Burscough curves turned down

[Bald Rick]

Well what is difficult about it, in physical terms ?

My comment wasn’t specifically about Burscough Curves, more about the principle of building new railways, even those that are relatively short. It really isn’t a case of rocking up with a chainsaw, some sleepers and rail and ‘making it so’. The amount of planning needed to make sure that you are a) legal, b) in line with engineering codes (ie standards), and c) going to get the expected benefit from your investment is immense.

Using Burscough Curves as an example, I will now list just a small fraction of the things that would need to be done:

Full Ground investigation
Traffic management plan for construction
Noise assessment for construction
Drainage assessment
Biodiversity assessment
Arboricultural assessment
Detailed timetabling study - to prove you can run the train service you want
Performance modelling of the timetable
Traction power study on the route of any additional services
Signalling power supply assessment
Trespass and Vandalism assessment (noting a school borders one of the Curves)
Radio survey
Property clearance
Land referencing
Planning application (in this case, probably submitting a notice of prior approval)
Community engagement plan
Communications plan
Level crossing risk assessment on the route of any additional services
Signal Risk assessment for all new signals and any existing high risk signals on the route of any additional services
New patrolling plans

And so on.

If you don’t do any of these, and then something goes wrong, either the service won’t work, or it’s a one way trip to the big building in town to stand in front of the man/woman with a funny wig.

I thought Okehampton had been funded by a different pot.

Very much reopening your railway fund. As is the Ashington branch. Between them that’s nearly half the fund spent.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's an alternative Burscough idea.

This would reinstate only one of the Burscough curves to provide the link between Burscough Junction and Burscough Bridge stations, providing for the extended Merseyrail service to Southport via Ormskirk and possibly increased frequency on the Preston line. Every other train from Liverpool would continue past Ormskirk to Southport using battery power beyond the end of the existing 3rd rail. Ormskirk - Preston service would continue, terminating in a new bay platform at the north end of Ormskirk station, providing cross-platform interchange in both directions with the terminating trains from Liverpool. The station at Burscough Junction would be rebuilt/relocated with a central 'island' configuration for easy interchange between Southport and Preston trains. Ormskirk - Wigan interchange would be at Burscough Bridge station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The big advantage of my proposal is that it provides most of that connectivity with only one overall additional diagram, or none if you double track to Burscough.

 

[Bald Rick]

The big advantage of my proposal is that it provides most of that connectivity with only one overall additional diagram, or none if you double track to Burscough.

It would be more diagrams. The Ormskirk - Preston service has (at last) been rediagrammed, I think from May, and in your proposal it would only save a fraction of a diagram on that line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be more diagrams. The Ormskirk - Preston service has (at last) been rediagrammed, I think from May, and in your proposal it would only save a fraction of a diagram on that line.

To operate reliably hourly, Ormskirk-Preston requires two diagrams. These were slightly hidden in the circuit including Colne and Blackpool S, but an extra one was added in due to severely poor timekeeping. They passed on the WCML rather than the traditional Rufford.

if they have lopped the second one back out again, then the timetable will not work and they will end up putting it back in again.

I was basing my calculations on that - +2 on Merseyrail (or +1 if double-tracked to Burscough), -1 on Northern. I worked the timetable and diagrams out ages ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

To operate reliably hourly, Ormskirk-Preston requires two diagrams. These were slightly hidden in the circuit including Colne and Blackpool S, but an extra one was added in due to severely poor timekeeping.

if they have lopped the second one back out again, then the timetable will not work and they will end up putting it back in again.

I don’t know the detail of the new diagrams, but they will be segregated. I don’t think one has been removed in total, but I do think it is more efficient and robust.

Regardless, turning the Preston - Ormskirk services at Burscough instead wouldn’t save a whole diagram, as in this (theoretical) example, the diagrams would all be reworked and the net difference would be less than a diagram. I’m talking about staff here, rather than units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m talking about staff here, rather than units.

Sorry, I was talking about units. Staff are of course more complex due to the need to cover for PNBs and the likes.

If they've split it back up it'll be 4 for Blackpool S-Colne and 2 for Ormskirk-Preston (as it was in the 90s). But having a look at the 2022 proposals they seem to be a hourly circuit thus:

Ormskirk and Colne is:
Preston 0824 - Colne 0933
Colne 0952 - Preston 1103
Preston 1110 - Ormskirk 1141
Ormskirk 1146 - Preston 1217

And Blackpool South is:
Preston 1249 - Blackpool S 1325
Blackpool S 1330 - Preston 1408

I think unless my brain is going foggy that's 6 unit diagrams whether they are interworked or not (6 or 4+2), which is the same as now, it's just that you don't have a unit spending an hour at Preston like you do now, the recovery is more spread out. So Ormskirk is still effectively two, though to take one out you'd have to change it back to the 1990s pattern of hourly Blackpool S-Colne (4 diagrams) and hourly Preston-Ormskirk passing at Rufford (2 diagrams).

The late 90s-late 2000s Ormskirk-Preston was a self contained single unit shuttle running about every 1 hour and 10 minutes. Running time is currently 29 minutes, Burscough Jn-Ormskirk being 5 minutes, hence why you could get hourly with one unit if you lopped that bit off. Though admittedly it would be a little tight self-contained and so Midge Hall could not be reopened unless you continued to interwork with something else.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would be surprised if car ownership in those parts was far below 100% (one vehicle per household at any rate). I would be equally surprised if north Sefton (Crosby to Southport) was much less. But in the latter case people have access to a frequent and generally efficient rail service, which is well used. The cars might be sitting in garages and on driveways but if people have a choice of good alternatives they will use their cars less. Hence a bigger contribution towards saving the planet. In the West Lancs semi-rural, semi-suburban plain, there is little real alternative at present. For the sake of comparative coppers a lot could be done.

Perhaps it would have been better if I had cited some of the hamlets and villages in the rural areas between Ormskirk and the southern reaches of Preston where car ownership is high:-
Hurlston
Halsall
Mawdesley
Cocker Bar
Much Hoole
Hall Green
Walmer Bridge

 

[507020]

Which doesn't make it simple then, Burscough bridge is just a small panel as is Rufford. Either would need a complete renewal which could likely trigger a re-signaling of the line and likely control into Manchester.

You need a complete resignalling between Southport and Burscough Bridge and Ormskirk and Farington Curve Junction anyway. Beyond Burscough Bridge could easily stay as it is if you reopened the curves but at Parbold are semaphores and trains run onto Castlefield, so what’s wrong with replacing those exactly?

you are wrong - one opened on Monday!

Which one was that then? It was Saturday when I went to Okehampton.

If it was reopened with a car park, I reckon Midge Hall would be the busiest station on the line. Flabbergasting that it was closed.

It probably would be, especially if it had higher frequencies to Liverpool and Preston than the WCML Leyland station.

rocking up with a chainsaw, some sleepers and rail

What excellent idea. I will carry out all of the reopening work myself the next time I am in Burscough.

Here's an alternative Burscough idea.

This would reinstate only one of the Burscough curves to provide the link between Burscough Junction and Burscough Bridge stations, providing for the extended Merseyrail service to Southport via Ormskirk and possibly increased frequency on the Preston line. Every other train from Liverpool would continue past Ormskirk to Southport using battery power beyond the end of the existing 3rd rail. Ormskirk - Preston service would continue, terminating in a new bay platform at the north end of Ormskirk station, providing cross-platform interchange in both directions with the terminating trains from Liverpool. The station at Burscough Junction would be rebuilt/relocated with a central 'island' configuration for easy interchange between Southport and Preston trains. Ormskirk - Wigan interchange would be at Burscough Bridge station.

Where’s your Southport to Preston service with this though? Any scheme of no benefit to Southport is worthless. If anything is done it has to work for Southport, Liverpool, Ormskirk, intermediate urban settlements between Liverpool and Ormskirk, intermediate rural settlements between Southport, Burscough and Preston, Leyland, Preston and of course Burscough itself. Compromising the scheme so it doesn’t benefit the most people it can makes it not worth doing.

 

[daodao]

Compromising the scheme so it doesn’t benefit the most people it can makes it not worth doing.

It ain't worth doing at all. Proposals to re-open the Burscough curves should be put into deep storage.

It is more important to maintain the direct rail link between Ormskirk (in West Lancashire) and Preston (Lancashire's county town, now city) than creating one between Southport (in Merseyside) and Preston.

For travelling between Ormskirk and Southport, most people drive, but for those without a car, there is a decent bus service, which runs daily including evenings and Sundays, and half-hourly Mon-Sat daytime.

 

[The Planner]

You need a complete resignalling between Southport and Burscough Bridge and Ormskirk and Farington Curve Junction anyway. Beyond Burscough Bridge could easily stay as it is if you reopened the curves but at Parbold are semaphores and trains run onto Castlefield, so what’s wrong with replacing those exactly?

So now the "simple" scheme of reinstating the curves has morphed into a tens of millions re-signaling scheme? And this scheme ranks higher than others?

 

[Pinza-C55]

My comment wasn’t specifically about Burscough Curves, more about the principle of building new railways, even those that are relatively short. It really isn’t a case of rocking up with a chainsaw, some sleepers and rail and ‘making it so’. The amount of planning needed to make sure that you are a) legal, b) in line with engineering codes (ie standards), and c) going to get the expected benefit from your investment is immense.

Using Burscough Curves as an example, I will now list just a small fraction of the things that would need to be done:

Full Ground investigation
Traffic management plan for construction
Noise assessment for construction
Drainage assessment
Biodiversity assessment
Arbiricultural assessment
Detailed timetabling study - to prove you can run the train service you want
Performance modelling of the timetable
Traction power study on the route of any additional services
Signalling power supply assessment
Trespass and Vandalism assessment (noting a school borders one of the Curves)
Radio survey
Property clearance
Land referencing
Planning application (in this case, probably submitting a notice of prior approval)
Community engagement plan
Communications plan
Level crossing risk assessment on the route of any additional services
Signal Risk assessment for all new signals and any existing high risk signals on the route of any additional services
New patrolling plans

And so on.

If you don’t do any of these, and then something goes wrong, either the service won’t work, or it’s a one way trip to the big building in town to stand in front of the man/woman with a funny wig.




Very much reopening your railway fund. As is the Ashington branch. Between them that’s nearly half the fund spent.

Well I was talking specifically about the Burscough curves and the fact that there appears to be no physical impediment to reopening them. In addition another poster has said that they are still NR property so several of things you mentioned don't apply. I am well aware that -generally- reopening disused railways is fraught with complications. I used to be a member of the Eden Valley Railway which despite having all of the track to Appleby intact has yet to run a train there.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well I was talking specifically about the Burscough curves and the fact that there appears to be no physical impediment to reopening them. In addition another poster has said that they are still NR property so several of things you mentioned don't apply. I am well aware that -generally- reopening disused railways is fraught with complications. I used to be a member of the Eden Valley Railway which despite having all of the track to Appleby intact has yet to run a train there.

Everything I wrote would apply to Burscough Curves. And much more besides. Which do you think wouldn’t apply?

 

[WAO]

Apples and oranges. On LU you walk (admittedly sometimes for what seems miles) between platforms in a dry and usually warm environment, with no need to consult a timetable because the train you want will be along in a couple of minutes. That's all the difference in the world from alighting at one windswept platform in the middle of nowhere, probably in the rain since it's Lancashire, finding your way down steps or ramps or trusting in an unreliable lift, to find your connecting train is delayed by 20 minutes.

True for Zone One in the tunnels (the temperature can be in the 30's), but most of LUL, LO and NSE (as was) is on the surface and has much the same pneumonia and poor connection risk.

The SE does however have competent, capacious trains and kept most of its awnings and shelters which the unwise provincials did not.

Merseysiders do change trains in the (tunnelled) centre.

WAO

 

[urbophile]

Please delete

 

[6Gman]

It would have to be both curves, not just one or the other. Trains can terminate at Southport, Preston and Liverpool Central, not Ormskirk. The sum total of work is devegetation, 66 chains of track laying, 4 point faces, 2 crossovers if single track curves and a bit of signalling to run the extra trains. The extra rolling stock itself can be added to an order currently being built by Stadler.

I struggle to see how or why this would be years away if work started immediately after it has been possible to start a service to Okehampton within months of the initial announcement. I believe Network Rail have carried out early stage work on the embankments at Burscough as part of the GRIP process.

So what does the timetable look like?

2 or 4 tph Liverpool - Ormskirk - Southport?
1 or 2 tph Ormskirk - Preston?
1 or 2 tph Southport - Preston?

I now see you have specified your service proposals.

It looks like a lot of trains for an area which is not exactly densely populated outside the main towns.

 

[daodao]

So what does the timetable look like?

2 or 4 tph Liverpool - Ormskirk - Southport?
1 or 2 tph Ormskirk - Preston?
1 or 2 tph Southport - Preston?

I now see you have specified your service proposals.

It looks like a lot of trains for an area which is not exactly densely populated outside the main towns.

I do not support your proposal to withdraw the existing 1 tph Ormskirk-Preston service. I also support retention of 1 tph Southport-Wigan, with peak hour extras. Neither require re-opening of the Burscough curves.

 

[6Gman]

I have relatives who live in Southport and I'm reasonably familiar with the area as both a rail passenger and a driver.

I can see who is going to use a Southport - Preston service (not convinced sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile, but I can see a market).

I'm struggling to see who is going to use Ormskirk - Southport beyond a few day trippers into Southport. I've driven the Southport - Ormskirk road on quite a few occasions and I really don't recognise the suggestion that it's some sort of country lane dogged by tractors! Southport Hospital was mentioned upthread but it could hardly be further away from the station and still be called Southport! If there's a requirement to link it to Ormskirk surely the bus would be a better option?

 

[507020]

I'm struggling to see who is going to use Ormskirk - Southport beyond a few day trippers into Southport. I've driven the Southport - Ormskirk road on quite a few occasions and I really don't recognise the suggestion that it's some sort of country lane dogged by tractors! Southport Hospital was mentioned upthread but it could hardly be further away from the station and still be called Southport! If there's a requirement to link it to Ormskirk surely the bus would be a better option?

Anyone in Southport going to Liverpool tomorrow would use the service via Ormskirk because the other line is closed for engineering works and it would be faster to go on a through train via Ormskirk than go on a rail replacement bus and change at Formby.

 

[Bald Rick]

Anyone in Southport going to Liverpool tomorrow would use the service via Ormskirk because the other line is closed for engineering works and it would be faster to go on a through train via Ormskirk than go on a rail replacement bus and change at Formby.

How often does this situation occur?

 

[507020]

How often does this situation occur?

Not very but this is not the only situation which would induce passengers to use the diversionary service.

 

[daodao]

Not very but this is not the only situation which would induce passengers to use the diversionary service.

Building/re-opening lines to provide diversionary routes is almost never warranted or cost-effective. Frankly, it is sensible that the proposal to reinstate the "Burscough curves" has been turned down; IMO it should be abandoned entirely as the benefits would be minimal (a slight decrease on the journey time by public transport from Southport to Preston). However, I do support retention of hourly services on the existing lines through the Burscough stations. If there is to be any rail development in West Lancashire, building a short line from the existing Wigan-Kirkby line into Skelmersdale town centre may be worthwhile. Southport doesn't need levelling up (except possibly to reduce its risk of being submerged by the Irish Sea as sea levels rise due to global warming).

 

[Bald Rick]

Frankly, it is sensible that the proposal to reinstate the "Burscough curves" has been turned down; IMO it should be abandoned entirely

Well no one is going to be doing any work to progress it for the foseeable future. If that’s not ‘abandoned’ I don’t know what is!

 

[507020]

Building/re-opening lines to provide diversionary routes is almost never warranted or cost-effective. Frankly, it is sensible that the proposal to reinstate the "Burscough curves" has been turned down; IMO it should be abandoned entirely as the benefits would be minimal (a slight decrease on the journey time by public transport from Southport to Preston). However, I do support retention of hourly services on the existing lines through the Burscough stations. If there is to be any rail development in West Lancashire, building a short line from the existing Wigan-Kirkby line into Skelmersdale town centre may be worthwhile. Southport doesn't need levelling up (except possibly to reduce its risk of being submerged by the Irish Sea as sea levels rise due to global warming).

What about supporting 30 minute services through Burscough stations? This is what has existed through Burscough Bridge for many years and the increase through Burscough Junction would generate increased ridership.

 

[Djgr]

I have relatives who live in Southport and I'm reasonably familiar with the area as both a rail passenger and a driver.

I can see who is going to use a Southport - Preston service (not convinced sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile, but I can see a market).

I'm struggling to see who is going to use Ormskirk - Southport beyond a few day trippers into Southport. I've driven the Southport - Ormskirk road on quite a few occasions and I really don't recognise the suggestion that it's some sort of country lane dogged by tractors! Southport Hospital was mentioned upthread but it could hardly be further away from the station and still be called Southport! If there's a requirement to link it to Ormskirk surely the bus would be a better option?

The fact that the intermediate stations between Meols Cop and Burscough struggle to generate 5,000 passengers a year AMONGST themselves probably doesn't help the developments argument.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact that the intermediate stations between Meols Cop and Burscough struggle to generate 5,000 passengers a year AMONGST themselves probably doesn't help the developments argument.

There is one developments argument possible - build "eco villages" centred on them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is one developments argument possible - build "eco villages" centred on them.

Are you aware the the strictures of the planning procedure that so apply in the areas that you make reference to?

 

[Djgr]

There is one developments argument possible - build "eco villages" centred on them.

Yes. I mean that's not going to happen.

I think it's time to walk away from this and acknowledge that none of the ideas involving the Burscough curves really seem to meet any meaningful market needs.

I also think too much of the argument seems to revolve on cultural aspects of Southport's unhappiness with being associated with Liverpool, which is ironic really because so many in the town seem happy enough to take their salary from there.

 

[6Gman]

Not very but this is not the only situation which would induce passengers to use the diversionary service.

Offer us some further examples then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you aware the the strictures of the planning procedure that so apply in the areas that you make reference to?

In West Lancs? Nothing out of the norm.