the area are still a relatively low priority compared to other measures

such as road building programmes.

3.3.3 Shropshire County Council Provisional LTP 2006-2011

Railway Aspirations and Key Facts The West Midlands Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) of 2005 was highlighted in Shropshire’s LTP;

although the main rail corridor between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton/Birmingham was mentioned

in the RUS, the council stated that the report did not go far enough in improving the rail network for

the whole of the area.

The RUS states that it will address crowding issues on the Birmingham corridor, increase the line

speed, and implement direct service to London from Shrewsbury, the last two of which were

highlighted in Shrewsbury Council’s previous LTP. There was also mention of increasing train

lengths, but the RUS did air some concerns about a parkway station being constructed at Brinsford;

this was also raised in the LTP as it may affect other local stations in the area as well as encourage

longer car journeys.

The RUS stated that the principal aspiration of local stakeholders was new stations at the following

sites:

Proposed Site Local Authority

Baschurch Shropshire

Bomere Heath Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Atcham

Dorrington Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Atcham

Shrewsbury Parkway

Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Atcham

Whittington Shropshire and Oswestry

Weston Rhyn Shropshire and Oswestry

In addition LTP raises the following issues:

� It is not a viable option to implement a dedicated rail freight site for Shrewsbury, but they do

support the construction of a new depot at Donnington, Telford for intermodal traffic which, it is

hoped, would reduce the number of lorries using the local road network. Furthermore, if demand

for rail freight increases Shropshire would support any new developments.

� Shropshire County Council will undertake further investigations into the possible implementation

of a new parkway station in the East of Shrewsbury, which would be linked with a new Park and

Ride system connecting into Shrewsbury Station. These proposals add to the plans outlined in the


Final Report

A012027 Page 26 of 185 23 March 2007

previous LTP to introduce a Parkway Station at the junction of the A5 and A49 Shrewsbury

Bypass at Preston Boats.

� Shropshire County Council and partners will continue to lobby for direct rail service to London

and Birmingham International Airport, as well as other destinations, to encourage local economic

growth and attract business to the area.

� Shropshire still wishes to see more freight transferred to rail by means of new facilities, but this is

subject to commercial viability.

� £21.4m provisional capital is available for transport funding in Shropshire between 2006 to 2011.

Shropshire plans to continue making rail improvements in partnership with Network Rail, train

operating companies and the Community Rail Partnership. The LTP has stipulated that the following

enhancements to the local network will be carried out:

� Station accessibility improvements in the Shropshire area, although the report does express

disappointment that no stations in Shropshire were identified in the recent publication of

“Railways for All” to receive the connected “Modern Facilities at Stations” funding

� Enhancement works at Gay Meadow Footpath to Shrewsbury Station

� Security improvements including CCTV at all stations

� Future improvements to Shrewsbury Station, including the Parkway alternative

� Car parking improvements, particularly in rural areas

Other proposed measures include:

� Regular through services to Birmingham International and London

� Increased capacity of trains on Shrewsbury to Birmingham services

� Improvements to the area surrounding Birmingham New Street station

� Station security and accessibility improvements (£250,000 has been allocated)

� Bus and rail station enhancements and integration (£410,000 has been allocated)

� Four options for the development of the local rail network to TEN standards under the LTP

alternative plans identified in appendix 8 (p.236), which comes under the “Support a Sustainable

Economy” heading

Conclusions

Most of the recommendations in the current LTP have been carried over from the 2001-2006 LTP.

Key aspirations are to enhance integration, improve rail service, and ease crowding on local services.

In summary, Shropshire County Council will continue to pursue measures to improve the local railway

system both for passenger and freight operations where viable, whilst collaborating with rail transport

providers including Network Rail, Arriva Trains Wales and the Welsh Assembly.

3.3.4 National and Welsh Policy

Introduction In July 1998 the Welsh Assembly published a White Paper called “Transporting Wales in the Future”

in conjunction with the Ten Year Plan “New Deal for Transport – Better for Everyone” compiled by

the DETR. The driving force behind these documents was to create a fit for purpose set of policies

which would be used to improve all aspects of transport including railways for the next ten years and

beyond. The Welsh Assembly report addressed all aspects of transportation, but proposed a number of

policies, issues and aspirations for the region's railway network.


Final Report

A012027 Page 27 of 185 23 March 2007

The Assembly recognised a number of issues that influenced the operation of public transport. The

Welsh government argued that bus deregulation in the 1980s and railway privatisation in the 1990s

had left public transport in a fragmented condition and has resulted in a “climate, which it is difficult

to achieve co-ordination and co-operation. Our policies are designed to promote such co-ordination

and thus to begin to achieve our goal of greater integration” (Welsh Assembly, 1998).

Railway Structure The Welsh Assembly in their report cited a description of how the privatised railways are operated in

Wales:

• The Train Operating Companies (TOCs) serving Wales in 1998 were Great Western Trains, North

Western Trains, Virgin Cross Country (VXC), Virgin West Coast (VWC), and Central Trains

(CT).

• Rail freight services were predominately provided by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways

(EWS) and Freightliner (FL), primarily bulk commodities by EWS and intermodal container

traffic by FL. The main container terminal in operation at the time was in Pengam, but this was to

be relocated to the new European terminal in Wentloog.

• The main problems with the newly privatised railway system were flaws in the existing regulatory

system, insufficient regulation and lack of strategic thinking/planning.

The local bus network was used more than the Welsh rail system. It was argued that bus services have

a pivotal role to play in Welsh public transport and that they can operate efficiently through adequate

local regulation similar to London's.

Welsh Transport Advisory Group (WTAG) The Welsh Transport Advisory Group (WTAG) was developed “to provide advice on the development

and implementation of an integrated transport policy, and to promote greater co-operation between the

various interested parties”. WTAG played a crucial part in the development of “Transporting Wales

into the Future” and this input proved to be invaluable in the compiling of the document by the Welsh

Assembly. The main responsibilities of WTAG are described in the 1998 report:

• To identify the opportunities for, and obstacles to, the development and operation of an integrated

approach to passenger and freight transport in Wales including consideration of the relationship

between land use planning and transport, and to offer advice on any policy or procedural changes

required to promote such an approach.

• To identify the scope for promoting closer working between local authorities, transport operators

and other interested parties so that local transport needs are considered and dealt with in an

integrated way, and to advise on ways of bringing that about.

• To advise on ways in which the Welsh Office might operate in support of those closer local

relationships.

• To advise on the production and dissemination of guidance and best practice in the transport field

in Wales.

• To advise on any other specific transport proposal or issue put to the Group by the Welsh Office

or noted by other Members of the Group.


Final Report

A012027 Page 28 of 185 23 March 2007

Railway issues and main findings The railway network was defined as playing an integral part in the overall transport strategy for Wales.

However, it was noted that a number of areas of the network still need to be improved upon, including

service frequencies, personal security and quality of facilities. Despite these requirements, a couple of

projects were being implemented at the time of the report, including:

• The integration of bus and rail services in a number of selected areas, e.g. Barry Station

• Infrastructure improvements including the resignalling of the Taff Vale Main Line

• A series of measures to improve security at railway stations across Wales

• Installation of passenger information at selected stations

• An increase of through trains by the Cardiff Railway Company and the former Wales and West

TOC, increasing journey opportunities to destinations like Newport and Pontypridd

It was felt that the one train a day between North and South Wales is totally inadequate, particularly as

the service did not operate through Wrexham. The government was in negotiations in 1998 to improve

the rail service between the North and South as well as other parts of the Welsh railway network.

It was noted that the use of rail to move goods had declined although this trend was beginning to

reverse. There has been a 15% increase in the movement of goods by rail in recent times i.e. the last 10

years. Both EWS and Freightliner were noted in the report as trying to increase these levels in future

years to come. The government also expressed a desire to see more freight moved by rail in Wales,

but road would still be the first choice. It was suggested that the government wished to improve the

situation with a Freight Facilities Grant.

In addition, the Welsh Government expressed the view that the region’s rural railway network was not

delivering its full potential, although no specific reasons were cited. It was felt that if better

integration, through ticketing provision and the supply of information were provided, more people

would use local rail services and thus reduce social exclusion. There is also potential to attract more

tourists to the area, therefore more emphasis needs to be placed on promoting more scenic rail routes

of Wales.

The Assembly also suggested that they would like to see more initiative solutions introduced in the

future, such as community rail partnerships which are now an integral part of the UK’s railway

network (2006), but it is unclear how this has progressed in north and south Wales since the concept

was introduced.

Overarching Transport Polices for Wales (1998) The main transport policies that the Welsh Government wished to implement were as follows:

• Put Bus Quality Partnerships on a statutory basis

• Introduce powers to allow Bus Quality Contracts where Quality Partnerships prove inadequate

• Encourage rail operators to carry out improvements

• Encourage improved interchange, timetabling, information and ticketing.

• Devote an increased proportion of Transport Grant funding for local authorities to public transport

projects


Final Report

A012027 Page 29 of 185 23 March 2007

3.3.5 Other Local Authority Reports

The Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin Joint Structure Plan, 1996 to 2011

The report plan has defined the area as having an extensive rail network with Shrewsbury being the

main hub. Shrewsbury-Telford-Wolverhampton is the busiest rail corridor, which provides key links to

the rest of the railway network. There was a suggestion in the plan that the above route is also the

busiest section of route for generating local rail freight movements, although the Crewe to Cardiff line

is also busy. The rail route to Birmingham via Telford from Shrewsbury shall be the area in which

most future development will be focused; therefore, this should be a high priority for investment.

An aspiration was made to develop transport corridors for the local area although there was no

mention of it being rail specific. Passenger public transport should e promoted, along with reducing

.the desire to travel, particularly by the private car, within the Plan Area. A quarter of the households

in the Plan Area do not have a car, therefore measures need to be in place to cater for this market by

means of public transport including rail. Use of the local rail network should be maximised in order to

reduce the high pollution levels caused by other modes of transport, i.e. cars and lorries.

Any unused rail freight infrastructure shall be safeguarded from any developments which jeopardise

the future of use of this land for railway expansion, although any future developments from the

disused land could be earmarked for public transport provision e.g. cycle lanes etc.

There would be railfreight developments at Harlescott and Donnington. Developments which use

freight capable of bulk transport should be encouraged to locate where they can make use of rail

facilities. Greater use would be made of existing private railway sidings as well as the construction of

new ones.

Rail freight handling equipment and facilities should be provided at stations and/ or other locations.

The plan also suggests that opportunities for moving minerals from local sites by rail as well as new

railheads should be considered with reference to the “Minerals Local Plan”.

Where appropriate, the “Structure Plan Authorities” will support applications for grant aid under

section 8 of the 1974 Railways Act to assist firms in developing railhead provision.

The Shrewsbury route has been defined as a “Conventional” TEN Route. The Plan notes that both

local authorities are pressing for this route to be given Priority TEN status, which would enhance

funding opportunities and enhance the economy. Sustainable Resource Management in Shropshire, February 2006

Core Strategy—Preferred Options, Core Strategy—Sustainability Appraisal, Mineral Resources

Development Preferred Options

The implementation of any proposals under this category for development purposes shall have to

demonstrate that impacts from transport are fully considered under any proposals made under the

application process; this also includes non-road transport modes e.g. rail. These considerations apply

to both site and off-site movements. It is important that any commodity movement has been explored

and reviewed before considering using road transport as the preferred mode; any movement of

minerals/waste by road will need to demonstrate that adverse effects and impacts are strictly controlled

and mitigated in a way deemed fit for purpose.

It was noted that any short haul movements other than those undertaken by road are very expensive

and impracticable to implement. However, the Council does state that rail is preferred for the

movement of minerals/waste over longer distances.


Final Report

A012027 Page 30 of 185 23 March 2007

Any continuation of moving minerals and waste by road was stated as having far greater consequences

compared to switching to rail freight operations with respect to pollution, congestion, safety, etc. than

switching to rail freight operations. Sixteen sustainability objectives were set, each split between

Social, Economic and Environmental. It is suggested that these be reviewed further should the

information be required.

Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin Minerals Local Plan, 1996-2006

This report discussed the “Aggregates Monitoring” survey published in 1995, which noted that there

were no aggregate based depots in the West Midlands Area although there were two such sites in

operation in 1989. In the plan area only two quarry sites have rail links, Bayston Hill on the Cardiff to

Crewe Line and Blodwell near Oswestry, currently connected to the main line at Gobowen. Both are

non-operating; two other non-operating rail connected mineral sites exist in the area.

There are three operational rail freight sites in the plan area:

� Gobowen Coal Concentration Depot (minerals)

� Ironbridge Power Station

� Babbinswood Oil Terminal

The movement of minerals by rail is seen as having many advantages particularly if their

movement involves travelling over long distance, but in the plan period it was felt that rail

transport may not be the most suitable and realistic alternative to using road mostly as a result

of a lack of site facilities which can be matched with market opportunities. As the cost of

moving such minerals not being very high, any investment in building new rail provision was

argued not to be economically justifiable. That said, there is an overwhelming level of support

for new rail freight facilities, which are economically viable in some circumstances. Local

planning authorities are encouraged to adopt policies that favour rail operations by safeguarding

potential sites for future rail freight provision.

The overall aim of the local plan is to build on a more sustainable approach to development for

mineral resources, taking into account ways of minimising the number and length of journeys and the

nature of impacts of those journeys.

The report mentioned that the Gobowen to Blodwell line would be safeguarded and any operators who

plan to use the route will be encouraged to maintain it accordingly. The options for the Tanat Valley

Branch are discussed in more detail in Section 16 of this report.


Final Report

A012027 Page 31 of 185 23 March 2007


Final Report

A012027 Page 32 of 185 23 March 2007

4. PREVIOUS STUDIES

4.1 REVIEW OF OSCAR FABER LINE STUDY

4.1.1 Introduction

Oscar Faber were commissioned in 1998 by the Chester and Shrewsbury Railway Line Development

Group to assess the potential scope of improving this rail corridor. Before summarising the key

findings of the study it is necessary to outline the service specification of the route in place at the time

the research was conducted.

The operational format that this line operated to in 1998 was based on a contractual agreement

between the former Office of Rail Passenger Franchising (OPRAF) and Central Trains (CT) signed in

1996, specifying a minimum set of standards commonly known as the Passenger Service Requirement

(PSR), based on the service in place under the old British Rail regime pre-1996. Central Trains was

required to provide the following:

• A minimum of 10 weekday services per day in each direction

• A minimum of 5 Sunday services in each direction

• All services to stop at every intermediate station on route

• All services operating between 0730 and 1900 to form through services or as a minimum connect

within a 10 minute window with trains heading to/from Birmingham

• Maximum permissible journey time between Shrewsbury and Chester not to exceed 1 hour 5

minutes

Services operating between Chester and Shrewsbury came under the control of Central Trains at the

time the study was conducted. However, this procedure has changed since the report was published

and Arriva Trains Wales now operates trains to all stations between Chester and Shrewsbury with

Central Trains operating trains from Shrewsbury in conjunction with Arriva. The study aimed to

answer six key questions, and put forward possible recommendations based on the outcome of

research. The questions were as follows:

• How viable is it to increase train frequency levels on the route, e.g. hourly Monday-Saturdays and

every two hours on Sundays?

• Could a clock-face timetable be implemented?

• How viable is it to implement infrastructure enhancements, e.g. increasing line speed from 70 to

90mph?

• Is it viable to extend those services heading towards Chester to Manchester and Crewe?

• Could the former Railtrack and Central Trains make a positive contribution to improving the

area’s rail network?

• Where could potential funding for improvements be found?

4.1.2 Consultation Exercise

The initial stage of the project was to consult and liaise with stakeholders by asking them a series of

questions in order to ascertain their thoughts on what should happen and measures that could be

adopted for the future development. The key finings of the survey have been summarised below.


Final Report

A012027 Page 33 of 185 23 March 2007

Central Trains • CT has no pre-conception of the currently served and potential markets, and is

looking to the current study for guidance.

• If Virgin aspire to operate more services to Shrewsbury these would necessitate

some recasting of services between Birmingham and Shrewsbury and therefore

possibly between Shrewsbury and Chester.

• Provision of additional stations should take account of possible effects on through

demand.

• CT are happy with the current retail franchise at Gobowen station.

• CT are very pleased with the Chester City Rail Link service and look forward to its

extension to serve other destinations in the central area.

• CT in principle has a favourable attitude towards rail/bus integration, but every

scheme needs to be considered on its own merits.

• The development of rural routes such as CWS needs strong and persistent support

from Local Authorities; a TOC cannot build up the service quality greatly on its

own.

DSW Rail • DSW Rail were planning to become a new open access operator running new

services between North and South Wales from the Spring 2000.

• It was felt that the existing infrastructure was run down, its current speed profile

was 70 mph compared to 90 mph fifteen years earlier. DSW’s plans were based on

the existing infrastructure, but this is not considered satisfactory in the longer term.

• Target times are Cardiff to Wrexham in two hours and Cardiff to Bangor in three

hours.

• The single-track section north of Wrexham is a major cause for concern – the bridge

over the A483 is engineered to single track only, but it should be possible to

increase track capacity even without doubling throughout.

• All trains are scheduled to stop at Gobowen.

• DSW consider that Wrexham has a key role as a railhead and parkway type station.

• Feeder bus services have a role to play for Oswestry-Gobowen and Mold-Wrexham,

but this would need to be local authority led as they are not likely to be

commercially viable.

North Western

Trains

No comments were put forward by this TOC.

Virgin Trains No comments were put forward by this TOC.

Railtrack

Midlands • Replacement of the manned barrier crossings at Baschurch and Eyton with

automatic half barriers was under review. Also, the replacement of Baschurch signal

box with intermediate block signals would decrease minimum headways.

• Any growth in freight to Kronospan Works at Chirk could require the installation of

power-operated ground frames or signalled routes into the private sidings.

Railtrack North

West

This Railtrack zone is responsible for the section of route north of Wrexham and they

were consulted on the plans concerning the single section of track and extension of

service north of Chester. At the time of the report there were no plans to invest in

doubling the single-track section. In terms of service extension, the only problem

occurs with extension to Manchester via Warrington since at peak times it is highly

unlikely that paths could be made available between Deansgate and Manchester

Piccadilly.

EWS • EWS run steel trains from South Wales to Dee Marsh near Shotton at least four

times a day using the route between Shrewsbury and Wrexham.

• Timber is transported by rail from Scotland to Chirk as required (usually 2 to 3

times a week) using the route south of Chester.

• Coal is occasionally distributed via Gobowen.


Final Report

A012027 Page 34 of 185 23 March 2007

DRS (Direct

Rail Services)

At the time of compiling this report, this open access freight company had no plans to

commence services on the study area and had no comment.

Tanat Valley

Coaches

This bus operator were asked if they would be prepared to change their routes and

service profiles and develop through ticketing in order to provide greater integration

between rail and bus services. The response was positive so far as they would consider

making adjustments to their timetable.

Arriva

(Midlands

North)

Arriva are a major national bus group operating services in the North Midlands,

Derbyshire and some parts of the Welsh Borders. They have an operating base in

Oswestry. The company were asked their views on bus/rail integration; whilst not

against adjustments of routes and timing of services this was seen as a double edged

sword because gains in multi-modal passengers could be offset by loss of bus-only

passengers. Arriva already carry passengers from Oswestry to Gobowen for onward

rail connections. Arriva have concerns about the implementation of integrated

ticketing, which could be technically difficult with current systems. However, they

would welcome involvement in developing proposals.

Arriva (Cymru) Arriva (Cymru), formerly Crosville Cymru, are a sister company of Arriva (Midland

North) and a major operator in north and mid Wales serving Wrexham on the study

line. Whilst some of their services (e.g. Wrexham-Chester) compete with the existing

rail services, they are not opposed to integration and have recently recast their Mold to

Flint service timetable to connect with trains at Flint in conjunction with Flintshire

County Council.

Chester

Licensed Taxi

Association

The Chester Licensed Taxi Association was contacted and it was proposed that a

meeting be set up between themselves and the consultant.

4.1.3 Main Findings

Market Research A key part of the investigation undertaken by Oscar Faber was market research. The actual findings

are long and in depth, but for the purpose of this exercise Scott Wilson Railways has used the main

conclusions of the questionnaire distributed to a sample of the population living in the study area.

Question Percent response

car always available No = 59

Yes = 34.7

Not stated = 5.6

times at which trains are used < 08:00 = 33.3

08:00-09:30 = 33.3

09:30-12:00 = 25.0

12:00-16:00 = 27.8

16:00-18:00 = 33.3

18:00 onwards = 19.4

No Info = 9.7

use Central Trains

Daily = 11.1

> 3 times a week = 5.6

Less than once a week, but more than once a month = 6.9

Once a month = 16.7

Less than once a month, more than six times a year = 12.5

Less often = 25


Final Report

A012027 Page 35 of 185 23 March 2007

using Central Trains compared

to two years ago (1996)

A lot more = 20.8

A bit more = 12.5

About the same = 40.3

A bit less = 11.1

A lot less = 5.6

Did not use Central Trains two years ago = 8.3

Don’t know = 1.4

leg of journey undertaken Outward = 48.6

Return = 48.6

Not Stated = 2.8

main journey purpose Visit friends/relatives = 34.7

To/from work = 13.9

Business Trip = 12.5

To/from education = 11.1

Other personal Business = 9.7

Shopping = 8.3

Other Non-Business = 4.2

To/from Holiday = 2.8

Visit Leisure Attraction = 1.4

Other Business = 1.4

Was another mode of transport

seriously considered?

No = 65.3

Yes = 33.3

Not Stated = 1.4

If so, what modes of transport

would have been used?

Car = 26.4

Coach = 8.3

Bus = 2.8

Other – Not Stated = 1.4

No Response = 66.7

willingness to use an improved

local service

Already use local trains regularly = 9.9

Would consider using an improved service = 73.4

Would NOT consider using local trains = 15.2

No Response = 5.5

starting station Chester = 33.3

Birmingham = 25.0

Wrexham General = 11.1

Gobowen = 8.3

Ruabon = 5.6

Shrewsbury = 5.6

Wolverhampton = 2.8

Nottingham = 1.4

Leicester = 1.4

Chirk = 1.4

Warwick = 1.4

Bangor = 1.4

Swansea = 1.4


Final Report

A012027 Page 36 of 185 23 March 2007

finishing station

Gobowen = 22.2

Shrewsbury = 18.1

Chester = 13.9


Birmingham = 12.5

Ruabon = 5.6

Telford = 2.8

Wellington = 1.4

Luton = 1.4

Wellingborough = 1.4

Nottingham = 1.4

Loughborough = 1.4

mode used to access rail station Another train = 15.3

Foot = 37.5

Car Passenger = 22.2

Taxi = 13.9

Bus = 13.9

Car Driver = 8.3

nearest local rail station


Wrexham Central = 4.9

Ruabon = 8.6

Chirk = 0.4

Gobowen = 35.2

Shrewsbury = 0

Whitchurch = 0

Wem = 0

Gwersylit = 0

Chester = 12.7

Crewe = 0

Don’t know = 0

No Response = 0

perception of local train

frequency (Monday through

Saturday)

Every 20mins = 2.0

Every Half-hour = 7.5

About every hour = 30.0

About every two hours = 45.3

Less Frequently = 6.7

No Service = 1.1

No Response = 7.7

perception of local train

frequency (Sunday)

Every 20mins = 0.2.

Every Half-hour = 0.6

About every hour = 5.1

About every two hours = 19.4

Less Frequently = 58.1

No Service = 6.9

No Response = 9.7

Respondents were also asked about the possible introduction of new stations in the following

locations:


Final Report

A012027 Page 37 of 185 23 March 2007

Overall (%) Whittington Johnstown Rossett Gresford Oswestry

Yes, Would use new

station

78.6 88.9 78 75 20.4

No, Would still use

existing one

5.4 0 6.1 2.3 55.1

No, Would not use rail

for any journey

12.5 5.6 7.3 11.4 6.1

No Response 3.6 5.6 8.5 11.4 18.4

Travel Time to New

station:

< 5mins

> 5min <10mins

> 10mins < 15mins

> 15mins < 20mins

> 20 mins < 25mins

> 25mins

No Response

1.9

35.7

39.3

14.3

1.8

3.6

3.6

5.6

36.1

25.0

13.9

8.3

8.3

2.8

1.2

7.3

29.3

29.3

28.0

20.7

13.4

0

4.5

8.8

22.7

4.5

9.1

13.6

2.0

6.1

42.9

14.3

10.2

4.1

20.4

Railway Station Assessment

Engineering investigations were performed for possible station sites at Whittington and Johnstown;

assessments were also performed for Rossett and Cefn. The study concluded the following:

• The catchment areas surrounding the new sites at Whittington were similar, though since

accessibility and other factors may differ they should be considered when choosing a new station

site at this location.

• Whittington was declared a ‘major’ town compared to the other sites, and was also considered a

better place to create a new railhead in addition to serving nearby Ellesmere.

• The total engineering costs for constructing a new station at Whittington were estimated at

£309,000 and operations and maintenance costs were estimated at £13,770 per year. The total

engineering costs for constructing a new station at Johnstown were estimated at £460,000 and

operations and maintenance costs were estimated at £18,300 per year. (We note that these costs

were based on a different methodology than currently used to estimate construction and

maintenance costs; they in no way reflect Scott Wilson Railways’ opinion of the likely costs of

these stations and we believe they significantly underrepresent these costs.)

The study projected the following numbers of journeys and annual revenue figures for the proposed

new stations:

ITS Model Cefn:

Revenue = £90,600

Trip Ends = 25,800

Whittington:

Revenue = £46,100

Trip Ends = 10,600

Johnstown:

Revenue = £115,700

Trip Ends = 32,900

Rossett:

Revenue = £37,900

Trip Ends = 10,800

East

Lancashire

Model

Cefn:

Revenue = £118,900

Trip Ends = 33,800

Whittington:

Revenue = £65,300

Trip Ends = 15,000

Johnstown:

Revenue = £197,200

Trip Ends = 56,000

Rossett:

Revenue = £69,000

Trip Ends = 19,600

Infrastructure Investigations and Recommendations At the time of the study, Railtrack was undertaking a full assessment of upgrading the route in order to

increase the line speed from 70 to 90 mph, and had identified issues relating to horizontal alignment,

obstructions that might require track slewing, and level crossings. In addition, the study pointed out

that the A483 underbridge located on the single track north of Wrexham General is a major constraint


Final Report

A012027 Page 38 of 185 23 March 2007

and suggested that in order to double the line that either the bridge would need to be demolished and

reconstructed or a second bridge would need to be constructed.

The study also pointed out that any remedial measures introduced would result in a restructuring to

maintenance procedures and thus increase costs, and recommended further assessment.

Sources of Funding The study identified several funding sources which could be used for providing hourly service or

constructing a new station, including:

• The rail industry

• European Structural Fund – European Regional Structural Fund and the Resider 2 Programme for

Wales

• Developer contributions

• Welsh Development Agency

• County Council and Borough Council

• The Rural Development Commission, including the Rural Transport Development Fund and

Community Transport Initiatives

• Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

The study then considered the probability of obtaining funding from the following sources for each of

the improvements mentioned above:

Funding Source Funding Probability European Regional Development Fund Johnstown – None

Increased Frequency – None

Office of Rail Passenger Franchising Johnstown – Low to medium

Increased Frequency – High

Welsh Development Agency Johnstown – Low to medium

County Council and Borough Council Johnstown – Low

Increased Frequency – High

Private Finance Initiative Johnstown – Low

Increased Frequency – None

Rural Development Commission Initiative Johnstown – None

Increased Frequency – Possible £5million

Miscellaneous Information Oscar Faber undertook a number of tests into making enhancements to the existing service profile on

the CWS route; some the key conclusions are cited below.

� A 10% decrease in journey times would result in a projected revenue increase of £17,000 per

annum.

� A 20% decrease in journey times would result in a projected revenue increase of £33,000 per

annum. However, the revenue increases could result in a reallocation of profits with marginal

gains being extracted from competing lines in the area.

� Benefits from increased train frequency would particularly benefit Central Trains although it was

suggested that they may not benefit the railway as a whole.

� An assessment was carried out into the possible extension of services to Liverpool from

Shrewsbury via Chester; however, routing trains via Birkenhead was ruled out, as was the route

via Warrington due to there being a reasonable service already offered. Directing trains via

Runcorn would involve a full restoration of the curve between Frodsham Junction and Halton

Junction. Further investigations would be needed to establish the exact measures to implement.

� Extension of service to Manchester via Northwich and Stockport could provide positive gains.


Final Report

A012027 Page 39 of 185 23 March 2007

� Through service to Crewe from Chester could provide some benefits, but extending services to

Llandudno along the North Wales Coast creates questionable issues about reallocation of

revenues.

� Development of a clockface timetable was felt to be viable, but a number of issues would need to

be considered, e.g. knock on effects to the rest of the timetable. Improvements to Sunday services

could generate up to a 50% growth in patronage.

Conclusions The key conclusions of the Oscar Faber study are that measures could provide a more integrated

transport system for the region. These could include the revamping of timetables and bus/rail ticket

add-on fares. It was suggested that a new station could be opened at one of four possible sites

including Whittington, Rossett, Cefn and Johnstown, but additional investigations should be

considered. Johnstown appears to be the most viable option based on possible funding and good

projected returns on capital.

Passengers would like to see a number of measures adopted to improve the existing stations although

on the whole the bigger stations like Chester and Shrewsbury had reasonable provision already, but

more could be done.

4.2 SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES

Scott Wilson Railways undertook a review of other relevant studies including the following:

• Transmodal Freight Study (MDS, 1999)

• Welsh North to South Transport Links Study (Jacobs Babtie, 2000)

• Shrewsbury Parkway Staton Study (Mouchel Parkman, 2003)

• Shropshire Rail Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2004)

• Borderlands Rail Study (Faber Maunsell, 2006)

4.2.1 Transmodal Freight Study (MDS, 1999)

The study undertaken by MDS for Shropshire County Council identified a number of potential

opportunities for rail freight development, which included site locations. Two surveys were

undertaken which included posted questionnaires and telephone interviews. The study concluded that

a freight depot at Harlescott might attract business. The Harlescott proposed site study undertaken by

MDS in 1999 investigated operations, costs, layout, main features, constraints, and handling

equipment. It was suggested to SCC that a more detailed investigation should be undertaken with this

site in the future.

“On the Oswestry line an interest was shown by Hanson and Redland to commence operations

in the future, which would be connected to the national network at Gobowen. This potential

undertaking is something that SCC are interested in promoting under the CWS study once the

line has been acquired by a private persevered operator” (MDS, Transmodal, 1999)

In addition, a number of companies would consider using rail to distribute their products in the area,

including:

• British Sugar/Hydro Agri (Allscott)

• Wells Soft Drinks (Church Stretton) Interested in private siding development

• ECC (Much Wenlock), which move high volumes of commodities but were located a fair

distance from any rail route

It was suggested that there were significant freight flows traversing the Cardiff to Crewe route, thus

offering potential expansion in the future. Wagonload Enterprise base their network operations in


Final Report

A012027 Page 40 of 185 23 March 2007

Warrington with some services going through Shrewsbury, which means that there is scope for a

future railhead in this area. Freightliner services operating between Cardiff and Coatbridge via Crewe

pass through Shrewsbury station, permitting a potential connection with the existing intermodal traffic

originating in Shropshire and the Borders linked into those operated by Freightliner via Crewe.

The main investigation by MDS was the proposed development at Donnington although this location

comes under the control of Telford and Wrekin Local authority, but at the time was owned by the

MOD. A few key facts that came out of the research include:

• The terminal would need to be reconnected to the national railway network including the

relaying of tracks.

• An estimated usage of the development (cited by a poll) concluded a potential throughput of

100,000 tonnes per annum, which reduce lorry movements by 400,000 per year.

• It would not be possible to have two terminals located within this development (1999).

• New signalling equipment would be required as part of the development

• As Railtrack announced that they would not fund any reconnection to the national network,

this proposal would need to consider alternative funding.

• There are operational constraints particularly with the siting of existing crossovers at

Wellington; it was unclear whether these had adequate length to cope with long trains.

The key conclusion of the MDS study was that that a new rail freight terminal could be

developed on several potential sites, with Harlescott as the most viable option, and that a

number of customers would be interested in using the site when it became operational. It was

also evident that there was a consistent flow of traffic in the area at the time, coupled with a high level

of support for transferring freight from road to rail. The study reviewed the operations of three main

rail freight operators in 1999, but since the compiling of the report a few more names can be

considered, such as GBRF (Firstgroup).

4.2.2 Welsh North to South Transport Links Study (Jacobs Babtie, 2000)

The aims of the Welsh North to South Transport Links 2000 study undertaken by Jacobs Babtie were

as follows:

• To develop a strategy that could be used as a rolling programme to improve the highway network

in the study area

• To identify measures that could be implemented to improve public transport on the north to south

corridor

• To investigate facilities on the north to south transport artery

They came to the following conclusions and recommendations:

• Direct rail services should be considered between North and South Wales with stops at Wrexham

and Shrewsbury. This would be achieved by rerouting one or two services between Cardiff and

Manchester via Crewe with the potential service profile equating to 1-2 services.

• Improvements should be made to transport interchanges. A suggested interchange time of 15

minutes would be combined with more direct services between Birmingham and North Wales via

Shrewsbury and Wrexham.

• Better parking provision should be combined with enhancements to local bus services, making

more stops at local rail stations.


Final Report

A012027 Page 41 of 185 23 March 2007

The study appeared to focus on making improvements to the local highway network with little

attention to rail other than those issues described above.

4.2.3 Shrewsbury Parkway Station Study (Mouchel Parkman, 2003)

The Shropshire LTP for the period 2001-2006 noted that demand at Shrewsbury station was expected

to increase and that there would be ongoing parking issues. In order to mitigate these potential

problems, it was proposed that a possible “Parkway Station” could be erected east of the station, which

prompted a study into its viability. The key stakeholders involved the study included:

• Arriva Trains Wales

• Central Trains

• Network Rail

• Elected members of the council

• Rail User Groups

Many of the stakeholders cited above are involved in one way or another with the SWR project, which

demonstrates a degree of overlap and interest in rail services in this area. Moreover, in October 2003

(six months after the initial meeting) Mouchel Parkman, was commissioned by Shropshire County

Council to assess the viability of Shrewsbury Parkway Station. The Parkway Station proposal has

been summarised here although it is worth noting that this proposal cannot work on its own, but in

combination with other projects for the area.

The key issues that instigated the research included road congestion, insufficient parking provision in

the station vicinity, and poor access by public transport; it was believed that these factors deterred

people from using rail services at the existing location. If successful, the new station would be sited at

the east side of Shrewsbury with the main beneficiaries being those passengers wishing to travel

to/from the West Midlands or Aberystwyth. On this basis it could be argued that the CWS study and

any recommendations that follow it will not have any bearing on the Parkway Station although there

could be some issues or potential benefits that should be considered further.

The overall aim of the Mouchel Parkman study was “to assess whether the potential demand and

subsequent usage of the proposed Parkway Station and Park and Ride facilities will be sufficient to

justify the development costs”. In addition a number of objectives and project principles cited in the

report overlap with this study. The consultant team undertaking the Parkway Station project came to

the following conclusions:

• A quick assessment of the proposed site identified the existing area as used primarily for

agricultural purposes.

• The River Severn runs close to the proposed site.

• The existing location is free of any public bridleways, but other rights of way exist (electricity

pylons etc.).

• There is a disused canal east and south of the proposed site, which is currently carried under the

railway; it was suggested that this could be used as an over-bridge or means of access. However, a

further assessment of the terrain and ground suitability would need to be carried out to assess this

potential usage of the disused canal structure.

• At the time of writing Shropshire and Atcham Council plans indicated other proposed uses for the

site.


Final Report

A012027 Page 42 of 185 23 March 2007

• Other structural and engineering assessments would need to be carried out in the area including

investigation of the canal and the A49.

• The proposed site is located in cuttings and is on predominately level land.

• One option estimated the cost of the new station at £2m +/- 50% with the second option equating

to £2.5m +/- 50%.

• In the event of any additional facilities being required at the new station e.g. booking office, etc.;

these would cost an estimated additional £250,000.

• An assessment was undertaken to see what impact a new station would have on traffic levels and it

was concluded that these would increase along certain stretches of the existing road conditions

already operating at capacity i.e. those on the A5/A49.

• The station site complex would be used a possible park and ride facility.

• Any remedial works required for the existing road layout area would cost an estimated £500,000.

• The installation of signalling would be a very straight forward exercise to execute as only minor

work would be required i.e. the laying of new cable but little other work would need to be carried

out.

• It was concluded that the best siting of the new station would be between milepost 169 and the

canal bridge.

4.2.4 Shropshire Rail Study (Peter Brett Associates, 2004)

Policy Context

The policy element of the PBA study was derived from Shropshire’s 2001-2006 Local Transport Plan.

Overarching Policies Better integration between the different modes of transport and policy areas

More sustainable transport provision to protect our environment.

Improved health and safety to reduce casualties and encourage healthier forms of transport.

Transport for all to tackle social exclusion

Better accessibility to support Shropshire’s urban and rural economy

Rail Policies

• Defining improved service levels

• Improving information

• Improving integration

• Promoting the rail network

• Improving the rail infrastructure

In addition, a high proportion of the PBA study centred on rail services operating in the region of

Gobowen as well as the line to Oswestry, with a number of possible options being put forward

although a number of issues would need to be addressed first, e.g. funding. Furthermore, there was

little discussion of freight in their study, but it was noted that the southern part of the Oswestry branch

could be utilised by Redland in the near if the line was to reopen.

There were two options considered in the study. The first was the revamping of two bus routes

operating in the area, combined with the rail timetable changeover of December 2004. It was

suggested that this package would enable connection availability to increase from the existing 45.5%


Final Report

A012027 Page 43 of 185 23 March 2007

to 50% for the post-December 2004 period. The second option also considered the modification of two

bus routes, but would be combined with the timetable changeover of December 2005. The connection

availability is not too dissimilar to the first option, but the expected % increase was 45.5% to 57.7%.

Peter Brett Associates (PBA) undertook to investigate rail services operating through Gobowen station

and to Oswestry, which at the time of writing was not served by rail (2006). A key conclusion was that

Arriva Trains Wales in partnership with Network Rail should implement a more robust rail timetable

after December 2005. Amendments would include:

• More services serving Gobowen (increased from 29 to 37)

• Hourly operation between Shrewsbury and Chester

• Better links with other services, e.g. on the North Wales Coast to Holyhead

• Earlier and later departure/arrival times

The PBA also addressed the reopening of the rail corridor from Gobowen to Oswestry, something

addressed in several other studies. The reinstatement of the Oswestry rail corridor has involved a

series of ongoing negotiations that has resulted in two possible options. The first is to return the line to

the national network as a 'normal' operational system while the second to run it by a private

organisation as a preserved line. The opportunities that this line could generate are threefold and

include:

• Increased tourism levels creating economic development

• Links to the national network including through ticketing arrangements

• Development of an integrated transport hub which would include rail and bus in Oswestry,

bridging the gap in public transport provision in the area

However, PBA did suggest that the reopening of the line between Gobowen and Oswestry would not

be cost effective due to required extensive bridge modifications, and early indications suggested that

demand would be low. Any future considerations for the Oswestry branch line may require a

substantial investigation and incorporation into the Local Transport Plans. Despite the above discussions, one main stakeholder was interested in pursuing the introduction of

trains and reinstatement of this rail route. The Cambrian Railway Society has created a Trust as part of

their bid to run trains on the route and have also gained funding from the National Lottery Fund in the

past. In addition, there was a strong commitment by various partners to see this railway opened to the

public, with other proposed options including the conversion to Metro style operations, like that in

Newcastle, or to light rail.

Every stakeholder PBA consulted would like to see the line converted to some type of rail operation

and not a guided busway which was overwhelmingly disliked. No matter what type of option is

pursued, it was noted that there were a number of pros and cons for each option. Some of the known

issues with the Oswestry branch include:

• Level crossing locations would require expensive remedial works; one possible suggestion was to

construct a railway flyover, but at considerable cost.

• The Oswestry station site would be redeveloped although the report noted problems with the level

crossing in the area; it was hoped that this would be resolved if ownership transferred to the Local

Authority.

• The development of the A483 bypass could pose a problem for any future rail proposals; between

Mile Oak and Llyncls some bridges would require work at considerable cost. The local authority placed great emphasis on seeing the Oswestry route converted to either a heavy or

light rail operation, and were strongly against the disused line being converted into a guided busway.


Final Report

A012027 Page 44 of 185 23 March 2007

There is great potential for developing rail services along this railway artery, which would generate

new traffic and economic development for the region. More emphasis needs to be placed on

improving the rail service in the area particularly frequency levels and connections to other modes of

transport such as bus services.

4.2.5 Borderlands Rail Study (Faber Maunsell, 2006)

This study was prepared in partnership with the Welsh Development Agency, Merseytravel, Cheshire

County Council and Taith, and examined the economic viability of improving rail services on the

Wrexham to Bidston rail corridor with possible extensions to Liverpool. It also assessed the possible

opening of three new stations, Beechwood and Woodchurch in Merseyside and Deeside in Flintshire.

The following options were considered:

Option Diesel Service Electric Service Service Frequency New

Stations

1 Wrexham-Bidston - Every 30mins

2 Wrexham-

Birkenhead

- Every 60mins

3 Wrexham-

Birkenhead

- Every 30mins

4 Wrexham-

Beechwood

Beechwood-Liverpool Every 30mins

5 Wrexham-

Woodchurch

Woodchurch-Liverpool Every 30mins

6 Wrexham-Deeside Deeside Liverpool Every 30mins

7 - Wrexham Liverpool Every 30mins

Beechwood,

Woodchurch,

and Deeside

The study evaluated operational requirements, capital costs and projected revenues for each option.

Each option was analysed by two sets of criteria, the Base Growth scenario and the Development-Led

Growth scenario. The main results of the assessment were:

� None of the “Base Growth” results identified a positive BCR or NPV although option 1 had the

highest value.

� The “Development-Led Growth” indicated a positive BCR rate for options 1, 4 and 5 with 3, 6 and

7 coming close to a BCR >1. Furthermore, options 1, 4 and 5 depicted a positive NPV with the

remainder showing a negative value.

The main conclusions of the report are as follows:

� The Base Growth approach appears to be non-viable when compared to the Development-Led

Growth method; while the first provides no positive BCRs, the second provides a BCR>1 for

some options.

� An hourly freight path would be provided in each option as well as a mixture of even and uneven

frequency levels in passenger trains.


Final Report

A012027 Page 45 of 185 23 March 2007

� The performance of the network along the study corridor requires improvement; particularly in the

vicinity of Wrexham.

� Operations between Bidston and Wrexham currently provide very little margin for error in the

case of a disruption of service.

The study also performed a survey of 1192 people in the study area, with the following results:

� The most highly rated services were in Merseyside and the lowest rated were in Wrexham.

� While most services in the survey operated hourly, in Merseyside 16% of people knew there was

an hourly service compared to 10% for Wrexham.

� Respondents’ average walking time to their local rail station was 11.3 minutes.

� More people would use their local services if higher frequencies (15%) or cheaper fares (10%)

were available.

� A wish list of service improvements that people like to see included direct services to Chester and

Liverpool, cheaper fares, higher frequencies and improved reliability.

� A study undertaken at Hooton indicated that people preferred to use a higher frequency service at

this location rather than those operating at lower frequencies in the Borderlands.

In 2006 Faber Maunsell submitted an addendum following up on the conclusion of the original report

that it was economically viable to extend the DC line to Woodchurch and Deeside. The table below

shows the new options considered in the addendum:

Electric Propulsion Diesel Propulsion Option

From To Headway From To Headway

8 Liverpool Woodchurch Every

30mins

Woodchurch Wrexham Every

60mins

9 Liverpool Woodchurch Every

30mins

Woodchurch Wrexham Every

30mins

10 Liverpool Deeside Every

30mins

Deeside Wrexham Every

30mins

11 Liverpool Shotton Every

30mins

Shotton Wrexham Every

30mins

12 Liverpool Wrexham Every

30mins

New cost and revenue figures were prepared, and demand projections considered the addition of bus

service to a proposed new business park in Deeside. All options were evaluated using the

Development-Led Growth rather than Base Growth models. These calculations resulted in the

following:

• Options 9, 10, 11, and 12 achieved a positive NPV with only option 8 incurring a negative

value.

• Options 9, 10, 11 and 12 had an overall BCR>1 with the exception of option 8, which nearly

reached the BCR threshold.

Initial cost to electrify the whole route between Bidston and Wrexham was projected at £42m, with

smaller sections like that to Woodchurch costing £11.5m.


Final Report

A012027 Page 46 of 185 23 March 2007

5. STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

5.1 NON-NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATIONS

As part of this study it was essential for us to obtain the views and ideas of those people who have

been most involved with the Chester – Shrewsbury line, and also those who are likely to have a keen

interest in the development of the line. At the inception meeting the Chester – Shrewsbury Rail

Partnership provided us with a list of people they believed were most critical to the project.

The consultations were based on a standard form with questions based upon Integration, Economy,

Safety, Environment and Accessibility. The consultations were carried out via personal meetings,

telephone conference or mail. The following persons were identified and contacted:

• David Bithell, Councillor for Johnstown

• David Blainey, TAITH and Flintshire County Council

• Phil Box, Oswestry Borough Councillor

• Eleanor Burnham, Liberal Democrat Welsh Assembly Member – North Wales

• Peter Cherrington, Oswestry Borough Councillor

• Ted Cleavely, Economic Development Manager

• Martin Evans, Chairman SCRUA

• Molly Hale, Cheshire County Councillor

• David Hughes, Chester City Councillor

• Alun Jenkins, Wrexham County Borough Councillor

• Mia Jones, Chester City Councillor

• Richard Jones, Transport Officer Oswestry Borough Council

• David Lloyd, Shropshire County Councillor, Oswestry Borough Councillor and parish Councillor

for Whittington

• Ian Lucas, MP for Wrexham

• Eddie MacGrath, Transport Officer Oswestry Borough Council

• Leo Markham, Traws Cambria

• Owen Paterson, MP for Shropshire

• Simon Pickering, Passenger Focus

• Brian Rees, Shrewsbury and Atcham Councillor


Final Report

A012027 Page 47 of 185 23 March 2007

• David Rogers, Wrexham County Borough Councillor

• Mansell Williams, Chairman Chester-Shrewsbury Rail Partnership, Shrewsbury and Atcham

Councillor

As with all such tasks, certain contacts were either unavailable for comment or did not reply within the

specified timeframes. Also, various stakeholders replied as a representative of a group or organisation.

We also contacted various other individuals or groups who we believed could add value to this

process.

Responses were received from the following individuals:

• David Bithell, Councillor for Johnstown

• Eleanor Burnham, Liberal Democrat Welsh Assembly Member – North Wales

• Peter Cherrington, Oswestry Borough Councillor

• Ted Cleavely, Economic Development Manager

• Martin Evans, Chairman and spokesman for SCRUA

• Gordon Flear, English Welsh and Scottish Railway

• Molly Hale, Cheshire County Councillor

• Alyn Jones, Wrexham County Borough Council

• Richard Jones, Transport Officer Oswestry Borough Council

• Ian Lucas, MP for Wrexham

• Eddie MacGrath, Transport Officer Oswestry Borough Council

• Simon Pickering, Passenger Focus

• Brian Rees, Shrewsbury and Atcham Councillor

• Mansell Williams, Chairman Chester-Shrewsbury Rail Partnership, Shrewsbury and Atcham

Councillor

We believe that we have recieved a strong spectrum of views from various individuals, authorities and

industry members. In order to analyse the range of comments we have selected the common themes

under each section of the consultation. Below is a summary of the responses to the stated questions.

1) Do you or your organisation have an interest in improving rail services in the study area?

Responses to this question were all a fairly resounding yes. Many respondents wished to highlight the

real necessity for good public transport provision in the area.

Eleanor Burnham AM enthusiastically stated that she is:

“ A big fan of public transport and it is key for developing links across the community.”


Final Report

A012027 Page 48 of 185 23 March 2007

2) Are you aware of any proposals to improve rail services (both passenger and freight) in the CWS

area?

Respondents were generally aware that there may be proposals for the route, however, in the main,

most respondents did not identify specific proposals. Those that did identified the following:

David Bithell has:

“ Just produced a document ‘The Future of Rail in Wrexham’ [produced by the Wrexham Rail Group,

of which he is a member] which outlined the following proposals:

• Increase in Freight Traffic

• Chester-Wrexham single line constraint

• Wrexham to London Marlybone Station (LAING rail and Chiltern proposing to operate 5 trains a

day)

• Increase in passenger numbers in Wrexham due to economic boom in area including new retail

parks, hotels etc. Passenger service capacity must increase in order to relieve the increase in road

traffic.”

Brian Rees added:

“I am aware that there has been continuous representation to providers and Government to restore a

direct rail link to London, and the recent improvement of the service between CWS. There is also the

possible twin tracking by pass and introduction/revival of stations.”

3) Do you consider that the construction of new rail stations to be important to the development of

key locations and preferred/designated areas in the area?

Respondents were in a general agreement that access to rail services are an important factor in the

development of key locations. There was also a general concensus that any new station must be viable

and not have negative impact on current passenger service provision. Some respondents went on to

identify the sites which they believed would be of most benefit.

Eleanor Burnham:

“Rosset is the key location. A survey of the town has already been carried out giving favourable

results from the community. A proposal has previously been submitted by David Griffiths for an

integrated station at a new site.”

Molly Hale:

“Particularly required at Rosset and the Chester Business Park (Lache)”

Richard Jones:

“Only if they do not reduce the hourly service we now have. Chester Business Park appears to be the

most feasible.”


Final Report

A012027 Page 49 of 185 23 March 2007

Ted Cleavely:

“There may be cause for a station at Lache (Green Lane) to serve CBP. There are a shortage of

workers in the area, meaning that people are coming from further afield to work in the area…. A Park

and Ride at Lache could be linked with the new station”

David Bithell:

“Weak link of the line is Johnstown which is a densely populated town but does not currently have a

station. Also potential at Rossett although David Bithell does not believe that demand would be

suffcient.”

Mansell Williams:

“This is probably the only near-viable site (Johnstown) between Shrewsbury and Wrexham. Good site

(albeit on the edge of town); road access feasible; car parking possible; good sized community;

minimal effect on journey times as trains are already accelerating/braking in association with the

Ruabon stop.”

3b. Do you consider that the inclusion of existing bus services would benefit your employees or the

people you represent?

All respondents were very positive about the role that bus services can play within the overall

transport structure. Of particular note was the recurring theme of integration, in order to maximise the

benefits of the rail/bus interface. Points of particular note were made:

Peter Cherrington:

“It is obvious, living in a rural area our only alternative would be private transport and with high levels

of unemployment and low wages this is not always possible.”

Simon Pickering:

“Passenger Focus advocates integrated transport solutions and would support the connection of

expanded train services with the bus network.”

Ted Cleavely:

“There are clear positives associated with good bus linkages such as Chester railway station to the

city. This now carries around 600000 people a year. Bus linkages from Chester station are seen as an

essential requirement.”

Richard Jones:

“Bus services are a major selling point to developers/business if good bus/rail links for

employees/business associates.”

4) Do you consider that the construction of new stations and the increase of rail services will bring

economic benefits/disbenefits to the area?

Respondents were unanimous in the belief that the construction of new stations will bring economic

benefits, although there appears to be some conflict over the proposed use of green belt land around

Chester. There are various reasons for this belief, the most poignant being:


Final Report

A012027 Page 50 of 185 23 March 2007

David Bithell:

“The introduction of new stations will definitely have a positive effect. The reduction in congestion

on the road will have time saving benefits.”

Simon Pickering:

“There is strong evidence from other areas, such as South Wales, that it increases the ability of local

residents to reach places of employment and/or study, encourages housing and other development in

local neighbourhoods and boosts property values.”

Ted Cleavely:

“Great benefits may come from greater mobility, and access to employment centres such as CBP and

the possibility of development at Saighton Camp.”

Molly Hale:

“Lache – There is pressure on for development on the green belt land nr Lache (effectively increasing

the size of CBP). This gives support to a new station at this site (and a P+R is suggested at a site

South West to Chester), but there must be greater overall concern for the loss of green belt land.”

5) Do you consider that the construction of new stations and the increase of rail services will

increase/decrease the number and severity of road accidents in the local area?

All respondents agreed that the construction of new stations would reduce accidents because of the

associated reduction in traffic congestion. Moreover, the following comments were made:

Gordon Flear:

“Rail is the safest way to transport goods and safety has an extremely high profile with all freight

movements.”

Brian Rees:

“By providing better local access to the rail service, there would be a reduction in the number and

distance of car users at the 2 most accident vulnerable times of the day (peaks).”

Alyn Jones:

“…This is true in particular where extended (and preferably seamless) journey opportunities take

passengers to major cities.”

6) Do you consider that the construction of new stations will increase/decrease the security for

vulnerable segments of the local community?

All respondents believed that the access to public services will increase the security for those

vulnerable people. However, it was also pointed out that it that would depend upon the design and

operation of any new station:

Alyn Jones:

“The development of new stations brings with it an unknown quantity in terms of security. Care

should be taken to ensure that adequate policing of facilities is possible – e.g. CCTV with reliable

links to local and transport police resources.”


Final Report

A012027 Page 51 of 185 23 March 2007

7) What would you consider to be the main environmental benefits and impacts of the construction of

new stations and the increase of rail services?

Respondents identified the reduction in volumes of road traffic, and the associated reduction in

emissions, it was also noted that this is in line with Government and International policies. However,

several respondents also highlighted caution in relation to the trade-off between construction and

operation against how many trips would actually be removed from the roads:

Ted Cleavely:

“Reduction of car usage matches the Governments aspirations.”

Simon Pickering:

“The main environmental impact should be a reduction in both distance and frequency of road

journeys undertaken in the study area. There will be some disbenefit during the construction phase of

any development programme due to the building works.”

Martin Evans:

“…Whether the carbon emissions saved from private car use will equate with the emissions of the

envisaged extra trains is an interesting equation yet to be answered.”

Alyn Jones:

“…The counter argument (marginal as it is) is the additional pollutants emitted from additional stops

and starts of rail services and the physical make-up of the station itself.”

8) Do you consider that new rail services will increase/decrease accessibility within the community

and/or accessibility of the community as a whole, in terms of widening the choice of modes of travel?

Again, respondents identified the potential positive impacts. Accessibility would be increased to

wider communities and give choice to those who at present only have one alternative.

Brian Rees:

“My experience tells me that increases in the publics use of rail services improves accessibility within

the community. It gets people out of those cars (isolation tin boxes) and brings them into personal

contact on a level playing field, it gives a choice of travel to those who may not have access to a

private car during the day.”

Ted Cleavely:

“Good public transport linkages are vital for employment and future development in the region.”

9) Do you consider that new stations will increase/decrease the severance within the local community,

in terms of impact on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport?

There appeared to be some confusion among some respondents as to the meaning of this question.

However, those who responded believed that there would only be positive integration between the

sections of the community:


Final Report

A012027 Page 52 of 185 23 March 2007

Martin Evans:

“I am not sure what they are on about with the use of “severance”. Pedestrians and cyclists are likely

to be attracted to additional rail services.”

Richard Jones:

“Essential new railway stations will increase better usage by cyclists (if provisions are made),

pedestrians (if footbridges are provided) and bus terminals at stations for essential integration of

travel.”

Peter Cherrington:

“As rail allows people options to use a variety of transport modes i.e. bikes, prams etc and the chance

to walk in the country having travelled by train to their destination then yes I feel it beneficial.”

10) In overall terms, do you/your organisation support or object to adding new stations?

All respondents supported the addition of new stations, assuming that there is appropriate levels of

demand to warrant it based on the costs of doing so:

Martin Evans:

“We support adding new stations but are mindful of the high costs of providing these built to meet

modern standards and to meet Health and Safety requirements.”

11) In overall terms, do you/your organisation support or object to adding new rail passenger

services?

All respondents supported the addition of new passenger services, citing the promotion of rail in the

area and the associated economic benefits, but remained cautious over timetable developments as a

result:

Richard Jones:

“We do support any increase in rail passenger services which will make our area a more economically

viable and assist the high unemployment list to reduce.”

Alyn Jones:

“Yes. Enhanced rail services for existing and new areas are seen as the key driver to maximising

modal shift (particularly) for travelling medium and long distances.”

Eleanor Burnham:

“Support – making sure that timings are correct and they are orientated towards the rail user.”

12) In overall terms, do you/your organisation support or object to adding new rail freight facilities?

All respondents supported the addition of freight services where demand and sites can be located,

although the political will for such schemes was brought into question:


Final Report

A012027 Page 53 of 185 23 March 2007

Gordon Flear:

“We very much support adding new rail freight facilities and are willing to work with any body that

feels that they have identified opportunities. EWS has already worked with Hanson to ensure that rail

access to their quarry at Blodwell remains a possibility. There may be an issue with the loading gauge

of the line which may restrict freight growth – Network Rail rather than EWS would be better placed

to answer this point.”

Eleanor Burnham:

“Support, again good integration is required. Believe that there has been a lack of political will in this

area, with most resources dedicated to road works. Would like to see more supermarket deliveries etc

taken by rail.”

13) Any Other Comments:

Below is a selection of comments made by respondents:

Alyn Jones:

“To mitigate the effect of adding new stations along the corridors emphasis should be placed on

options to enhance track capacity and line speed thereby maintaining overall journey times for all

passengers.”

Peter Cherrington:

“Working in partnership; improving what is already in place and adding what could be beneficial to

local residents.”

Richard Jones:

“That Gobowen should have a footbridge. The level crossing is dangerous for wheelchair users to

cross. Only a road line between HGV’s and wheelchair and the vertical alignment is irregular. It does

not allow wheelchair users/disabled persons to go from the car park for the Chester train unless 10

mins early.

Molly Hale:

“Lines into Chester generally bring longer haul passengers, we need to try and attract those from the

study area to travel in by train.”

Eddie Mcgrath:

“We are deeply disenchanted with the performance of the current operations, and feel that changes are

needed to deliver a quality service.”

David Bithell:

“The most critical issue is the single line section of track.”

Martin Evans:

“In seeking more rail services and facilities we must be mindful of the limited resources available to

the current train operator and the financial restrictions imposed within the current rail franchise. More

train services will incur extra costs and not necessarily sufficient income to support them. Extra train


Final Report

A012027 Page 54 of 185 23 March 2007

services will also require additional rolling stock, which the current train operator is poorly equipped

to provide. Additionally the existing rail infrastructure would need to be upgraded to cater for the

extra train services, both passenger and freight.”

Gordon Flear:

“If passenger services were to increase we would support redoubling as this would be needed to allow

capacity required for both freight and passenger services on the line. Due to the older type signalling

and very long sections between signal boxes (12 and 18 miles) we would suggest that signalling needs

to be examined along with the re-doubling. The current freight service has to block the line when it is

shunted into the customers location and running round when returning empty – this again reduces line

capacity.”

5.2 NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATION

To assess Network Rail’s opinion of the proposed project, as well as to obtain information about the

existing line, we met with route planners Mike Gallop, Chris Aldridge and Mike Tedstone in Swindon

on 11th May 2006. The Swindon office is now responsible for the strategic planning of all lines in

Wales, although the northern portion of the line is still maintained by the territory office in

Birmingham.

Network Rail believe that the current line is being used very close to capacity; the single line is

occupied more than half an hour per hour. Upgrading of this line is included in Network Rail’s

Strategic Route Plan (Route 14) as an infrastructure investment under consideration; however, no

work is currently being planned in the area.

They made the following suggestions for this project:

• The locations of double tracking on the single line should take into account possible new stations

at Rossett and Lache. They currently do not consider Rossett a good choice, but favour a station

at Lache to avoid traffic congestion in Chester. It was suggested that a signal could be added at a

station at Lache, creating a configuration similar to that at Oxford-Bicester.

• Line renewal and linespeed increases should be accompanied by the introduction of rolling stock

with higher seating capacity (three car trains).

• Reopening the line from Gobowen to Oswestry would be difficult because of the delays to road

traffic caused by the train operated signal at the A5 level crossing.

Subsequent to the meeting of 11th May 2006 Network Rail have taken part in the monthly progress

meetings and have expressed an interest in assistance with developing the proposals and

recommendations within the final report.


Final Report

A012027 Page 55 of 185 23 March 2007

6. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

6.1 TIMETABLE ANALYSIS

6.1.1 Existing Situation

The analysis focused on both passenger and freight services, predominately operated by Arriva Trains

Wales, Central Trains and English Scottish and Welsh Railways (EWS). Research used Network

Rail’s Working Timetable (WTT) for the period up to and including June 11th 2006 for all sections of

the study area.

6.1.2 Passenger Analysis

Passenger trains using the CWS route predominately operate between Chester and Shrewsbury,

continuing on to Holyhead, Birmingham and South Wales. A small proportion of trains start/terminate

at Chester or Shrewsbury; these connect into the regional services, noted above. The tables in this

section use the following station codes:

CTR – Chester

WRX – Wrexham

SHR – Shrewsbury

The research team identified the ranges of first and last services available to passengers using this

route seven days a week. It is worth noting the substantial difference between those trains running

Monday-Saturdays (which are the same) compared to the Sunday timings. However, a revised

timetable proposal, which increases the provision of services between Chester, Wrexham and

Shrewsbury, demonstrates that there is scope for improvement on the availability of early morning and

late evening trains, mostly on Sundays.

First and last services

WRX-CTR CTR-WRX SHR-CTR CTR-SHR WRX-SHR SHR-WRX

1st Last 1st Last 1st Last 1st Last 1st Last 1st Last

Mon-Fri 05:57 00:12 05:16 22:31 05:20 23:31 05:16 22:31 05:37 22:47 05:20 23:31

Saturday 05:57 00:12 05:16 22:31 05:20 23:31 05:16 22:31 05:37 22:47 05:20 23:31

Sunday 10:53 21:20 11:15 21:31 10:16 20:45 11:15 21:31 11:31 21:49 10:16 20:45

The next stage of the investigation focused on the number of trains running on this route over a seven-

day period, with the data analysis being split between daily and weekly service. The main findings of

this investigation are summarised below.

� Service between Wrexham (WRX) and Chester (CTR) includes one additional train in each

direction, which continues to/from Wrexham Central and does not serve Ruabon, Gobowen, Chirk

or Shrewsbury.

� Sunday services run throughout the whole study area with no additional trains being allocated to

the Wrexham Central (WXC) line, which means all services run directly between SHR and CTR.

� The timetable data demonstrate a decreased service on Sundays for all stations in the study area.

� The total number of trains running Monday-Friday is the same as those on Saturdays although

there are more trains from SHR to CTR than in the opposite direction.


Final Report

A012027 Page 56 of 185 23 March 2007

Number of trains per day in each direction

WRX-CTR CTR-WRX SHR-CTR CTR-SHR Daily Weekly Daily Weekly Daily Weekly Daily Weekly

Mon-Fri 20 100 19 95 19 95 18 90

Saturday 20 20 19 19 19 19 18 18

Sunday 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Total 47 127 45 121 45 121 43 115

The table below indicates the range and typical lengths of journeys between study area destinations.

Lengths of journeys between destinations

Run Time (Mean)

Run Time (Range)

Run Time (Mode)

Performance Allowance (Range)

Chester-Shrewsbury 00:55:30 54:30-59:30 54:30 00:30 - 07:00

Shrewsbury-Chester 01:01:41 54:00-1:17:00 54:30 02:00 - 12:00

Chester-Wrexham 00:15:39 15:30-23:00 15:30 00:30 - 07:00

Wrexham-Chester 00:17:33 17:00-23:30 17:30 02:00 - 12:00

6.1.3 Freight Analysis

The Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury (CWS) line operates as a mixed traffic railway; therefore, in

addition to passenger services a number of freight services use available train paths between the

passenger trains seven days a week. The typical origins and destinations of freight trains operating in

the study area include Dee Marsh, Chirk, Warrington, Margam, Healey Mills, Penyffordd, Crewe, and

Llanwern, and each train moves a variety of commodities including steel, timber, and cement. Our

initial findings of the freight timetable are cited below.

� There were no night freight trains at any time of the week.

� The total number of trains running in both directions was 26, including four light engine

movements on Sunday to/from Dee Marsh to Warrington Arpley yard.

� Thirteen trains operate on weekdays, seven on Saturdays, and six on Sundays.

� Kronospan freight terminal receives two arrivals and one departure per day Monday through

Friday and one departure/arrival on Saturday. There are no services serving this terminal on

Sundays.

� Twelve trains pass through Wrexham General station Monday through Friday, six on Saturday and

six on Sunday, plus 3 light engine movements.

� Most freight trains run through Wrexham, with only a handful running the entire length of the line.

Other train movements take place between Wrexham and Shrewsbury, including entering and

leaving the Chirk rail terminal.

� The freight trains serving Chirk have to reverse either on the main line near Chirk or on the

Gobowen Run Loop. The reversing of trains at Gobowen and Chirk does not appear to impede on

the working timetable and operations of the CWS corridor.

The freight timetable analysis identified a problem with 6V76 and 6F71 existing timings; between

Wrexham General and Chester the timetable showed them crossing each other on the ten mile section


Final Report

A012027 Page 57 of 185 23 March 2007

of single track. However, Network Rail indicated that this conflict would not be allowed to happen,

and the services are not daily. If they were both to operate on the same day, then measures would be

implemented to ensure their safe passage along the route by assessing the availability of white spaces

in the timetable. Our re-timings scheduled 6F71 to meet with 6V76 at Saltney Junction with an

overlap of one minute, but this rescheduling did result in 6F71 operating 20 minutes earlier through

Wrexham. However, this does mean that 6F71 will be placed onto the goods loop between Wrexham

General and Wrexham North Junction so as not to conflict with 1V69 which is a passenger service

running towards Shrewsbury from Chester.

Similar problems arise on Saturdays when the 6F71 and the 6V90 cross between Wrexham North

Junction and Saltney Junction. However, a similar process can be applied to that above for the

Monday-Friday scenario; these trains may not operate every week, or if they do run on the same days

then seek out possible white spaces in the timetable, making sure that 6F71 and 6V90 do not impede

on the passenger trains either side, 1W88, 1V61 and 1D15. A precise experiment to change the

timings for Saturdays was not conducted by the research team, although there does appear to be

adequate white space in the timetable to fit in both services if both operate on the same day.

Finally, there appears to be sufficient availability to operate additional freight trains during the day

seven days a week, although this would involve careful planning (particularly if it is proposed to run

more passenger services on the route). There are no apparent issues with using the line to run

additional freight services from the late evening through to the next morning.

6.1.4 Revised Timetable Analysis and Recommendations

A key part of our investigation was to examine the viability and nature of issues involved with

introducing a half-hourly service on the Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury rail corridor predominately

between Chester and Wrexham. The experiment devised a revised timetable strategy for operating a

shuttle service between Wrexham and Chester using the 2006 spring timetable. The basis in which the

timetable was restructured focused on the entire route being double tracked throughout with additional

trains being slotted in where appropriate. It was felt that an almost half-hourly service would be

introduced from 0600 to approximately 2000, which would accommodate any increases in demand

particularly during the morning and evening peak periods. The timetable would revert to a near hourly

operation although a new late evening 2T30 service is proposed between Chester and Wrexham at

2331.

New Wrexham Shuttle Option

A comparative analysis frequency level of train departures has been prepared. Note that the existing

direct service between Chester and Shrewsbury does not change; it is only trains running between

Wrexham and Chester which practically double in frequency. It is worth pointing out that the

recommended shuttle service improvements have only been applied to Monday-Saturdays although

two additional trains operate on a Sunday morning, as inconsistency in the Sunday timings makes it

difficult to construct a consistent schedule.


Final Report

A012027 Page 58 of 185 23 March 2007

Journey frequencies with Wrexham shuttle

Journey

Description

Days of

Operation

Average

Departure

Frequency

Journey

Description

Days of

Operation

Average

Departure

Frequency

WRX-CTR

SHR-CTR

SHR-WRX

Mon-Fri 00:57:39

01:00:52

01:00:37

WRX-CTR

SHR-CTR

SHR-WRX

Mon-Fri 00:32:57

01:00:37

01:00:37

WRX-CTR

SHR-CTR

SHR-WRX

Saturdays

00:57:38

01:05:03

01:00:37

WRX-CTR

SHR-CTR

SHR-WRX

Saturdays 00:31:41

01:00:37

01:00:37

WRX-CTR

SHR-CTR

SHR-WRX

Sundays 01:44:30

01:44:50

01:44:50

WRX-CTR

SHR-CTR

SHR-WRX

Sundays

01:39:34

01:44:50

01:39:51

WRX-SHR

CTR-SHR

CTR-WRX

Mon-Fri 01:00:53

01:00:53

00:57:30

WRX-SHR

CTR-SHR

CTR-WRX

Mon-Fri 01:00:35

01:00:53

00:32:12

WRX-SHR

CTR-SHR

CTR-WRX

Saturdays 01:00:35

01:00:53

00:57:30

WRX-SHR

CTR-SHR

CTR-WRX

Saturdays 01:00:35

01:00:53

00:33:11

WRX-SHR

CTR-SHR

CTR-WRX

Sundays 01:42:35

01:42:40

01:42:40

WRX-SHR

CTR-SHR

CTR-WRX

Sundays 01:42:55

01:42:40

01:45:09

The table below summarises proposed new services. An element of caution should be made with

these timings as they are only suggestions at this time, and any revamping of the timetable would have

to be negotiated with Network Rail and other partners operating trains in the area.


Final Report

A012027 Page 59 of 185 23 March 2007

Proposed New Services (Chester-Wrexham-Chester Shuttle)

Chester-Wrexham Wrexham-Chester

Departure

Time

Headcode Day of operation Departure

Time

Headcode Day of operation

06:32 2T02 06:28 2T01 Mon-Sat

07:02 2T04 07:16

07:13

2T03

2T03

Mon-Fri (only)

Saturday (only)

07:58 2T06 07:47 2T05

08:58 2T08 08:37 2T07

09:58 2T10 09:35 2T09

10:58 2T12 10:35 2T11

11:58 2T14 11:35 2T13

12:58 2T16 12:35 2T15

13:58 2T18 13:35 2T17

14:58 2T20 14:35 2T19

15:58 2T22 15:35 2T21

16:58 2T24 16:35 2T23

17:58 2T26 17:35 2T25

18:58 2T28

Monday-Saturday

18:35 2T27

Monday-Saturday

19:36 2T30 Mon-Fri (only)

23:31 2T32

2T30 (sat)

Mon-Fri (only)

Saturdays (only)

Only two additional Sunday trains have been proposed, an early morning departure from Chester to

Wrexham at 0915 operating as 2T01 and an early morning departure from Wrexham to Chester at

0943 operating as 2T02.

The other consideration to make when proposing additional services is the likely resources that will be

required to operate these new services. An experiment undertaken by Scott Wilson pinpointed that

only one Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) would be required to run the new services, although two other

units may be required for some of the morning and evening periods. But the timetable could be

revamped in a way that reduces numbers and thus costs. The proposed diagram structure has been

drawn up below, but a note of caution should be made with these recommendation so far as in order to


Final Report

A012027 Page 60 of 185 23 March 2007

minimise the number of units and maximise efficiency their will be some tight turning around of

trains, largely at Chester.

New Proposed Diagram (Monday-Saturdays)

Diagram 1

2T02

2T12

2T19

2T27

2T03

2T13

2T20

2T06

2T14

2T21

2T07

2T15

2T22

2T08

2T16

2T23

2T09

2T16

2T24

2T10

2T17

2T25

2T11

2T18

2T26

Diagram 2

2T01

2T04

2T05

Diagram 3

2T30

Empty

stock back

to Chester

2T32

Empty

stock back

to Chester

� Diagram one will run empty stock to Wrexham.

� Diagrams one and two will operate Monday through Saturday while diagram three will operate

Monday through Friday.

� Only one unit would be required for the two additional Sunday trains.

The theoretical number of units required for the shuttle service is shown below:

Formula: Total journey time + Total layover time

----------------------------------------------

Headway

Working Example

Round trip journey time: 17mins + 15.5mins = 32.5mins

Total layover time: 23.5mins + 6mins = 29.5mins

Therefore, 29.5mins + 32.5mins

------------------------- = 1.03 (rounded to 1 train set)

60mins (Headway)

Wrexham Shuttle Operating Conditions

The proposed timetable database identified a series of conflicting movements with the new service

pattern although these would be mitigated if the entire route was to become a double track corridor. A

series of trains travelling in both directions were found to be on the single section of track at the same

time, which under the current operating conditions is not viable. A summary of the services involved

in conflicting movements appears below, but it is worth pointing out that all the conflicts occur at


Final Report

A012027 Page 61 of 185 23 March 2007

some point between Wrexham North Junction and Saltney Junction. However, there are no conflicts

on Sundays as additional trains have not been written into our analysis, although two early morning

services are being proposed.

The milepost location (MP) and number of conflicting trains has been summarised below:

Monday-Friday: 203.625 to 204.025 (4 trains)

204.825 to 205.525 (8 trains)

207.125 (1 train)

208.125 (4 trains)

208.925 to 209.225 (3 trains)

211.525 (1 train)

Total conflicting trains = 21

Saturdays: 203.525 to 204.125 (4 trains)

204.425 (2 trains)

204.925 to 205.725 (9 trains)

207.525 (1 train)

208.925 (1 train)

209.625 (1 train)

210.625 (1 train)

212.010 (1 train)

Total conflicting trains = 20

_______________________________________________________________________

Based on the analysis above it is suggested that loops be placed on the route in order to permit a

shuttle service between Wrexham and Chester, as well as other additional trains i.e. those running

beyond Wrexham heading towards Shrewsbury, Birmingham, and Cardiff.

A loop would be inserted at the north side of the overbridge at MP 202.725. It would need to be

located before the start of the next operational constraint at MP 204.000, a single line bridge crossing

the A483. The next place that a loop could be constructed is in the Gresford area approximately two

miles north of where loop one would be inserted; the potential location is MP 206.000. The final place

in which an infrastructure loop could be constructed is at the pedestrian footbridge which links Rossett

with Burton, as this section of the route is fairly flat and straight as well as being reasonably wide.

Slightly further north is the A483 bridge at 208.750; it is suggested that a loop could be constructed

between these two points.

After further consideration of the operational problems thrown up by these conflicts, by flexing the

timetable it is possible to replace the three small loops with one longer loop located between the two

pieces of constraining infrastructure created during the construction of the A483 road (204.000 and

208.750).

Recommendations and Considerations

The development of a Wrexham shuttle service raises a number of issues, questions and considerations

that need to be answered and investigated before any final plans are developed.

• Is there sufficient availability of platform space at Chester to warrant a half-hourly service?

Our initial assessment suggests that the bay platforms could be utilised to operate this

Wrexham shuttle and it appears that the existing infrastructure is operationally capable.


Final Report

A012027 Page 62 of 185 23 March 2007

• Layover time at Chester is quite tight based on our analysis to date. If however, there is

disruption on the route and this impedes the operations of services, it may result in other

issues becoming evident i.e. services missing their path and platform allocation.

• Would the existing signalling system be able to cope with more trains running on the route?

• Additional services may meet competition from other train operating companies, including

freight, as they wish to bid for similar train paths.

• It will be necessary to consider mechanisms available to fund improvements, which could

include negotiating with the DfT, Welsh Assembly and other potential stakeholders. Also, are

any improvements economically viable, i.e. does the NPV rate comply with government

practice?

• The Rules of the Route and Plan need to be taken into consideration and discussed with

Network Rail.

• If a shuttle train were to operate in parallel with the existing service pattern then this could

throw up questions like should a new bay platform be constructed at Wrexham, although the

way around this potential problem is to permit trains to run around Watery Road Loop.

Main Conclusions

The timetable analysis demonstrates that it is feasible to operate a half-hourly service between

Wrexham and Chester either on a fully double track railway or by inserting loops in the areas

specified. After further analysis it would appear that the optimum approach is either to accept full

doubling between Wrexham North Junction and Saltney Junction or to put in a loop between the

current infrastructure constraints between MP 204.000 and MP 208.750.

The existing frequency suggests long periods of time when no services operate, particularly on

Sundays; thus additional service seems called for. At the same time there needs to be a balancing of

needs for freight as well as passenger services. The timetable data analysis has also identified a few

issues with the existing working timetable, which can be easily resolved with some minor revamping.

6.2 LINE SPEED ANALYSIS

To undertake the task of analysing potential time saving through increases in line speed, Scott Wilson

used its SWIFTT (Scott Wilson Integrated Fast Time Tabling) model.

SWIFTT works around the following parameters:

• Track gradient

• Permanent Speed Restrictions (PSRs)

• Rolling Stock weight

• Rolling Stock top speed and braking capabilities

• Rolling Stock performance

Track gradient: We would normally take track gradients from Network Rail’s five mile diagrams.

However, it is understood that these diagrams are not yet available for the study area. Thus, we have

extracted the gradients from ‘British Rail-Main Line, Gradient Profiles’ that we believe to be an

reasonably approximate measurement of the gradient.

Permanent Speed Restrictions: PSRs were taken from Network Rail’s Sectional Appendices.


Final Report

A012027 Page 63 of 185 23 March 2007

Rolling Stock: To reflect the ‘real’ situation, we have modelled the line using both Class 158s and

Class 175s. These two types of stock have significantly different characteristics. These can be

explained by the Class 175’s much greater power/weight ratio and age advantage. As the Class 175

fleet is generally much newer than the Class 158 fleet we have assumed 100% performance for the

175s. The Class 158s have been modelled at a modest 95% to reflect the diminishing performance

over time. The use of the 95% performance figure calibrated quite well, as is shown below.

6.2.1 Model Calibration

In order to quantify the possible time saving on the route as it stands we have first modelled the line

with the current (base) stations and with the current PSRs in place. This enables us to prove the

robustness of our model by comparing it to the working timetable. We have used Class 158s for this

purpose, as this is what is assumed in the working timetable.

Run Time (Mean) Run Time (Range) Run Time (Mode)

Performance Allowance

(Range)

Chester-Shrewsbury 00:55:30 54:30-59:30 54:30 00:30 - 07:00

Shrewsbury-Chester 01:01:41 54:00-1:17:00 54:30 02:00 - 12:00

The table above shows the current working timetable for the Chester-Shrewsbury route. Of note is the

wide range of run times for both legs of the journey, and specifically for the Shrewsbury-Chester leg.

In order to qualify our model against these times we have assumed the working timetable’s mode run

time. This is because this run time occurs the most often, and thus is most indicative of the required

time to make the journey. There is also a considerable range for performance allowance. In order to

strip this out, as it does not form one of our model parameters, we have taken an average, which

equates to three minutes, and taken this away at a constant rate from the working timetable mode run

time.

SWIFTT Robustness: Chester - Shrewsbury

00:00:0000:07:1200:14:2400:21:3600:28:4800:36:0000:43:1200:50:2400:57:36

Che

ster

Wre

xham

Rua

bon

Chirk

Gob

owen

Shrew

sbur

y

Station Stop

Tim

e Working Timetable

SWIFTT Base Case


Final Report

A012027 Page 64 of 185 23 March 2007

Chester Wrexham Ruabon Chirk Gobowen Shrewsbury

Working Timetable 00:00:00 00:15:54 00:21:48 00:27:12 00:32:06 00:51:30

SWIFTT 00:00:00 00:15:24 00:21:50 00:27:46 00:32:43 00:50:00

The working timetable gave a mode journey time of 00:54:30 for the Chester – Shrewsbury trip. This

includes an average of 3 minutes performance allowance, which has been stripped out to give the

times quoted above. This has been done to essentially remove a parameter, which is not included

within SWIFTT but is within the working timetable.

We generally work on the principle of a plus or minus 5% error within our SWIFTT model. In this

case the SWIFTT outputs are within around 3% of the working timetable. Thus our results show that

SWIFTT gives a robust representation of the route and therefore any modelled changes will be

indicative of any ‘real’ changes.

SWIFTT Robustness: Shrewsbury - Chester

00:00:0000:07:1200:14:2400:21:3600:28:4800:36:0000:43:1200:50:2400:57:36

Shrew

sbur

y

Gob

owen

Chirk

Rua

bon

Wre

xham

Che

ster

Station Stop

Tim

e Working Timetable

SWIFTT Base Case

Shrewsbury Gobowen Chirk Ruabon Wrexham Chester

Working Timetable 00:00:00 00:19:24 00:24:18 00:29:42 00:35:36 00:51:30

SWIFTT 00:00:00 00:18:56 00:23:39 00:29:35 00:35:41 00:50:29

Once again, our model appears robust on the Shrewsbury – Chester trip. Thus, we are confident that

our further analysis is an accurate reflection of reality, were the proposed schemes to be implemented.

It is also important to note that within our SWIFTT models we have assumed the dwell times at each

station, with 45 seconds at all stations other than Wrexham, which has a one minute dwell time. This

can also help to explain the relatively small differences between our model outputs and that of the

working timetable.

6.3 BASE CASE STATIONS

Our primary SWIFTT modelling task was to evaluate the time saving effects of line speed

improvements on all or part of the route. To do this, we have modelled the entire route with line

speeds of:

• Current PSR (baseline speed)


Final Report

A012027 Page 65 of 185 23 March 2007

• Minimum of 70 mph

• 80 mph

• 90 mph

The timetable results are shown below:

Chester - Shrewsbury

Rolling Stock Stations Line Speed Time Saving

158 Base min 70 mph 00:02:04

158 Base min 80 mph 00:03:39

158 Base min 90 mph 00:03:46

175 Base min 70 mph 00:02:45

175 Base min 80 mph 00:06:50

175 Base min 90 mph 00:09:54

Chester - Shrewsbury, Time Savings with Base

Stations

00:00:00

00:01:26

00:02:53

00:04:19

00:05:46

00:07:12

00:08:38

00:10:05

00:11:31

Time Saving

hh

:mm

:ss

Class 158 min 70mph

Class 158 80mph

Class 158 90mph

Class 175 min 70mph

Class 175 80mph

Class 175 90mph

Shrewsbury - Chester


158 Base min 70 mph 00:03:30

158 Base min 80 mph 00:05:23

158 Base min 90 mph 00:05:51

175 Base min 70 mph 00:03:43

175 Base min 80 mph 00:07:47

175 Base min 90 mph 00:10:53


Final Report

A012027 Page 66 of 185 23 March 2007

Shrewsbury - Chester, Time Savings with Base

Stations

00:00:00

00:01:26

00:02:53

00:04:19

00:05:46

00:07:12

00:08:38

00:10:05

00:11:31

Time Saving

hh

:mm

:ss

Class158 min 70mph

Class 158 80mph

Class 158 90mph

Class 175 min 70mph

Class 175 80mph

Class 175 90mph

As these results show, significant time savings can be made by increasing the line speed restrictions.

There is an obvious difference between those results for Class 158s and Class 175s, which can be

explained by the power/weight ratios for each type of stock. Our analysis also suggests that the 175s

running on the current timetable are not being used to their full potential.

With Class 158s the difference between raising the PSR to 80 or 90 mph is not particularly significant.

This may suggest, depending upon the relative costs of improving to the respective speeds, that there

is little advantage in increasing the speed above 80mph. However, it is clear that were Class 175s

more commonly used, and used to their technical potential, that a line speed of 90 mph would provide

significant time saving advantages.

It is also evident from the tables above that greater time savings are realised in the Shrewsbury –

Chester direction. Our analysis was then directed to find which sections of the route provide the

greatest benefit in terms of time saving. The following diagrams show the route split up into three

sections. For the purpose of this exercise we have assumed the following sections, with stated lengths:

Route Section Section Length

Chester-Wrexham/Wrexham-Chester 12.36 miles

Wrexham-Gobowen/Gobowen-Wrexham 12.06 miles

Gobowen-Shrewsbury/Shrewsbury-Gobowen 18.025 miles

It was anticipated that the greatest time saving would be over the longest section (Shresbury-

Gobowen) of the track. However, our analysis suggests that by far the greatest time saving is


Final Report

A012027 Page 67 of 185 23 March 2007

available on the Wrexham-Chester section of the route. The following tables show the time saving on

each section with both Class 158 and Class 175 rolling stock:

Chester-Wrexham/Wrexham-Chester


158 Base min 70 mph 00:02:19

158 Base min 80 mph 00:07:16

158 Base min 90 mph 00:07:24

175 Base min 70 mph 00:02:41

175 Base min 80 mph 00:11:16

175 Base min 90 mph 00:15:18

Wrexham-Gobowen/Gobowen-Wrexham


158 Base min 70 mph 00:00:21

158 Base min 80 mph 00:00:32

158 Base min 90 mph 00:00:33

175 Base min 70 mph 00:00:27

175 Base min 80 mph 00:01:30

175 Base min 90 mph 00:02:13

Shrewsbury-Gobowen/Gobowen-Shrewsbury


158 Base min 70 mph 00:00:07

158 Base min 80 mph 00:01:05

158 Base min 90 mph 00:01:08

175 Base min 70 mph 00:00:07

175 Base min 80 mph 00:01:57

175 Base min 90 mph 00:03:21

It appears from these results that little time saving can be made between Wrexham and Gobowen.

This is due to several factors, predominately the fact that this is the shortest section of the route, and

that there are two station stops between Wrexham and Gobowen (Ruabon and Chirk), which restricts

the rolling stock’s ability to attain higher speeds, regardless of the line speed restriction.

The Shrewsbury-Gobowen section does not appear to show a significant time saving with the Class

158 rolling stock. This is because almost the entire section is already at 70 mph, thus very little

benefit is gained from line speed increases. However it is clear that were the Class 175 stock more

widely used, significant time savings can be made were the line speed raised to 90 mph throughout

this section.

Analysis of the Chester-Wrexham section of the track suggests that a large time saving can be made

by increasing the line speed restriction. As with the analysis of the route as a whole, it appears that

there are significant advantages associated with raising line speed to 80 mph. The Class 158 stock is

not capable of realising the full potential of a 90 mph line speed, but the Class 175s are able to make

significant savings when the line speed rises to 90mph.

6.3.1 Conclusions with Base Stations

From the extensive analysis we have carried out, we are able to make the following conclusions from

our operational analysis of line speed with the base station situation:

• In terms of operational performance, the Class 175s provide much greater scope for time

saving from line speed improvements.


Final Report

A012027 Page 68 of 185 23 March 2007

• The greatest benefits are gained from increasing the line speed between Chester and

Wrexham. We would suggest a speed of 90 mph on the understanding that the Class 175

rolling stock will be more frequently used in the future. It is also understood that by

increasing the line to 90 mph there is greater scope for timetable adjustments.

• Increasing the line speed between Wrexham and Gobowen realises a smaller time saving due

to the stop/start nature of the track section. The Class 158s have considerably less

acceleration/deceleration power than the 175s and so are much more affected by a stop than

the 175s are. Thus, we would again advise an increase of line speed to 90mph where possible.

This gives greater opportunity for future time saving, and can help to minimise the effects of

stopping and starting.

• There is little benefit from raising the line speed between Shrewsbury and Gobowen to 70mph

throughout. However it is possible to save over a minute with Class 158s when line speed is

80mph throughout. We would suggest that from an operational point of view there does not

appear to be much evidence to support raising the line speed on this section above 80mph.

However, it may be preferable to raise it to 90mph to align with the rest of the route (if our

other recommendations are considered) for continuity and for future scope.

6.4 PROPOSED STATIONS

Prior to any economic or financial analysis of the proposed stations sites, we have analysed the

impacts that stations proposed in this study would have upon the line speed improvements were they

to be implemented. The proposed station sites to be considered are:

• Lache

• Rossett

• Johnstown

• Whittington

• Baschurch

These will be modelled in the same way as with the ‘base station’ case, and will include all current

stations on the route. It is also assumed that a 45 seconds dwell time is required at each new station.

The results of this analysis are shown below.


Final Report

A012027 Page 69 of 185 23 March 2007

Chester - Shrewsbury

Line Speed Rolling Stock Chester Lache Rossett Wrexham Johnstown Ruabon Chirk Gobowen Whittington Baschurch Shrewsbury

Base Class 158 00:00:00 00:03:46 00:10:44 00:18:44 00:24:11 00:26:41 00:32:37 00:37:33 00:41:05 00:50:10 00:58:43

min 70 Class 158 00:00:00 00:03:31 00:10:01 00:17:58 00:23:25 00:25:55 00:31:33 00:36:29 00:40:00 00:49:06 00:57:38

min 80 Class 158 00:00:00 00:03:31 00:10:00 00:17:58 00:23:25 00:25:54 00:31:24 00:36:20 00:39:51 00:48:35 00:56:55

min 90 Class 158 00:00:00 00:03:31 00:10:00 00:17:58 00:23:25 00:25:54 00:31:24 00:36:20 00:39:51 00:48:34 00:56:54

Base Class 175 00:00:00 00:03:37 00:10:14 00:16:44 00:21:08 00:23:16 00:28:34 00:32:25 00:35:16 00:43:40 00:51:23

min 70 Class 175 00:00:00 00:03:05 00:08:50 00:14:39 00:19:02 00:21:04 00:26:01 00:29:52 00:32:42 00:41:07 00:48:50

min 80 Class 175 00:00:00 00:02:59 00:08:14 00:13:35 00:17:40 00:19:40 00:24:14 00:27:51 00:30:34 00:38:09 00:45:08

min 90 Class 175 00:00:00 00:02:55 00:07:49 00:12:50 00:16:42 00:18:42 00:22:59 00:26:26 00:29:06 00:36:04 00:42:30

Shrewsbury - Chester

Line Speed Rolling Stock Shrewsbury Baschurch Whittington Gobowen Chirk Ruabon Johnstown Wrexham Rossett Lache Chester

Base Class 158 00:00:00 00:09:49 00:19:12 00:22:39 00:27:22 00:33:18 00:35:49 00:41:15 00:48:45 00:55:40 00:59:10

min 70 Class 158 00:00:00 00:09:36 00:18:59 00:22:26 00:27:09 00:32:49 00:35:19 00:40:46 00:47:07 00:53:34 00:56:30

min 80 Class 158 00:00:00 00:09:33 00:18:38 00:22:05 00:26:49 00:32:24 00:34:54 00:40:17 00:46:24 00:52:46 00:55:43

min 90 Class 158 00:00:00 00:09:33 00:18:38 00:22:05 00:26:49 00:32:24 00:34:54 00:40:17 00:46:19 00:52:41 00:55:37

Base Class 175 00:00:00 00:08:28 00:16:51 00:19:41 00:23:32 00:28:49 00:30:56 00:35:34 00:42:33 00:49:00 00:51:54

min 70 Class 175 00:00:00 00:08:15 00:16:38 00:19:28 00:23:18 00:28:17 00:30:17 00:34:56 00:40:31 00:46:16 00:48:24

min 80 Class 175 00:00:00 00:07:30 00:15:05 00:17:47 00:21:23 00:25:58 00:27:58 00:32:18 00:37:26 00:42:42 00:44:43

min 90 Class 175 00:00:00 00:06:57 00:13:55 00:16:33 00:19:59 00:24:17 00:26:17 00:30:24 00:35:12 00:40:06 00:42:03


Final Report

A012027 Page 70 of 185 23 March 2007

From the above tables, it is evident, even with line speed improvements, that the introduction of all of

these stations would significantly increase journey times. The working timetable includes a wide

range of journey times. With Class 158s the Shrewsbury-Chester leg of the journey still comes within

the range stated in the working timetable; however, it is very unlikely that this will be acceptable as a

minimum journey time for the route, especially when performance allowances are included. Using

Class 175s it is possible, without any line speed improvements, for the journey to be completed within

the current working timetable, which again shows the potential for utilising the more powerful rolling

stock.

Because of the unacceptable journey time increases it is now essential to show the time increases by

section of the route. We have kept the same three sections, Chester-Wrexham/Wrexham-Chester,

Wrexham-Gobowen/Gobowen-Wrexham, and Gobowen-Shrewsbury/Shrewsbury-Gobowen. It is

interesting to note the changes in each of these sections from the base station scenario:

• Chester-Wrexham/Wrexham-Chester: There are now two additional stations at Lache and at

Rossett.

• Wrexham-Gobowen/Gobowen-Wrexham: There is now one additional station at Johnstown.

• Gobowen-Shrewsbury/Shrewsbury-Gobowen: There are now two additional stations at

Whittington and Baschurch.

At this point in the analysis, it is not necessary to present further results for Class 175s as we have

demonstrated already that they are able to complete the journey within the ‘acceptable’ range. Thus,

any trend produced from now for class 158s will be represented by greater positives if applied to Class

175s.

Using Class 158s, in order to measure the section times against the base station scenario, we are able

to see the effect of the station additions in each section. The following table shows the effect of

adding the proposed stations upon each line speed scenario, i.e. the times given show the difference

between the section times against the respective line speed scenario with only the base stations.

Journey Time Increases with all stations, by section, at respective line speeds

Line Speed Rolling Stock

Chester-Wrexham

Wrexham-Gobowen

Gobowen-Shrewsbury

Base Class 158 00:03:20 00:01:30 00:03:53

min 70 Class 158 00:04:11 00:01:38 00:03:51

min 80 Class 158 00:04:27 00:01:37 00:04:30

min 90 Class 158 00:04:27 00:01:37 00:04:36

The above table demonstrates some important factors, which must be considered when final decisions

are made:

• It is clear that journey times across all sections have increased. It appears that at the base line

speed an additional station stop costs between 1.5 and 2 minutes. This can explain the time

increase differences between the sections. It is normally assumed that a station stop costs around

3 minutes; however, due to the stop-start nature of this route with additional stations, and the

inability of the rolling stock (class 158s) to attain higher line speeds, additional incremental station

stops have less effect than would normally be expected.

• If we were to increase the line speeds to attain quicker journey times across the route, we must be

mindful that the benefits (time saving) associated will be decreasing as we add stations. This can

be seen in the table; at 90 mph line speed the additional time for the Chester-Wrexham section


Final Report

A012027 Page 71 of 185 23 March 2007

with the two extra stations is greater than that at the base line speed. This is because the additional

time is modelled against the journey time, with base stations at 90mph line speed, thus, the greater

time ‘penalty’ on the section shows that there are decreasing returns to line speed improvements

when stations are added.

Each additional station has a disproportionately negative effect on the benefits of line speed

improvements.

6.4.1 Conclusions for All Proposed Stations

It is clear from the analysis above that any decision to add a station stop on the route will have an

adverse effect upon journey time, and we estimate this at around 00:01:45 per station in the base line

speed case. This is certainly an acceptable amount of increased journey time were one station to be

added. However, the more stations that are added, the greater the effect on journey time.

Importantly, from our findings we are able to demonstrate the necessity for decisionmakers to

understand the relationship between line speed improvements and the addition of new station stops.

This is because there are two effects in practice:

Firstly, increasing the line speed allows shorter journey times, which can allow one or more additional

station stops within the current timetable framework. However, if the main policy is aimed at

decreasing journey times it is undesirable to include any additional stations along the route.

Secondly, there is a trade off between adding stations and getting the full potential of line speed

improvements. We have demonstrated that the benefits to line speed improvements fall

disproportionately in comparison to the base speed scenario, when stations are added. Thus, the

cost/benefit ratio of any line speed improvement plan will be adversely affected if new station stops

were to form part of the plan.

6.5 INITIAL ANALYSIS OF PATRONAGE AS A RESULT OF LINE SPEED IMPROVEMENTS

The following table shows the expected revenue from tickets bought on the route at the various line

speed, station, and rolling stock options. Journey and revenue information have been provided by

ATW. It is important to note that this analysis assumes that all time saved has value. There is a

methodological argument around the sensitivities of time values, e.g. Does a one second saving have

any value at all? Time savings generally follow a distinct distribution; however, for the purpose of

this indicative analysis we do not believe it to be necessary to construct individual distributions. We

have assumed a Journey Time Elasticity of –0.85, which can be considered a conservative estimate.

This means that a 1% time saving equates to a 0.85% increase in patronage.


Final Report

A012027 Page 72 of 185 23 March 2007

Chester - Shrewsbury/Shrewsbury - Chester


% Time saving vs Base Line

Speed

% Increase in

Patronage Total

Journeys

Expected Increase in Patronage

Revenue per Ticket

Current Revenue

Expected increase in Revenue

Expected Total Revenue

158 Base min 70 mph 00:02:47 5.54% 4.71% 1019802 48014 £4.06 £1,019,802 £194,935 £1,214,737

158 Base min 80 mph 00:04:31 8.99% 7.64% 1019802 77914 £4.06 £1,019,802 £316,332 £1,336,134

158 Base min 90 mph 00:04:49 9.57% 8.13% 1019802 82946 £4.06 £1,019,802 £336,759 £1,356,561

175 Base min 70 mph 00:03:14 6.43% 5.47% 1019802 55776 £4.06 £1,019,802 £226,452 £1,246,254

175 Base min 80 mph 00:07:18 14.54% 12.36% 1019802 126072 £4.06 £1,019,802 £511,850 £1,531,652

175 Base min 90 mph 00:10:24 20.68% 17.58% 1019802 179260 £4.06 £1,019,802 £727,796 £1,747,598

158 All Proposed min 70 mph 00:01:54 3.78% 3.21% 1019802 32776 £4.06 £1,019,802 £133,069 £1,152,871







Final Report

A012027 Page 73 of 185 23 March 2007

It is clear from the above table that considerable revenue gains can be achieved through line speed

improvements. It is important to note that with Class 158s there is a significant difference between the

case with base stations and with all proposed stations. This would suggest that the proposed stations

have a negative effect on line speed improvements; however, it will be crucial to understand the

number of potential passengers who will use the proposed stations, and take this additional revenue

into account. This will be analysed later in this report.


Final Report

A012027 Page 74 of 185 23 March 2007


Final Report

A012027 Page 75 of 185 23 March 2007

7. PERMANENT WAY STUDY

7.1 INTRODUCTION

As part of this study we undertook a visual inspection of the existing permanent way for the suitability

of upgrading the route, including a cab ride on 7 April 2006 between Chester and Shrewsbury Stations

and Shrewsbury and Chester Stations to ascertain the general track condition and suitability for speed

increases and double tracking.

7.2 SUMMARY

• The track condition is generally better in the Midlands Region than the North West Region.

• Speed improvements over the entire route are possible from a track alignment perspective,

with the exception of a few ‘tight’ spots, subject also to gradients, vehicle performance,

structure gauging, formation and track quality.

• Double tracking is possible over much of the single line section, subject to sufficient ground

works, level crossing works, gauging etc. There are two locations where twin tracking of the

single line are currently not possible - A483 underbridge and overbridge at approximately

204m 0ch and 209m 0ch respectively. Two signals would also require re-locating.

• Natural drainage over the route is predominantly good.

7.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The route is comprised of twin track, Up and Down Mains, between Shrewsbury (171m 46ch) and

Wrexham North Junction (202m 40ch) where it becomes single line until it joins the Chester and

Holyhead Line at Saltney Junction, 212m 6ch. The twin track portion of the route has a line speed of

70mph, and the single line 60mph (50mph around tight curves 202m 0ch to 203m 0ch and 211m 60ch

to 212m 6ch). In general there are adequate cesses throughout and the route passes through a variety

of terrain, embankment, cutting urban and open country. There are many level crossings, occupational

and AHB road crossings, and the route has many low masonry arch overbridges and several masonry

arch tunnels. The ride quality varies and there are areas of poor horizontal and vertical alignment.

From old records there are steep track gradients which run predominantly up hill between Shrewsbury

and Ruabon Stations the worst being approximately 1:100 travelling north out of Shrewsbury Station,

and then run predominantly down hill to Balderton, the worst being 1:82½ downhill travelling north

between Wrexham and Rossett.

The track varies along the route between jointed Flat Bottom (FB) rail and Continuous Welded Rail

(CWR) on timber and concrete sleepers. A renewal site was observed from 191m 40ch (see photos 12

to 14) to replace jointed track on timber with CWR on steel sleepers on the up line. The new rail drop

can be seen in the down line fourfoot.

7.4 APPRAISAL OF EXISTING TRACK

7.4.1 Shrewsbury Station to Wrexham North Junction (17m 40ch – 202m 40ch)

This 31 mile section of twin track forms the majority of the route, and should be suitable for an

increase of line speed subject to survey, design and correct implementation. This could be

incorporated into the maintenance regime allowing for an increase in speed in conjunction with new

track bed, rail and components. Many of the curved areas appear to have flat enough radii to support

an increase in speed. This could be verified by Hallade survey technique to ascertain exact radii,

existing transition lengths, constraints and potential speed increases. Therefore track condition is the


Final Report

A012027 Page 76 of 185 23 March 2007

main constraint to speed improvements in this area. However there are areas of tight reverse curves

where increases in speed may be limited due to insufficient lengths available between curves of a

different hand to provide sufficient transitions arrangements for the run off cant or cant deficiency, e.g

curves from 191m 6ch (photo 1), approaching Chirk Station (photo 18), 195m 0ch (photo 24) and

196m 60ch (photo 28). Many occupational and level crossings were identified on the route which

would have to be considered in any potential speed increases.

There are curved alignments through Chirk Station, Ruabon Station and the North of Wrexham Station

and a number of masonry arched overbridges/tunnels along this section of the route, all of which

would require a gauging exercise to ascertain existing and proposed clearances.

The ride quality over much of this section is good to moderate indicating a generally good horizontal

and vertical alignment. There is evidence of ongoing routine track maintenance e.g. re-sleepering, re-

railing and ballast dressing.

Standing water was observed in the Up Cess at 196m 60ch (see photo 28) and formation failure

(pumping) at approximately 199m 40ch in the Down fourfoot.

7.4.2 Wrexham North Junction To Saltney Junction (202m 40ch – 212m 6ch)

From Wrexham North Junction the route becomes single line (Down and Up Main) and commences

with a PSR of 50mph to 203m 60ch. The track formation was originally twin tracked and the current

track alignment now changes from the Down side to the Up side and vice versa in several locations.

This is hard to establish due to a lot of overgrowth in some areas. There is a signal placed in the Up

formation at approx 203m 25ch and also one at approximately 211m 20ch. These would require

relocating for any future twin tracking.

There have been single line bridges installed more recently over and under the A483, (see photos 39

and 49) at approximate chainages 204m 0ch and 209m 0ch respectively. This prevents any future twin

tracking at these locations without rebuilding the bridges. Future speed increases over much of this

section should also be possible subject to assessment, design and taking into account vehicle

performance and track gradients. There are also tight reverse curves that may limit speed

improvements in specific areas (see photo 45 and 46).

The existing formation may be considered generally unsuitable for twin tracking without extensive

ground works. Many of the embankments appear eroded or over grown, similarly much of the track

formation in cutting is overgrown. Between 204m 20ch and approximately 206m 9ch the track is on

high embankment adjacent to the A483. There are some existing retaining measures in this area which

may limit the width of available formation for future twin tracking (see photo 42).

The ride quality over much of this section is moderate to poor indicating poor horizontal and vertical

alignment, which can be caused by a number of factors including poor formation and ballast quality,

worn track components and maintenance requirements.

7.5 CONCLUSIONS

The existing track condition is generally better in the Midlands Region than the North West Region.

Speed improvements over the entire route are possible from a track alignment perspective with the

exception of a few ‘tight’ spots, subject also to gradients, vehicle performance, structure gauging,

formation and track quality.

Twin tracking is possible over much of the single line section subject to sufficient ground works, level

crossing works, gauging etc. This is presently not possible at A483 underbridge and overbridge at

approximately 204m 0ch and 209m 0ch respectively. Two signals presently in the former Up

formation at approximately 203m 25ch and 211m 20ch would also require re-locating.


Final Report

A012027 Page 77 of 185 23 March 2007

The route is predominantly naturally drained with wet spots noticed at only a couple of locations.

7.6 PHOTOGRAPHS

1. Straight track at Bomere

Heath overbridge

2. Straight track at Walford

Heath overbridge

3. The Leasows and farm

access road bridge


Final Report

A012027 Page 78 of 185 23 March 2007

4. Western Lulling Fields

overbridge approx 180m 0ch

5. Curved track in cutting

6. Curved track on

embankment approx 184m0ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 79 of 185 23 March 2007

7. Straight track on

embankment approx 187m 0ch

8. Curved track and FP

crossing approx 189m 40ch

9. Straight track approaching

Oswestry Branch Jcn


Final Report

A012027 Page 80 of 185 23 March 2007

10. Right hand curve approx

190m 40ch

11. Reverse curves at Mortas

Brook approx 191m 6ch

12. Track Renewal Site from

approx 191m 40ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 81 of 185 23 March 2007

13. Track Renewal Site at

191m 60ch

14. Curved track in cutting

approx 192m

15. Curved track approaching

Chirk Viaduct 192m 20ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 82 of 185 23 March 2007

16. Chirk Viaduct

17. Chirk Viaduct and Chirk

Tunnel

18. Reverse curves

approaching Chirk Station

from 192m 40ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 83 of 185 23 March 2007

19. Curved track through

Chirk Station 192m 54ch

20. Curved track north of

Chirk

21. Approaching Whitehurst

Tunnel 194m 8ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 84 of 185 23 March 2007

22. Cefn Viaduct 194m 65ch

Note new rail drop in Up

fourfoot

23. Cefn Viaduct

24. Reverse curves at approx

195m 0ch adjacent to B5605


Final Report

A012027 Page 85 of 185 23 March 2007

25. Curved track

26. Curved track and masonry

overbridges at Rhosymedre

approx 195m 46ch

27. Curved track to straight

approx 196m 22ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 86 of 185 23 March 2007

28. Reverse curves

approaching Ruabon Station,

A539 overbridge from 196m

60ch. Note standing water in Up

cess

29. Straight track approx 198m

0ch

30. Straight track to curve and

footbridge approx 199m 0ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 87 of 185 23 March 2007

31. Straight track and A483


32. Straight track and masonry

arch bridge approx 199m 55ch

33. Watery Road Sidings on Up

side 201m 13ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 88 of 185 23 March 2007

34. Croes Newydd North Fork

Signal Box 201m 42ch


Wrexham General Station

36. Wrexham General Station,

curved track at north end


Final Report

A012027 Page 89 of 185 23 March 2007

37. Wrexham North Jcn 202m

40ch to single line

38. Curved track at A483 over

bridge approx 202m 58ch

39. Single line bridge over

A483 approx 204m 0ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 90 of 185 23 March 2007

40. Reverse curves onto high

embankment at 204m 20ch

41. Curve at 204½mp

42. Curve around embankment

over B5373 approx 204m 60ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 91 of 185 23 March 2007

43. Approaching housing

adjacent to track, Gresford

44. Footbridge, Gresford

45. Reverse curves


Final Report

A012027 Page 92 of 185 23 March 2007

46. Reverse curve from MP206

47. Reverse curve from MP206

48. Straight track and Rossett

to Burton footbridge


Final Report

A012027 Page 93 of 185 23 March 2007


A483 single track span bridge

from 208¾mp

50. Single track span bridge

approx 209m 0ch

51. View from MP209¼


Final Report

A012027 Page 94 of 185 23 March 2007

52. Greenwalls occupational


53. Balderton Tunnel 209m

50ch

54. A55 overbridge approx

210m 11ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 95 of 185 23 March 2007

55. Straight approaching

Green Lane (AHB) crossing

211m 0ch

56. Signal in former Up

formation approx 211m 20ch

57. Footbridge approx 211m

40ch


Final Report

A012027 Page 96 of 185 23 March 2007

58. Tight right hand curve

approaching Saltney Jcn from

MP211¾

59. Line joins Chester and

Holyhead line at Saltney Jcn

212m 2ch

7.7 USAGE OF THE CHESTER – SHREWSBURY ROUTE

In order to determine issues relating to the engineering requirements for the Chester to Shrewsbury

route it was necessary to gain an approximation of the tonnage of trains passing over the route. This

was done by calculating the number of trains passing over the route and their expected tonnages. Our

analysis shows that the route has 4.5 equivalent million gross tonnes passing over it per year based

upon the current timetables and the estimated weight of trains in service. For the current line speeds

this would place the route in track category 4 (Network Rail Track Construction Standards (Formerly

RT/CE/S/102) NR/SP/TRK/102. February 2002).


Final Report

A012027 Page 97 of 185 23 March 2007

The proposed change resulting from the increase in line speeds proposed above would have the effect

of reducing the tolerances and increases the track standards; this in turn will have a proportionate

effect upon the costs of maintaining the track, perhaps increasing the input costs by up to 50%.

As a working assumption, for the appraisal of the line speed changes we have assumed that the costs

of maintenance are directly proportional to the speed change, e.g. raising line speed from 60mph to

90mph brings about a 50% increase in the base maintenance cost or £30,000 per mile per annum. The

overall geometry of the route should not require further work as the route was downgraded from a

ruling line speed of 90mph in the past.


Final Report

A012027 Page 98 of 185 23 March 2007


Final Report

A012027 Page 99 of 185 23 March 2007

8. STATION / STATION SITE APPRAISALS

8.1 CURRENT STATION APPRAISALS

8.1.1 CHESTER STATION

Surrounding area Chester station is about 1/2 mile from the city centre, and surrounded by hotels, pubs and restaurants.

Station facilities This station is fully staffed and contains all station amenities. Space in the station buildings is

available to let; Hodges Interiors currently lets some of this space. The station houses several facilities

including a customer assistance office as well as W. H. Smith, Trekkers Express and others.

Parking and circulation About 12 spaces are available in the station forecourt for free 30 minute parking.

Access into the east car park is through a narrow gateway which is not easily visible. This car park

has about 150 spaces, and at the time of our visit (weekday late morning) was overfull, with cars

parked in nondesignated spaces. The car park charges daily, weekly, monthly and yearly rates; the

daily rate was £4.

Limited free on-street parking for up to 30 minutes is available near the station.

About 30 spaces for bicycles are located under the station canopy. At the time of our visit on a

weekday morning about 25 of these were in use.

A roundabout in front of the station serves as a pick up/drop off area as well as access to the short stay

parking and east car park.

Intermodal connections Bus stops for several lines and several bus companies exist in front of and across the street from the

station. A free and frequent city rail link bus stops in front of the station. Bus information is available

on a board outside the station; no bus timetables appeared to be readily available at the station,

although the customer assistance office might have been able to provide them. Timetables are posted

at the bus stop across the street from the station.

Although the bicycle parking appeared to be used, there were no bike lanes in the vicinity and the

roads near the station appear narrow and busy. Many spaces in the station buildings are currently

vacant, and it would be possible to provide a bicycle hire service in one of these. A taxi rank is

located in front of the station near the east car park.

Visibility The station is just off the Chester ring road and well signed. The station is also signed for pedestrians,

and pedestrian signs just outside the station indicate the direction and distance to the city centre.

A map of the area is posted at the station, and flyers for local attractions are readily available.

Accessibility Two spaces in the forecourt parking area were designated as accessible, but they do not meet the

standard for accessible spaces, and there is no curb cut between them and the station entrance. Five

spaces in the east car park, nearest to the station, are designated accessible, and these meet accessible


Final Report

A012027 Page 100 of 185 23 March 2007

parking standards. Six cars were parked in these spaces; three had disabled badges and three were

staff cars.

A ramp leads from these spaces down a disused platform to the main area of the station. This path

appears wide enough for access, but the surface is in disrepair and uneven.

Entrances into station interiors do not appear to be easily accessible--the doors appear narrow and

difficult to open. An accessible toilet is located in front of the other toilets in the station, but in order

to get to it one needs to get through a narrow door, and there is little maneuvering room between this

door and the accessible toilet.

Lifts permit people with mobility difficulties to get to all of the platforms; these lifts were built to

accessible standards but lift controls need to be made easier to see and operate.

The three staffed ticket stations do not appear easily accessible to people in wheelchairs.

The passenger lounge has a ramp into it, but it is too crowded inside to permit maneuverability for

people in wheelchairs or with mobility impairments.

Images

No delineated paths for pedestrians

No curb cuts or delineated paths


Final Report

A012027 Page 101 of 185 23 March 2007

Station interior

Recommendations

• Pedestrian access across the street in front of the station, the roundabout and station forecourt

needs to be designated, and curb cuts should be provided.

• Accessible parking in front of the station should be upgraded to appropriate standards and

correctly signed, and a curb cut from the parking area to the station entrance should be

installed.

• The location of cycle parking should be signed from the station entrance.

• The east car park should be better arranged to accommodate the number of cars that currently

use it and to provide for pedestrian paths through the car park and into the station.

• The pedestrian route from the east car park should be paved and marked. Building space

along this route could be productively used.

• Cheshire County Council has committed £1.5 million towards the ‘Chester Rail Gateway’

improvement project, which involves a redesign of the station forecourt. The work is

expected to be complete by mid-2007. The preferred design option addresses several of the

issues described above, and provides clear pedestrian paths and well-located accessible

parking. In this plan the City Rail Link Bus stop is located directly in front of the station,

which we consider appropriate; consideration should also be given to locating other bus

services closer to the station entrance in areas currently designated for taxis, and designating

taxi parking in its current location at the west end of the east parking lot.

8.1.2 WREXHAM STATIONS

Wrexham currently has two train stations (Wrexham General, on the main line, and Wrexham Central,

on a short branch line) and a bus station, all within a short walk of each other.

The Wrexham bus station is located just off the high street. The building contains several retail

outlets, a Shopmobility office, and an accessible toilet (although accessible signage in the building is

non-standard). There is no provision for parking or private vehicle pick up/drop off, and the station is

not signed from the road, although it is signed for pedestrians.


Final Report

A012027 Page 102 of 185 23 March 2007

Wrexham bus station

While there appears to be vacant land near Maelor Hospital, on both sides of the signal box, which

might accommodate a possible relocation of all of these facilities to an intermodal transport terminal

near the hospital, this is unlikely to be practical for the following reasons:

• The bus station and Wrexham Central are both relatively new facilities, and the bus station seems

well located and well designed.

• The hospital is so large that a transport facility adjacent to its eastern end would not appreciably

reduce transport times to hospital facilities from any of the current Wrexham stations.

• The hospital seems currently well served by buses.

• Each of Wrexham’s transport facilities is convenient to city destinations--Wrexham General to

Yale College, Art College, Wrexham Football Club stadium (the Racecourse), the bus station to

the town centre and high street, and Wrexham Central to the shopping mall. Wrexham General

and Wrexham Central are both a relatively short walk from Maelor Hospital.


Final Report

A012027 Page 103 of 185 23 March 2007

Each of Wrexham’s transport facilities appears well located to serve particular destinations, and each

is within a short walk of the others. It would probably be most productive to design and designate

walking paths from each to the others rather than to attempt to bring them all together in a single

location.

WREXHAM GENERAL STATION

Surrounding area Adjacent to the station is a large retail complex and a Royal Mail depot. Within a short walking

distance are apartment buildings, offices, Wrexham Technology Park, Maelor Hospital, Yale College,

Art College, and Wrexham Football Club stadium (the Racecourse). The Wrexham bus station is also

a short walk from this station.

Station facilities The station facilities include a staffed ticket office, waiting room, toilets, information board, public

address system and changeable message boards; a pay telephone is available outside the station.

Parking and circulation A pay and display car park (£2 per day, other rates for other durations) for about 60 cars was almost

completely full at the time of our weekday afternoon visit.

Parking for about 20 bicycles was available in front of the station, not under shelter, but was unused.

No pick up/drop off area is available at this site.

Intermodal connections Although bus routes pass near the station, no buses directly access the station due to its location off the

main road and lack of room in the forecourt for bus laybys or turnabouts.

Signage designates access to nearby bike lanes. Space to let at the station could be used for a bike hire

facility.

Taxi service is available from the station.

Visibility A map of the area is posted at the station.

Signage from the road is easy to follow, but only one set of signs for pedestrians and cyclists is located

near the station, and it is not in a location likely to be seen by people coming into and out of the

station.

Accessibility Two accessible parking spaces are located near the station. They were unused, and no curb cut

connected them to the station entrance. Other facilities appear accessible, although the lift controls are

difficult to see. The station is staffed, so help should be readily available.


Final Report

A012027 Page 104 of 185 23 March 2007

Images

Pedestrian signage

Recommendations • Although bus routes go near the station, there is no direct bus access to the station because of its

location below the grade of the road. Directions to bus stops and bus timetables should be readily

available at the station, as well as directions to the Wrexham bus station, and from the bus station

to the train stations.

• This station is convenient to several destinations including the hospital, college, and stadium.

While it is true that the stadium and racecourse are visible from the street above the station, signs

to these destinations for pedestrians and drivers would improve their visibility. Signage should be

provided at the station and at the top of the stairs to the main road.

• Minor accessibility improvements can easily be provided.

WREXHAM CENTRAL STATION

Surrounding area This station is located within a shopping mall.

Station facilities The station provides minimal facilities, including a pay telephone, seating, a waiting room, and an

information board. The nearby mall can provide for passengers' other needs.

Parking and circulation There is no designated parking or circulation specifically for the station (although a sign indicates that

five free spaces in the mall car park are available for the use of passengers); passengers can access the

station and park using mall facilities. Mall parking costs 60p for two hours, and £10 for all day. It

seems clear that all day parking is discouraged.

There appears to be no cycle parking.


Final Report

A012027 Page 105 of 185 23 March 2007

Intermodal connections Several bus lines are available from a bus stop nearby on Watery Road; a bus map and bus information

are provided at the station.

Visibility The station is signed clearly from the road, but less clearly for pedestrians.

Accessibility Four accessible parking spaces are located near the station, but no curb cut connects the spaces to the

station entrance. The facility is step-free and accessible.

Recommendations • The accessible spaces near the station should be repainted and curb cuts provided.

8.1.3 RUABON STATION

Surrounding area The station is surrounded by houses (including a new estate), village retail and two churches (one of

which appears abandoned).

Station facilities The station has minimal facilities, including shelters, minimal seating, platform lighting, a public

address system, and an information board. The shelters are in poor condition. The station building is

no longer in railway ownership and is currently let to an environmental consultant and a computer

consultant.

Parking and circulation A few unmarked spaces are located near the station building; there is no notification to this effect but

these may be intended for the use of the station tenants. A new free car park has been constructed near

the station, with a total of 17 spaces, 10 of which were in use. No cycle parking appeared to be

available.

A pick up/drop off area is available in the station forecourt.

Intermodal connections There are bus stops in front of the station and on the main road and in the station forecourt. These

have no shelters or seating, although the building serves as a shelter in the station forecourt. Bus

routes are not identified at the stops, but a timetable in front of the station provides information on bus

services.

A cycle lane has been constructed in front of the station, but currently does not lead anywhere. It

might be extended into new construction on an adjacent housing estate. At present it appears that

there is no room for a bike hire facility unless tenants vacate the station building.

Visibility The station is easily located by car but does not have any directional signs for pedestrians or cyclists.

Accessibility Three standard accessible spaces have been provided in the new station car park. At the time of our

visit on a weekday morning all three were empty. No accessible parking is provided in front of the

station, as this property is unadopted and in private ownership.

The path from the station forecourt to the platforms is narrow and difficult to navigate.

Only one platform is accessible via a step free path; the other platform is accessible by stairs only.


Final Report

A012027 Page 106 of 185 23 March 2007

Images

Station building and platforms

Layout of station forecourt


Final Report

A012027 Page 107 of 185 23 March 2007

Map and information board

Car park with accessible spaces

Cycle path ends at fence behind car park


Final Report

A012027 Page 108 of 185 23 March 2007

Cycle path may be extended through this area

Access to platforms is narrow and uneven

No curb cut to provide access to platforms

Recommendations • Accessible parking has been located in a car park adjacent to the station, as the area in front of the

station is unadopted. It is necessary, however, for the path from the accessible parking to the

platforms to be designated and made wide enough to allow wheelchairs to pass. A curb cut should

be provided to permit wheelchair users to access the pavement leading to the platforms.

• Although the station area is well kept and free of litter, the shelters and seating are run-down and

should be considered for replacement.


Final Report

A012027 Page 109 of 185 23 March 2007

• Cycle parking should be provided.

• An overbridge with lifts must be provided for step-free platform access.

• Pedestrian signs identifying local destinations should be installed.

• Bus stop amenities and information should be provided.

8.1.4 CHIRK STATION

Surrounding area This station is near Chirk y Waun village; nearby destinations include housing, the Cadbury and

chipboard factories, Chirk Castle, a B&B, and an open field.

Station facilities This station offers minimal facilities, including shelters (which are in good condition and contain a

small number of seats) , CCTV, and a public address system. An information board and a map as well

as a pay telephone can be found at the top of the stairs from the station. Well-tended potted plants and

garden areas have been provided on the platforms.

The platform is about 3 yards wide.

Parking and circulation The station car park has about 30 spaces, about 18 of which were full during our weekday afternoon

visit. Parking is free, and the site is monitored by CCTV.

There does not appear to be any cycle parking or provision for bicycles.

No pick up/drop off point is designated, but there is room in the car park for this.

Intermodal connections A bus stop serving three lines is located at the top of the stairs to the station, and signs direct cyclists

to the Ceiriog Cycle Route.

Visibility The station is signed from the road, though the sign directing passengers to the car park reads parking

only, rather than station parking. Directional signs for pedestrians direct pedestrians to the station, and

at the top of the stairs to Chirk Castle and the village.

Accessibility This station is not easily accessible. There are no accessible parking spaces in the car park. It would

be possible to descend from street level to platform level via the ramp cars use to access the parking

lot, but it appears difficult and dangerous. There is step free access to platform 2, but not into the

platform shelter or to platform 1. There is a ledge between the platform surface and the interior of the

shelter that may be difficult for some mobility impaired people to negotiate.


Final Report

A012027 Page 110 of 185 23 March 2007

Images

Platforms

Bus stop and pedestrian signs

Map at station


Final Report

A012027 Page 111 of 185 23 March 2007

Recommendations • This station does not meet accessibility standards; accommodation will need to be considered. A

footbridge with lifts can provide step-free access to each platform. Minor modifications

increasing accessibility to the shelter should also be considered.

• Signage from the road could be made more clear by labelling parking as station parking.

8.1.5 GOBOWEN STATION

Surrounding area The station is adjacent to Gobowen village, and is surrounded by residential and village businesses

such as pubs, a surgery, a post office, and other local shops.

Station facilities The station buildings are no longer in railway ownership, and belong to Advantage West Midlands.

The building on the up side of the line is leased to a chartered accountant. A secondary station

building on the down platform is now occupied by a community-run booking office, which also sells

stamps and railway memorabilia. The waiting room also has food vending machines, an accessible

toilet, and changeable message boards. No facilities or information are provided on the up platform,

and the public address system cannot be heard on that platform when a train is in the station.

Parking and circulation Passengers park in the main village car park, which has about 120 spaces and was about half full on a

weekday afternoon. The car park is free, and monitored by CCTV. We were told that the car park is

not much used for purposes other than the train station.

Space for ten bicycles, under a shelter, is available at the station; two spaces were occupied at the time

of our visit.

Intermodal connections Several bus stops are situated around the station, and it is well served by local bus routes. A map on

the platform indicates the locations of bus stops and the lines they serve. The village car park has a

bus layby, currently being used as a taxi rank. There is currently no room for a bus turnaround, but

Network Rail land southeast of the station may be available for additional parking and for bus

maneuvering.

Signs direct station users to Cycle Route 31 nearby. There may be space to develop a bike hire facility

at the station.

Information at the station includes the telephone numbers of local taxi services.

Visibility The station is adjacent to the village and easily located from the road. It is not signed well for other

than auto traffic; signs for pedestrians at the station are unhelpful and point in the wrong directions.

A map of the local area is posted at the station.

Accessibility The village car park has seven standard accessible parking spaces; although a curb cut links them to

the entrance of the surgery, no curb cut links them to the path to the station platforms.

All platforms are accessible via the level crossing, the surface of which is uneven.

The booking office entrance appears to be accessible, although the door appears narrow. The booking

office waiting room has an accessible toilet, but there is no clear path around the furniture to it.


Final Report

A012027 Page 112 of 185 23 March 2007

Images

Platforms

Level crossing is the only way to cross between platforms


Final Report

A012027 Page 113 of 185 23 March 2007

Entrance to booking office

Pedestrian signs


Final Report

A012027 Page 114 of 185 23 March 2007

Car park and bus layby

This land may be available for an extension to the car park and bus turnarounds and laybys

Map at platform showing locations of bus stops


Final Report

A012027 Page 115 of 185 23 March 2007

Recommendations • The furniture in the waiting room/booking office needs to be rearranged to allow disabled access

to the toilet and access to the fire extinguisher and telephone.

• A footbridge with lifts should be installed on the south side of the station to permit passengers to

pass from one platform to the other without crossing at the level crossing. The level crossing

surface should be improved to increase safety and access (we understand that this has been

attempted but has not yet succeeded).

• The land to the southeast of the station should be considered for additional parking and a bus

turnaround

• Several surrounding bus stops should be consolidated into two.

8.1.6 SHREWSBURY STATION

Surrounding area Shrewsbury station is just northeast of the city centre, and is surrounded by urban uses--restaurants,

pubs, a hotel, newsstands, and apartment residential. In addition an arts centre and a business centre

are nearby.

Station facilities This station offers all standard amenities, providing retail and vending machines on platforms 4-7.

Security is provided by CCTV and the presence of a British Transport Police office in the station.

Parking and circulation About 30 spaces are available in the station forecourt; these are free and limited to 20 minutes.

The station car park is across the street from the station; it is reached from the platform by several

flights of stairs and a footbridge. Parking costs £2.50 per day; no other durations are permitted.

Street parking around the station is limited to 40 minutes.

About 60 bicycle parking spaces exist on platform 7b under a canopy; at the time our visit on a

weekday afternoon these were nearly all occupied. It is necessary to take the lift to reach these spaces.

Intermodal connections No designated pick up/drop off area exists in the station forecourt, though it is possible to do it.

A bus stop just outside the station forecourt on Castle Foregate serves several local bus lines.

Bus information is readily available at the station.

Although the cycle parking at the station is used, there do not appear to be cycle lanes in the area and

cycle access is not provided.

A taxi rank occupies the eastern end of the station forecourt.

Visibility As Shrewsbury is a tourist destination, pedestrian signage is abundant and useful; signs also direct

passengers to the nearby bus station.

Information on local destinations is readily available.


Final Report

A012027 Page 116 of 185 23 March 2007

Accessibility Probably because the path from the station car park to the platform is not step-free, no spaces in the

station car park are designated as disabled.

Two spaces in the forecourt area are designated disabled, though they do not conform to ORR

standards. These spaces are at the other end of the car park from the station entrance, although they

are close to the ramp that leads to platform 3. Platform 3 is accessed separately from the rest of the

station, via a flight of steps or a long ramp from the forecourt parking area which leads to the platform

through an open gate.

Images

Cycle parking

Recommendations • Directions to cycle parking should be signed from the station entrance.

• The location and design of accessible parking should be reconsidered.

General recommendations None of the stations we visited had call phones or help points.

8.2 ENGINEERING REVIEW OF PROPOSED STATION SITE APPRAISALS

All of the sites we visited appeared physically feasible for the development of stations. Line gradient

and curvature would not rule out any of the sites we visited, nor would any restrictions caused by

existing rail infrastructure. All sites except the Saltney/Green Lane Bridge site are at existing level

crossings, as firstly these are capable of being inspected from outside the rail right of way and

secondly station development at these sites would not require radical reorientation of existing traffic

patterns. With the exceptions noted below, the right of way is sufficient for double track but not wide

enough for additional platforms.

8.2.1 Saltney (to serve Lache)

Adjacent uses Northeast: small commercial

Southeast: new housing estate

Northwest: Saltney Pumping Station

Southwest: new office development


Final Report

A012027 Page 117 of 185 23 March 2007

Right of way No obstructions noted.

Intermodal connections This site is currently served by several bus lines; a bus stop is about 500 metres east of the level

crossing.

Potential for park and ride Just north of this site on the east side of the line is an existing car park about 35 metres by 30 metres,

currently striped for 28 spaces.

8.2.2 Saltney/Green Lane (to serve Lache)

Adjacent uses All sides: detached housing

Right of way A utility box is in the right of way on the east side of the line.

Intermodal connections This site is located at a pedestrian bridge; there is currently no bus or car access to the site but the

pedestrian right of way appears wide enough for vehicle access.

Potential for park and ride The right of way appears to be about 20m wide on the west side, which would be enough space for a

park and ride lot.

8.2.3 Green Lane (to serve Lache)

Adjacent uses Northeast: detached houses

Southeast: electrical utility/transformer station

Northwest: open space

Southwest: livery yard

Right of way Two utility structures are located adjacent to the track on the northeast side.

Intermodal connections This site is served by a bus line.

Potential for park and ride It may be possible to locate a park and ride lot in the open space to the northwest.

8.2.4 Rossett

Adjacent uses Northeast: agricultural merchant

Southeast: detached houses

Northwest: A483 and open space

Southwest: A483 and open space

Right of way Just south of the site the line crosses a river over a narrow bridge. A utility box is located adjacent to

the track on the northeast side.


Final Report

A012027 Page 118 of 185 23 March 2007

Intermodal connections None at present.

Potential for park and ride There does not appear to be room for a park and ride lot at this site.

Images

Line looking north

Utility boxes northeast side


Final Report

A012027 Page 119 of 185 23 March 2007

From A483 embankment looking east over the line

A483 embankment

8.2.5 Johnstown

Adjacent uses Northeast: open space

Southeast: disused clay pit

Northwest: detached housing

Southwest: detached housing

Just southwest of the site is the Johnstown industrial estate, which includes the following businesses:

Brother

CDC/SLP

Commercial Rail

Contract Packers

Electo Ceramics

Enviroclear Services

Ferroperm

Flint-Schmidt

Fourways Furnishings

Hewdon Plant Hire


Final Report

A012027 Page 120 of 185 23 March 2007

House Nameplate Co.

Kitchen And Bedroom Furniture

Millennium Markings

Moran Matroc

Penhaton Electronics

Portek Rail Products

Screenprinter

Selwood Planthire

Stoneflex Architectural Panels

Just south of the estate is Travis Perkins timber and building supply.

We were unable to find an additional site at a pedestrian bridge adjacent to the estate.

Right of way This site intersected the line at a high embankment, so we could not get any information about the

right of way.


Potential for park and ride A park and ride lot might be provided on the east side of the line.

Images

Open space to northeast of proposed site


Final Report

A012027 Page 121 of 185 23 March 2007

Disused clay pit on southeast side

8.2.6 Weston Rhyn

Adjacent uses Northeast: detached housing

Southeast: DBFS vehicle depot

Northwest: detached housing


Moreton Hall School is a short distance away.

Right of way A large utility box is located adjacent to the track on the northeast side.


Potential for park and ride There does not appear to be space for a park and ride lot at this site.

Images

Line looking north


Final Report

A012027 Page 122 of 185 23 March 2007

Line looking north, showing Chirk Bank bridge

Line looking south

8.2.7 Whittington

Adjacent uses The site is adjacent to detached housing on all sides.

Right of way A utility box is located adjacent to the line on the northeast side.

Intermodal connections This site is served by a bus line and extensive pedestrian and cycle paths.

Potential for park and ride There does not appear to be space for a park and ride lot at this site.


Final Report

A012027 Page 123 of 185 23 March 2007

Images

Line looking north

8.2.8 Baschurch

Adjacent uses Northeast: detached housing

Southeast: Chinese restaurant, DIY centre, pub, stonemason yard, computer shop, fire station,

bowling club

Northwest: open field


Right of way The northeast side of the line is occupied by a signal box. A large utility box is located adjacent to the

track on the northwest side.


Potential for park and ride A park and ride lot could be located in the open field to the northwest of the site.


Final Report

A012027 Page 124 of 185 23 March 2007

Images

Line looking west

Line looking west

Line looking east

8.2.9 Bomere Heath

Adjacent uses Northeast: old station building, now a B&B

Southeast: open field

Northwest: open field

Southwest: open field


Final Report

A012027 Page 125 of 185 23 March 2007

The proposed site is near the Leaton Industrial Estate.

Right of way Utility boxes are located adjacent to the track on three sides, northeast, southeast and southwest.


Potential for park and ride As the site is surrounded by open space, a park and ride lot could easily be constructed.

Images

Line looking north

Line looking north, showing curve


Final Report

A012027 Page 126 of 185 23 March 2007

Line looking south


Final Report

A012027 Page 127 of 185 23 March 2007

9. PROPOSED STATION SURVEY

9.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

We first determined potential station demand using a station accessibility model with parameters from

the MOIRA model and Scott Wilson’s NALTRAM (NAtionaL TRAnsport Model). The surveys of

households within the catchment zones of the new stations were designed to confirm the findings from

these models. Randomly generated samples of households were chosen and residents were asked

about the trips they had made and the likelihood that they would use a station in their area. A total of

450 surveys were completed at three separate sites at Johnstown, Lache and Rossett. The surveys

were commissioned and carried out in all three areas within the same week in November 2006.

A minority of respondents from all three areas were unwilling to give details about their trips from the

previous day, though they were willing to give answers to the rest of the questionnaire. On average

823% of respondents gave a full response to the survey (including information about trips), with only

17% refusing some information but answering the rest of the questionnaire.

Parish Survey

numbers

Sample % of the study

area population

Proportion of total

surveys carried out

Lache 150 0.83 One-third

Johnstown 150 1.26 One-third

Rossett 150 1.25 One-third

9.2 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

9.2.1 Gender of respondents

Of the total 450 completed interviews, 55% of the respondents were female and 45% were male. The

Lache area showed a marked difference in favour of female respondents.

Gender All Johnstown Lache Rossett

Female 55 52 62 51

Male 45 48 38 49

9.2.2 Age of respondents

Generally the age of respondents was slightly skewed towards the middle and top end of the age

bands. The Lache area had a relatively higher number of older respondents.

Age Group All Johnstown Lache Rossett

16-24 4.5 5 4 4

25-59 58 58 55 61

60+ 37.5 36 41 35


Final Report

A012027 Page 128 of 185 23 March 2007

9.2.3 Average number of residents per household

The numbers of residents per household ranged from one to eight. There tended to be more

households towards the top end of this range in Lache but the highest overall average occupancy per

household was in the Rossett area.

All Johnstown Lache Rossett

Average residents per household 2.63 2.60 2.55 2.73

9.2.4 Average number of trips per household

The average number of trips per household on the day before the survey was three. Rossett featured a

higher number of trips per day than Johnstown and Lache. This is perhaps unsurprising since Rossett

also had the highest average number of residents per household. Also, Rossett was surveyed on a

Saturday, whereas Johnstown and Lache were surveyed on weekdays. The residents in Rossett were

responding about trips made on a Friday, a day when additional trips are likely to be made as residents

return to Rossett for the weekend from more distant places, or go out to collect relatives or visitors

who wish to spend the weekend at Rossett. A “returning for the weekend travel effect” may also help

to partly explain the relatively higher level of average trips per household in Rossett.

Average (all sites) Johnstown Lache Rossett

Average trips per household 3.06 2.78 2.96 3.39

9.3 RAIL USAGE

9.3.1 Existing rail usage

On average, just over 40% of residents use the railway stations on the Chester-Shrewsbury line. There

is some slight variation across survey sites as can be seen in the table below. Johnstown had the

lowest proportion of line-using residents and Rossett had the highest, with nearly half of the

respondents saying that they are using the stations on the line with some frequency. Further

information on rail use is given below.

Average

(all sites)

Johnstown Lache Rossett

Proportion of residents using CWS line

stations

42%

35%

43%

47%

Those residents using the line do so with an amount of frequency that varies from daily to annually.

Residents used the stations most frequently on an annual basis, followed by monthly and bi-monthly.


Final Report

A012027 Page 129 of 185 23 March 2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Average

frequency


Figure 1. Resident's frequency of use of CWS Line Stations

Daily

Weekly

Bi-weekly

Monthly

Bi-monthly

Quarterly

Thrice a year

Twice a year

Annually

Respondents from the Lache area have a frequency of use distribution that is skewed more towards the

higher end, as compared to Rossett where the distribution is much more skewed towards lower

frequencies. This point can be seen more readily by examination of the figures in the table below.

Frequency of use Average (all sites) (%)

Johnstown (%)

Lache (%)

Rossett (%)

Daily 4 0 10 0

Weekly 15 8 30 0

Bi-weekly 7 4 9 8

Monthly 18 25 14 17

Bi-monthly 14 13 10 21

Quarterly 1 4 0 1

Thrice a year 3 4 3 1

Twice a year 6 9 2 7

Highest

Lowest Annually 32 34 22 44


Final Report

A012027 Page 130 of 185 23 March 2007

9.3.2 Station use

The stations used by respondents were also surveyed.

Consisting of:

Railway

station

used:

Households

(N) (%) Johnstown (N) (%)

Lache (N) (%)

Rosset (N) (%)

Chester 110 52 10 5 60 28 40 19

Ruabon 23 11 23 11 0 0 0 0

Wrexham 73 34 32 15 2 1 39 18

Chirk 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0

Gobowen 2 1.5 1 0.5 1 1 0 0

Shrewsbury 4 2 2 1 0 0 2 1

Generally the greatest use is being made of the station at Chester with most of its use coming from the

Lache area. This is not surprising given the closeness of Lache to Chester and the existence of

frequent connecting bus services. Respondents revealed that they sometimes used Chester station to

get to other cities such as Liverpool, Crewe and London.

The second most used railway station on the Line is that of Wrexham. The use here is emanating in

roughly equal amounts from Johnstown and Rossett. Ruabon station accounts for about 10% of all

station use, all of it coming from the Johnstown area. Chirk, Gobowen and Shrewsbury are little used

by the respondents accounting together for only 4% of station use.

9.3.3 Level of community support for new stations

It should be noted that no sites for any of the proposed stations have been selected, and none were

presented to residents during the survey. The findings from the questions on support for new

questions are presented below.

Proportion:

Average

(all sites) (%)

Johnstown (%)

Lache (%)

Rossett (%)

Would use a new railway station 67 69.5 55 77

Would not use a new railway station 32 30 45 21

Do not know/unsure 1 0.5 0 2

Of the survey respondents, 67% stated that they would use a new railway station sited somewhere in

their area. The greatest intended use for a new station was in Rossett where support was above the

overall average by 10%. In Johnstown a new station was also strongly preferred with close to 70%

responding positively. A new station facility was less well supported in Lache where only 55% stated

that they would use any new facility.

Thus, overall, it is clear that a proposal would have strong community support were it to go ahead.

However, this strong response must be handled with caution when considering possible rates of trips

as it does not necessarily represent the actual numbers of potential rail users.

9.3.4 Preferred area for a Rossett station

A supplementary question was inserted into the questionnaire for Rossett residents only, with the

purpose of revealing the preferred area for any future station. Respondents who answered positively


Final Report

A012027 Page 131 of 185 23 March 2007

to the general question about a new station were offered a second question giving a choice between

two general areas for any new station.

Responses

Options offered: (N) (%)

A station site closer to Broadoak location 10 8.5

A station site closer to A483/B5102 junction location 82 69.5

Indifferent between locations offered 26 22

Total 118 100

This supplementary question revealed a far stronger support for a new station facility that would be

located closer to the A483/B5102 junction than one closer to Broadoak. Out of 150 households, 118

responded to this question. Just over 20% of those responding were indifferent to either location.

Within this response there is a very clear preference (nearly 70%) for the location by the A483/B5102

junction. Future design studies should take this preference into consideration.

9.3.5 Option value of new station proposals

The final question relating directly to rail use attempted to get some idea of the level of support for

new stations for the sake of their “Option Value” only, i.e. their value to the individual who may never

envisage using the station themselves but might appreciate the fact that it is there purely for the benefit

of others or for the fact that they always have the option to use it. The responses given were strongly

supportive on average and across all sites. The pattern of response is similar to that given to the earlier

question on whether respondents would use a new station sited in their area but is affirmed more

strongly overall.

Proportion that:

Average

(all sites) (%)

Johnstown (%)

Lache (%)

Rossett (%)

Thought that a new station would be worthwhile even if never

used by themselves

83 83.5 76 90

Thought that a new station would not be worthwhile and would

never be used by themselves

15.5 15 23 8

Do not know/unsure 1.5 1.5 1.0 2

9.4


Final Report

A012027 Page 132 of 185 23 March 2007

9.5 TRIP ANALYSIS

9.5.1 Main destinations

Households were asked to describe the journeys that they had made in the previous 24 hours, although

many respondents gave actual trips to represent an ‘average’ day. The figures below show the main

destinations for residents within the respective areas surveyed.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Number of trips

Wrexham

Chester

Rhosllanerchrugog

(Rhos)

Johnstown/local

Intermediate trips

Other destinations

Figure 3. Main Destinations from Johnstown

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Number of trips

Wrexham

Chester

Gresford

Rosset/local

Intermediate trips

Other destinations

Figure 4. Main Destinations from Rossett


Final Report

A012027 Page 133 of 185 23 March 2007

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Number of trips

Chester

Saltney/Local

Wrexham

Broughton

Intermediate trips

Other destinations

Figure 5. Main Destinations from Lache

The main destinations from Johnstown, Rossett and Lache respectively, are also shown as proportions

in the table below for the purpose of comparison.

Percentage of trips from:

Destination:

Johnstown Rossett Lache

Chester 3 21 36

Wrexham 48 29 2

Local 9 9 28

Other 30 36 25

Broughton (Tesco) - - 10

Gresford - 5 -

Rhosllanerchrugog 7 - -

The destination with the highest frequency was Chester, with Wrexham second. Johnstown is close to

the Wrexham urban area (about four miles away) and this is reflected in the number of trips from there

to Wrexham. The fact that Lache is the closest to Chester and furthest from Wrexham of all three

areas is also reflected in the pattern of trips. The Tesco store at Broughton, close to Lache, appeared

to be a significant attractor of local travel from there. The neighbouring sister settlement of

Rhosllanerchrugog and an Asda supermarket in Wrexham are favourite local destination from

Johnstown. Commuting trips to Ellesmere Port, Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester and even a

single trip to Leeds were found within the results. This type of longer distance destination was found

to be emanating from Rossett more frequently than from the other two areas.

Intermediate trips made as parts of trip chains were separated out and their numbers are shown on the

bar charts above. Even though they are presented as one category, these trips were to a variety of

different destinations.


Final Report

A012027 Page 134 of 185 23 March 2007

9.5.2 Trip lengths

In order to understand the types of journeys made it was necessary to find out the distances travelled.

The figure below shows the current trip length distributions, assuming that a:

• Local trip length is less than 20 minutes journey time;

• Medium trip length is between 20 and 40 minutes journey time; and a

• Long trip length is anything over 40 minutes.

The chart and accompanying table below shows the proportion of trips in each of the three study areas

that falls into each of these categories. The average for all three sites is also presented in the table. It

is noticeable that the Rossett area has fewer trips of a length of less than 20 minutes that the other two

areas. This may be due to Rossett being comparatively further from a main urban centre than either

Johnstown or Lache.

74

18

9

69

23

7

54

37

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(%) (%) (%)


Figure. 6 Trip Lengths

Local (< 20 mins) Medium (> 20: < 40 mins) Long (> 40 mins)

Journey length category

Ave. (all sites)

(%)

Johnstown

(%)

Lache

(%)

Rossett

(%)

Local (< 20 mins) 66 74 69 54

Medium (≥ 20: < 40 mins) 26 18 23 37

Long (≥ 40 mins) 8 9 7 9


Final Report

A012027 Page 135 of 185 23 March 2007

9.5.3 Trip purposes

The purposes of trips were also surveyed. The figure shows the purposes of the trips made on the day

before the survey was carried out.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(%) (%) (%)


Figure 7. Trip Purpose

Commuting Leisure Education Business Other

Mode

choice

Average

(all sites)

(%)

Johnstown

(%)

Lache

(%)

Rossett

(%)

Commuting 32 33 27 36

Leisure 48 47 50 47

Education 10 12 13 6

Business 4 4 3 5

Other 6 5 7 5

Journey purposes were generally very similar between Johnstown and Rossett. Lache displayed fewer

commuting journeys and a markedly higher number of trips for educational purposes. A large school,

the “Westminster School”, is located in the centre of the Lache survey area. Surveyors noted that parts

of the Lache area appeared to be suffering the effects of economic deprivation. This is also evident

from neighbourhood profiles available from Cheshire County Council. A lower level of economic

activity in Lache may partly explain a lower recorded number of commuter trips.


Final Report

A012027 Page 136 of 185 23 March 2007

9.5.4 Modal split

The modes used for the trips made by residents were also recorded. The table below presents the

modal split of the trips made in each respective area on the day prior to the survey.

Mode

choice:

Average

(all sites)

(%)

Johnstown

(%)

Lache

(%)

Rossett

(%)

Bus 8 2 17 6

Walk 6 5 11 2

Rail 2 4 1 0

Other 2 0 5 1

Car 82 89 66 90

Higher levels of car travel are evident in Rossett and Johnstown than for Lache. This may be a

function of differences in car ownership levels between the areas together with the availability of

public transport services. Johnstown exhibits the highest level of rail use of all three areas, possibly

due to its closer proximity to the railway stations of Ruabon and Wrexham. The existing level of rail

use at Johnstown is 4% of all trips and at Lache it is 1%. The “Other” category corresponded most

frequently to journeys made by bicycle.

9.6 RAIL TRIP RATE ESTIMATES

9.6.1 Methodology

The data collected on trips from the surveys were used to estimate the proportion of those possible

trips that could be made via the proposed new stations. To achieve this it was necessary to use the trip

information collected from the surveys to estimate the Generalised Journey Cost (GJC) of the trips

currently being made. It is a general assumption that travellers act so as to minimise their disutility of

travelling, where the Generalised Journey Cost measures the degree of disutility. For the purpose of

this study, it was not necessary to fully develop a classical GJC model, so a simplified model was

created in the following form:

GJC = B0 + B1A + B2W + B3R

where A = Access Time, W = Waiting Time, R = Running (in-vehicle) Time

The coefficients B0, B1, B2 and B3 are weightings given to each journey time element. B0 is an error

term that incorporates items such as interchange penalties, which occur regardless of journey time. B1

is generally considered to be equal to 1.0 for studies such as this. B2 has been estimated at 0.5 and B3

at 1.0.

The GJC was estimated and compared for each trip recorded for Car, Bus and Train to each

destination. The “winning” mode was that with the smallest GJC, assuming rational choice in travel

decisions. It was recognised that not all travellers would behave rationally by removing the proportion

of respondents who revealed that they would never use a new station. This proportion represents the

“car bias” within the estimates. Shorter local trips and intermediate trips recorded as parts of trip

chains were also excluded from the analysis.

Estimates of rail times to/from the proposed stations were taken from the SWIFTT model; an average

of the journey times for the two different kinds of rolling stock modelled (types 158 and 175) was

used. The journey times presume that none of the other stations proposed in the report have been

built, other than those required for the journey time.


Final Report

A012027 Page 137 of 185 23 March 2007

The trip data obtained from the surveys were generally sufficient and of a high enough standard for a

simple generalised cost comparison. Where there were anomalies in the data, it was possible to

compare the trip data obtained from the surveys with a web based journey planner. The DfT

sponsored site, Transport Direct, allows comparisons of journey times made by different modes; it also

incorporates a facility that allows connecting journeys to public transport hubs to be substituted with

car journeys allowing this common form of trip type to be estimated. All trip journey times recorded

in the survey were replicated and checked using the journey planner for both public transport and road

modes.

The populations used in our Station Accessibility model to gross up trip rates, together with the

assumptions used in estimating them, are the same as those used here. Within both approaches there

was thought to be a degree of travel abstraction away from a proposed station site due to the existence

of overlapping catchments from existing station sites. This was dealt with by reducing the populations

proportionally by the extent of the overlap. All other estimates and parameters used in the generalised

cost comparison have been generated from the survey results themselves, making the findings entirely

separate from those of the SWR Station Accessibility model.

9.6.2 Trip rate estimates

The estimates from our GJC analysis are shown in the tables below. A number of different bands of

generalised cost were used to compare with current cost of travel in the three areas. These bands show

different amounts of assumed generalised cost (in minutes) for a single trip, depending on what mode

a respondent used and where they live relative to the proposed station. Two bands of cost are shown

below ranging from Mid- to High-End generalised cost. They correspond to:

• High-End: 20 minutes generalised cost per single trip plus applicable in-vehicle rail travel time

• Mid-Level: 15 minutes generalised cost per single trip plus applicable in-vehicle rail travel time

In addition to the estimates of the numbers of rail trips pertaining to the three proposed stations, the

trip rate estimates from the Station Accessibility model are also included.

Proportion of rail trips per year depending on

GJC band

Proposed station

site High-End Mid-Level

Station Accessibility

Model Estimate

Rossett 177,609 198,102 48,486

Lache 70,995 234,284 77,995

Johnstown 112,244 212,673 50,035


Final Report

A012027 Page 138 of 185 23 March 2007

In the table below the survey based trip estimates are shown as a proportion of all trips made.

Proportion of rail trips per year depending on GJC band

Proposed station

site High-End Mid-Level

Rossett 6% 7%

Lache 3% 9%

Johnstown 6% 11%

It can be seen from comparing the earlier Station Accessibility model estimates with that of the GJC

(survey based) results that the rail trips estimated by the model are generally lower. The exception is

the High-End-level GJC trip estimates for Lache. These compare closely but are slightly lower than

the earlier model estimate. The High-End estimates feature a level of generalised cost for trips that is

sufficiently high to be classed as cautious. Based on the range of findings we consider that the High-

End estimates established through the survey work and the resulting trip rates to be the most

appropriate to take forward.

9.6.3 Discussion

Rossett Rossett is a small settlement to the north of Wrexham on the B5455. The railway line passes Rossett

to the west of it, close to the A483. The survey found that half of all trips made to and from Rossett are

to either Wrexham (9 miles away—30%) or Chester (6.3 miles—20%). No adjustment has been

considered necessary to the trip estimates given above as the catchment area for the proposed Rossett

station does not overlap with any other on the CWS line. Rossett had the highest level of resident

support (77%) for a new station out of the three areas surveyed but it is recognised that a high level of

resident support does not necessarily equate to high numbers of rail users.

Lache

Lache is part of the conurbation located to the southwest of Chester. The railway line currently passes

on the northwest side of Lache, between the River Dee and the A1504 Chester Road. The survey

found that 36% of all trips made to and from Lache are to Chester (3 miles away), with only 2% to

Wrexham (11.7 miles away). A significant finding is that 40% of all travel from Lache to Chester was

by bus, demonstrating a higher than average propensity for travel by public transport. The

implementation of a new railway station is likely to abstract some of the demand for bus travel away

to rail travel.

A river separates Chester and Lache, constraining travel between them. The addition of a direct

railway connection between Lache and Chester would reduce this severance by adding another

crossing point and main route into the city. Reducing severance effects by adding a rail link is likely

to add rail travel that could not be picked up through a survey of residents.

It is likely that those who live outside the study area are making some trips between Lache and Chester

as a leg of a trip chain in a journey to Chester. Chester has introduced tighter parking regulation and

supported frequent bus service along radial routes to manage the demand. A firm public transport

ridership on the Lache-Chester route has therefore already been established. This factor gives the

location a stronger foundation for the development of a rail based Park & Ride facility. Any facility

like this would also support sustainable travel to the nearby Chester Business Park, which is a large

peak time travel attractor. Better estimates of the extent of the likely positive impact of these factors

on rail travel and any proposed station would need to be provided by a more focussed study.


Final Report

A012027 Page 139 of 185 23 March 2007

Johnstown Johnstown is the western part of the large settlement of Rhosllanerchrugog, which is situated

southwest of Wrexham. The Chester-Shrewsbury line passes close to the east of Johnstown. The

survey found that the major travel attractor is Wrexham (4.3 miles away), accounting for just under

half of all trips made to and from Johnstown. Trips to Chester (6.3 miles away) accounted for less

than 3% of all journeys to and from Johnstown. Just over 83% of journeys to and from Johnstown to

Wrexham are by car, with the remainder by bus.

There is an established level of rail trips already from Johnstown using the nearby stations at

Wrexham and Ruabon; this supports the estimates of the potential rail trip rates. The trip estimates for

Johnstown have been adjusted to account of the degree of travel abstraction away from the proposed

Johnstown station due to its overlap with the catchment areas of Ruabon and Wrexham stations.


Final Report

A012027 Page 140 of 185 23 March 2007


Final Report

A012027 Page 141 of 185 23 March 2007

10. PROPOSED STATION OUTLINE BUSINESS CASES

10.1 DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTING

In order to estimate the potential demands and revenues for the proposed stations at Lache, Rossett,

Johnstown, Whittington and Baschurch, we have used the National Transport model MOIRA (Model

of Income and Revenue Allocation), a computer system designed to assist in the study of railway

services. MOIRA includes data on revenues and journeys between all UK passenger stations for

various financial years. This information is taken from ticket sales information and captures virtually

all passenger revenues/journeys including sales at travel agents and self service ticket machines.

For the purpose of this study, parameters derived from MOIRA were used to estimate proposed station

demand based on time/speed of journey, distance and accessibility to the proposed station site. This

method of trip rate assessment has been successfully and accurately used on station proposals across

Scotland (e.g. South East Ayr), at Gamesley in Derbyshire, Beeston in Cheshire and at the new Robin

Hood Sheffield Doncaster Airport. The specific parameters used in this model refer to a rural station

for Whittington and Baschurch or a non-urban station for Johnstown, Rossett and Lache. We believe

that this methodology reflects the demographics of each area; in the rural areas greater distance is

allowed for access to due to lower demand elasticities to travel distance; in the non-urban areas greater

numbers of trips are associated with each resident.

10.2 TRIP RATE CALCULATION

It is important to note that all of the following derivations have been made using a base year of 2006

and that all figures will be subject to passenger growth assumptions made in Section 11. Along with

an average journey speed variable, the model requires inputs for population figures in three separate

zones. These were calculated as the number of people living:

• Within 1 km of the station site

• Between 1 and 2 km of the station site

• Between 2 and 3 km of the station site

Clearly some of the study area did not fall entirely within one zone. In this case judgements were

made relative to the ease of accessibility to the station site. Populations for all the study area were

derived from the 2001 census.

It is important to note that where the catchment areas overlapped with current stations that overlap was

considered ‘revenue neutral’, and as such those areas did not form part of this appraisal, because any

revenue for a proposed station from an overlapping zone would be transferred from another station,

and thus has no positive impact.

For the base year of 2006 the following trip rates were calculated:

Proposed

Station

Lache Rossett Johnstown Whittington Baschurch

Number of

single trips

per annum

77,955 48,846 50,035 42,582 30,525


Final Report

A012027 Page 142 of 185 23 March 2007

10.3 REVENUE CALCULATION

10.3.1 Fare Revenue

From ticket data provided by Arriva Trains for the region, we were able to calculate an average single

fare of £2.14:

Total Arriva Ticket Revenue £90,206,000

Total Number of Tickets Sold 42,100,000

Average Single Ticket fare £2.14

Assuming an average single ticket fare of £2.14, we are able to calculate the following annual ticket

revenues for the proposed stations:

Proposed Station Lache Rossett Johnstown Whittington Baschurch

Annual ticket revenue (2006 base) £167,030 £104,661 £107,208 £91,239 £65,405

10.3.2 Other Revenues

Due to the nature of the proposed stations, we do not anticipate that there will be any significant

revenues to be obtained through commercial activity. However, we anticipate that a £1 all day charge

will be adopted for parking at the proposed station sites, including Park and Ride schemes at Lache

and Johnstown.

Annual parking revenues based on this figure are given below:


Annual parking revenue (2006 base) £47,520 £29,700 £30,510 £24,300 £24,300

10.3.3 Total revenues

Assuming a base year of 2006 the following total annual revenues are given below:


Total annual revenue (2006 base) £214,550 £134,361 £137,718 £115,539 £89,704

Total fare revenue will be subject to a 2% reduction in our OBC due to fraudulent travel and

inefficient revenue protection.

The fare revenue is calculated at the base year of 2006; in order to update those figures to a proposed

opening date of 2010, the fare revenue will be subject to our passenger demand increase assumptions

in section 11 before being included in our OBC.


Final Report

A012027 Page 143 of 185 23 March 2007

11. BACKGROUND PASSENGER GROWTH

11.1 BACKGROUND

This section outlines the process used to estimate the background passenger growth used for the

estimates of baseline passenger demands and revenues. It will detail the estimation of future

background passenger growth for use in forecasting demand, and discusses the models developed with

key inputs and results.

11.2 METHOD OF ESTIMATING BACKGROUND GROWTH

11.2.1 Overview

The Rail Industry Forecasting Framework (RIFF) model provides forecasts of background growth in

rail demand based on socio-economic, competitive and policy demand drivers. We have used the RIFF

model as the basis for our estimates of background growth in passenger demand.

11.2.2 RIFF Model

The RIFF model provides an estimate of annual percentage growth (%) of passenger demands for a

specified service. The form of the model used was:

Annual Growth = (Eg x GDP) + (Ec x CONG) + (Ech x COHH) + (Ef x FARE) + (Ej x GJT) +

(Ecc x CAR_COST) + (Ect x CAR_TIME) + (Ebc x BUS_COST) + (Ebt x

BUS_TIME)

Where:

GDP is the percentage of annual change in GDP (% per annum)

Eg is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in GDP

CONG is the percentage of annual change in traffic congestion (% pa)

Ec is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in congestion

COHH is the annual change in car-owning households (% pa)

Ech is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in COHH

FARE is the annual change in passenger fares (% pa)

Ech is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in FARE

GJT is the annual change in generalised journey time for rail (% pa)

Ej is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in GJT

CAR_COST is the annual change in car fuel costs (% pa)

Ecc is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in CAR_COST

CAR_TIME is the annual change in car travel times (% pa)

Ect is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in CAR_TIME

BUS_COST is the annual change in bus fare costs (% pa)

Ebc is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in BUS _COST

BUS _TIME is the annual change in bus travel times (% pa)

Ebt is the appropriate elasticity for annual change in BUS _TIME


Final Report

A012027 Page 144 of 185 23 March 2007

11.2.3 Data Inputs

The figure below shows the planning, transport and economic data used, along with their sources, for

the RIFF model.

Parameter Value Used Source/Comment

GDP 2.03% Transport Economic Note, DfT, 2001

CONG 1.0% National Travel Surveys, DfT, 2002

COHH 1.5% TEMPRO version 4.2, 2002

FARE 3.5%

ScotRail Invitation To Tender (ITT) Brief,

Scottish Executive/SRA. This equates to an annual growth

in fares of RPI+1%

GJT 0.0% For the Baseline Scenario, it has been assumed there will be

no changes to existing timetables

CAR_COST 2.5%

For the Baseline Scenario, it has been assumed there will be

an annual increase in fuel costs of 2.5% per annum

CAR_TIME 1.5% National Travel Surveys, DfT, 2002

BUS_COST 1.0%

For the Baseline Scenario, it has been assumed bus fares will

continue to change in line with past trends

BUS _TIME 0.0%

For the Baseline Scenario, it has been assumed there will be

no increases to existing timetables. In addition, we have

assumed buses will be able to use existing and proposed bus

lanes and will therefore be protected from congestion

11.2.4 Selected Elasticities

The elasticities used in the RIFF model were the recommended standard default values supplied in

the RIFF Manual. The specific elasticities are based upon Ayr station in Scotland, but we feel that

they represent the study region effectively, and are fit for purpose.

Parameter Ticket Type Selected Elasticities

Full 0.0

CONG Reduced 0.0

Season 0.0

Full 0

COHH Reduced -0.7

Season -0.7

Full -0.5

FARE Reduced -1

Season -0.6

Full -0.9

GJT Reduced -0.9

Season -0.9

Full 0.4

CAR_COST Reduced 0.4

Season 0.4

Full 0.2

CAR_TIME Reduced 0.2

Season 0.2

Full 0

BUS_COST Reduced 0.2

Season 0.2

Full 0

BUS _TIME Reduced 0.3

Season 0.2

As can be seen above, the elasticities used in the RIFF model are dependent on ticket types, and are

different for Full, Reduced and Season tickets. Since the background growth is based on total trips, it

is necessary to apply weightings to the different elasticities for the three ticket types to obtain

weighted average elasticities for total trips.


Final Report

A012027 Page 145 of 185 23 March 2007

In order to derive an average elasticity for each component of the RIFF model, we extracted observed

percentages of ticket sales for Full, Reduced and Season tickets and estimated the proportions of each.

The table below shows the observed proportions of ticket sales for the three ticket types for the most

recent financial year (2002 to 2003). The observed proportions are based on Ayr station.

Ticket Type Observed Proportions

Full 0.443

Reduced 0.419

Season 0.138

Total 1.000

Source: MOIRA Rail Model

Multiplying these elasticities with the observed ticket sales proportions and adding them together

produced the weighted average elasticities for total trips shown below.

Parameter Elasticities used in

RIFF model

GDP 1.44

CONG 0.00

COHH -0.39

FARE -0.72

GJT -0.90

CAR_COST 0.40

CAR_TIME 0.20

BUS_COST 0.11

BUS TIME 0.15

11.2.5 RIFF Results

Annual Demand Growth

Using the above information and the weighted average elasticities for total trips, the RIFF model

produced the following annual growth in passenger demands:

Annual Background Passenger growth = 1.23% per annum

Although this may appear a very conservative estimate when taking into account passenger growth in

recent years, it must be understood that this growth is applicable over the next 60 years. Thus, a more

conservative approach must be taken. Our experience suggests that this is a reasonable estimation of

passenger growth for the Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury area.

Existing and Future Demand

We are now able to apply our demand growth assumptions to the trip rates and revenues estimated

in section 10. To do this we must identify both the base year (from which our original estimates are

derived) and the opening year of the station:

• Base Year – 2006

• Station Opening year – 2010

The table below shows the trip rates, estimated at the opening year of 2010:


Annual Trip Rate 2010 81,861 51,294 52,543 44,716 32,055


Final Report

A012027 Page 146 of 185 23 March 2007

12. COSTS

12.1 STATION SPECIFICATION

The proposed stations at Lache, Rossett, Johnstown, Whittington and Baschurch would provide

minimal facilities but will be fully compliant with Disabled Discrimination Act requirements. They

would consist of two platforms with covered seating, lighting, a public address system, and a notice

board. Shelter areas will be step-free, and include space for wheelchairs and buggies. Station

facilities should also include an accessible pay phone with a number for taxis, and a covered cycle

rack. Each platform will require step-free access via ramped bridge or lift.

It is anticipated that these stations will not be staffed due to the low levels of expected patronage.

12.2 CAPITAL COSTS

Construction costs are based upon a station with facilities described above. Network Rail

recommends that all station proposals accommodate platforms for 4-car units, and costs have included

this specification.

Capital cost estimates for the proposed stations have been based on those provided for a similar station

at the Robin Hood Sheffield Doncaster Airport (Source: Gleeds). The cost estimates have been broken

down into two categories:

• Construction costs

• Ancillary costs

Station Construction = £2,300,000

It is anticipated that construction would start in 2009 with the aim of opening the fully operational

station in 2010.

Ancillary costs are those costs such as fencing, painting and other non-construction costs. These have

been estimated below:

Ancillary costs = £70,000

It is anticipated that all of the ancillary costs will be assumed in 2010 prior to opening.

Total capital costs = £2,370,000

We believe that these capital costs are a robust estimate based on previous experience. However, they

will be subject to a 44% optimism bias (Strategic Rail Authority Appraisal Criteria, April 2003) in our

OBC in accordance with Government requirements (HM Treasury, 2003).

This gives a total capital cost, including our optimism bias of £3,412,800 per proposed station.

12.3 OPERATING COSTS

Station operating costs were estimated based on a previous study carried out in Gamesley, Derbyshire.

The station operating costs will include:

• Maintenance costs

• Staff costs

• Station access costs

• Train operating costs


Final Report

A012027 Page 147 of 185 23 March 2007

12.3.1 Maintenance Costs

Maintenance costs will be low in the first year of operation because the equipment and building will

be brand new and not require as much maintenance. However, after the first year of operation the

maintenance costs will be higher.

Average maintenance cost = £25,000 per annum

12.3.2 Staff Costs

We do not anticipate any additional staff costs.

12.3.3 Station Access Costs

Station access costs are determined by Network Rail and are meant to reflect the station’s effect upon

the network infrastructure. We have based our estimates on previous experience and current

agreements.

Station access cost = £9,000 per annum

12.3.4 Train Operating Costs

We do not believe that the additional stop at any of the proposed station sites would add any

significant cost to the operator of any services.

As with our capital cost estimates, operating costs are subject to optimism bias. The recommended

value (Strategic Rail Authority Appraisal Criteria, April 2003) is 10%.

12.4 TOTAL COSTS

The table below shows the total estimated capital and operating costs for each of the proposed stations

(including optimism bias):

Lache Rossett Johnstown Whittington Baschurch

Capital costs £3,412,800 £3,412,800 £3,412,800 £3,412,800 £3,412,800

Operating costs (per annum) £37,400 £37,400 £37,400 £37,400 £37,400


Final Report

A012027 Page 148 of 185 23 March 2007

13. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED STATIONS

13.1 BACKGROUND

This section summarises the economic appraisals of the options. Before presenting the results we

describe the development of a spreadsheet model to perform the many calculations of the individual

streams of capital costs, ongoing outlays due to operation and maintenance, and the many different

benefits that accrue as a result of the different options and the extra train services they provide. A

comparison of the resulting benefit/cost ratios of the proposals is then summarised.

13.2 DEVELOPMENT OF A COST/BENEFIT MODEL

In order to appraise the benefits and costs of the different options, we developed a Cost/Benefit

Analysis Spreadsheet Model. The model contains the following features:

Costs

• capital costs – broken down into phases, if applicable

• operating costs – per annum

Benefits

• revenues – obtained from the estimated trips

• societal benefits – road de-congestion, accident savings, etc.

Other Data

• annual discount rate of 3.5% for first 30 years, 3% for next 30 years

• optimism bias

The period of appraisal is 60 years.

The revenues used were those estimated from the calculations described in section 10, updated for

each year to take account of estimated passenger growths as described in section 11.

The social benefits were identified as being:

• fuel savings

• greenhouse gas savings

• accident savings

• time savings


Final Report

A012027 Page 149 of 185 23 March 2007

13.3 RESULTS OF COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The table below shows a summary of all of the results of our Outline Business Case and Economic

analysis:

Net Present Costs (NPC) 3,930,694.29

Net Present Benefits (NPB) 7,010,900.60

Net Present Value (NPV) 3,080,206.31 Restricted CBA

Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.78



Net Present Value (NPV) 5,051,990.03

LA

CH

E

Full CBA




Net Present Value (NPV) 675,296.95 Restricted CBA





RO

SS

ET

T

Full CBA




Net Present Value (NPV) 775,438.09 Restricted CBA





JO

HN

ST

OW

N

Full CBA




Net Present Value (NPV) -442,108.64 Restricted CBA





WH

ITT

ING

TO

N

Full CBA




Net Present Value (NPV) -1,267,075.10 Restricted CBA




Net Present Value (NPV) 565,298.37

BA

SC

HU

RC

H

Full CBA


From the above table it is clear that two stations (Lache and Rossett) appear to show worthwhile cases,

where the BCR > 2. Impacts upon the rest of the current network will be assessed later in this report.


Final Report

A012027 Page 150 of 185 23 March 2007

14. THE MARKET FOR FREIGHT AND OPERATIONS

14.1 INTRODUCTION

The market for rail freight, and factors influencing it, is very different from the passenger market.

Freight operators tend to be more responsive, and react to change more quickly than passenger

operators, where stability and long term planning are essential factors. Freight operators are also

much more dependent on the economic success of a few key industrial customers, and therefore are

subject to the external factors influencing these industries.

14.2 MARKET STRUCTURE

Rail freight in the UK is not supported by state subsidy, as is the case for passenger traffic. Freight

Operating Companies (FOCs) are fully commercial operations, not directly subject to control by either

the Department for Transport (DfT) or the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) in their wider

commercial activities. Freight rates and contracts are not regulated and competitive action between

operators or rail and other modes is not controlled in any way. In these terms, the market for rail

freight is completely free.

FOCs gain access to the rail network through Open Access Track Access Agreements with Network

Rail. These govern where and how FOCs can operate. These contracts are subject to regulatory

control, to control monopoly actions by any of the parties and to ensure fair access is granted to all

parties.

Essentially FOCs are free to run trains anywhere on the national rail network where the track

infrastructure is suitable for freight trains, and where there is spare route capacity. They can secure

long-term timetable rights for traffic where they have long-term contracts and need reliability and

guaranteed train paths. This is true for example for the EWS steel trains running to Shotton, which use

long established paths via Wrexham.

However, operators can bid to run trains at very short notice (in extreme cases within 24 hours) and

alter any of these long-term paths. This flexibility is essential to allow FOCs to respond to customer

demands. It is one reason why there are often paths reserved in the long-term working timetable that

are infrequently used, while trains which do move never appear in it.

FOCs only pay for the marginal track costs that they impose on the network, while passenger

operators pay full track costs on track sections where both passenger and freight trains operate. The

ORR has however indicated that in the forthcoming review of access charges there is a likelihood that

freight track access charges will rise in real terms, and that other initiatives such as ‘use it or lose it’

clauses may be inserted to control the reservation of track capacity for trains which never run in

practice.

State aid is available to FOCs to assist either capital investment (Freight Facilities Grant) or annual

operational costs (Company Neutral Revenue Support), but this is very closely linked to the

achievement of specific environmental benefits through reductions in lorry mileage, and is not a

specific subsidy for loss making services. In England, DfT awards the grants, while in Wales they are

the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

At privatisation, most of the former British Rail freight operations were sold to a US backed

consortium, and turned into a single operating company, English Welsh & Scottish Railway (EWS).

EWS still carries over 80% of all UK rail freight. Intermodal container operations were subject to a

management buyout that retained the Freightliner name. Since that time many changes have taken

place, emphasising the dynamic and competitive nature of the market. Both EWS and Freightliner

now handle both containers and general traffic, while a number of new operators, including GB

Railfreight, DRS and Advenza Freight have entered the market. At the moment, the only operator


Final Report

A012027 Page 151 of 185 23 March 2007

running trains between Shrewsbury and Crewe is EWS, though all other operators possess the access

rights to do so.

A number of private terminal operators around the country have invested in multimodal freight

terminals capable of handling a variety of traffics, independent of the TOCs. Some of these terminals

(such as those at Doncaster and Wakefield) have local authority support, while the majority are private

investments.

These terminals act in partnership with operators to form an integrated product with the aim of

providing customers with a ‘one stop shop’, while also offering the opportunity to aggregate cargoes

from a variety of customers into unit sizes sufficient to justify running a train. At the moment, there

are no private terminals operating on the Shrewsbury – Chester line, the nearest being Crewe

(Freightliner), or Widnes (O’Connor). A further terminal development is proposed at Donnington,

near Telford.

UK freight operations have traditionally focussed on full trainloads, partly as a result of the relatively

small journeys available in the UK but also because of the increasing costs of marshalling wagonload

trains at intermediate locations. Road competition acquired most of the wagonload traffic in the last 3

decades, though EWS does run limited wagonload services across the country. There are no

wagonload services operating within the study area, and all services consist of block trains running

direct from origin to destination.

There have recently been experiments with Freight Multiple Units (FMUs), essentially a small

lightweight self-propelled train conveying up to 6 wagons. The objective is to provide a solution for

moving small units of traffic on routes that cannot justify wagonload feeder services. Though there are

prospects of permanent traffic in specific areas (the Cambrian Coast line being one such potential

opportunity) the economics of such operations are at best marginal, and may require state support to

recognise specific environmental factors.

14.3 ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC

The suitability and attractiveness of a given route for freight traffic depends on the physical layout,

and a number of other factors discussed below. Data on route sections is derived from the Network

Rail Sectional Appendix and Route Directory.

The better the route characteristics, the more attractive a route will be to FOCs both for through traffic

and to service customers based on the route itself.

14.3.1 Physical Layout

The route between Chester and Wrexham is single track, and between Wrexham and Shrewsbury

double track. As it is difficult to reverse freight trains, it is worth pointing out that direct route access

at the north end is only possible in the Crewe, Northwich and Warrington directions (i.e. not towards

the North Wales Coast), and at the Shrewsbury end towards the West Midlands, South Wales and

Central Wales (i.e. not towards Crewe). The route is connected to the Borderlands Line at Wrexham

giving access to freight customers at Shotton at Pennyfford. Traffic to and from the Chester direction

has to reverse at Wrexham, and there are specific facilities at Croes Newydd North Fork signal box to

allow this.

One freight siding on the route at Chirk is unidirectional from the up (southbound) line, and as a result

all trains calling here must continue to Gobowen to reverse, and this reversal is somewhat complicated

involving two shunts. A better solution would be to provide a more appropriate track layout at Chirk

with connections to the down (northbound) line, and this is under consideration.


Final Report

A012027 Page 152 of 185 23 March 2007

The route also connects at Gobowen with a former line to a ballast quarry at Nantmawr. This line has

been out of use for a considerable period.

14.3.2 Axle Loads

Network Rail rates every route in the country to indicate the maximum weight per axle that the track

and underline structures can accommodate. This is known as Route Availability. Every route is given

a rating from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). Lower RA will impose axle-loading restrictions on wagons,

and this reduced payload can significantly affect operational costs, especially for bulk commodities.

Sidings will be rated at the same maximum load as the running lines they are connected to.

All lines between Shrewsbury and Chester, as well as between Wrexham and Shotton, can

accommodate traffic rated at RA 10, which represents an axle load of 25.4 tonnes, the heaviest

permitted on the UK rail network. The routes from South Wales and the West Midlands to

Shrewsbury, and Chester to Crewe, Northwich and Warrington and thence the West Coast Main Line

and Manchester area, are all rated at RA 10, which means that the Chester – Shrewsbury route could

act as a through route for traffic between main UK traffic centres.

14.3.3 Gauge

The loading gauge of a route is the maximum structural wagon envelope that can pass though the

various overline structures (including platform edges) on a route. The standard default UK loading

gauge is categorised by Network Rail as W6, and is characterised by a rounded top imposed by the

various arched formations of bridges and tunnels found across the network. Over time, Network Rail

has increased the loading gauge on specific routes, mainly to accommodate containers of varying

heights, where the squared top corners exceed the W6 structure gauge.

W8 gauge (which can accommodate containers of up to 8’ 6” height) was the former standard for

container routes, though recently the proportion of 9’ 6” containers moving on deep-sea shipping

routes has driven a need to increase this, and a new gauge of W10 has been developed to

accommodate them. European intermodal containers (known as swap bodies) travelling through the

Channel Tunnel are of varying size, but fall into the range of gauges described above.

Clearance of a route to a higher gauge can be very expensive, requiring every overbridge foul of the

new gauge either to be rebuilt, or the track through it lowered over a considerable distance. Tunnels

present a particular problem, and the usual solution is to replace the ballast with a concrete slab at a

lower rail height profile.

It follows that any terminal wishing to handle intermodal traffic in containers or swap bodies must be

located alongside a route with clearance to at least W8 profile, and ideally capable of W10 either now

or in the foreseeable future.

The route from Chester to Wrexham is cleared only to W7 (capable of conveying containers of 8’

height). This is linked at Chester to the Crewe and Warrington to Holyhead routes, which are cleared

to W8 (to handle the former Irish container traffic to Holyhead Freightliner terminal). On the face of

it, as this route is single track on a double track formation, clearance to W8 might not be a difficult

proposition, possibly requiring nothing more than track slewing towards the centre line through

various bridge holes, though track doubling would complicate this.

The rest of the route from Wrexham on to Shrewsbury is only rated at W6, and there does not appear

to be any possible business case that would justify increasing this at the moment. The route from

South Wales to Crewe via Shrewsbury is rated at W8, and sees daily container traffic, but as Crewe is

the natural destination and major Freightliner traffic base, possible diversion of this traffic to Chester

does not present any better opportunity.


Final Report

A012027 Page 153 of 185 23 March 2007

The conclusion is that there is little prospect of this route being increased in gauge terms in the

foreseeable future. There is therefore little prospect of the route becoming a major container carrier,

though it might be feasible to provide a feeder service to the Wrexham area from Chester. However

given that there are already container terminals at Widnes and Crewe handling much larger traffic

volumes, it is unlikely that this would provide a better overall logistics cost than roading from these

terminals.

14.3.4 Route Capacity

Route capacity is a function of route signalling, line speed, the number of trains running over the

route, and gradient.

The Chester – Wrexham route already carries regular freight trains, and at least one freight path is

used in each direction in some hours of the day over all double line sections of the route, while one

unidirectional path per hour on the single line from Chester to Wrexham is already available. The

maximum linespeed of freight trains is 75 mph, though the majority of trains running on the route

today convey wagons rated at a maximum running speed of 60 mph, which is well within the

maximum permitted speed of the route.

Freight trains accelerate and brake more slowly than passenger trains, though as the latter tend to stop

at all stations the end-to-end running times do not tend to differ greatly. The one exception to this is

the single line from Chester to Wrexham, where the 4 mile Gresford Bank between Rossett and

Wrexham imposes about a 5 minute time penalty as trains ascend the 1 in 82 gradient (trains in the

opposite direction are of course not affected). However, the gradient is no greater than a number of

regular freight routes in the West Midlands, and does not present a specific route constraint, especially

in the light of the use of modern high capacity traction on all freight trains.

The conclusion is that there is sufficient route capacity at the moment for freight operations (1 path per

hour is sufficient for all foreseeable needs and is comparable with other similar routes).

14.4 CURRENT FREIGHT OPERATIONS

This section discuses the current markets served by freight trains using the Chester – Shrewsbury

route, and the current terminals in existence but out of use.

14.4.1 Chirk – Kronospan

The only active customer on the line of route itself is Kronospan PLC, at Chirk. The plant is the only

UK manufacturing base for the Kronospan Group, one of the world’s leading producers of

particleboard. The plant consumes some 1.5 million tonnes of round timber per annum to produce the

board. Much of this material is delivered by road from forests in Wales and Central England. The

company also owns forests in Eskdalemuir, in Scotland, and this timber is delivered by rail. The

current rail haulier is EWS.

Two timetabled trains per day running five days per week serve the plant, though actual the actual

programme of trains run depends on felling programmes and timber availability. The total rail volume

imported to site each year is approximately 150,000 tonnes, or 10% of the total consumption. Rail is

competitive over the long haul from Scotland, though not elsewhere.

However, as Kronospan has just increased its forest ownership in Scotland the rail demand is secure

and may increase in the future. Kronospan is currently considering a reorganisation of its timber

stockyard and relocation of its rail sidings to ease unloading and improve train working. As yet the

firm has not completed its plans but anticipates that this will make unloading more efficient and enable

it to handle more rail traffic.


Final Report

A012027 Page 154 of 185 23 March 2007

It is possible (but not yet confirmed) that the current track layout, which is unidirectional heading

towards Shrewsbury, and which requires empty trains to run to Gobowen to run round before returning

to Warrington, will be revised to provide northern connections. Kronospan expects that this work will

be the subject of an application for Freight Facilities Grant, though probably worked up in co-

operation with their train service provider. Services run from Warrington via Chester, conveying 22

2-axle wagons, each capable of carrying 20 tonnes of timber.

Kronospan do not however forward any of their production volume of board by rail. This is partly

because of the lack of single large customers, and also because of the non-availability of high quality

rail connected distribution terminals in their key market areas such as the South East of England.

There is a clear opportunity for rail here, possibly worked in combination with inwards services and in

conjunction with terminal operators capable of offering suitably high quality distribution to end

customers. Kronospan has made it clear that it is willing to consider propositions for such traffic, but

that the railfreight industry must make suitable proposals.

The conclusion is that Kronospan is a long-term rail customer, and the current volume of trains can be

expected to continue or even increase in the future. Outbound product movements ought to represent

an opportunity to double total rail volumes in the future, and should be considered when making plans

for capital investment on track and rail infrastructure.

14.4.2 Shotton – Corus

The steel works at Shotton, part of the Corus Strip Products Group, is fed by rail from rolling mills in

South Wales, and the trains use the route from Shrewsbury to Wrexham, branching off on to the

Borderlands Line to Shotton. The plant at Shotton produces coated steel strip coil, consumed in a

range of industries from construction to automotive. Approximately 90% of the inward steel, hot

rolled coil loaded at high temperature, is moved by rail. Trains can run with a maximum of 20 loaded

75 tonne capacity steel wagons, and 2 trains are booked to run every day of the week. On average

approximately 15,000 tonnes of strip coil is moved a week, though actual tonnages and therefore trains

run vary from week to week. At the moment EWS operates all trains.

Very little of Shotton’s outward product is however moved by rail, and road predominates. Some coil

is moved to the West Midlands for distribution from the intermodal terminal at Round Oak. One

reason for the lack of rail traffic is again the lack of suitable terminals, and the relative fragility of the

coil, which is susceptible to abrasion damage to the coating and rusting if not stored in temperature

controlled conditions. One possible traffic flow would be to South Wales, using marginal capabilities

of the returning empty train services to feed the market, but this has not been developed at the

moment.

The conclusion is that Shotton will continue to generate inwards flows of steel coil into the long term,

for as long as the works remains a key production unit. There is further, but possibly limited, potential

for additional outwards traffic, which would be routed via Wrexham and then on either north or south

dependent on destination.

14.4.3 Pennyfford – Castle Cement

The last major rail freight generator in the area is the Castle Cement works at Padeswood, adjacent to

Pennyfford village. The works uses local limestone and imported fuels to make cement products.

Until relatively recently the main fuel used was coal, but recent investment in new kilns is intended to

convert much of the fuel to recycled materials such as scrapped tyres and cloth as part of the

company’s effort to control carbon emissions. Currently the works has the capability to produce up to

800,000 tonnes of cement products per annum, and consumes approximately 2,000 tonnes of coal a

week brought in by rail in 1,000 tonne trainloads. These trains run from Warrington via Chester to

Wrexham, where they reverse to take the Borderlands line to the works. Empty trains run on to

Shotton (Dee Marsh) to reverse before returning to Wrexham. EWS is the current haulier of this

traffic.


Final Report

A012027 Page 155 of 185 23 March 2007

The result of the investment is that Castle Cement expects the annual coal volume to reduce by 50%

next year, with only one train per week running. This is a long-term position as a volume of coal or

petroleum coke will always be required in the cement making mix.

Castle Cement has two other works connected to the rail system, at Clitheroe in Lancashire and Ketton

in Lincolnshire, and outwards material is distributed from all three, with Padeswood normally

supplying the Wales and South West areas. However there are no major lines of demarcation and

destinations are dependent on the overall order book. No traffic is forwarded by rail, due partly to the

lack of rail terminals and partly due to the scattered and variable nature of the final market. Castle

Cement says that though it is receptive to offers from the railfreight industry, it currently has no plans

to send cement by rail from the works.

It is however worth pointing out that the other UK cement companies, Rugby, Lafarge and Tarmac,

have all recommenced product movement to some extent, and cement traffic from Padeswood could

therefore be viewed as a possible prospect for the future.

Castle Cement does however foresee the possibility of the movement of clinker (a partially processed

product) to the other two sites in the future, and it is possible that this bulk flow could be moved by

rail. Again, this will depend to an extent on the commercial approach that the railfreight industry

makes to Castle Cement in the future.

The conclusion is that Castle Cement will continue to generate limited volumes of rail traffic on a

regular basis, but that there could be forwardings of product or clinker in the future if the market

conditions and commercial approach were correct.

14.5 OTHER TERMINALS

A number of other potential sites, out of use sidings, and possible customers who lack rail connections

on the route have been identified in this high level study and are listed below. This report does not

propose specific plans to secure any of the traffic identified. Further work would be required to carry

out a full market review and to work with the potential customers to determine what could be

achieved. This report assumes (as indeed do the customers we have spoken to) that any initiatives to

develop proposals for new rail traffic will be put forward by FOCs themselves as part of their standard

marketing effort. This is not unreasonable, as both EWS and GB Railfreight have declared targets of

securing new business to rail.

14.5.1 Shrewsbury

EWS currently leases two sites as possible freight terminals under standard industry arrangements.

These sites are Crewe Bank coal yard on the Shrewsbury to Crewe line, which has been used

previously for coal traffic, and Coton Hill Yard adjacent to the Shrewsbury – Chester line which has

been out of use for some time, and has been reduced in size through disposal or short term letting.

Both sites are currently out of use, though both could provide a modest transhipment facility at

relatively little development cost, as the rail connections to the main line are still operable. Creation

of new rail connections can cost disproportionately high sums of money, often in excess of £1 million,

so redundant connections have considerable value when assessing potential sites.

14.5.2 Whittington Oil Siding

This is a siding on the section between Shrewsbury and Gobowen, served from the down (Chester

direction) line only. The site is a former oil terminal, which is out of use. However, the connections

and the legal Private Siding Agreement are still extant. The capability of this site was always limited,

and servicing via the remote ground frame (a local point control supervised by Gobowen signal box)

was historically awkward. Re-use of Whittington does not seem to be a practical proposition.


Final Report

A012027 Page 156 of 185 23 March 2007

14.5.3 Gobowen

The connection at Gobowen to a disused line via Oswestry to a quarry at Nantmawr was retained in

mothballed status (track left in situ but with no maintenance) by British Rail in 1992, and is now the

subject of a possible sale to Shropshire County Council for restoration as a preserved line. The

connections with Network Rail remain intact (the loop line at the start of the branch is used to run

round trains from Kronospan) and there is a possibility in the future that traffic from the ARC quarry

at Nantmawr could recommence if the line were to reopen. However, the permitted axleload of the

line was always low (RA5 or 19.05 tonnes maximum) and it is probable that this restriction would

apply in the future.

There is also a small freight siding serving the coal stacking operation, which occupies the site of the

former Oswestry bay at Gobowen station. This facility is out of use, and is too small to be of practical

value for future freight developments.

14.5.4 Chirk – Cadbury

In addition to the Kronospan connection, there is a former siding into the Cadburys works, which is

out of use. The works processes coca beans. Though traditionally a major rail user, today the

Cadbury group nationally has no interest in rail, and there seems little prospect of attempting to

generate traffic to or from this location.

14.5.5 Wrexham Watery Lane

The former freight yard at Watery Lane is connected to the main line as it is located adjacent to Croes

Newydd North Fork signal box. There is also former railway land available in the centre of the

triangle of abandoned routes to Brymbo steelworks. Both sites suffer however from being close to

Wrexham town centre with poor road connections and locations close to residential areas which might

cause significant and unacceptable environmental impact. Therefore, while installation of connections

to a freight terminal here would be relatively simple given the presence of the Network Rail signal

box, site user may be unacceptable in practice. Site choice in Wrexham needs further investigatory

work to determine its acceptability.

14.5.6 Shotton Paper Ltd

The paper mill at Shotton, operated by Shotton Paper Co PLC, part of the UPM Kymmene group, is

rail connected, and in the past received timber by rail. In more recent times however the mill has

ceased use of rail, and indeed has concentrated on paper production from waste paper. As such the

potential for rail transport is low, either for inwards raw material or outwards product, which is moved

exclusively by road transport to newspaper presses across the UK.

14.5.7 Toyota Deeside

The Toyota engine plant is located adjacent to the Borderlands line at Shotton, but is not laid out in a

way that makes rail access easy. The plant supplies both the Toyota car assembly plant at Burnaston,

Derbyshire (which is not rail connected) and assembly plants in Europe. Other manufacturers (notably

Ford at Bridgend) ship engines by rail to Europe, and it is possible that there could be some traffic to

European plants via the Channel Tunnel. Such an initiative would need major investment in rail

connections into the Toyota plant, or possibly a shuttle operation to a transhipment facility inside the

rail connected Corus plant on the opposite side of the line. Securing traffic from this location is

viewed as a low probability, however, we understand that there may be some interest in investigating

the possibilities of a rail connection.


Final Report

A012027 Page 157 of 185 23 March 2007

14.6 SUMMARY

This report demonstrates that the rail freight volumes passing along the Chester – Wrexham –

Shrewsbury line are broadly static, and assuming no major change in the basic industries served (steel,

cement and board manufacture) can be expected to extend at the same levels into the future. Freight

operators are likely to require similar levels of access (broadly one train path per hour in each

direction) in the long term, and this is likely to satisfy foreseeable needs.

There is potential demand from some existing customers that could be successfully secured to rail.

Customers spoken to have confirmed that they are open to offers, which would have to be

economically and logistically attractive to be acceptable to them. They are however playing a passive

role in this, and would expect the rail freight industry to come to them with firm proposals. The

initiative to generate freight growth in the area therefore rests with the rail freight industry.


Final Report

A012027 Page 158 of 185 23 March 2007

15. TRANSPORT PATTERNS AND DEMAND FORECASTS

15.1 INTRODUCTION

This section sets out our review of current travel conditions on the rail network, focusing on the

Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury Line. This is recommended in Government Appraisal Criteria to help

set the background scene for a value-for-money appraisal for any future development of potential

options and recommendations.

There are a variety of ways to catalogue the problems and issues. We have adopted an approach that is

consistent with both the classification of rail users and with the requirements of a potential outline

business case.

We examine the railway network and then deal specifically with the main competing modes for rail

services, namely road and bus/coach. Within these different ‘user’ categories the issues relevant to

travel demand, the characteristics of local demographics and modal choice among others are also

considered.

15.2 OVERVIEW OF LOCAL AREA

At the last national census, the population of key towns and cities was approximately 342,500.

Further details of the demographics in the immediate study area are shown below.

City/Town Population (2001) Employment (2001) Households (2001)

Chester 118,210 53,018 50,130

Wrexham 128,477 55,157 53,226

Shrewsbury 95,850 44,768 40,308

Total 342,537 152,943 143,664 Source: www.statisticsgov.uk

The importance of the region in social and economic terms has increased in recent years; latterly, there

has been significant underlying momentum, on the part of the local communities, to have rail services

enhanced.

The Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury corridor exhibits a wide range of social and economic

characteristics. Traditional industries in the towns and countryside have experienced some changes.

Chester, in particular, is an important sub-regional centre. There is a reported increase in commuter

demand into the region (especially from the wider catchment area). There is an expectation in the

Local Transport Plan that an enhanced the rail system could play a more important role for the carriage

of passengers.

15.3 EXISTING TRANSPORT FACILITIES AND SERVICES

15.3.1 Regional Road Network

The regional road network complements the rail line. The most important inter-urban links are the A5

and A483 which connect the three main urban areas of Chester, Wrexham and Shrewsbury with the

wider network. The M6 motorway also provides access to the national motorway and trunk road

system. The A5 and A483 transect all the intermediate towns, which are within the catchment area of

the railway including Ruabon, Chirk, Ellesmere and Oswestry.

15.3.2 Bus/Coach Services

The table below shows some details of a selection of existing bus services passing the area, including

service frequencies. Frequencies are quite high in some areas and the nature and characteristics of

many of the bus/coach services are typical of other semi-urban rural areas.


Final Report

A012027 Page 159 of 185 23 March 2007

Operator Service No. Frequency

26, 29 hourly

12 every 15mins

10, 10A & 11 every 30mins

X94 hourly

ARRIVA – Wrexham

Network

3, 4 every 30mins

1 every 20mins

24 3 per-day

4A every 30 mins

84 every 30 mins

ARRIVA – Chester

Network

401 every 30 mins Source: www.arrivabus.co.uk

These bus and coach services are likely to be the main competitors to any potential new rail services.

The network coverage of these services is shown in Figures 14.2 and 14.3.

Wrexham Area Bus Network


Final Report

A012027 Page 160 of 185 23 March 2007

Chester and Deeside Area Bus Network

The PlusBus concept recognises that rail travellers may wish to make a bus journey after arriving at

their rail destination and makes this easier by including the cost of the bus ticket as an add-on to the

cost of the rail ticket. Only one ticket has to be purchased for both bus and rail travel and the amount

of bus travel is unlimited within an area around the rail destination. Regardless of the bus operator’s

conditions, National Rail conditions apply, with railcards accepted and child fares available. PlusBus

cannot be bought on buses as it must be bought in advance but it can be bought for the return part of

the journey as well. Many destinations now also offer PlusBus on a season ticket basis.

Despite the obvious versatility of the PlusBus scheme it has suffered from low take up rates. This may

be because the scheme has not been marketed sufficiently and the scheme is poorly understood, both

by the public and by those being asked sell it to them. Commentators have noted inaccuracies in the

supporting information for the scheme, for example in the maps illustrating the PlusBus supported

zone at the destination. It has been noted that the information on the dedicated web-site supporting

PlusBus is not currently available to station staff. The information on the site is also very out of date

in places. This may be due to the fact that updating the information on the web-site is done on a

piecemeal basis by individual bus operators when they have time to do it. Work is in progress to

improve this situation and to organise a single agency to produce the tables and maps for the scheme

and keep them up to date. In August 2006 the PlusBus scheme covered 262 rail destinations in

Britain.

At the present time the local Plus Bus and zonal ticketing (TOCYNTAITH) schemes have only

recently been introduced; it is thus too early to evaluate their effect on ridership.


Final Report

A012027 Page 161 of 185 23 March 2007

15.3.3 Integrating Public Transport Services

The study has examined some of the issues relating to the integration of public transport

modes, particularly buses at railway stations along the line. Our key finding is that there is

little competition between the modes except in the case of the high frequency services running

between Wrexham bus station and Chester railway station. Part of the X94 service between

Wrexham bus station and Ruabon railway station also contends slightly with the rail service.

The critical issue therefore is the degree to which bus and rail services complement one

another. Our key finding here is that there is room for improvement. This manifests itself in,

for example, the distance between bus and rail interchanges, signing and the degree of

accessibility between the interchange points. Generally speaking bus services do not connect

directly with the rail services. If integration is to be improved then the co-ordinating

authorities, bus and rail companies need to address the above issues to provide a better

integrated system that would encourage higher public transport use.

Some analysis of the level of bus rail co-ordination and competition has been carried out over

a number of key selected routes. The findings are as follows:

Bus services that compete with rail

Wrexham bus station-Ruabon railway station

The X94 operated by TrawsCambria runs from Wrexham to Barmouth via Llangollen. This is an

approximate 2 hourly frequency to/from Wrexham bus station.

� 17 mins from Wrexham Bus station to Ruabon railway Station, return service 18 mins

� First bus from Wrexham 0640, last 2145

� First bus from Ruabon 0807, last 2221

Shrewsbury – Wrexham Bus Station

Arriva service 70 takes passengers from Shrewsbury to Oswestry where they can change to the 2A

service to Wrexham Bus Station. Service goes via Chirk (14 mins from Oswestry).

� Total journey time 2 hours

� Service 70 has a half hourly frequency to/from Shrewsbury bus station

� First bus 0745, last 1915

� Service 2A has and hourly frequency

� First bus 0613, last 1743

� Wrexham – Chester changing at Whitchurch

Service 146 run by GHA Coaches connects Wrexham bus station to Whitchurch bus station where

passengers can catch a 41A service (Chester City Transport) to Chester railway station.

� Total journey time 2 hours 27 mins

� 146 frequency is hourly at starting at 0703 and finishing at 1745

� Most services depart at quarter to the hour

� 41A frequency is also hourly, departing at 37 mins past the hour

� First bus is 0717, then 0937 up until 2117


Final Report

A012027 Page 162 of 185 23 March 2007

Wrexham – Chester

High frequency No. 1 service exists between Wrexham bus station to Chester rail station (and return),

with a ten minute frequency during and around the peaks falling to 40 minute frequency after 0840

then increases to a 20 minute frequency for the evening peak and drops down to an hourly frequency

after 1915.

� Last bus is at 2225

� Total journey time 40 mins

� Sunday service is hourly from 0925 to 2225

� Return frequencies just as good

Coaches

� Shrewsbury – Chester – no coach services

� Shrewsbury and Chester bus stations are connected buy one coach service departing at 20:00

(National Express)

� Wrexham - Oswestry (via Ruabon, Chirk and Gobowen)

No 2A leaves Wrexham bus station on an hourly frequency for Oswestry via Chirk. Takes about 40

minutes to arrive at Chirk. Note Chirk Green and Hand are the stops, not the railway station, so there

is some walk time after this.

� Frequencies are hourly starting at 0637 and ending at 1837

� 2 evening services run at 2015 and 2215 taking passengers as far as Chirk Hand only

The No. 2 service also stops at Chirk Hand after the Holyhead Road at Chirk. It then continues onto

Gobowen Railway station. Total journey time 51 mins to Gobowen.

� Frequencies are low, there are only four services, the first at 0958 and the last at 1758

� Two evening services run at 2015 and 2215 taking passengers as far as Chirk Hand stop only

Bus services that directly complement the rail service

A list of bus services are given below with that feature routes that run from outside areas close enough

to railway stations for them to be classed as complementary to the railway services.

Ruabon

Services 2C, 2E and the X94 described above all stop at Ruabon Station.

Chester

Service 1 between Wrexham and Chester drops off close to Chester Railway station.

Wrexham

All bus services that make a good connection into the short circular route of the town centre bus,

known as the Wrexham Townlink service, have the potential to transfer passengers in reasonably good

time to the General and Central Railway stations. This is of course subject to the extent to which the

connecting times coordinate.


Final Report

A012027 Page 163 of 185 23 March 2007

TrawsCambria services

Work is currently being undertaken by the TrawsCambria organisation, sponsored by the Welsh

Assembly Government, to improve the integration between TrawsCambria bus/coach services and

inter-urban and urban bus and rail services. This work has not yet been completed.

15.3.4 Passenger Rail Services

The local rail network is approximately 42 miles in length, and forms a strategic link between the

major regional centres. Using the MOIRA Model it is possible to examine the typical service

characteristics including timetables, end-to-end travel times and rolling stock at key times throughout

a typical Weekday. The tables below show the average train flows per services on an average

weekday.

Origin Dep Destination Arr Rolling Stock

Chester 630 Shrewsbury 723 DMU090


Bangor Gwynedd 607 Cardiff Central 1011 DMU090


Chester 927 Birmingham N St 1119 DMU090




Chester 1233 Cardiff Central 1517 DMU090









Source: MOIRA Model (National Version), SRA, January 2006


Final Report

A012027 Page 164 of 185 23 March 2007

Origin Dep Destination Arr

Rolling

Stock

Shrewsbury 527 Chester 626 DMU090




Birmingham N St 934 Chester 1123 DMU090








Cardiff Central 1714

Bangor

Gwynedd 2137 DMU090


Cardiff Central 1944 Chester 2254 DMU090

Sources: MOIRA Model (National Version), SRA, January 2006

As can be seen from the tables above, the majority of services are run using diesel multiple units

(DMUs) capable of 90mph.

15.3.5 Existing and Future Forecast Travel Patterns

Using data from existing transport models, including the National Land-Use/Transport Analysis

Model (NALTRAM) developed for various Multi-Modal Transport Studies and the MOIRA Rail

Model, it is possible to examine travel patterns in the study area.


Final Report

A012027 Page 165 of 185 23 March 2007

Overview of NALTRAM

Because of the strategic nature of the model, the analysis of travel patterns in the following sections is

high-level. Flows are shown for highway and public transport trips separately, and the data is shown

for 2005 since this was a common year across all the data gleaned.

15.3.6 Road Traffic Flows

The figures below show road traffic flows for the 2005 AM Peak Hours across the strategic network,

in bandwidths and in actual traffic flow numbers. Bandwidths are usual as they provide a relative

picture of how busy the roads which compete with the railway route are compared to other roads in the

immediate area.

2005 AM Peak Hour Highway Flows (Bandwidths)


Final Report

A012027 Page 166 of 185 23 March 2007

2005 AM Peak Hour Highway Flows (Actual Flows)

15.3.7 General Public Transport Trips

The figures below show public transport flows for the 2005 AM Peak Hours at strategic segments,

again in bandwidths to show how utilised roads-based public transport competing with the railway

route is compared to other roads in the area and in actual flow numbers.

2005 AM Peak Hour Public Transport Flows (Bandwidths)


Final Report

A012027 Page 167 of 185 23 March 2007

2005 AM Peak Hour Public Transport Flows (Actual Flows)

From the above analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• In 2005 AM Peak Hour highway flows are fairly modest, ranging from about 50 to 900 highway

trips passing through or around the area. These flows are estimated to grow by about 17% in 10

years. Road capacity should therefore not be an issue.

• The corresponding highway-based public transport trips (i.e. bus and coach) during the 2005 AM

Peak Hour are somewhat more modest, ranging from 10 to 130 trips. These trips, however, are

estimated to fall in 10 years. This is a reflection of the limited bus services in the area.

• Rail-based trips in the 2005 AM Peak Hour, however, are much higher than bus and coach,

averaging between 110 to 190 trips between Chester and Shrewsbury. These trips are estimated to

grow by about 15% in 10 years during the AM peak.

15.3.8 Railway-Specific Trips

Station Demand

Information on observed travel demand at key stations in the area has been sourced from data supplied

by Arriva Trains Wales and also extracted from the MOIRA Rail Model.

Station Annual Demand (2005/2006)

Chester 2,365,133

Wrexham 484,207

Ruabon 22,566

Chirk 20,887

Gobowen 84,556

Shrewsbury 1,971,635

Total 4,948,984 Sources: MOIRA Model (National Version), SRA, January 2006, Arriva Trains Wales, 2006


Final Report

A012027 Page 168 of 185 23 March 2007

Rail Passenger Flows

Looking at individual service line loadings, the tables below show the average train flows per services

on an average weekday.

Origin Dep Destination Arr Ave Trips

Chester 630 Shrewsbury 723 16


Bangor Gwynedd 607 Cardiff Central 1011 75


Chester 927 Birmingham N St 1119 116




Chester 1233 Cardiff Central 1517 52









Sub-Total 961

Source: MOIRA Model (National Version), SRA, January 2006

Origin Dep Destination Arr Ave Trips

Shrewsbury 527 Chester 626 20




Birmingham N St 934 Chester 1123 97


Final Report

A012027 Page 169 of 185 23 March 2007








Cardiff Central 1714 Bangor Gwynedd 2137 68


Cardiff Central 1944 Chester 2254 25

Sub-Total 915

Sources: MOIRA Model (National Version), SRA, January 2006

The rail passenger flows shown above are trips between Chester and Shrewsbury. These represent a

total two-way flow of just over 1,875 trips per day.

Modal Shares

To identify the modal shares of travel in the area we have used the TEMPRO program. TEMPRO is a

computer model developed by the Department for Transport and holds data on trip-making by

different modes of transport and geographical location.

The data in TEMPRO for 1991 and 2001 are observed trips, as measured from the National Census

(ONS, 2003) and the National Travel Survey (DfT, 2003). It also uses the 10% census surveys carried

out in 1996 and 2006 to update the National Census information. This is therefore a good indication of

historical travel patterns. To estimate future levels of trips, TEMPRO applies an industry-standard

trip-end model using the comprehensive datasets for 1991 and 2001, and the 10% sample sets in 1996

and 2006.

The TEMPRO analysis suggests the following:

• The modal share of car trips in the area was 59% in 1991, rising to 62% in 2001, and is predicted

to further increase to 64% by 2011. This rate of growth is above UK national averages.

• The modal share of bus movements was 8% in 1991, falling to 7% in 2001, and is predicted to

remain at about this level by 2011. These market shares are below UK national average levels.

• However, the modal share of rail journeys in the area is predicted to grow from 2% in 1991 and

3.5% in 2001 up to 5% by 2011. This healthy increase is above UK national averages.


Final Report

A012027 Page 170 of 185 23 March 2007

15.3.9 Overview of the Process and the Results Obtained

We have used the MOIRA Model as the basis for our estimates of changes in passenger demand and

revenue as a result of the new timetables to increase service frequencies, reduce end-to-end journey

times or introduce additional stops at new stations.

The process used was that recommended in the MOIRA User Manual. This can be summarised in the

following steps:

Step 1 – copy the most recent timetable for the passenger services passing through the line for an

average weekday, into a new Scenario file;

Step 2 – using the MOIRA Timetable Manager amend the train arrivals and departure times of each

relevant service in the new Scenario file;

Step 3 – run the resultant new Scenario files in the MOIRA Model; and

Step 4 – sum the results to give the total two-way impacts on existing passengers due to the proposed

changes.

The results for the three timetable options are shown below.

Timetable

Option Description Trips Revenues Time savings

Passenger miles

savings

1 Signal Improvements 7,467 £40,702 £1,663 1,701

2 Line Speed Improvements 399,467 £2,396,800 £89,320 92,080

3 30 min frequency (with

existing timetable) 397,483 £3,507,000 £74,814 126,972

Source: MOIRA Rail Model

The above options assume an opening year of 2010 and the annual demand is predicted to increase by

1.23% per annum. With the new stations scenarios, there is a loss in revenues and increase in time-

penalties impacting on existing (background) rail trips due to the additional stopping times imposed by

the new stations, this has already been taken into account in the station appraisals.

The third option involves increasing frequency to 30 minutes from the current hourly service. This

shows what can be expected from improvements to capacity. From the economic appraisal it is

possible to identify which infrastructure option for increasing the capacity produces the best value-for-

money (VfM) since the only difference is the capital and maintenance costs; the estimates of trips,

revenues, time-savings and passenger-miles will be the same irrespective of whether it is a single loop

or double-tracking or some other infrastructure option which delivers a 30 minute frequency.

The revenue results in the above table have been used in a Restricted CBA (i.e. revenues versus capital

and operating/maintenance costs only). A Full CBA has also been carried out to show the effects of

introducing the effects of wider societal benefits (e.g. highway de-congestion effects, road accident

savings, vehicle operating costs, time savings, etc). To estimate societal benefits for the Full CBA we

have convert the Passenger-Miles Savings to Passenger-Kms and standard economic multipliers (as set

out in DfT Guidance Notes). For the benefits due to highway de-congestion effects (e.g. accidents,


Final Report

A012027 Page 171 of 185 23 March 2007

congestion relief, etc) we have used a multiplier of 12.7p per passenger-km and for vehicle operating

costs (e.g. fuel, non-fuel) we have used a multiplier of 8.2p per passenger-km1.

15.3.10 Results of the Economic Appraisal

Option 2 Option 3 Type of

Assessment

(£M) (£M)

Present Value of Costs (PVC) -£32,478,780 -£26,566,245

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £74,371,176 £108,819,975

Net Present Value (NPV) £41,892,395 £82,253,729 Restricted CBA

Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR 2.29 : 1 4.09 : 1

Present Value of Costs (PVC) -£32,478,780 -£26,566,245

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £77,217,935 £111,601,183

Net Present Value (NPV) £44,739,155 £85,034,937 Full CBA

Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR 2.38 : 1 4.20 : 1

It is evident from the above table that both Options 2 and 3 give positive results with BCRs > 2 and

highly positive NPVs.

Option 1 (signalling upgrades) was not assessed as only positives could be found – assuming that all

costs are part of Network Rail’s future plans for the route.

1 LTP Appraisal Guidance, DfT, 2003


Final Report

A012027 Page 172 of 185 23 March 2007

16. INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS, PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES AND DEMAND FOR RAILWAY SERVICES

16.1 INTRODUCTION

In this section we examine the options, preliminary cost estimates and likelihood of demand for

improved rail service if the infrastructure options were to be implemented.

16.2 PROPOSED LINE UPGRADE OPTIONS

Alternatives for operational improvements of the CWS line were described above. Increases in line

speed and capacity are associated with required improvements to the rail infrastructure. The following

options for upgrading the Chester-Wrexham line were originally proposed:

1. Do-minimum option (signaling renewal only)

2. Linespeed upgrade to 90 mph on single line

3. Single short passing loop at approx halfway along single line

4. Two short passing loops at approx one third and two thirds along single line

5. Long passing dynamic loop of an appropriate length along single line (between A483 structures)

6. All single track converted to double track

Options 1 and 2 correspond with options 1 and 2 in the operational analysis, while options 3 through 6

are means to provide the capacity increases required in operational option 3. After operational

analysis options 3 and 4 were replaced with option 7, three passing loops, as indicated in the results of

the train graph on the next page below.

This option would permit the introduction of half hourly service while construction of one or two

loops would not. An additional option 8 includes the double tracking of the entire line except the two

bridges over and under the A483, and an additional option 9 includes option 5 plus double tracking

between the northernmost A483 structure and Saltney Junction.


Final Report

A012027 Page 173 of 185 23 March 2007

Train Graph: Chester-Shrewsbury-Chester (WRX Shuttle) M-F

00:00:00

04:48:00

09:36:00

14:24:00

19:12:00

00:00:00

04:48:00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Route Distance (miles)

Tim

e

1V69 2J80 2D07 1V51 2T01 2T02 1D05 6M76 6J35

2T03 2T04 1G32 2T05 1W80 2T06 1V53 2T07 6F59

1D09 2T08 2T09 1G64 6F59 6V76 1W82 2T10 2T11

1V55 1D11 2T12 2T13 1D66 1W84 2T14 2T15 1V57

6M84 1D13 6F71 2T16 2T17 1G73 1W86 2T18 1V59

2T19 6F71 1D16 6V76 2T20 2T21 1G11 6V90 1W88

2T22 2T23 1V61 6J32 2T24 1D17 6M86 2T25 1G85

1W90 2T26 2T27 1V63 1D19 2T28 2D27 2T30 1W92

1J44 1G77 1D23 6V80 1G46 1J67 1W94 1D26 2T32

1D41 1D41


Final Report

A012027 Page 174 of 185 23 March 2007

16.3 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

Construction cost estimates for double tracking come from three sources: published construction cost

data, similar projects and Network Rail estimates.

Figures from Spons Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book (2006) suggest that the

minimum total cost of laying new track (including procurement and installation of new rail, ballast and

sleepers only) is about £372,000 per mile. By comparison, Network Rail estimates the cost of track

renewal (removing and replacing rail, and doing any other necessary maintenance of the track bed) at

about £451,000 per mile.

Scott Wilson recently completed two double-tracking projects, Project Evergreen northwest of London

and Burngullow in Cornwall. Construction costs for double-tracking for Project Evergreen were about

£5million per mile, including complex signalling arrangements and costly earthworks; this would be

the top end of the price range for such work. Construction costs for double-tracking for Burngullow

were about £2million per mile, including some signalling and mine stabilisation; this is likely to be

more in line with the projected costs for the Chester-Wrexham upgrade, as the existing track bed is

already stable and of the necessary width.

In December 2005 Network Rail prepared a preliminary construction cost estimate for upgrading the

structures on the Chester-Wrexham line. They believe that increasing line speed would chiefly affect

the flat-span bridges listed below, and estimate the following costs for strengthening and

reconstruction:

Bridge Cost for 90 mph linespeed

(£million)

Cost for 100 mph linespeed

(£million)

526 0 0.4 (strengthening)


531 0.5 (strengthening) 1.2 (reconstruction)

535 0 0

535A (A483 overbridge) 3.0 (additional bridge)* 3.0 (additional bridge)*






549 0 0

TOTAL 4.85 8.95 *Costs may be reclaimable from Welsh Assembly (Highways Agency) due to prior legal agreement with British Railways Board.

In addition, Network Rail estimated that basic structure upgrade (e.g. waterproofing and

refurbishment) would cost about an additional £1.6million. Using these sources of information, we

have compiled the following table of preliminary construction costs for each option:


Final Report

A012027 Page 175 of 185 23 March 2007

Option Miles of

double

tracking

Cost of

rail

(£million)

Bridge reconstruction

required

Cost of

structure

upgrade

(£million)

Total cost

(£million)

1 None 0 None 0 1.60

2 None 0 531 (strengthening)

542 (strengthening)

544 (strengthening)

547 (strengthening)

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.45

3.45

5 5 10 536 (strengthening)

538 (strengthening)

542 (reconstruction)


0.25

0.5

1.3

1.0

14.65

6 10.4 20.8 531 (reconstruction)

535A (additional bridge)

536 (strengthening)

538 (strengthening)




1.2

3.0

0.25

0.5

1.3

1.0

1.1

30.75

7 6 12 535A (additional bridge)

536 (strengthening)

538 (strengthening)


3.0

0.25

0.5

1.0

18.35

8 10.4 20.8 531 (reconstruction)

536 (strengthening)

538 (strengthening)




1.2

0.25

0.5

1.3

1.0

1.1

27.75

9 8 16 536 (strengthening)

538 (strengthening)




0.25

0.5

1.3

1.0

1.1

21.75

Where linespeed was not specified in the option, the costs shown above are for increasing it to 100

mph.

Costs which have not yet been factored in include the following:

• Realignment of existing single track

• Turnouts and crossovers

• Resignalling

• Widening and upgrade of level crossings

• Strengthening and stabilisation of Gresford embankment

• Station construction or remodelling (e.g. lengthening platforms to accommodate three car trains)


Final Report

A012027 Page 176 of 185 23 March 2007

16.4 THE DEMAND FOR RAIL SERVICES

In order to assess the feasibility for upgrading the railway infrastructure and operating further rail

services over the route it is necessary to take a view as to the likely demand for rail services in the

future. The work undertaken as part of this study indicated that there is likely to be an economic case

for undertaking the work. However, in such exercises a large number of assumptions must be made.

By way of a reality check this section looks at the wider background figures with respect to rail usage

in the corridor.

Based upon three recent years’ data (2002 – 2003, 2004 –2005 and 2005 – 2006) there has indeed

been a significant growth in passenger rail usage. An estimate for 2006 – 2007 is also included based

upon 18% growth since 2005 – 2006.

Total passenger journeys Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury 2002/3 - 2005 /6 w ith

estimate for 2006/7

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

5,500,000

6,000,000

2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007(est)

Year

Pa

ss

en

ge

r jo

urn

ey

s

The data include all trips to and from Chester and Shrewsbury. The key reasons for the change have

been the change from two hourly to hourly service, the creation of the standard pattern timetable,

which allows interchange at key hubs into other rail services, and better overall reliability of services;

these changes have resulted in a growth in passenger journeys of 46% since the 2002 – 2003 financial

year. The equivalent UK trend over the same period has been 11%.

16.5 RAIL PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The WAG in conjunction with Network Rail and Halcrow are preparing a baselining report for the

Wales Rail Planning Assessment. The report analyses the period 1995 to 2005 based upon ‘a

simplistic model looking at station to station movements over the last 10 years.’

The report showed that in 2004-2005 there were just under 20 million journeys within, originating or

terminating within Wales. Within the counties of the study area there were just under 9 million

journeys. As noted above there were just under 5 million journeys on this route in 2005/2006. All of


Final Report

A012027 Page 177 of 185 23 March 2007

the data series show a positive trend. The indications from DfT (Rail) as part of the High Level

Output Statement (HLOS) to be produced in 2007 indicate a continuation of these upward trends.

Total rail journeys to, from and within Wales

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Year

Pa

ss

en

ge

r jo

urn

ey

s (

00

0)

Indications given by DfT (Rail) recently indicate that annual growth of up to 3% could be achieved.

In our analysis we have assumed 2.3%, as this is the figure used within the Rail Industry Forecasting

Framework (RIFF).

On the basis of the RIFF, rail demand in Wales would grow to just under 25 million journeys per

annum over the next ten years (to 2015-2016) if, as expected, these positive growth trends continue.

These growth figures at county and line levels are shown in the table below.

Actual 1995/1996 Actual 2005/2006 RIFF forecast

2015/2016

Wales 14.8 19.9 24.6

Counties (Cheshire,

Wrexham, Shropshire)

7.0 9.1 11.2

Line (Chester-

Wrexham-Shrewsbury)

Not available 4.9 6.0

The purpose of this study was to look at the additional demand generated by:

� New railway infrastructure

� Faster journey times

� New stations


Final Report

A012027 Page 178 of 185 23 March 2007

We believe, on the basis of transport modelling carried out using NALTRAM, that the line data for

2015/2016 would increase by 66% from 6 million journeys to just over 10 million journeys.

1995/1996 2005/2006 2015/2016

Existing conditions/

do minimum

N/A 4.9 6.0

Infrastructure

improvements

N/A N/A 6.1

Linespeed

improvements

N/A N/A 9.9

Three new stations N/A N/A 10.1

On the basis of our findings, we recommend that the Chester-Shrewsbury Rail Partnership enter into

discussions with Network Rail and the Welsh Assembly Government for taking forward these findings

into Network Rail’s Guide to Rail Investment Products (GRIP) process.


Final Report

A012027 Page 179 of 185 23 March 2007

17. RE-OPENING THE GOBOWEN – OSWESTRY LINE

17.1 BACKGROUND

A single line between Oswestry and Gobowen (now designated GNQ1) opened in 1848. In 1865 the

Cambrian Railway Company constructed its headquarters and rolling stock construction and

maintenance facilities. Shortly after this depot was closed in 1965, passenger service between

Oswestry and Gobowen was discontinued. Freight service (largely to nearby quarries) continued until

1989, and thus the line was preserved with the construction of a level crossing over the A5 when the

Oswestry bypass was constructed in the early 1980s. Network Rail classified the line as non-

operational in 1994, and it has not been maintained since then. A portion of the line near Gobowen is

currently being used twice a day to reverse timber trains from Warrington to the chipboard factory at

Chirk.

After previous attempts in the late 1990s by Railtrack, and an earlier attempt in 2002 by Network Rail,

in June 2006 ORR consented to Network Rail’s request to grant the line to Shropshire County Council

for use as a cycleway (an extension of National Cycle Network Route 31), with a restrictive covenant

on alternative non-rail uses to safeguard its potential operation as a heritage railway or, should

circumstances warrant, as a freight railway. Network Rail would retain the track near Gobowen for

freight operations.

17.2 CURRENT SITUATION

The Cambrian Railways Society and the Cambrian Railways Trust are proposing to reopen the line as

a heritage railway. The Society currently owns 1.5 miles of the Potts Line near Nantmawr, and the

Trust owns line between Llynclys junction and Pen-y-Garreg Lane at Pant. The two organisations are

now negotiating the use of the line; current plans envisage the Trust operating from Gobowen to

Llynclys and the Society continuing the operation to Blodwell and Nantmawr. In addition, the Tanat

Valley Light Railway Company Limited has undertaken a small local freight survey to determine the

demand for services at a road/rail interface at Blodwell. Shropshire County Council has also

considered opening this line for passenger traffic, and has received bids from several potential

operators including Parry People Movers; it is our understanding that all of these bids have been

returned with requests for further details.

17.3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTEGRATION AND CONNECTIONS

Although Oswestry is no longer served by rail, it has a four-bay bus station near the town centre.

There is no staffed ticket office or enclosed building, but the facility has a pay phone and provides

information for both local bus and train service. Buses on route 53 leaving from bay 1 connect to rail

services at Gobowen on the Chester to Shrewsbury line; the bus service runs frequently

(approximately every 15 minutes) weekdays and Saturdays (an hourly service is available on

Sundays), and takes about 10 minutes to reach Gobowen. The Oswestry Coach Park across from the

bus station provides parking for cars (regular and disabled persons’), taxis and buses; it is a potential

site for a new station at Oswestry.


Final Report

A012027 Page 180 of 185 23 March 2007

Oswestry Bus Station

Oswestry Coach Park (looking

South)


South)


North)


Final Report

A012027 Page 181 of 185 23 March 2007

The line between Oswestry and Gobowen crosses two bridges and a level crossing over the A5(T).

The bridges at 0m 51.5c and 1m 71.5c appear to be in acceptable condition. We have some doubts

that it will be practical to operate a level crossing over the busy ‘A’ road.

17.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Part of the remit of this study was the ‘identification of the potential market for rail along this corridor

to and from the Chester –Shrewsbury Line, when the heritage railway is established and running from

Gobowen through Park Hall to Oswestry.’ We believe there is little potential market for passenger

traffic on this line, for the following reasons:

• Both Oswestry and Gobowen are well served by several bus companies. Oswestry has recently

constructed a bus station which offers passengers a ten-minute journey to Gobowen at at least

half-hourly intervals throughout the day Monday through Saturday.

• The line from Oswestry to Gobowen crosses the A5 at a train-operated level crossing. This

crossing was installed when the road was far less busy than it is now. Crossing this road would

add several minutes to the journey between Oswestry and Gobowen, and put it at a severe

disadvantage in comparison to bus service.

• While we have no passenger demand information for a heritage railway on this line, we believe

the effect of nearly a dozen other heritage railways in the immediate area (including the well-

known and highly developed Ffestiniog and Talyllyn Railways) will be significant in either

increasing or reducing demand. On one hand, a proposed Oswestry line may draw passengers

who have already chosen to visit the area to see other railways; on the other hand, it is possible

that the heritage railway market in the area is saturated, and demand is likely to be filled by older,

more well known and more developed attractions.

Although in our analysis it is not worth considering the line for passenger operations, nevertheless

Shropshire County Council must make some decision as to how the property is to be used. Various

parties have expressed interest in the following options:

• Cycle path (to be shared with rail operations)

• Heritage railway (two potential operators)

• Passenger railway (Parry People Mover and others)

• Freight railway (quarry)

• Freight railway (other)

Several of these parties have claimed that these options are incompatible, or mutually exclusive.

We recommend that the following work be undertaken in order to assist SCC in making decisions

about the disposal of the line:

• Review and evaluate the expressions of interest in operating the line that SCC has received

• Consult representatives of each of the following stakeholders:

Passenger railway:

• Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Rail Passenger Action (passenger railway)

• Other parties who have expressed interest to SCC in operating passenger vehicles on the line

(e.g. Parry People Movers)

Freight railway:

• Tanat Valley Light Railway Company

• Hanson


Final Report

A012027 Page 182 of 185 23 March 2007

• Freightliner

• English Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited

• Other operators (GB, DRS, etc.)

Heritage railway:

• Cambrian Railways Society/Cambrian Railways Trust

• Shrewsbury Railway Heritage Trust

Other:

• Shropshire County Council, projects group

• Oswestry Borough Council

• Highways Agency

• HMRI/ORR (level and other crossings)

• Sustrans and/or local advocates for the cycleway option

with the objective of determining their aspirations and views of the issues, and understanding what

sorts of tradeoffs or compromises would be acceptable if necessary

• Review the property boundaries and lay out possible routes and rights of way for rail

operations and a cycleway

• Review and make recommendations with respect to existing and proposed level crossings,

including preliminary cost estimates of any suggested improvements

• Address connections with the national rail network at Gobowen station and with other

transport modes at existing or proposed locations

• Address legal/liability/TWA Order issues

• Assess the potential market for a heritage railway in the area

• Outline and assess the requirements for operating the line as a community railway

• Prepare preliminary cost estimates of proposed options

• Prepare and present a draft report to SCC and other interested parties

• Incorporate comments into a final report, which can be presented at a public or stakeholder

meeting


Final Report

A012027 Page 183 of 185 23 March 2007

18. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

18.1 INTRODUCTION

The overarching conclusion from our study is that the continuing growth of rail service on the Chester-

Wrexham-Shrewsbury route presents the opportunity to justify the further upgrade of railway

infrastructure and services. Our study looked at a number of issues including the following:

� Constraints caused by existing infrastructure

� Linespeeds

� Service levels

� New stations

The study has analysed each of the above issues using the WebTAG (WelTAG) and DfT (Rail)

frameworks to produce full and restricted cost benefit analyses. The restricted cost benefit analyses

are a ‘rail industry business case’ showing the effect of the proposals on the finances of the rail

industry. We have only gone forward with the options that at least covered their capital and operating

costs over the 60 year appraisal period, including optimism bias (64% for capital costs and 10% for

operating costs). The full cost benefit analyses also included the wider effects on transport and society

arising from these proposals, e.g.:

� Journey time savings

� Decreases in pollution

� Improvements in accessibility

� Effects on other transport modes

In the sections below we indicate our recommendations with respect to each of the issues addressed in

this study.

18.2 STATIONS

The study examined the entire line between Chester and Shrewsbury for potential station sites. This

resulted in a more detailed analysis of selected sites, carried out in line with DfT (Rail) criteria for new

stations, and the number was reduced to five possible new stations at the following locations:

� Lache/Chester Business Park

� Rossett

� Johnstown

� Whittington

� Baschurch

On the basis of both the full and restricted cost benefit analyses we recommended that surveys be

undertaken at the following:

� Lache/Chester Business Park

� Rossett

� Johnstown

with a view to confirming the results of the MOIRA model for stations used in the research for this

study. The analysis of the potential for stations at Baschurch and Whittington demonstrated that they

would not be viable under the prevailing criteria.

The surveys revealed majority support in principle among residents for a new station at all three sites.

Although no sites for any of the station proposals exist as yet, or were presented to residents in the

questionnaires, in the case of Rossett there was a definite preference for a station to be sited closer to

the A483/B5102 junction rather than closer to Broadoak. In two out of three cases we derived a


Final Report

A012027 Page 184 of 185 23 March 2007

higher expected trip rate than was estimated from our station modelling processes; in the third case the

trip rate estimates are roughly equal to those estimated previously. The survey-based estimates

followed on after the earlier modelling work and are more current estimates, with a strong empirical

basis. The results from them are therefore a supportive representation of earlier estimates.

Although there are differences between the two estimates they both point to a potential high level of

use of the proposed stations. Based on the range of findings we consider that the High Level GJC

estimates established through the survey are likely to be the most accurate. Our conclusion is that our

first level estimates erred on the side of caution. The higher expected trip rate will mean that a more

favourable benefit to cost ratio can be estimated.

The survey also identified an existing level of rail use from within all three areas. Lache has a

secondary level of demand generated by non-residents travelling into the area to access Chester and

the nearby Business Park. MBNA is undertaking its own travel survey of the Chester Business Park as

part of their Travel Plan.

It is suggested that, if the Chester - Shrewsbury Rail Partnership are so minded, they approach

Network Rail with a view to taking the station proposals further in the formal station feasibility

process. Scott Wilson Railways can provide a service to advise on the most effective way doing this.

18.3 RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

We examined a wide range of solutions to upgrading the railway infrastructure over the route. The

most favourable options were:

• A dynamic loop between MP204.000 and MP208.750 (the two key infrastructure constraints

at the A483 overbridge and underbridge)

� Redoubling the whole route between Wrexham North Junction and Saltney Junction except at

the key infrastructure constraints

� Redoubling the whole route

Our preferred option, the dynamic loop, should provide the capacity to allow the proposed increase in

train service.

There also appears to be a benefit from altering the track layout at Chirk which will benefit the freight

services using Chirk as well as providing opportunities to reduce the need to shunt Kronospan freight

at Gobowen. This track alteration may also provide additional benefits with respect to the ongoing

disposal issues at Gobowen.

18.4 LINESPEED INCREASES

The current route is rated at line speeds of 50 to 70mph. In the past the ruling line speed for this route

was 90mph. Our study shows significant benefit in returning the route to this level. The Class 158s

currently in use on this route have a maximum operating speed of 90mph, although their power output

may be limited by the topography of the route. The Class 158s are rated at 213kW or 285 horsepower.

This contrasts with the Class 175s which attain power outputs of 335kW or 450 horsepower, and

maximum speeds of 100mph.

Our SWIFTT train operations model showed useful and beneficial reductions in journey times

resulting from increases in linespeeds combined with the introduction of Class 175 rolling stock.

Without new stations the effect of increasing line speeds had a benefit to cost ratio of 4.2:1.


Final Report

A012027 Page 185 of 185 23 March 2007

18.5 TRAIN SERVICE LEVELS

The level of train service over the route has increased from a two-hourly service (with slightly higher

frequency (75 to 90 minutes) during morning and evening peaks) to an hourly service over the route

with two-hourly through links to Birmingham, Cardiff and Holyhead and relatively easy interchanges

in the off hours.

As we indicated above, there seems to be strong justification for restoring all or some of the railway

infrastructure between Wrexham North Junction and Saltney Junction that was removed in the 1980s.

By partial redoubling of this part of the rout,; along with linespeed and signalling improvements, the

opportunity may arise to provide a 30 minute frequency of service between Wrexham General and

Chester. The introduction of a frequency increase would depend upon resources being made available

via the Welsh Assembly Government and the train operating company and would also depend on

platform availability at Chester. One additional diesel multiple unit would be required to operate this

service. This option has a benefit to cost ratio of 4.2:1.

18.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

The key recommendations from the study are as follows:

� Enter into discussions with Network Rail with a view to undertaking further GRIP studies for the

recommended new stations and changes to railway infrastructure and linespeed increases.

� Conduct an in-depth analysis of the effects of this recommendation on the standard pattern

timetable; this analysis will determine the most appropriate time and method of changing the

timetable.

Documents

F i n a l R e p o r told.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/transportation/rail/cws...10.1 DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTING .....138 10.2 TRIP RATE CALCULATION.....138 CHESTER – SHREWSBURY