Rossendale to Manchester new railway proposal

[billio]

Rossendale Council has put forward a proposal to create a rail link from Rawtenstall in Rossendale through Bury to Heywood and Manchester. The proposal is described in this document :
"THE CASE FOR THE CITY VALLEY RAIL LINK"
There is discussion of this proposal on Skyscraper City - Manchester's railways .

Obviously this proposal would use the route of the East Lancashire Railway with extension beyond Heywood to a south facing junction on the Rochdale - Manchester line.

If this idea goes ahead there obviously needs to be an agreement with the ELR, which I think from the ELR membership point of view is going to be very difficult to achieve, and additional works on the route to enable more trains.

Disregarding the financial difficulties in progressing this proposal and the potential conflict with the other proposal for linking Bury to Rochdale by a tram/train service, is it ever going to be possible for joint operations between heavy rail services and a heritage line ? Is the ELR a one-off situation for conversion to partial public operation or might some agreement provide a template for other heritage lines ?

It is to a certain extent ironic that local councils were supportive of the establishment of the ELR, but now might find themselves frustrated in developing a new public train service.

 

[bluenoxid]

There are a few heritage railways that get this sort of proposal.

Keighley and Worth Valley Railway is regularly put forward for a commuter operation but it just doesn’t stand up.

A few others also get it linked to extensions like NYMR to Malton and the Dartmouth railway to Brixham (probably got the latter name wrong)

Who owns the ELR trackbed?

 

[billio]

There are a few heritage railways that get this sort of proposal.

Keighley and Worth Valley Railway is regularly put forward for a commuter operation but it just doesn’t stand up.

A few others also get it linked to extensions like NYMR to Malton and the Dartmouth railway to Brixham (probably got the latter name wrong)

Who owns the ELR trackbed?

I was thinking the ELR is a heritage railway that runs through was is largely an urban area. K&WVR is similar, but it is a branch and I don't think there will be proposals to run trains from Oxenhope to Leeds.

Are there any other other heritage railways operating in urban areas that might be considered for reinstated passenger services ? The case for reopening is not dissimilar to the lines to Ashington or Portishead which are based on re-using freight lines rather than a heritage railway..

I don't know who owns the ELR trackbed, but if it is not the ELR, I should imagine they hold it on a pretty long-term lease. The time, effort and money put into developing a really good heritage line would not be worth it if there was a short-term risk that they may lose access to the trackbed.

 

[30907]

Rossendale Council has put forward a proposal to create a rail link from Rawtenstall in Rossendale through Bury to Heywood and Manchester. The proposal is described in this document :
"THE CASE FOR THE CITY VALLEY RAIL LINK"
There is discussion of this proposal on Skyscraper City - Manchester's railways .

Obviously this proposal would use the route of the East Lancashire Railway with extension beyond Heywood to a south facing junction on the Rochdale - Manchester line.

If I have understood the discussion, phase 1 would involve an interchange with Metrolink at the point of intersection rather than running through to/via Heywood.
This seems to me far more manageable than a through service (and better than a roundabout route via an Interchange at Castleton, which was my first thought).

The potential is considerably higher than the KWVR's - try driving the Bury bypass at peak times! - though whether the commuters of East Lancs would bite on a P+R at Irwell Vale (or wherever) and then a change to the tram I am less sure.

It suffers, of course, from the same problems of mixing commuter and tourist operations. A peak-only service authorised to travel at 40mph not 25 might be feasible, with only Ramsbottom needing staffing for a 2-train shuttle to Bury South.
But Rossendale are talking about all-day services which is another matter.

 

[The Lad]

If Rossendale were really serious about this they wouldn't have let the development next to the Rawtenstall station site happen, it might have made a good park and ride for the Valley.
I think the trackbed might be owned by the local councils which could be interesting. . . .

 

[kwrail]

There is a mammoth thread on another railway forum about running a passenger service from Wareham to Swanage, making use of the Swanage Railway track. It's really problematic. To have a regular service line speed needs to be greater than the light railway maximum of 25 mph, otherwise buses are quicker. Where does the money come from to do this. How is signalling managed? Mixing a heritage steam service and regular diesel service is difficult. And who is liable if the service is delayed and Delay Repay kicks in?

Not aware of any heritage railway who has managed to do this successfully. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

[billio]

If I have understood the discussion, phase 1 would involve an interchange with Metrolink at the point of intersection rather than running through to/via Heywood.
This seems to me far more manageable than a through service (and better than a roundabout route via an Interchange at Castleton, which was my first thought).

I think the eventual aim is to run direct to Victoria not Castleton.

The potential is considerably higher than the KWVR's - try driving the Bury bypass at peak times! - though whether the commuters of East Lancs would bite on a P+R at Irwell Vale (or wherever) and then a change to the tram I am less sure.

Changing to a tram in Bury would increase travel time, even if somehow it was cross platform at a new interchange station just beyond Buckley Wells (Bury South) but on the other hand it opens up travel to all the well populated places on the tram route and direct into central Manchester beyond Victoria.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I recall that the land was purchased by the relevant councils, using Derelict Land Grant. Whether that was Rossendale or Lancashire for one bit and Bury or Greater Manchester for the other bit I don't remember but would guess at Rossendale and Bury. Between Bury and Heywood / Castleton I have no knowledge as that was more recent.

 

[mike57]

I know this has been aired here before, and in other places but the same problems crop up when talking about operating a combined heritage and non heritage railway over the same track:

• On a 'normal' railway journey times are important, on a heritage railway its about experiencing things from times past
• Infrastructure is part of the equation, signalling, bridges etc. They are all going to need upgrade, and mechanical signalling is part of the overall heritage experience, line speeds would need to increase from 25mph and that is going mean changes and upgrades. Level crossings could be become another problem.
• Most routes are single track which limits service frequency
• Heritage railways tend to operate during the day and often seasonally with an enhanced weekend service, a commuter/normal railway needs to operate year round, and during normal travel times, lets say 7am to 9pm give or take
• Heritage railways tend to rely heavily on volunteers and a commercial operation would require full time staff
• Heritage rolling stock is probably not best suited to a full time operation, plus its a finite resource, which we probably dont want to wear out carrying commuters, so you need another set of rolling stock
• Adminstration wise how do you sort ticketing and revenue between the two operations, and handle things in times of disruption

Add all these together and I think its fair to say that except in exceptional circumstance you are never going to get a mixed heritage/normal operation without spending huge sums, and the compromises to both operations would probably mean neither user is happy.

Taking my local line the NYMR, they do have the Whitby service, but this is still a 'heritage' operation. I know that the idea of extending to Rillington at the other end to recreate the original through route gets aired every so often, but the last I read it is not amongst even NYMR long term aspirations. (and I think rightly so)

So this proposal sounds good until you look deeper, do you want to loose the ELR as a heritage operation, because I think that is what would ultimately happen if these plans went forward, what ever compromises were agreed at the outset.

 

[kwrail]

I know this has been aired here before, and in other places but the same problems crop up when talking about operating a combined heritage and non heritage railway over the same track:

• On a 'normal' railway journey times are important, on a heritage railway its about experiencing things from times past
• Infrastructure is part of the equation, signalling, bridges etc. They are all going to need upgrade, and mechanical signalling is part of the overall heritage experience, line speeds would need to increase from 25mph and that is going mean changes and upgrades. Level crossings could be become another problem.
• Most routes are single track which limits service frequency
• Heritage railways tend to operate during the day and often seasonally with an enhanced weekend service, a commuter/normal railway needs to operate year round, and during normal travel times, lets say 7am to 9pm give or take
• Heritage railways tend to rely heavily on volunteers and a commercial operation would require full time staff
• Heritage rolling stock is probably not best suited to a full time operation, plus its a finite resource, which we probably dont want to wear out carrying commuters, so you need another set of rolling stock
• Adminstration wise how do you sort ticketing and revenue between the two operations, and handle things in times of disruption

Add all these together and I think its fair to say that except in exceptional circumstance you are never going to get a mixed heritage/normal operation without spending huge sums, and the compromises to both operations would probably mean neither user is happy.

Taking my local line the NYMR, they do have the Whitby service, but this is still a 'heritage' operation. I know that the idea of extending to Rillington at the other end to recreate the original through route gets aired every so often, but the last I read it is not amongst even NYMR long term aspirations. (and I think rightly so)

So this proposal sounds good until you look deeper, do you want to loose the ELR as a heritage operation, because I think that is what would ultimately happen if these plans went forward, what ever compromises were agreed at the outset.

This. Really well summarised

 

[A0]

I know this has been aired here before, and in other places but the same problems crop up when talking about operating a combined heritage and non heritage railway over the same track:

• On a 'normal' railway journey times are important, on a heritage railway its about experiencing things from times past
• Infrastructure is part of the equation, signalling, bridges etc. They are all going to need upgrade, and mechanical signalling is part of the overall heritage experience, line speeds would need to increase from 25mph and that is going mean changes and upgrades. Level crossings could be become another problem.
• Most routes are single track which limits service frequency
• Heritage railways tend to operate during the day and often seasonally with an enhanced weekend service, a commuter/normal railway needs to operate year round, and during normal travel times, lets say 7am to 9pm give or take
• Heritage railways tend to rely heavily on volunteers and a commercial operation would require full time staff
• Heritage rolling stock is probably not best suited to a full time operation, plus its a finite resource, which we probably dont want to wear out carrying commuters, so you need another set of rolling stock
• Adminstration wise how do you sort ticketing and revenue between the two operations, and handle things in times of disruption

Add all these together and I think its fair to say that except in exceptional circumstance you are never going to get a mixed heritage/normal operation without spending huge sums, and the compromises to both operations would probably mean neither user is happy.

Taking my local line the NYMR, they do have the Whitby service, but this is still a 'heritage' operation. I know that the idea of extending to Rillington at the other end to recreate the original through route gets aired every so often, but the last I read it is not amongst even NYMR long term aspirations. (and I think rightly so)

So this proposal sounds good until you look deeper, do you want to loose the ELR as a heritage operation, because I think that is what would ultimately happen if these plans went forward, what ever compromises were agreed at the outset.

Bit in bold - the difference between the NYMR and this is that the NYMR is running heritage services over a mainline from Grosmont to Whitby, so the track is NR maintained to their standards with their signalling and linespeeds. From Grosmont to Pickering it's NYMR maintained and operated.

Whereas what's being talked about here is the exact opposite - the infrastructure is operated by the East Lancs Railway and is subject to the standards set out in their Light Railway Order. The comparison for the NYMR would be if Northern wanted to start running trains from Whitby to Pickering.

 

[edwin_m]

I was part of a team looking into this about 15 years ago - it's one of those ideas that keeps coming back. This considered either a tram-train via Radcliffe or heavy rail via Middleton.

Heritage railways don't normally operate during the weekday commuter peaks so it's possible to imagine a time-split service where the through trains only run in those hours. But this immediately hits the benefits, because other railways can offer an attractive off-peak service with relatively little extra cost. Letting people use the steam trains at National Rail or Metrolink fares would completely undermine the economics of the ELR.

A modern railway needs all sorts of safety and operational features - TPWS grids, tactile paving and ticket machines to name but three - which would detract from the heritage image. It would also raise questions about whether the ELR would still qualify for the various exemptions heritage railways have such as use of Mk1 stock and lack of train protection systems - even if the through trains were also subject to the 25mph limit. All these problems would be exacerbated if it was intended to run heritage and through trains on the line at the same time.

 

[WatcherZero]

To summarize:

Phase 1
Weekday 1tph, 2tph in peak service from Rawtenstall to a new single high level platform station terminus off Market Street sitting adjacent to Bury Interchange, increased frequency of heritage services at the weekend. New stations proposed at Ewood Bridge and Stubbins which would be a retro design to fit in with the ELR aesthetic but some of the ELR existing stations would be skipped to shorten journey times. Infrastructure improvements at Rawtenstall including P&R and improved pedestrian/cycling links to Haslingden. Passing loop added at Summerseat. "Focused specific improvements to platforms, signalling and signage" on the ELR with station improvements at Rawtenstall and Heywood.

Phase 2
Service extended further along the ELR to Heywood then reinstating the lifted track to Castleton junction where it would continue along the National Rail Rochdale line to Manchester Victoria.

Saying they want to keep the rail link operationally and infrastructure separate from Metrolink to avoid transferring delays to it but this would also overlap with a Metrolink extension from Oldham through Rochdale to Bury using the same line. The line between Bury and Heywood would have three different passenger operators.
Favoured rollingstock in the Rossendale bid is Vivarail 230 with a heritage external appearance but modern interior. The councils want to split the ELR into three operating divisions, the charity that preserves history and runs history days, a company that runs passenger services commercially on behalf of the ELR and commuters and a professional engineering company that would maintain the infrastructure and vehicles but also bid for work elsewhere in the region to supplement its income. The approach is very similar to the Blackpool system modernization.

 

[daodao]

Surely there could be a compromise solution? The line serves substantial communities and merits reinstatement as a proper rail line for public transport use; it should probably never have been closed in the first place.

My suggestion would be along the following lines:

• an all day/commuter public transport service run by Northern Rail Mon-Fri (excluding bank holidays) from Victoria to Rawtenstall with modern rolling stock, and minimal/skeleton station/signal box staffing; on Saturdays, a service could possibly be run between Victoria and Heywood only
• a tourist service run by ELR Sat/Sun/bank holidays with heritage stock and generous (part volunteer) staffing, as at present, between Heywood and Rawtenstall.

There would need to be an improvement in line speed on weekdays, say to 40 mph, and ticketing arrangements would be different for weekends and weekdays, but it would essentially avoid mixed heritage/normal operation at the same time, other than at Heywood station itself on Saturdays. I travelled on the ELR last weekend (my first visit as a rail passenger to Bury Bolton Street station since 1965) and my impression was that the track already seems fit for a slightly higher speed. Was it just my imagination that the class 47 hauled train on the return leg was exceeding 25 mph (the steam hauled train that I took to Rawtenstall definitely wasn't exceeding 25 mph)?

Passing loop added at Summerseat.

A new (modern) passing loop at Summerseat, about half-way between Heywood and Rawtenstall, would enable a half-hourly service with modern dmus between Victoria/Heywood and Rawtenstall, with the existing antique/historic signalling used by the ELR locked out of use on weekdays.

 

[edwin_m]

A new (modern) passing loop at Summerseat, about half-way between Heywood and Rawtenstall, would enable a half-hourly service with modern dmus between Victoria/Heywood and Rawtenstall, with the existing antique/historic signalling used by the ELR locked out of use on weekdays.

Not sure what they would do about the gated crossing at Ramsbottom. It would either need someone in the box, in which case they could operate a passing loop too, or would need to be automated, with modern barriers instead of traditional gates.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rawtenstall railway station, whilst closed to passengers in 1972, still was served by freight until 1980, as I understand that a regular coal train ran until then. Does anyone know the reason for this to have occurred?

 

[The Lad]

Lot of coal burnt in the valley.reflecting the type of housing. . .

 

[D6130]

To summarize:

Phase 1
Weekday 1tph, 2tph in peak service from Rawtenstall to a new single high level platform station terminus off Market Street sitting adjacent to Bury Interchange, increased frequency of heritage services at the weekend. New stations proposed at Ewood Bridge and Stubbins which would be a retro design to fit in with the ELR aesthetic but some of the ELR existing stations would be skipped to shorten journey times. Infrastructure improvements at Rawtenstall including P&R and improved pedestrian/cycling links to Haslingden. Passing loop added at Summerseat. "Focused specific improvements to platforms, signalling and signage" on the ELR with station improvements at Rawtenstall and Heywood.

Phase 2
Service extended further along the ELR to Heywood then reinstating the lifted track to Castleton junction where it would continue along the National Rail Rochdale line to Manchester Victoria.

Saying they want to keep the rail link operationally and infrastructure separate from Metrolink to avoid transferring delays to it but this would also overlap with a Metrolink extension from Oldham through Rochdale to Bury using the same line. The line between Bury and Heywood would have three different passenger operators.
Favoured rollingstock in the Rossendale bid is Vivarail 230 with a heritage external appearance but modern interior. The councils want to split the ELR into three operating divisions, the charity that preserves history and runs history days, a company that runs passenger services commercially on behalf of the ELR and commuters and a professional engineering company that would maintain the infrastructure and vehicles but also bid for work elsewhere in the region to supplement its income. The approach is very similar to the Blackpool system modernization.

I wasn't aware that the track between Heywood and Castleton had been lifted. Surely it's still used to transfer locos and stock to and from the ELR for running main line specials?

 

[Dave S 56F]

The junction or line leading to Heywood hasn't been lifted A3 4472 flying Scotsman has gone out to London via Castleton jct and also earlier in the year 46100 Royal scot visited a steam gala thus entering Castleton jct to access the E.L.R. also see Google earth as well.

I wasn't aware that the track between Heywood and Castleton had been lifted. Surely it's still used to transfer locos and stock to and from the ELR for running main line specials?

 

[WatcherZero]

Ahh, I thought the former rail welding depot had been lifted, the northern chord of the triangle junction at least isnt showing on OS maps. The track also looks to have been buried on the line crossing at Roeacre Brook with an end of the line sign on the ELR side.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are there spare paths on the Castleton Junction to Manchester Victoria railway station that will allow for this service to use and will this extra service cause any problems in platform allocation at Manchester Victoria railway station?

 

[A0]

Not for the first time we appear to be looking at a rail solution which has far too many compromises - not least destroying a heritage attraction which probably results in more spend in places like Rawtenstall.

A better option surely would be to better integrate the Witchway X43 with the Metrolink ? The timetable reckons Rawtenstall to Prestwich is ~ 30 minutes all the time - and Prestwich to Victoria by Metrolink is 20 mins. That's a sub 1 hour journey consistently.

Compare this to the rail options.

Metrolink from Bury to Victoria is about 35 mins, Castleton - Victoria is at best 20 mins.

So to get a 44 minute journey time from Rawtenstall the average speed from Rawtenstall to Bury (8 miles) would need to be circa 60 mph and going via Castleton (Rawtenstall - Heywood is 12.5 miles and there's at least another 0.5 miles to get to the mainline) you'd need an average speed of about 40mph. To achieve those average speeds the linespeed would need to be higher than the average - probably 60 mph for Castleton and higher again via Bury.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ahh, I thought the former rail welding depot had been lifted, the northern chord of the triangle junction at least isnt showing on OS maps. The track also looks to have been buried on the line crossing at Roeacre Brook with an end of the line sign on the ELR side.

The Sectional Appendix indicates that the connection between Castleton North Junction and Castleton South Junction is unidirectional - the "Up Through Siding". So trains from Heywood can use this chord to head directly to Manchester, but trains from Manchester must continue towards Castleton station on the Down Goods Loop, then reverse over Castleton East Junction to get to Castleton North Junction and Heywood.

The Heywood branch is not provided with AWS or TPWS, so presumably the signalling would have to be upgraded before scheduled passenger services would be permitted.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are there paths available from Castleton Junction to Manchester Victoria station, noting that the intermediate line section from the Miles Platting area takes services from other routes into Manchester Victoria station?

 

[overthere 2]

Wanted to post this in this thread: www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rossendale-to-manchester-new-railway-proposal.238193/ but sadly it is closed.



First of all in post 1 of the above link the link entitled: "THE CASE FOR THE CITY VALLEY RAIL LINK" is broken.

But I think this is what the original poster had linked to:

www.rossendale.gov.uk/roads-travel/city-valley-rail-link

We want to see a commuter rail link restored between Rawtenstall and Manchester. In 2022 the local authorities where the link would make such a positive impact have been exploring the rationale for a new ‘City Valley Rail Link’ which will operate a rail link running from Rawtenstall, via Ramsbottom, Bury and Heywood and onwards into Manchester Victoria. Our preferred option is for a rail service spread across two phases of work. In phase 1 we will use the existing heritage rail line between Rawtenstall and create a new rail platform at Bury Market Street station. In phase 2 we will use the existing heritage line between Bury (Market Street) via Heywood into Manchester Victoria.

And here is the plan: www.rossendale.gov.uk/downloads/file/17777/rail_brochure_oct_2022



Now for the latest:

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/26511469.rawtenstall-rail-link-back-track-county-u-turn

Rawtenstall-Manchester rail link back after county U-turn​

1st September

By Will MorganLocal Democracy Reporter




An East Lancashire town that has been left without a passenger rail service for half a century could have its commuter line restored, following backlash after the proposals were left out of county transport plans.


Campaigners have been calling for Rawtenstall’s passenger service to be brought back for years, with plans to create the ‘City Valley Rail Link’ between it and Manchester on the same line that has been maintained by the heritage East Lancashire Railway in the decades after the town’s station closed in 1972.

But when the new Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) unveiled its first Local Transport Plan earlier this year, the City Valley Rail Link was conspicuously missing from the scheme to re-invest in the county’s railway services.
https://app.gogoldentree.com/abt/mp...lid=004&obclid={{ob_click_id}}&obOrigUrl=true


Rossendale and Darwen’s MP Andy MacNae called this omission ‘incomprehensible’ at the time, but has recently revealed that plans to restore the commuter service on the heritage railway line are back on track.
The rail line between Rawtenstall and Bury has been maintained for decades by the heritage East Lancashire Railway.

The current proposal would see passenger services run from Rawtenstall to Bury using the existing East Lancashire Railway route, with passengers connecting onto Metrolink services into Manchester.

A second phase would link services through to Manchester Victoria.

While it would be great to get the ELR back on to the network, I came across a Facebook page about this (cant find the link now) and a lot of people - Not clear if volunteer's/supporters/general rail enthusiasts - aren't happy about this and I think there will be a massive, long and crucially, expensive legal fight where as per usual the only people who win are the lawyers.

Also In the report I linked in to above that is from 2022, the cost is estimated at up to £80 million so at todays prices that is very likely to be North of £100 million.

If I was the MP/council then I would be proposing and working with the ELR management and volunteer's on a morning/evening TOC running commuter service as I have proposed for the WSR and Swanage.

Then see how that goes and if it is a success then In the future the management/volunteers might be happy/less unhappy to see it come back on to the network full time and not fight it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also In the report I linked in to above that is from 2022, the cost is estimated at up to £80 million so at todays prices that is very likely to be North of £100 million.

I am sure that the public at large in the area in question would find far better use for that amount of money that would benefit the whole area.

 

[Chester1]

Extending to Heywood a DMU service that terminates at Victoria would be a good start. It would require reinstating the west - south junction and a second platform at Heywood. A second platform would mean ELR and NR services would not need to overlap and the ELR operations would be unaffected.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Heywood is very poorly placed as a railway station purporting as the railhead for the town it serves.

 

[CdBrux]

I would suspect many potential commuters coming from north of Bury would simply switch to Metrolink at Bury unless the travel time to Victoria via Heywood was competitive. Assuming Metrolink would have the capacity to absorb extra numbers

 

[Chester1]

Heywood is very poorly placed as a railway station purporting as the railhead for the town it serves.

It is not ideal but the only way of serving the town centre directly would be through Metrolink and a town centre loop similar to Oldham.

I would suspect many potential commuters coming from north of Bury would simply switch to Metrolink at Bury unless the travel time to Victoria via Heywood was competitive. Assuming Metrolink would have the capacity to absorb extra numbers

Victoria to Mills Hill takes 11 minutes and would about half way. Victoria to Bury takes 27 minutes on Metrolink. The train would be faster and would likely serve Salford Central but would have lower frequency and not be ideal for the southern half of the city centre.