Future of the Blackpool South line

[61653 HTAFC]

The double track is extended a bit but Kirkham gets extensively rationalised and remodelled as part of the work with a new platform 3. Blackpool South will use 1 bi-directionally and North will be the mains through 2 and the new 3.

A double-track entry to the branch seems a sensible move- a bit like the changes at Barnsley Court House junction a few years back: the Huddersfield line is now double for a few hundred yards towards Dodworth.

 

[MarkyT]

One signal might be, but TCB can still be OT.

Originally, OT was a cheap method of avoiding continuous track circuiting on a stub end branch without having to use a token or train staff of a conventional or radio electronic nature either. Technically the method is like one end of a tokenless block installation with a series of track circuits having to be occupied and cleared and mechanical or electronic treadles operated in a particular sequence to assume clearance of the section. In order that no part of a train can be left in section, all trains on the line must be continuously braked (which is standard everywhere now anyway). Signals were not required at reversing points, as with similar token and train staff operated lines, so there must be a permanent overlap maintained at all times at the junction home signal (this can usually be assured fairly easily by layout design and interlocking). Often local instructions require trains reversing to get permission by telephone, so the signaller knows when it is safe or not to cross at intermediate level crossings and can advise users accordingly. Early TCB, with continuous track circuits in similar applications, also did not need signals at reversing locations, however a rule was introduced at least 2 decades ago now to require this for new installations. With modern axle counters, continuous train detection requires much less equipment than with traditional track circuits, making TCB a more affordable option for stub branch lines, although the rule about signals at reversing locations still applies. On the Falmouth branch in Cornwall the section between Penwithers Junction and the new Penryn Loop was signalled as TCB with axle counters, while the stub end beyond was classified OT, thus avoiding the need for a starting signal at Falmouth Docks. It is possible to use complete continuous TCB controls using axle counters (as that is safer) but still classify the line as OT in order to avoid the expense of the terminal reversing signal. It does not appear they have done this on the branch in question however, as designers have also provided a starting signal at Blackpool South.

 

[D60]

(Operation on the South Fylde Line appears for years to have required the driver of services returning from B'pl South to use the on-platform telephone at St Annes to speak to the signaller before departing from St Annes towards Kirkham..)

 

[MarkyT]

The down line splits into two at about 7 and half miles. Platform 1 is the Down Lytham and is bi di from the station onwards. Platform 2 is the Down Fylde and is also bi di in the platform for Blackpool South trains. Platform 3 is up only. The Blackpool South line is twin track bi di to about 8 and three quarter miles to a new Kirkham West Jn where the single commences. There is crossover between the Down and Up Fyldes at about 8 and quarter miles. The Up Lytham joins near there at Kirkham North Jn.

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

 

[MarkyT]

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

Thinking about it probably no need for down advanced starters on the Lythams. West junction is trailling in that direction so no worries about the half mile rule either.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

Great diagram - thanks. BTW - I assume like the vast majority of electrification schemes, there will be some wire overruns onto the B'Pool Sth branch -say 100 metres or so?

 

[The Planner]

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

That is pretty much the jist of it, the OTM siding stays I think and there is passive provision for the tip siding to go back in. I'll check again tomorrow.

 

[Codville]

That is pretty much the jist of it, the OTM siding stays I think and there is passive provision for the tip siding to go back in. I'll check again tomorrow.

When was the tip last used?

 

[Elecman]

As far as I am aware the telephonecat St Anne's is for guards to use before trains depart towards Blackpool South in case of airfield emergencies between there and Squires Gate. This was instituted after a plan crash about 45 years ago when a plane failed to gain hieght after take off and crashed into the old Pontins holiday camp, not long after a train had passed.

 

[HSTEd]

If the crayons are out - how about a route from Lythan south to Southport, with new a station near Crossens and through electric services from Blackpool South to Liverpool Central and Hunt's Cross via Southport?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If the crayons are out - how about a route from Lythan south to Southport, with new a station near Crossens and through electric services from Blackpool South to Liverpool Central and Hunt's Cross via Southport?

Slightly tongue in cheek but in circa 2012 when electrification was in full vogue, I honestly thought Blackpool South -Kirkham would get the sparks and then Preston - Ormskirk/Burscough and the chords/curves get done so Blackpool South to Southport and onwards if necessary was doable by about 2030. Seriously, I honestly thought there was a chance.

 

[D60]

If the crayons are out - how about a route from Lythan south to Southport, with new a station near Crossens and through electric services from Blackpool South to Liverpool Central and Hunt's Cross via Southport?

I seem to think that historically there once was such a scheme/proposal to link the north and south banks of the Ribble during the (first) municipal tramway era, by way of a river crossing in the vicinity of Warton..? (I think it is referenced in a book about the Lytham St Annes Corporation Tramways which I have buried away in a box somewhere... And I can't remember the details... apart from it being a bit bonkers even for the era, what with it being a shipping channel back then..)..

 

[Dr Hoo]

I vaguely remember reading about this idea too. IIRC it would have involved a transporter bridge with tracks for the trams precisely because of the shipping.

 

[D60]

I vaguely remember reading about this idea too. IIRC it would have involved a transporter bridge with tracks for the trams precisely because of the shipping.

Yes.. it was something along those lines..

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The down line splits into two at about 7 and half miles. Platform 1 is the Down Lytham and is bi di from the station onwards. Platform 2 is the Down Fylde and is also bi di in the platform for Blackpool South trains. Platform 3 is up only. The Blackpool South line is twin track bi di to about 8 and three quarter miles to a new Kirkham West Jn where the single commences. There is crossover between the Down and Up Fyldes at about 8 and quarter miles. The Up Lytham joins near there at Kirkham North Jn.

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

Assuming that's all correct (and your diagram does look to me like a fairly good representation of what ThePlanner has described), I'm just trying to figure out the rationale. The main benefit would seem to be that, if a train gets delayed on the Blackpool South line, the following Blackpool South train can wait for access to the branch on Kirkham platform 1, out of the way of the Blackpool North line - so it doesn't cause knock-on delays to the main line. And presumably, siting Kirkham West junction away from the main line also means that if a train from Blackpool South has to wait to join the main line, it can do so on the new short double track part of the branch, so it doesn't hold up the following Blackpool South train.

Both of those seem like quite sensible ways to improve reliability to both Blackpool North and Blackpool South, but I'm just speculating that's the purpose. Can anyone confirm?

 

[D60]

Assuming that's all correct (and your diagram does look to me like a fairly good representation of what ThePlanner has described), I'm just trying to figure out the rationale. The main benefit would seem to be that, if a train gets delayed on the Blackpool South line, the following Blackpool South train can wait for access to the branch on Kirkham platform 1, out of the way of the Blackpool North line - so it doesn't cause knock-on delays to the main line. And presumably, siting Kirkham West junction away from the main line also means that if a train from Blackpool South has to wait to join the main line, it can do so on the new short double track part of the branch, so it doesn't hold up the following Blackpool South train.

Both of those seem like quite sensible ways to improve reliability to both Blackpool North and Blackpool South, but I'm just speculating that's the purpose. Can anyone confirm?

All I can confirm from the perspective of the casual observer, is that to maintain the tight hourly schedule, Kirkham-Bpl South trains are scheduled to depart the platform before trains from South arrive, and are often/usually waiting at the junction for the up train to exit the branch...
I haven't been able to view the plans for the new layout.. but presumably extending the twin track further onto the branch will have the effect of shortening the single-track length, and allow a late-running service off the branch to be passed slightly earlier.. effectively shortening the branch slightly..?

 

[MarkyT]

Both of those seem like quite sensible ways to improve reliability to both Blackpool North and Blackpool South, but I'm just speculating that's the purpose. Can anyone confirm?

I agree with your analysis. Today the Blackpool South services are about 5 or 6 minutes apart at K&W so it's quite tight. The three platform layout gives the down branch train somewhere to wait without delaying other traffic if the up branch is a bit late, and if the up platform is temporarily blocked, the short double track section provides somewhere for the up branch train to wait so the next down branch train is not delayed. A very well optimised new layout for today's traffic patterns IMHO, yet also very economical in terms of the final total number of point ends.

Incidentally, the current Google Earth aerial imagery of the area is fairly recent, dated mid July this year, and some of the work for the new layout is already visible, including the new second track on the branch, and clearance of the through lines adjacent to the station ready for new platform construction.

 

[The Planner]

Just had another look and even though the line doesn't show as bi-di, there is a signal on 3 that allows access back to Blackpool South too.

 

[Sox]

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

An interesting subtlety is that the "fixed reds" permit bi-directional working only of the platform serviced sections of track.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Something like this perhaps?

http://www.townend.me/files/kirkham&wesham.pdf

Are there any sidings or other facilities retained?

A very much simplified junction.
The waiting South train will not block the line to BPN

Am I right in saying a train from South, at Kirhham West Junction is able (subject to signals)
to travel on the down Lytham line, to platform 1 only?
to travel on the up Lytham line to platform 2 only?
or travel on the up lytham line via the crossover to platform 3 and beyond to Preston etc.
A South train from Preston can use Platform 1 via the down Lytham or Platform 2 via up Lytham.

Trains to Blackpool North from Preston only use down platform 2. Trains from Blackpool North to Preston use only Platform 3.

An extra crossover on the Preston side would give a little more flexibility.

Wish they could dump some of the replaced track and switches down at Fairhaven for a passing loop lol!

 

[Lytham Local]

So much for any hope of a better service on the South Fylde line..... https://www.parliament.uk/business/...s/written-question/Commons/2018-01-16/122975/

Q
Asked by Mark Menzies
(Fylde)
Asked on: 16 January 2018
Department for Transport
Railways: Fylde

Commons
122975
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 December 2017 to Question 120042, for what reasons the Answer of 11 December 2017 to Question 117958 stated that the decision to increase service frequency would be a commercial decision for the Train Operating Company to make when his Department has stated that it is not feasible for Northern Rail to increase the frequency of trains from the current hourly service on the South Fylde line without upgrading the existing single-track line infrastructure.

A
Answered by: Joseph Johnson
Answered on: 23 January 2018

In the event that the South Fylde line did upgrade the existing single-track line infrastructure or the Train Operating Company were able to otherwise realise greater capacity on the network through other means it would be a commercial decision for the Train Operating Company to make. The current terms of our franchise agreement do not require or financially support the Train Operating Company’s operation of an additional level of frequency beyond the current levels.

With a rugby pass like that, Joseph Johnson could play for Wigan.

 

[Lytham Local]

Posted this in the speculative ideas forum by mistake.

The local MP's are getting involved (again) to get something moving on getting a passing loop on the line .... (I used OCR to convert the image to text so the text is a bit wonky here and there).

MARK MENZIES MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWIA OAA
The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP Secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport 33 Horseferry Road
29 January 2020

Dear Grant.

RE: Restoring Railways project and the South Fylde rail line

We are writing in relation to the Restoring Railways project and the South Fylde railwaY wfilch classified as a long siding, from Preston to Blackpool South.

We understand the aim of the funding is to get closed rail lines reopened; here we have a rail line which lost its second track, and the ability to run a, semblance of a decent timetable. The South Fylde railway line can only support one service per hour at present, usually consisting of two carriages.

This line serves the towns of Kirkham, Lytham and St Annes in Fylde, and also two of the biggest tourism attractions in the UK in Blackpool South — Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Blackpool Sandcastle Waterpark. The Pleasure Beach alone can attract in excess of five million visitors per year, and the Sandcastle — Europe's largest indoor waterpark — more than 300,000.

The South Fylde line used to run into the since-demolished Blackpool Central Station, and lost its second track in the early 1980s, forcing a reduction and decline in services. The line is so limited, the owners of the Pleasure Beach do not use it for performers and business partners, opting instead to dnve to Preston to collect them; with better services we could see the Pleasure Beach actively promoting it to its five million visitors.

We have met with Transport For The North and they tell us they have a minimum requirement for two services per hour on all rail lines; we need to secure funding for a passing loop to allow more than one service at a time to be on the South Fylde line.

Would we be able to submit an application for funding to the Restoring Railways initiative to help us achieve this goal? We would like to meet to see how we could take the matter forward with Restonng Railways— or any other funding packages which may be available.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Menzies
Scott Benton MP
MP for Fylde MP for Blackpool South

 

[seasidersfan]

Trams would be a far better option. That is the wrong and short sighted option...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Posted this in the speculative ideas forum by mistake.

The local MP's are getting involved (again) to get something moving on getting a passing loop on the line .... (I used OCR to convert the image to text so the text is a bit wonky here and there).

MARK MENZIES MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWIA OAA
The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP Secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport 33 Horseferry Road
29 January 2020

Dear Grant.

RE: Restoring Railways project and the South Fylde rail line

We are writing in relation to the Restoring Railways project and the South Fylde railwaY wfilch classified as a long siding, from Preston to Blackpool South.

We understand the aim of the funding is to get closed rail lines reopened; here we have a rail line which lost its second track, and the ability to run a, semblance of a decent timetable. The South Fylde railway line can only support one service per hour at present, usually consisting of two carriages.

This line serves the towns of Kirkham, Lytham and St Annes in Fylde, and also two of the biggest tourism attractions in the UK in Blackpool South — Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Blackpool Sandcastle Waterpark. The Pleasure Beach alone can attract in excess of five million visitors per year, and the Sandcastle — Europe's largest indoor waterpark — more than 300,000.

The South Fylde line used to run into the since-demolished Blackpool Central Station, and lost its second track in the early 1980s, forcing a reduction and decline in services. The line is so limited, the owners of the Pleasure Beach do not use it for performers and business partners, opting instead to dnve to Preston to collect them; with better services we could see the Pleasure Beach actively promoting it to its five million visitors.

We have met with Transport For The North and they tell us they have a minimum requirement for two services per hour on all rail lines; we need to secure funding for a passing loop to allow more than one service at a time to be on the South Fylde line.

Would we be able to submit an application for funding to the Restoring Railways initiative to help us achieve this goal? We would like to meet to see how we could take the matter forward with Restonng Railways— or any other funding packages which may be available.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Menzies
Scott Benton MP
MP for Fylde MP for Blackpool South

Nice to see someone is using the Restoring Railways project to put in a sensible proposal! Though seems a bit baffling that he's only asking about the passing loop, and not about re-opening back to Blackpool Central - I'd have thought both are needed to really transform how useful the line is.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Trams would be a far better option. That is the wrong and short sighted option...

i would disagree. Extend the line to Central and you have something that's virtually as useful as the tram for getting into Blackpool city centre - potentially faster than the tram for getting to some parts of the City Centre, depending a bit on where the hypothetical new station is. Keeping it as a train route means in the long run, you get better quality, more comfortable, journeys and preserve the direct link to Preston (which is surely almost as big a traffic generator as Blackpool for some of the places on the route). Besides, converting to a tram line would potentially mean a very long extended closure and rebuild.

 

[Mikey C]

If not all the way to Central, would South station be more useful if the line was extended a bit further into town and a new station was built on Bloomfield Road near the football ground?

 

[Howardh]

Trams would be a far better option. That is the wrong and short sighted option...

It makes sense whilst there is still room south of Squires Gate to link the current tramway with the railway. At Kirkham would the trams have the single platform to themselves and heavy rail the other two? But of course either trams or train the track needs doubling.
Also, is it possible to "fork" at Squires gate and have one line joining the current tramway and the current rail take trams beyond Blackpool South and deep into town (ie by Bloomfield Road, street run to Coral Island/Tower) and link there to the tramway into Blackpool North (when completed) or would that not be worth the extra expense?

 

[Lytham Local]

If not all the way to Central, would South station be more useful if the line was extended a bit further into town and a new station was built on Bloomfield Road near the football ground?

I think the cost of reinstating the bridges would put the project onto being unaffordable. Also, according to the Gazette, the funding to build "whatever" on the old Central Station has been approved, so that would be out. Generally, I've not heard anyone moan about getting off at South station as they have a specific reason for going there - BFC, or the pubs on Lytham Road.

The trams proposal just isn't financially viable in my opinion.

Having an interchange at Kirkham was done in the 1980's - and it was absolutely hated.

Between the east end of Lytham and Kirkham there just isn't a market. The halt at Moss side got 2,800 entries and leavers according to the stats. A campaign to re-open Wrea Green has never got anywhere and despite the new houses being built, everyone is using a car, so they won't get a tram to Kirkham or Blackpool.

Buses generally run empty from Lytham to St Annes - except at peak times obviously. At most other times, passengers are on concession travel, so without the peak time travel or subsidy from the government, the buses run at a loss. Stagecoach does well as it goes from Blackpool to Preston linking Warton, Freckleton which aren't part of the tram proposals. The small 76 bus was recently reduced to 1 an hour as it just isn't commercially viable to run a service.

I can't see how they could link the tramway at Squires Gate to the railway line. It's all pretty much built up these days.

I'm of the opinion that if it is kept as simple as possible (ie a passing loop) then we might have a chance of getting it. Wanting to extent the line or converting it to tramways (or interchange) would just add too many variables for it to be considered.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Blackpool Transport and Stagecoach both operate a 15 minute frequency along the Blackpool, St. Annes and Lytham corridor so it does rather imply that there is a significant demand and ideal tramway territory. Blackpool South is hopeless as a terminus, and any chance of reaching Central now lost as redevelopment might finally be happening. I like the compromise solution of heavy-rail continuing to Lytham and St. Annes, with parallel-running of heavy-rail / tramway between the two, using the former double-track formation. Connecting the tramway at Starr Gate /Squires Gate is not a problem; there is sufficient room south of the new housing development on the former holiday-camp site.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The idea of minor celebrities being booked for performances at the Pleasure Beach, and rolling up at the back entrance on a 150 with their entourage is quite amusing, I guess...