What would run to Stalybridge? It'll be wired up and with a bay, wanting. 2tph Victoria shuttle? Seems a waste of turnback potential.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Wigan to Bolton electrification: possible changes to services
- Thread starter daodao
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
adrock1976
Established Member
I was anticipating the Liverpool via Earlestown and the Bangor (Caernarfon if reopened) via Warrington Bank Quay to continue to Stalybridge, so as to avoid trains weaving across as much as possible.
Although I have suggested in my previous post the 2x Rochdale - Airport, these would be the only trains that would weave across the layout near Victoria, plus it would make some use of the Ordsall Curve while fulfilling the long anticipated Victoria - Airport.
An alternative would be for the 2x Preston - Vic to continue to Stalybridge.
Greybeard33
Established Member
Your service proposals appear to assume electrification to Rochdale, which the Manchester Rail Blueprint indicates will not be delivered before the early 2030s, a decade after Wigan - Bolton and Victoria - Stalybridge electrification. We do not yet know the detail of what other infrastructure capacity enhancements and new rolling stock might be delivered by then, so IMO it is rather pointless to speculate about the service patterns that far in the future.
adrock1976
Established Member
I did mention in parentheses that Airport - Rochdale could be operated with bimodes until wires reach there.
Your proposals would require an awful lot of bimodes however. More diagrams than the Northern and TfW fleets of 769s could provide (assuming that the latter could be refitted to work on AC again).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One of the many, many reasons that the 195/331 fleet should have been a single bimode fleet, and that the new orders should be bimode based on the 331 and not 195s.
Greybeard33
Established Member
If your proposals are intended for the nearer term, I am afraid they are impractical on the current infrastructure, even if Northern could obtain enough bimodes. By my count you have a total of 14tph through Castlefield, after adding in the 2tph Liverpool - Sheffield, 1tph TPE Airport - Saltburn and 1tph freight.
The Task Force has determined that 12tph off peak, 13tph peak (as per the December 2022 timetable) is the maximum allowable through Castlefield, pending the Tranche 2 infrastructure enhancements (late 2020s). With no more than 10tph through Piccadilly (including freight).
Edit: tph corrected
Last edited:
Manutd1999
Member
To be pedantic, the Dec 22 proposes 11ph passenger + 1ph freight off-peak. In the peaks, there is an extra 1ph Warrington - Oxford Road, although perhaps this replaces the freight path?
adrock1976
Established Member
Excluding the freight path, I make this 12 in total for Castlefield when including the Liverpool - Sheffield - Cleethorpes/Nottingham.
No trains from the east side of the Pennines to use the Ordsall Curve, nor London trains, nor any attempts at reintroducing the demised Sussex Scot. The Ordsall Curve simply to be used for local Rochdale - Airport every 30 minutes.
The Blackpool - Airport could be dropped to 1tph, as I would have the 2x Preston - Victoria (maybe Stalybridge) via Bolton already covering.
Last edited:
Greybeard33
Established Member
Oops!
Previous post corrected.I don't think there is a restriction on freight in the peaks.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Victoria does not have the platform or siding capacity to turn around 2tph TPEs from Leeds. In the December timetable one of them will continue to the Airport via the Ordsall Chord.
Nor does Victoria have capacity to turn around even 1tph from Preston in combination with the other services. The existing Preston - Victoria is being binned in December.
Last edited:
adrock1976
Established Member
Oops!
I don't think there is a restriction on freight in the peaks.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Victoria does not have the platform or siding capacity to turn around 2tph TPEs from Leeds. In the December timetable one of them will continue to the Airport via the Ordsall Chord.
Nor does Victoria have capacity to turn around even 1tph from Preston in combination with the other services. The existing Preston - Victoria is being binned in December.
Do the TPE not fit in Platforms 1-2?
Only a single 185 fits, nothing longer than that.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Could tranche 2 facilitate an increase from the 12 tph off peak? Or does it just facilitate better efficiency?
It is very odd to me that the Task Force have apparently decided that the pre-2018 service is unacceptable and incompatible to be honest, given that it ran from December 2013 to May 2018 with more than the apparently now maximal provision.
Of course it's legitimate to argue that the December 2017 timetable was inadequately reliable and was unacceptable from a resources perspective, but I note that not only did nobody argue that at the time but now people seem very happy to simply gloss over it.
To put it another way, the taskforce is being highly conservative in order to protect themselves. Reasonable, and given their brief, they probably couldn't have come to any better conclusions. But I wish people were honest about that rather than declaring the December 2022 proposals the best possible use of current resources. They're absolutely not. But the changes I would have made to the B+ plan were documented upthread and that ship has very much sailed now.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think there's also an unwillingness to accept that the Ordsall Chord should never have been built (or not yet, anyway), and so mothballing it pending the Castlefield capacity work is too much of a loss of face.
It wasn't great before Ordsall (it's not really worked properly since the pre-1998 TT), but Ordsall tipped it over the edge.
I agree with that. Some trains having to use it in order to save face when in fact it is causing net disbenefit is worthy of very severe criticism.
There would be no issues with the chord being used only for empty stock movements in reality.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed.
It's preposterous that the local stations east of Warrington are being told they can only have an hourly, or in some cases two-hourly, service, simply so that one TPE destination can avoid having to walk about 30 yards across Piccadilly to connect to an Airport service rather than having a direct service via Vic. It has no interchange benefit because it's only hourly - for the majority of people wanting to get from a Vic service to Picc the tram or changing at Salford/Bolton makes more sense.
The hourly TPE that does that should run into Picc trainshed (low numbered platforms) and terminate there, and the Chord be mothballed for now. It is truly the tail wagging the dog.
Last edited:
Greybeard33
Established Member
Pre-May 2018, the 4ph TPEs that ran into the Piccadilly main shed (Hull, York, Middlesbrough and Cleethorpes) were all 3-car 185s, and the latter 3 only had a short dwell before reversing out to/from the Airport. With today's longer trains, I doubt there is the platform capacity to terminate the Redcar/Saltburn service at Piccadilly as you suggest. The layover time would have to be nearly an hour to match the paths across the Pennines.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Blueprint says, for the opportunities from Oxford Road remodelling plus resignalling of central Manchester:
In the 09 March Rail North Committee meeting, Andy Burnham demanded more clarity on the timeline for restoring the services culled from the timetable, i.e. a programme driven by timetable outputs rather than just a menu of infrastructure upgrades. The Task Force took an action to respond on this before the next meeting.
Last edited:
I think it's rather more preposterous telling people in Huddersfield, Leeds, York etc. that they have to lose their direct train to the Airport - which they have had since the Airport branch opened in 1993 - because the (rather less numerous) users of the Southport line can't bear losing their Castlefield service.
Ultimately though, there are always going to be people who are left dissatisfied with the outcome - whether it's the users of an existing service or those who have been promised a service that's never materialised - for as long as the politicians prevaricate on spending the money that's needed.
There may be less passengers along the Southport-Burscough-Wigan-Bolton corridor than the York-Leeds-Dewsbury-Huddersfield one, there will be because they are smaller settlements. Southport is however quite a bit closer to Manchester than York and passengers in Yorkshire may wish not to travel as far and use Leeds-Bradford Airport if possible.
Southport had its airport service from 1998, not long after the line opened and has already had it taken away. Other than from Southport itself, from where it is east to get to Liverpool South Parkway and John Lennon Airport, I doubt passengers from Wigan and Bolton are likely to consider using any other airport than Manchester.
Ultimately, Castlefield/Airport services should be allocated based on a formula of population and distance. Leeds and York are obviously very large but Southport and intermediate stations are closer to Manchester and represent quite a significant number of people. Both should retain Castlefield and Airport services, as should Blackburn, Burnley and Rochdale which have never had them. The point being that Southport is not to blame for infrastructure problems in Manchester and should not be unduly punished, while other towns and cities some of which are larger than Southport are overdue the direct Castlefield and Manchester Airport services they equally deserve, through no fault of Southport’s.
If Yorkshire passengers can use Leeds Bradford Airport then, by the same logic, surely Southport passengers can use Liverpool Airport?
Of course the reality is that both of these airports only have a limited selection of flights, primarily to European package holiday destinations, whereas people for most other destinations will need to use Manchester Airport - which is the busiest airport in the country outside London.
I would have said they should be allocated based on the demand that can realistically be served by rail - there will be certain flows where the route by rail is particularly circuitous and/or slow, whilst the route by road is quick and easy.
For example, based on those criteria, Stockport to Manchester Airport ought to have a very intensive train service. As it stands, there is one direct train each way per day, and despite discontent from Sheffield etc. passengers, that's the most it's ever likely to be again.
Southport is a town with a population of 90,000. Even if the entire population of West Lancashire lived near to a Southport line station, that would only be another 110,000 people. Wigan is the first place en-route that is of any notable size, having 107,000 people (330,000 within the entire borough). Bolton has 139,000 people (262,000 within the entire borough). So in total you are talking about, at most, 792,000 people.
As close as they may be, the West Yorkshire Urban Area has a total of 1.8m people, let alone York and beyond - or any of the other places from which people might feasibly railhead into an Airport service.
In terms of distance, Southport to Manchester Airport is 36 miles as the crow flies, whilst Huddersfield to Manchester Airport is 28 miles and Leeds is 43 miles away.
In conclusion, the stations served by a Southport service are hardly much closer than Leeds et al, yet have a combined population of less than half that of the West Yorkshire Urban Area, let alone areas further along the line.
It's also worth noting that Wigan and Bolton will have their own services to the Castlefield corridor (even if not the Airport), so really this is about the stations between Wigan and Southport.
In an ideal world, everyone would have through services to the Airport. But that's not the world we live in, and so compromises are needed.
In my view, priority ought to be given to those services which currently run (as is the case under the Network Code) and which have existed for the longest time - bearing in mind that some people will have moved to places based on the train service in place. Remaining capacity should be allocated based on demand.
Southport isn't to blame for the infrastructure limitations, no, but given these limitations, there is always going to be winners and losers.
And given that background, IMO it is unreasonable to subject CLC "fast" passengers to lots of additional stops (as will be the case under the new timetable) whilst still disadvantaging users of certain stations through the loss of the half-hourly, cross-Warrington stopping services. All because Southport line residents created a sufficient political nuisance to stop the original proposals from coming into place.
There's not going to be a Southport to Manchester Piccadilly or Manchester Airport service regardless of what happens next, so I am unsure what the point you're making is.
That logic is reasonable for Southport, but West Lancashire, Wigan and Bolton are much less likely to use Liverpool Airport. I am aware that Manchester Airport has by far the most destinations outside London, however most people only go on 2 flights a year, one to a European package holiday destination and one back, but depending on where else you could be going, if you can find a flight to a European destination with a major hub airport e.g. Germany, then Liverpool or Leeds-Bradford airports may be useful.
I can tell you that about 2/3 of the flights I’ve been on have been from Manchester and the other third have been from Liverpool.
Several flows can be strung together from the list of towns and cities that has been compiled in order of priority based on distance and population, often serving others which wouldn’t justify a service of their own along the line, e.g. Southport-Burscough-Wigan-Westhoughton-Bolton-Castlefield-Airport.
Yes, Stockport ought to have an extremely intensive direct rail service to the nearby airport (not reversing at Piccadilly) but unfortunately the track layout precludes since the airport is on the Stockport avoiding line. There are 2 competing options to resolve this, either allow this short distance Stockport - Airport traffic to be carried by the roads, or build new rail infrastructure to connect Stockport to the airport directly. I suspect the compromise will be the latter in the form of one of the next extensions of the Metrolink. Unfortunately neither of these help Sheffield, who are in a very bad position now but not because of Southport since the Sheffield service (from the east) never ran via Castlefield.
These look to be reasonable estimates of population, so by my own system the Southport - Airport service has a priority of 22 and the Leeds - Airport service has a priority of 41.86, so a service from Yorkshire proves to be almost twice as important to have, which isn’t surprising given the size of Leeds as one of the largest cities in Great Britain. I would have used the distance to the centre of Manchester itself and run the highest priority Castlefield services through to the airport, but it still provides a good illustration.
If we look at what other services there are, there is a Southport - Stalybridge, Clitheroe - Rochdale, Kirkby - Blackburn, Wigan - Leeds and Preston - Victoria all running to Victoria, with Castlefield services provided by Southport - Alderley Edge, Blackpool North - Hazel Grove/Airport and Barrow/Windermere - Airport, with only an hourly service from each of Wigan and Bolton running through to the airport. If the Barrow/Windermere services were diverted via Bolton, Wigan would have then lost all airport services, which is concerning for a part of Greater Manchester.
I think the optimal solution involves a clockface 2tph Manchester Airport - Bolton with one extended to Blackpool North and the other extended to Southport, with the other Southport running somewhere via Victoria and the other Blackpool running to Hazel Grove as it has done for many years.
So if you were to make this assessment in early 2018, you would have given priority to the Southport - Airport service that was currently running and had been running since 1998? Most of the demand from stations between Wigan and Southport is to the south side of Manchester and Piccadilly and this has been scientifically assessed to be the case many times.
The issue with the CLC line east of Birchwood is that there are too many non-stations opened at various points in time which are now too close together and on an unelectrified line it is unreasonable to require longer distance passengers to endure stops at all of them. I would concentrate service on Irlam and perhaps one or two more, but close the rest. West of Warrington, all stops with only Hunts Cross, Halewood, Hough Green and Widnes above the “fast” service pattern is not unreasonable.
The main service requirements for how the CLC line is used are for Warrington West to Padgate, Birchwood, Castlefield and the Airport, Birchwood and Padgate to Warrington West, Liverpool South Parkway and Lime Street and all of the above to Warrington Central. It is even more unreasonable to terminate services at Warrington Central. If they must not be through services, then services from Liverpool should terminate at Birchwood and services from Manchester should terminate at Warrington West, giving a doubled frequency across Warrington.
It has been proved at Ormskirk and Kirkby that non-through services are unworkable and no more should be split like this. Ultimately it is likely that the Merseyrail service will be extended from Liverpool Central and Hunts Cross to Warrington Central or preferably Birchwood, but with the requirement for continued through services from Lime Street to Manchester with a reduced number of stations east of Warrington.
The other thing that is unreasonable is requiring the Southport - Stalybridge service to serve the stations between Bolton and Salford Crescent given the distance it has travelled. The stations between Victoria and Rochdale are served by a service terminating there. It would be equally unreasonable for the Clitheroe service to serve them instead for the same reason, but it would have the justification of stations north of Bolton and east of Victoria. The best service for them would be the electric Preston - Victoria or failing that one of the Blackpools run by a fast accelerating 331 and not a 150.
There’s not going to be a Southport - Piccadilly/Airport service in the MRTF B+/December 2022 timetable, but it’s unlikely that there will never be one again, especially after the infrastructure constraints are resolved. The service pattern is likely to be reconfigured several times over the next 10-15 years pending the outcomes of infrastructure work in the area.
This thread deals with the potential changes to services following the Wigan - Bolton electrification. This may be as early as December 2024 but it's clear that other work such as the changes to the building and extension of platforms at Manchester Oxford Road, addition of a platform at Salford Crescent or grade separation or other changes to Slade Lane Jn and Euxton Jn won't be able to fit into that timescale. Even then, given the latter two don't seem to be under particularly active consideration, and the scope of proposed changes at Salford Crescent looks like it will make very little difference, there is no meaningful ambition to start the sort of wholesale change you're suggesting. Furthermore, even if there was, it hasn't been accepted that an important outcome of that would be a service from Southport to Manchester Airport.
The problem is unlikely to be considered "resolved" any time before 2030 given the current very conservative thinking.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that this is exactly what is happening. Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood cannot go below 2tph. If you only want to run one stopping service, one long-distance service has to make these calls.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Did you actually read my post? I said the CLC, not Southport. I specifically said the CLC because it has no alternative.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
So it doesn’t state specifically how many. Yet if we are starting from a position of 12 tph in to Oxford Road and 10 tph in to Piccadilly, whatever increase we see, could it equalise out the throughput between Oxford Road & Piccadilly with let’s say 14 tph through both?
Manutd1999
Member
One compromise solution could to keep my original proposal (2ph Wigan-Victoria-Stalybridge and 2ph Southport-Victoria-Calder Valley) but introduce a new, half-hourly, Victoria-Bolton-Preston-Blackpool stopper.
The existing Airport/Castlefield-Blackpool service could then run semi-fast and be split into 1ph to Blackpool and 1ph to Southport (via Bolton and Wigan).
Southport and Blackpool would have the same service level: half-hourly stoppers to Victoria and 1ph semi-fast to the Airport.
I'm not sure if there is capacity at Victoria, but the new turn-back siding to the east may help?
The existing Airport/Castlefield-Blackpool service could then run semi-fast and be split into 1ph to Blackpool and 1ph to Southport (via Bolton and Wigan).
Southport and Blackpool would have the same service level: half-hourly stoppers to Victoria and 1ph semi-fast to the Airport.
I'm not sure if there is capacity at Victoria, but the new turn-back siding to the east may help?
I can see work on the Wigan - Bolton electrification every time I go on the line, but I hadn’t even thought of grade separation of Euxton Junction (on the WCML) as something that could be done. Would grade separation of Farington Curve Junction not be considered at the same time since it seems to be a more challenging approach to Preston?
The current problems (beyond the lack of a Southport - Piccadilly/Airport service) are concentrated more in the centres of Manchester and Salford than as far out as Preston though aren’t they. It will likely take over 10 years to resolve satisfactorily but there is at least some visible progress.
Irlam only had 1tph last time I checked and it didn’t seem like an adequate service for it. The Airport service currently serves Birchwood anyway, so that is only 2 additional stops, which isn’t too unreasonable considering they are some of the bigger stations. Would it be possible for any of the others to have 0tph like Sankey for Penketh or the MUFC platform due to proximity to other more significant stations? What calls are planned to be made west of Warrington?
Which of course it doesn’t, having lost the Manchester Central terminus. The CLC line would therefore need to be exempt from any prioritisation of paths through Castlefield, but given the requirement above all else for cross-Warrington services, the stopping pattern should be tailored to provide improved reliability and then the line should be modernised and electrified, which seems to have been announced.
You can’t run 3tph to Southport. The signalling from Wigan to Southport is Absolute Block with a 7 mile long section between Burscough Bridge and Southport that takes over 20 minutes to clear, which makes the present slightly uneven 2tph about the most you can run and it’s quite tight as it is.
daodao
Established Member
Therefore, keep it simple with 2 tph dmu Southport via Atherton to Victoria (and beyond), and 2 tph emu Wigan NW via Bolton to Victoria and Stalybridge.
Last edited:
No because one of the 2tph from Southport needs to run to Piccadilly for the benefit of its passengers.
- Status