North West electrification query

[Ploughman]

Looking at the generic map issued following the announcement today.
It gives the impression that the Liverpool - Preston leg is the line from Ormskirk to Preston.
Is that correct?
If so what will be the full route?

 

[Nym]

No, it's the line vis St Helens to Wigan North Western

 

[jonesy3001]

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416742&SubjectId=2
This should help, look at the electrification bit.

 

[boing_uk]

Ive said it before and I will say it again: I just hope that Kirkham junction is sorted out to allow higher speeds for trains not calling at Kirkham.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sheesh

Every bit of the North West electrification in this BBC map is wrong bar the Manchester-Preston stretch.

1. Missing Liverpool-Manchester
2. Blackpool South isnt being electrified
3. Wrong route for Liverpool-Preston, it should be Huyton-Wigan being done.

 

[scrapy]

Sheesh

Every bit of the North West electrification in this BBC map is wrong bar the Manchester-Preston stretch.

1. Missing Liverpool-Manchester
2. Blackpool South isnt being electrified
3. Wrong route for Liverpool-Preston, it should be Huyton-Wigan being done.

Manchester - Preston isn't even correct, as only Manchester to Euxton is being done (5 miles south of Preston). The WCML is already done.

 

[Jan]

The GWML via Bath Spa (even if only as "delayed") is missing, too.

 

[starrymarkb]

I suspect the journo that knocked up the map (and they are made in a hurry, think how many articles are posted on BBC News per day) just traced the direct routes

 

[Nym]

Just another slight problem with the map, Has themslink been shrunk to only Bedford - Brighton all of a sudden? wasn't it going to include the GN routes? and more southern/southeastern suburban ones?

 

[The Engineer]

The NW electrification will give choices of alternative electrified Preston to Liverpool and Manchester routes via the Chat Moss Liverpool to Manchester route. This route is already partially electrified at the Liverpool end (to Edge Hill) and between Earlestown and Newton-le Willows as a through route to and from the West Coast Main Line.

 

[lancastrian]

I am glad that this current government have decided to continue with these North West Electrifications. However I feel that they have missed a good oppotunity to further enhance electric services in the north west.

There are a number of short enhancements that would really benefit, both commuters and further deminish desiel services under the wires.

1. Oxenholme to Windermere. Although it is often just a shuttle service, but think of the distance travelled under wires just to get back to its home depot. Also a number of services are through from Manchester Airport. To run electric trains all the way makes good economic sense.

2. Lancaster/ Hest Bank to Morecambe. Again a useful infil that would beneifit through services, without a change at Lancaster.

3. Manchester Victoria/Guide Bridge to Stalybridge. This would be helpful not only would it free up platform space at M/cr Victoria, but if the line from Guide Bridge is included it will help the case for electrication through to Leeds.

4. South Liverpool Parkway to Deansgate, via Warrington Central. This is so obvious I cannot understand why they choose the Chat Moos route. It serves more people and larger population centres, plus this is the main Trans Pennine services route, so again improving the case for Trans Pennine electrification.

5. Ormskirk to Burscough Bridge, via the burscough loops. This again is very basic, not only does it extend the Mersey Rail system very easily, it also brings a proper conection with the Wigan to Southport line. The current Preston to Ormskirk services to be diverted done the north loop and continue through to Southport, reinstating the lost preston to Southport service that went in 1964.

I think all these would benefit the North West.

 

[ukrob]

I think all these would benefit the North West.

Of course they would - but you can't do everything at once - you start with the projects which give the best cost/benefit ratios amongst other things.

For example, you say you can't understand why Chat Moss was chosen over the Warrington route. The Warrington route would not allow electrified diversionary routes to both Liverpool and Manchester from the WCML, nor would it allow services from Manchester to Scotland to be electrified. Also the Huyton - Wigan route would be pointless (and therefore not happen).

It is important not to just look at face value

 

[lancastrian]

Fair comment ukrob. I accept that it cannot all be done at the same time, but as always with these things, there seems to be a lack of forward planning. A great deal of effort is put into setting up for these electrifications, but after the work is done, what then for the teams that have done the work? Where do the go next?

Nothing is ever planned for the next stage of electrification, so that both passengers geta beter service, and the Government get improved 'green' cridentials. All I am asking for is 'common sense, long term forward planning'.

But I know not to really expect that from short term politicans.

 

[Nym]

Well if you wanna free up space at piccadilly, electrfying fro Ashburys into Victoria and putting more East Facing platforms back in there could free up the eastern approaches, same as all the routes from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge and Victoria, if the curve from ?Heaton Norris? to Piccadilly was put back in, using the platform space freed up at piccadilly you could run services through victoria to terminate at Piccadilly, heaven knows even open a station in Eastlands for interchange onto the Metrolink?

Even if you don't want to have that happening, if you electrify Ashburys to Victoria, the new electric services east out of victoria could be run through to Glossop and Hadfeild, aswell as terminating some of them at Guide Bridge (where theres plenty of space for another two platforms again) or Ashburys where you could also add two more platforms. Would free up space at victoria by not having as many services terminating from the west, and piccadilly by diverting these services through victoria, and for those who say you'd loose links into piccadilly from the east, you could always change at Ashburys or Guide Bridge on the suburban services to get into Piccadilly, and for those who don't want to change, most services are half hourly, send half to picc, half to (and through) vic

 

[swt_passenger]

I am glad that this current government have decided to continue with these North West Electrifications. However I feel that they have missed a good oppotunity to further enhance electric services in the north west.

There are a number of short enhancements that would really benefit, both commuters and further deminish desiel services under the wires.

1. Oxenholme to Windermere. Although it is often just a shuttle service, but think of the distance travelled under wires just to get back to its home depot. Also a number of services are through from Manchester Airport. To run electric trains all the way makes good economic sense.

Reported as under consideration in current Modern Railways. Do some Windermeres still split and join with Ed/Glas TPE services, or did that stop - I haven't been keeping up.

Apparently another proposal is Crewe - Chester.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fair comment ukrob. I accept that it cannot all be done at the same time, but as always with these things, there seems to be a lack of forward planning. A great deal of effort is put into setting up for these electrifications, but after the work is done, what then for the teams that have done the work? Where do the go next?

Have you looked at Network Rail's electrification RUS? There are enough electrification proposals and costed BCRs etc in there to cover the next 50 years or so, and list after list of options for which order to do incremental additions in, eg sections of the XC network.

Just because there's nothing more than GW and NW being discussed in the wider public domain doesn't mean there is no forward planning going on...

 

[Welshman]

"Apparently another proposal is Crewe - Chester"


Indeed - and MR says the proposal is to run pendos to Chester and withdraw "some or all" London-Holyhead trains, to allow the 221s have a pantograph vehicle incorporated, and then be used on the Manchester Airport-Scotland services, currently operated by TPE 185s.

Whilst I fully agree with the 221s being converted to bi-mode, it would be a retrograde step not to return some to the Holyhead route. Virgin's recently-improved North Wales service has been a great boon and the market is growing - most of the services are well-filled, and whilst a change at Chester may be necessary in the short term while the conversion is taking place, it would be ironical that a line which has been crying-out for bi-mode operation for the last 40 years or so should be denied that service when the technology is eventually available!

 

[YorkshireBear]

apparently windemere branch under consideration due to it needing no extra power supply, does that mean barrow should be done too? so all FTPE NW is electric?

 

[Lampshade]

apparently windemere branch under consideration due to it needing no extra power supply, does that mean barrow should be done too? so all FTPE NW is electric?

It'd be a no-brainer not to, it's not all that far.

Reported as under consideration in current Modern Railways. Do some Windermeres still split and join with Ed/Glas TPE services, or did that stop - I haven't been keeping up.

The 16:15 from Piccadilly is Edinburgh/Windermere and there's a Blackpool one as well. The Windermere services are rather infrequent now, most are dedicated shuttles.

 

[Nym]

But when windermere is running all the way though it is quite popular, if the diesel stock becomes available it may be an idea to have the Barrow services ran perminantly with a Windermere attached. so clockface would be (on North West off Airport)

xx:00 Barrow & Windermere
xx:03 Southport (Northern)
xx:29 Blackpool North
xx+1:00 Edinbrugh and/or Glasgow Central
xx+1:03
xx+1:29 Blackpool North

Now if it where up to me and the paths could be found north of Lancaster, and of course, there is enough rolling stock. I'd be looking at more services to scotland. For example

Currently
Barrow or Edinbrugh or Glasgow (1tph) (0.5 to Barrow)
Blackpool North (1tph)

Barrow 0.5tph Windermere 0.5tph (alternate hourly parths to Lancaster)
Glasgow 0.5tph Edinbrugh 0.5tph (alternate hourly paths to Lancaster) preferably alternate hourly with the VT services off New Street, creating near hourly services for stations in the lakes, etc to each of the scottish destinations.
Blackpool North 1 or 2tph

That would need 3 electric paths and 1 diesel through bolton and across castlefeild.
If pathing isn't available at Bolton, one of the electrics could be sent to run via Newton.
And if pathing isn't available into piccadilly, split the Blackpool N and Scottish service at either Piccadilly or Oxford Road, platform lengths would proberbly dictate this be Piccadilly.

Services to scotland would revert to electric operation and the stock bolster TPE North, would be enough to at least have 6 carrages on half the TPE Norths to York. Run the Middlesbrough and Newcastle off Airport to be 6 car, (as these diagrams switch at MIA, the arriving NCL works the Middlesbrough and vice versa, save messing around with changing stuff round too much, and can add interchangability with ?cl180s?, alternativly, and it can be done within the current timetable (JUST), but would need a change of platforming, drop the extra carrages at Piccadilly, but this is an intresting dream, where do you then clean the stock? This is normally done between MAN and MIA anyway, so keep it at 6 car all the way there, the platforming there will allow 6x23m + 2x23 on a platform (southport train is parked behind the NCL one). The BPN stock cascaded can be used to operate the additional windermere services.

 

[PhilipW]

apparently windemere branch under consideration due to it needing no extra power supply

Where does this information come from ?

I have not heard of it anywhere.

I agree that it is a sensible option, but that is quite different from saying that it is under consideration

 

[philjo]

Where does this information come from ?

I have not heard of it anywhere.

I agree that it is a sensible option, but that is quite different from saying that it is under consideration

It is mentioned in the December issue of Modern Railways.


The proposed West coast timetable has a 2-hourly euston-Lancaster service operated by 221s. Would it be feasbile to extend a couple of these services per day to Barrow (calling at principle stations e.g. Carnforth, Grange, Ulverston)?

 

[cle]

What's the capacity up the line from Bolton to Preston?

I really don't think Manchester - Scotland trains should be stopping at places like Chorley, which is a commuter and medium flow, certainly not a long distance one.

They could alternate stops at Oxenholme/Penrith/Lockerbie/Carstairs/Motherwell with the Birmingham - Scotland trains to have some skip stopping, and cut journey times down.

If they ran via Wigan NW with the new wiring, that would probably be the first stop. For example, it could be cut from the Birmingham - Scotland trains, as local flows could be covered by the LM from Brum/Crewe/Warrington to Preston.

Surely better than calling at Salford Crescent(?)/Bolton/Chorley etc... which are much better served on Blackpools, and maybe if pathing allowed, an hourly Lakes/Barrow service, again better for semi-fast.

 

[lancastrian]

Well the Manchester to Scotland trian should stay travelling through Bolton. Diverting them through Wigan, which already has services to Scotland is a complete waste of time and effort. As far as I know, the only place they call at between Manchester and Preston is Bolton, which is a large town, with a large catchment area for potential passengers. As for capacity, there was plenty at one time, and supprisingly they land is still available for replacing long loop both North and South of Bolton Station. They still exsist between Bolton and Moses Gate, just need upgrading and all the trees that are growing through some places need cutting down. Between Bolton and Lostock Junction there space for the four tracking is still available. Therefore it is possible to install a ful four track section all the way from Lostock junction through Bolton, (reopen platform 5) to Moses Gate. This would enable slow trains to be overtaken and cross platform conections at Bolton. Thsi would give a four track section of about 7/8 miles. This sould solve any potential bottlenecks between Manchester and Euxton Junction.

 

[tbtc]

What's the capacity up the line from Bolton to Preston?

I really don't think Manchester - Scotland trains should be stopping at places like Chorley, which is a commuter and medium flow, certainly not a long distance one

The problem is that an hourly Manchester - Preston - Scotland service is running in place of a "regular" Manchester - Preston service, so needs to stop at places like Bolton/ Chorley to maintain the normal service to these places.

Chorley is still bigger than places like Lockerbie/ Oxenholme, of course

 

[Nym]

Well, if they where scheduled to skip chorley that would make it easyer in times of divertions via Wigan / Westhaghton.

4 track would actually also be possible at moses gate station, bit of re-modeling needed, but all possible, and this 4 track could also be extended proberbly as far as chorley, a logical end point would be Horwich Parkway, or in fact Chorley, would be a lot of work replacing the ticket office but could be 4 trakced through chorleyto finish on the north side of chorley before the arches, and then be able to terminate commuter services there, Horwich Parkway would be a lot easyer as a terminus though, and would make sense, as BPN services call there and are then fast to Piccadilly. Possibly divert the moses gate, farnworth, kearsley stopper to terminate at some shiney new platforms at Horwich, hence making it electric, and a hell of a lot easyer to keep out of the way of expresses, being quicker to accelarate.

But, also, the Lostock Jcn - Wigan South Jcns line should be electrified. not much line and then all but two services of the eight current services through bolton would be electric. (Barring Airport - Southport and Victoria - Clitheroe) and would provide a diversionary route when Lostock to Euxton Jcn is closed. And then with all these electric services running at about the same speed, thats going to free up some capacity to fit in the scottish services and keep them seperate from the commuter ones. So for example as a timetable:

Airport - Blackpool N 1tph (Picc, OR, Deansgate, Salford Cres, Bolton, (Lostock), Horwich, Chorley, Preston, etc.) (Leccy commuter)
Airport - Lakes 1tph (Barrow/Windermere alternating) (Diesel 185) (Picc, OR, Salford Cres, Bolton, (Horwich), Chorley, Preston
Airport - Scotland 1tph (Glasgow/Edinbrugh alternating) (Please be tilting leccy stock!) (Picc, OR, Bolton, Preston)
Airport - Southport 1tph (current stopping pattern + Lostock)
Airport - Horwich Parkway (using the current Airport - Piccadilly and extending to Horwich Parkway, all stations to Salford, fast to bolton, lostock, horwich)
Hazel Grove - Preston (Current pattern, move to commuter leccy)
Victoria - Blackburn / Clitheroe (as is), possibly extra services on Wigan - Bolton - Blackburn, most pepole change off for an airport train at bolton anyway
Victoria - Blackpool N (as is)
Victoria - Wigan Wallgate 2tph (as is)
Victoria - Horwich Parkway stopper 1tph

I don't think 11tph is too much to ask?

maybe some significantly larger car parks? Horwich Parkway is rediculously small, and theres a nice big chunk of land on the operside side of the tracks, they wanna have a P&R to take the strain off the M61, put a massive car park in then!

 

[Lampshade]

Yes but pre-2007 Manchester - Scotland was VXC, there was only the Blackpool - Buxton and the Blackpool TPE services (think there was an alternating Barrow/Windermere TPE as well). There is now an extra service between Manchester and Preston with all of them stopping at Chorley - so Chorley gets 4tph to Manchester when it doesn't need such a service.

 

[lancastrian]

4 track would actually also be possible at moses gate station, bit of re-modeling needed, but all possible, and this 4 track could also be extended proberbly as far as chorley, a logical end point would be Horwich Parkway, or in fact Chorley, would be a lot of work replacing the ticket office but could be 4 trakced through chorleyto finish on the north side of chorley before the arches, and then be able to terminate commuter services there, Horwich Parkway would be a lot easyer as a terminus though, and would make sense, as BPN services call there and are then fast to Piccadilly. Possibly divert the moses gate, farnworth, kearsley stopper to terminate at some shiney new platforms at Horwich, hence making it electric, and a hell of a lot easyer to keep out of the way of expresses, being quicker to accelarate.

Yes I agree that 4 ytrack is possible from Moses Gate through Bolton Station and on to Lostcok Junction, 4 track exsisted between these places in the past. On from that is more problomatic, it might be possible to extend the 4 track as far as Horwich Parkway, but to go any further would cost far to much. The more sensible idea would to only 4 track between Moses Gate & Lostock Juncyion and then to build a 3rd platform/turn back at Horwich Parkway, this along with a new large carpark for a park and ride as stated above, just off the M61, by the Reebok Staduim.

To electrify between Lostock Junction to Wigan North Western to create an alternate diversionary route is a very good idea, it should be extended through to Southport as well. The more lines that are electrified, the more that infilling is going to be more beneficial, and the dynamic for having the whole of the North West Lines being electrified is increased.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

4 track would actually also be possible at moses gate station, bit of re-modeling needed, but all possible, and this 4 track could also be extended proberbly as far as chorley, a logical end point would be Horwich Parkway, or in fact Chorley, would be a lot of work replacing the ticket office but could be 4 trakced through chorleyto finish on the north side of chorley before the arches, and then be able to terminate commuter services there, Horwich Parkway would be a lot easyer as a terminus though, and would make sense, as BPN services call there and are then fast to Piccadilly. Possibly divert the moses gate, farnworth, kearsley stopper to terminate at some shiney new platforms at Horwich, hence making it electric, and a hell of a lot easyer to keep out of the way of expresses, being quicker to accelarate.

Yes I agree that 4 ytrack is possible from Moses Gate through Bolton Station and on to Lostcok Junction, 4 track exsisted between these places in the past. On from that is more problomatic, it might be possible to extend the 4 track as far as Horwich Parkway, but to go any further would cost far to much. The more sensible idea would to only 4 track between Moses Gate & Lostock Juncyion and then to build a 3rd platform/turn back at Horwich Parkway, this along with a new large carpark for a park and ride as stated above, just off the M61, by the Reebok Staduim.

To electrify between Lostock Junction to Wigan North Western to create an alternate diversionary route is a very good idea, it should be extended through to Southport as well. The more lines that are electrified, the more that infilling is going to be more beneficial, and the dynamic for having the whole of the North West Lines being electrified is increased.

 

[Anvil1984]

Alreet Lancastrian, so we meet again!!

The bit missing off the current electrification that I would like to see first is extend the wires to Rochdale and Stalybridge. They both need train lengthening (especially in the peaks) and its work towards TPE / Calder Valley wiring. They ould terminate one of the Calder Valley DMU services in the bay at Rochdale if needed to free up a path for anoth DMU. It would also free some space on the through platforms at Vic too.

 

[Nym]

Yeah, but IMO from Wigan Wallgate to Southport should be 3rd Rail, then if they build that curve between the Wigan - Southport and Liverpool - Preston line, through services can run as leccy. The cost of the line that length doesn't currently justify 1tph out of two that could be elecrtic, 1tph Southport - Wigan Wallgate - Bolton - Piccadilly - Airport and 1tph Southport - Wigan Wallgate - Atherton - Walkden - Salford - Victoria.

Another thing that I think should be being considered for the North West is a station at Leigh again, take a branch immidiatly west of Walkden and meet up with the old perminant way to the south, having stations at Tyldsley and Leigh. Since Walkden is the busyest station on this branch having services leave after there is sensible, and the Leigh services would be half hourly all day to Walkden or Salford Crescent (when re-moddeled with 6 platforms, move the station north of it's current loaction, north of the junctions, 3 platforms per line to enable terminators) with one extended into Victoria, and in the peak, all services to victoria, making 2tph Leigh - Walkden 2tph Wigan - Walkden and 4tph Walkden - Victoria on peak and 3tph off peak.

But then again, this maverick would be closing junctions on the East Lancs Road and building a new linkway on a perminant way that's never going to be used again from the A575 to the A572 and widening it to 3 lanes with an AP layout from the A6 to the A579... I know, silly...

PS: it would be a lot of work, but you could 4 track all the way from Chorley to Salford Crescent (except for Farnworth - Kearsley Tunnels), but for the cost of that, it would be cheaper to build a second line to Bolton from Atherton following the Atherligh alignment to Cherquent and picking the line up at Lostock Jcn, then provide pt.6 at bolton to services from the North, would knakcer any plans to use the PWay for Atherton West Bypass to finish the Atherligh way, but theres plenty of other space to build a nice D2 road round there anyway, (unlike through leigh that has had to settle for an S2W)

IMO, if we had 4 track from Moses Gate to Horwich Pway, we should be looking to handle all the crossing movments at Bolton (where everything stops anyway) as up to Bolton the lines would be running US UF DF DS, after bolton I'd be looking at US DS UF DF, this would allow all wigan bound services to diverge without crossing the fast lines, I would also have Lostock providing platforms on the slow lines only, with corssovers available to work onto both sets of lines oviously. That would be the general running rules, but I'd have the innermost two tracks at a minimum signaled bi-directional to Lostock or Horwich.

 

[tbtc]

Yes but pre-2007 Manchester - Scotland was VXC, there was only the Blackpool - Buxton and the Blackpool TPE services (think there was an alternating Barrow/Windermere TPE as well). There is now an extra service between Manchester and Preston with all of them stopping at Chorley - so Chorley gets 4tph to Manchester when it doesn't need such a service.

Yeah, it's complicated by the fact that Virgin's service through Bolton became a TPE one, which meant Windermere lost its direct Manchester services during the day

Before you had the following every two hours

Manchester Airport - Blackpool
Buxton - Blackpool
Manchester Airport - Windermere
Manchester Airport - Blackpool
Buxton - Blackpool
Manchester Airport - Barrow
Piccadilly - Edinburgh/Glasgow

= seven trains/ two hours

Now you have

Manchester Airport - Blackpool
Victoria - Blackpool
Manchester Airport - Edinburgh/Glasgow
Hazel Grove - Preston
Manchester Airport - Blackpool
Victoria - Blackpool
Manchester Airport - Barrow
Hazel Grove - Preston

= eight trains/ two hours