30 Options for Castlefield but DfT rules out extra platforms for Piccadilly

[Starmill]

The plus side is that you might more easily be able to serve the Pennington area as well.

It would be pretty inappropriate to remove the current entrance for Salford University and access from the bus stops and houses along the A6. How would you maintain both? PS I think you mean Pendleton.

 

[yorksrob]

It would be pretty inappropriate to remove the current entrance for Salford University and access from the bus stops and houses along the A6. How would you maintain both? PS I think you mean Pendleton.

Apologies, yes - Pendleton.

Even with a longish lead in, if you moved the actual junction East, I don't see why you couldn't have an elevated walkway from around where the current entrance is to the Eastern end of the platforms.

 

[Nym]

I heard Digital Signalling (i.e. ETCS Level 3) had been previously suggested as a cheaper solution to new platforms but imo the only solution for Castlefield is Package C

When has signalling not been Digital?

The idea that ETCS is a silver bullet to solve all ills really needs to die, and die soon. Communication based signalling in complex junction areas is nowhere near as effective as people think, and a well sorted signalling system with fixed blocks can work just as well if not a lot better than most if not all communication based "Moving Block" type systems.

The likes of Moorgate and Waterloo on the Northern Line shows this perfectly. Find me an S40 signalled line that is able to run anything near the TPH with any form of junction complexity close to the fixed block signals on the Victoria or Central Line.

The DLR is one of the worst offenders for poorly set up TBTC / CBTC type systems, set up by software engineers that don't understand railways or rail vehicles, and when the rules of a railway are inserted into their perfect world, it all starts to fall appart. Look at what happens around the diverging junctions at Westferry every morning with most vehicles taking two or three bites of the cherry to actually berth in the station.

 

[MarkyT]

When has signalling not been Digital?

The idea that ETCS is a silver bullet to solve all ills really needs to die, and die soon. Communication based signalling in complex junction areas is nowhere near as effective as people think, and a well sorted signalling system with fixed blocks can work just as well if not a lot better than most if not all communication based "Moving Block" type systems.

The likes of Moorgate and Waterloo on the Northern Line shows this perfectly. Find me an S40 signalled line that is able to run anything near the TPH with any form of junction complexity close to the fixed block signals on the Victoria or Central Line.

The DLR is one of the worst offenders for poorly set up TBTC / CBTC type systems, set up by software engineers that don't understand railways or rail vehicles, and when the rules of a railway are inserted into their perfect world, it all starts to fall appart. Look at what happens around the diverging junctions at Westferry every morning with most vehicles taking two or three bites of the cherry to actually berth in the station.

Apart from the removal of the physical signals themselves, which can be very expensive to erect in busy multi-track urban railways such as terminal approaches without huge gantries to get adequate sighting, the main benefit I see of level 2 is variable length fixed blocks, whose boundary markers can be placed nearer each other easily around stations and junctions to provide 'closing up' capability without the potentially confusing aspect sequences that can often be required to achieve the same thing with lights on sticks. The Thameslink core is a good example of this, but on 'normal' busy railways away from stations, where trains are following each other at line speed, there is little benefit over continuous 4 aspect, or 2/3 aspect on secondary lines. Thameslink goes a little further with multiple fixed block markers along the platforms, so a following train can enter a station smoothly behind the preceeding one before it has completely departed. This is an application where some kind of moving block could be useful, just in the platfrom itself, to reduce complexity. In practice that's little different to the ancient practice of driving on sight after entering on a permissive 'call on' aspect behind a preceding train still leaving, although that hasn't been allowed on new installations for many years. A new development for light rail vehicles is forward scanning radar/lidar (derived from recent automotive technology) for obstacle detection, so perhaps something similar might be applied as a modern way of providing a better protected 'platform permissive' capability for high density main line and metro operation without all the extra train protection and block markers necessary for the Thameslink style setup. Outside the platforms I would stick with fixed non permissive blocks, variably spaced as appropriate, although these could be 'virtual' in terms of how train detection is achieved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies, yes - Pendleton.

Even with a longish lead in, if you moved the actual junction East, I don't see why you couldn't have an elevated walkway from around where the current entrance is to the Eastern end of the platforms.

Pendleton was closed for a reason - because the new Salford Crescent was more where people wanted to go. (Yes, it caught fire, but that was long after it had become basically useless, so it wasn't worth fixing it up - they were different days, as had that happened in 2019 I reckon it *would* still have been fixed up).

 

[yorksrob]

Pendleton was closed for a reason - because the new Salford Crescent was more where people wanted to go. (Yes, it caught fire, but that was long after it had become basically useless, so it wasn't worth fixing it up - they were different days, as had that happened in 2019 I reckon it *would* still have been fixed up).

And I still don't see why you couldn't have an entrance where there's one now.

I get that Salford Crescent is a useful station - which is why I want Atherton line trains to continue to use it, rather than pootling aroound the streets of Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I still don't see why you couldn't have an entrance where there's one now.

I get that Salford Crescent is a useful station - which is why I want Atherton line trains to continue to use it, rather than pootling aroound the streets of Manchester.

To be fair I think Pendleton was a fair way north of the triangle where I think you are suggesting to put it?

 

[MarkyT]

And I still don't see why you couldn't have an entrance where there's one now.

I get that Salford Crescent is a useful station - which is why I want Atherton line trains to continue to use it, rather than pootling aroound the streets of Manchester.

Of course a Metrolink solution could have additional stations at Pendlebury Bolton Road and Pendleton AS WELL as its own platforms at Salford Crescent before 'pootling...' as you you put it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I get that Salford Crescent is a useful station - which is why I want Atherton line trains to continue to use it, rather than pootling aroound the streets of Manchester.

More to the point is the need for Southport services to use the Atherton line. The number of Wigan-Bolton-Manchester services was reduced last May due to concerns about congestion between Bolton and Salford meaning that most Southport services now run via Atherton, as do (virtually) all Kirkby services. If the Atherton line is cut off from the network at Salford Crescent then the number of cross-Wigan services will have to be reduced: not a desirable outcome.

 

[MarkyT]

More to the point is the need for Southport services to use the Atherton line. The number of Wigan-Bolton-Manchester services was reduced last May due to concerns about congestion between Bolton and Salford meaning that most Southport services now run via Atherton, as do (virtually) all Kirkby services. If the Atherton line is cut off from the network at Salford Crescent then the number of cross-Wigan services will have to be reduced: not a desirable outcome.

Surely the new layout at Bolton with the extra platform, and completion of the Farnworth tunnel reconstruction and electrification works will help with this won't it? It is all finished now isn't it?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Surely the new layout at Bolton with the extra platform, and completion of the Farnworth tunnel reconstruction and electrification works will help with this won't it? It is all finished now isn't it?

The extra platform offers no help with accommodating the now half-hourly service on the Blackburn line.

 

[MarkyT]

The extra platform offers no help with accommodating the now half-hourly service on the Blackburn line.

Surely it helps by allowing trains to and from Wigan to move over to #5 and #4 while leaving #3 and #1 for the Blackburns, or have I got it wrong?

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair I think Pendleton was a fair way north of the triangle where I think you are suggesting to put it?

But you could still have an entrance at the west end of the resited station a lot closer to there than at present.

Of course a Metrolink solution could have additional stations at Pendlebury Bolton Road and Pendleton AS WELL as its own platforms at Salford Crescent before 'pootling...' as you you put it.

Yes, and it would take me an hour to get to Atherton. I've had enough of interminable journeys on the route with the replacement buses last year.

I don't want a tramlink botch job.

More to the point is the need for Southport services to use the Atherton line. The number of Wigan-Bolton-Manchester services was reduced last May due to concerns about congestion between Bolton and Salford meaning that most Southport services now run via Atherton, as do (virtually) all Kirkby services. If the Atherton line is cut off from the network at Salford Crescent then the number of cross-Wigan services will have to be reduced: not a desirable outcome.

Indeed. It would be yet another whittling away of network resilience.

The Atherton line is a very good link as it is.

 

[Greybeard33]

More to the point is the need for Southport services to use the Atherton line. The number of Wigan-Bolton-Manchester services was reduced last May due to concerns about congestion between Bolton and Salford meaning that most Southport services now run via Atherton, as do (virtually) all Kirkby services. If the Atherton line is cut off from the network at Salford Crescent then the number of cross-Wigan services will have to be reduced: not a desirable outcome.

Cross-Wigan services are being reduced from the May timetable change anyway. The Kirkby - Victoria stopper is being replaced by separate Wallgate - Victoria and Wallgate - Kirkby shuttles, which do not connect.

As I understand it, this is because Network Rail cannot find a path into Victoria for a 4th hourly service from the Atherton line, as specified in the Northern franchise agreement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cross-Wigan services are being reduced from the May timetable change anyway. The Kirkby - Victoria stopper is being replaced by separate Wallgate - Victoria and Wallgate - Kirkby shuttles, which do not connect.

As I understand it, this is because Network Rail cannot find a path into Victoria for a 4th hourly service from the Atherton line, as specified in the Northern franchise agreement.

That's not going to be received well by the two passengers and their dogs and bicycles

Maybe OPSTA needs to become OPSKWTA? They do seem to be doing quite well at making sure the other rural lines around West Lancashire aren't ignored.

What does seem odd though is that the through services remain in the morning and evening peak - surely when paths are at their scarcest?

 

[yorksrob]

Cross-Wigan services are being reduced from the May timetable change anyway. The Kirkby - Victoria stopper is being replaced by separate Wallgate - Victoria and Wallgate - Kirkby shuttles, which do not connect.

As I understand it, this is because Network Rail cannot find a path into Victoria for a 4th hourly service from the Atherton line, as specified in the Northern franchise agreement.

That's clearly a step backwards in some ways. But part of me thinks that instead of having a Wigan - Kirby shuttle, perhaps the third rail needs to come to Wigan.

That said, I'm surprised that they can't find enough paths through Victoria.

That's not going to be received well by the two passengers and their dogs and bicycles

Maybe OPSTA needs to become OPSKWTA? They do seem to be doing quite well at making sure the other rural lines around West Lancashire aren't ignored.

What does seem odd though is that the through services remain in the morning and evening peak - surely when paths are at their scarcest?

Well, quite !

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's clearly a step backwards in some ways. But part of me thinks that instead of having a Wigan - Kirby shuttle, perhaps the third rail needs to come to Wigan.

That's my view. Merseyrail to Wigan, via Skem once that gets built.

 

[The Planner]

Not even on the back of a fag packet that one, Skem is about as good as you'll get unless Merseyrail want it.

 

[Bevan Price]

Re Atherton Metrolink: That could also allow conversion of the Leigh guided bus corridor to light rail, via a short connecting link near Walkden.

Yes - but that would mean someone admitting they made a mistake converting the Leigh railway line to a misguided busway......

Personally, I think that the Atherton line is too long to be considered as a tram route, and would create problems for Manchester to Southport services should any problems - or engineering work - block the route via Bolton. Of course they could (but wouldn't) reconvert the Atherton route to 4 tracks (as it was until the 1960s), 2 for heavy rail, 2 for Metrolink....

 

[Greybeard33]

What does seem odd though is that the through services remain in the morning and evening peak - surely when paths are at their scarcest?

There are 4tph on the Atherton line in the peaks, with services to/from Wigan (both Wallgate and North Western) as well as the through trains to/from Kirkby. Maybe the issue is the performance impact of running the 4th service all day long?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Surely it helps by allowing trains to and from Wigan to move over to #5 and #4 while leaving #3 and #1 for the Blackburns, or have I got it wrong?

Definitely not all wrong. But splitting Manchester bound trains between 3 and 4 causes problems due to the rather long walk required to get between the two especially in the case of last minute platform changes. It really needs an additional crossing between the two islands towards the Up end.

Cross-Wigan services are being reduced from the May timetable change anyway. The Kirkby - Victoria stopper is being replaced by separate Wallgate - Victoria and Wallgate - Kirkby shuttles, which do not connect.

As I understand it, this is because Network Rail cannot find a path into Victoria for a 4th hourly service from the Atherton line, as specified in the Northern franchise agreement.

But most of the traffic on the Kirkby line is indeed cross-Wigan (purely local passengers are much better served by buses). There have been rows in the past when the timings adversely affected the scholars traffic to/from Orrell. I totally get that pathing in/out/around Manchester is becoming problematic but it would seem that the Wallgate services are very much getting the mucky end of the stick. I would certainly expect TfGM to be exerting pressure on NR to find a solution.

That's not going to be received well by the two passengers and their dogs and bicycles

Maybe OPSTA needs to become OPSKWTA? They do seem to be doing quite well at making sure the other rural lines around West Lancashire aren't ignored.

What does seem odd though is that the through services remain in the morning and evening peak - surely when paths are at their scarcest?

What do you have against the Kirkby line? It may well be that the numbers transferring between Merseyrail/Northern at Kirkby itself are small and few of those go past Rainford. But from Orrell eastwards usage picks up markedly to the extent that the key am peak service has to be strengthened to ensure there is room for passengers after Wigan. And there is reasonable shopping traffic to Manchester though the evening peak fare restriction has dampened that. If it was possible to provide a half-hourly service from Orrell eastwards I am confident that passenger numbers would be boosted but trains have to run to Manchester. Anything else will serve only to depress those numbers.

Personally, I think that the Atherton line is too long to be considered as a tram route, and would create problems for Manchester to Southport services should any problems - or engineering work - block the route via Bolton. Of course they could (but wouldn't) reconvert the Atherton route to 4 tracks (as it was until the 1960s), 2 for heavy rail, 2 for Metrolink....

That could still be done if Metrolink was to run to Leigh via Atherton. It would be nonsense to make the Atherton line a Metrolink only route but parallel routes could work. Running to Leigh would avoid the complications of dealing with Hindley to Wigan which is too far from Manchester for a tram route anyway. Doubtless someone will shout "tram-train" but despite TfW's plans the concept has still to prove itself on British mainline infrastructure.

There are 4tph on the Atherton line in the peaks, with services to/from Wigan (both Wallgate and North Western) as well as the through trains to/from Kirkby. Maybe the issue is the performance impact of running the 4th service all day long?

Quite possibly a less obvious case that would be improved by building Piccadilly 15/16 and thereby reducing the potential for performance issues through Victoria.

 

[Greybeard33]

Personally, I think that the Atherton line is too long to be considered as a tram route, and would create problems for Manchester to Southport services should any problems - or engineering work - block the route via Bolton. Of course they could (but wouldn't) reconvert the Atherton route to 4 tracks (as it was until the 1960s), 2 for heavy rail, 2 for Metrolink....

I believe it would be very difficult, costly and disruptive to reinstate four tracks on the Atherton line, especially with requirements for segregation between tram and heavy rail tracks.

For example, at the site of the former Brindle Heath Junction, the flyover that carried the Fast Lines over the Slow lines has been demolished. West of Swinton, part of the alignment has been sold off and built on - CPOs would be needed. And, where the line burrows beneath the M60/M61 junction complex (17 lanes of motorway!) all four overbridges are only two track width and would have to be rebuilt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you have against the Kirkby line?

That it's an awkward little part-branch-line with relatively low usage, an awkward timetable and no Sunday service that was never intended to stay like that long term and only has done because of funding issues and cross-PTE-border issues. It has always to me made sense to extend Merseyrail on at least a half hourly frequency to Wigan that way, with a Sunday service of at least hourly. A simple cross-platform change would be eased by the Wallgate layout with the bay platform.

You speak as if I was wanting to close it rather than significantly enhance its service.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

That it's an awkward little part-branch-line with relatively low usage, an awkward timetable and no Sunday service that was never intended to stay like that long term and only has done because of funding issues and cross-PTE-border issues. It has always to me made sense to extend Merseyrail on at least a half hourly frequency to Wigan that way, with a Sunday service of at least hourly. A simple cross-platform change would be eased by the Wallgate layout with the bay platform.

You speak as if I was wanting to close it rather than significantly enhance its service.

The issue I have is the idea that stations west of Wigan, in particular Pemberton and Orrell, should lose any through services beyond Wigan when that is exactly the market that makes the line worth promoting. Assuming the Skelmersdale project actually happens I would say that the issue of through services will be even more important. And if a way can be found to meet TfGM's aspiration (and built in to the franchise specification) for an all-day 4tph service on the Atherton line then extending all of them to either Southport or Kirkby/Skelmersdale is a no-brainer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue I have is the idea that stations west of Wigan, in particular Pemberton and Orrell, should lose any through services beyond Wigan when that is exactly the market that makes the line worth promoting. Assuming the Skelmersdale project actually happens I would say that the issue of through services will be even more important. And if a way can be found to meet TfGM's aspiration (and built in to the franchise specification) for an all-day 4tph service on the Atherton line then extending all of them to either Southport or Kirkby/Skelmersdale is a no-brainer.

I suppose that depends on if you think the Atherton line will remain heavy rail. I'm a strong supporter of tram or tram-train, which would leave only 2tph Southport via Bolton through Wallgate as the residual diesel service. That would leave Skem-Wigan as an awkward stub - better to have it as a direct Liverpool service than as something which would be of massive closure risk.

As an alternative I'd support 25kV electrification with high-acceleration EMUs (Class 323s would be perfect), but that would again leave Kirkby out on a limb.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose that depends on if you think the Atherton line will remain heavy rail. I'm a strong supporter of tram or tram-train, which would leave only 2tph Southport via Bolton through Wallgate as the residual diesel service. That would leave Skem-Wigan as an awkward stub - better to have it as a direct Liverpool service than as something which would be of massive closure risk.

As an alternative I'd support 25kV electrification with high-acceleration EMUs (Class 323s would be perfect), but that would again leave Kirkby out on a limb.

With 25k electrification of the lines through Wallgate, a potential option is to continue to Kirby.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With 25k electrification of the lines through Wallgate, a potential option is to continue to Kirby.

If it could be done on the cheap (e.g. no extra substations) this might be a very good idea.

 

[yorksrob]

If it could be done on the cheap (e.g. no extra substations) this might be a very good idea.

It'll need fewer than the third rail.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I suppose that depends on if you think the Atherton line will remain heavy rail. I'm a strong supporter of tram or tram-train, which would leave only 2tph Southport via Bolton through Wallgate as the residual diesel service. That would leave Skem-Wigan as an awkward stub - better to have it as a direct Liverpool service than as something which would be of massive closure risk.

As an alternative I'd support 25kV electrification with high-acceleration EMUs (Class 323s would be perfect), but that would again leave Kirkby out on a limb.

I have said many times that I think the case for tram-trains almost anywhere in this country is slim at best but there was a time some years ago when "tram-train" became something of a buzzword for transport supporting politicians almost regardless of their actual suitability and it seems that a certain amount of blind enthusiasm lingers to this day. This despite the fact that such enthusiasm has largely dried up elsewhere. As regards the Atherton line if it became unavailable to heavy-rail services then there is then the difficulty of scheduling services via Bolton given the general increase for demand on all routes around Manchester. In short the most direct route to Southport is via Atherton and I would not support anything that undermines that. If electrification should return to the agenda then frankly I would just string up 25kv ohle to both Southport and Skelmersdale and be done with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In short the most direct route to Southport is via Atherton and I would not support anything that undermines that.

Southport's primary (the faster of the two) service was for many, many years via Bolton, though. It never bothered anyone.

If electrification should return to the agenda then frankly I would just string up 25kv ohle to both Southport and Skelmersdale and be done with it.

I'd be very happy with that though I think money would be a barrier, particularly as it would probably require demolition of the Wallgate bridge.