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!
yes by the maps I have the overhead only goes into Northwestern (getting it under Wallgate would/will be a massive challenge)
so I would expect possibly at least 1 via Bolton service to start going into Northwestern (or beyond).
And have the currently terminating Atherton service going to Southport
Either way the two stations are like a 5 minute slow walk from Platform to Platform, which isn't that much.
I don't think there's a dedicated thread for the electrification's theoretical routings yet.
It is a headache that the wires will only go from North Western to Bolton and not into Wallgate, which rules out the power changeover of the 769s.
As neat as it would be to run 2x North Western - Bolton EMUs, 2x Southport - Atherton DMUs and 1-2x Liverpool - Wigan 777s, the loss of direct Southport - Bolton services and the associated connectivity will not be popular, before you even consider the necessity for one of the Southport services to continue beyond Oxford Road and Piccadilly. Given that neither of the Athertons currently do this they cannot simply be extended to Southport.
It would be even more of a headache to get into Wallgate, the residents of Hindley are already annoyed enough at losing their bridge for a while, think how bad that'd be in central Wigan, and that road is already quite steep as it is, and the platforms are right outside of the tunnel, whatever would be done to electrify into there would likely increase the costs and cause massive inconvenience.
This already is a thing on Sunday, Bolton - Southport either involves a change at Hindley (same platform) or walking from Northwestern to Wallgate? I'd expect that to be at least taken over by an EMU since MCV - WGN via BOL would be fully electrified by that point.
By the time the new overhead wires are authorised for passenger service, it's likely that class 769s will have begun to be withdrawn from Northern service.
By the time the new overhead wires are authorised for passenger service, it's likely that class 769s will have begun to be withdrawn from Northern service.
Do you have a source for that?
I've only heard of the reliability of the 769s going up recently (not close to the 15Xs but still).
I think the 8 of them are going to stick around for a good while now, and if not increase with the TfW ones possibly going free (Is it just me or is this thread REALLY off topic now)
It would be even more of a headache to get into Wallgate, the residents of Hindley are already annoyed enough at losing their bridge for a while, think how bad that'd be in central Wigan, and that road is already quite steep as it is, and the platforms are right outside of the tunnel, whatever would be done to electrify into there would likely increase the costs and cause massive inconvenience.
Given how ridiculous it would be to try and get wires into Wallgate, I would take the opportunity to combine the Wigan stations and build a diveunder allowing trains from Hindley to use additional platforms on the west side of this new Wigan station and then continue to Southport using a new curve. The WCML would have to be slewed over the approach to Wallgate to make space but the old platforms at Wallgate could become sidings. It would also be important for the new Wigan station to have a roof.
I am aware of that, but neither are really serious long-term proposals. Not going to Piccadilly has decimated connectivity and going to Stalybridge impacts capacity at Victoria.
This already is a thing on Sunday, Bolton - Southport either involves a change at Hindley (same platform) or walking from Northwestern to Wallgate? I'd expect that to be at least taken over by an EMU since MCV - WGN via BOL would be fully electrified by that point.
The last time I checked there was no Sunday service from Wigan to Bolton, which is not really representative, but I heard a lot of complaints from people wishing to use one. They also seemed insistent it should call at Lostock.
By the time the new overhead wires are authorised for passenger service, it's likely that class 769s will have begun to be withdrawn from Northern service.
Unless this is a comment on the length of time it will take to electrify such a short section of track, this is highly unlikely to be the case.
Northern are more likely to more than double their 769 operations with the transfer of 9 units from TfW in addition to their present 8.
There is no reason to withdraw them before the 319s and no sign of the WMR 323s to see those off for the foreseeable future. Even then with a fleet of 17 they might last yet.
The last time I checked there was no Sunday service from Wigan to Bolton, which is not really representative, but I heard a lot of complaints from people wishing to use one. They also seemed insistent it should call at Lostock.
Given how ridiculous it would be to try and get wires into Wallgate, I would take the opportunity to combine the Wigan stations and build a diveunder allowing trains from Hindley to use additional platforms on the west side of this new Wigan station and then continue to Southport using a new curve. The WCML would have to be slewed over the approach to Wallgate to make space but the old platforms at Wallgate could become sidings. It would also be important for the new Wigan station to have a roof.
Indeed so. In 1852, the Liverpool and Bury Railway line line met the junction of the Bolton and Preston Railway and the station named Lostock Junction then had platforms on both lines, but that station was closed on 7th November 1966 and when the current Lostock station was reopened, there were only platforms on the Bolton to Chorley line
Seems unlikely that that would work as it's at a station.
But (as frequently discussed in various threads) for all we know the poor condition of the bridge may eventually force it to be rebuilt, with redevelopment of the buildings.
The propped part of the bridge is under the shops on the SE side of the road.
Seen photos and videos. It’s falling down anyway isn’t it? Looks the sort of place that a full on redevelopment might improve the place, the interchange, and partly fund it.
Probably true, but you're looking at a road and railway closure for more than a year to demolish and rebuild the bridge and railway station building.
Is the station building listed?
To be fair that sort of thing has been done before - Luebeck Hbf in Germany is a similar arrangement and the whole thing was jacked up a couple of feet to allow for electrification - but it's hugely costly and it took them years.
Is it actually in poor condition? I thought I recalled the propping was to allow for the new heavier lorries.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Seen photos and videos. It’s falling down anyway isn’t it? Looks the sort of place that a full on redevelopment might improve the place, the interchange, and partly fund it.
I suppose you could argue for that, yes, as long as the station isn't listed. It is indeed not a nice place per-se, just old Victorian terraces with low-budget shops underneath.
A year?! Demolish from the top down with the railway open then lift out the bridge?
The road isn’t a really major route, and has a nearby alternative.
First question would be whether the station is a problem. Streetview has a shot from the platform and it looks like the station is on girders (so jackable?) and might be higher than the roadway and buildings at the southern end.
but we are in speculation territory, beyond Headbolt Lane.
Planned (and more importantly, funded) properly, there is no reason should require a total closure of more than a couple of months.
The station car park appears to be large enough to cast pre-fabricated bridge sections, so you'd need likely one or two week's railway closure for building demolition and bridge removal, then another series of weekend closures or a two to four-week closure for bridge replacement. The road would, naturally, remain closed throughout.
That said, this is getting dangerously closed to being banished to Speculative Ideas!
The propping was rapidly installed when a routine inspection revealed a significant crack. The roadway was closed as a precaution until the work had been done. A full rebuilding would be welcome but closing the road to heavy vehicles is the pragmatic solution in the absence of serious funding.
In a fantasy world we would undo the lack of integration caused by the rivalry between the L&YR and L&NWR and build a single station in Wigan as part of HS2. We would then stop worrying about the segregation of Merseyrail services from the rest of the network and run Kirkby line services through to Manchester once more. Though if such a level of funding were available not only would the Skem scheme go ahead but Bolton-Bury-Rochdale would be re-opened and some Liverpool/Kirkby services sent that way too. In the meantime let's hope that Headbolt Lane is completed on time and within budget.
We would then stop worrying about the segregation of Merseyrail services from the rest of the network and run Kirkby line services through to Manchester once more.
Merseyrail's punctuality would be destroyed. Significant interaction with other services would turn the Sandhills-Central core into another Castlefield.
Well-planned connections, a nice waiting environment and decent quality facilities on the platform (e.g. a coffee place and toilets) would make the change less of a penalty.
Merseyrail's punctuality would be destroyed. Significant interaction with other services would turn the Sandhills-Central core into another Castlefield.
Well-planned connections, a nice waiting environment and decent quality facilities on the platform (e.g. a coffee place and toilets) would make the change less of a penalty.
In the fantasy world of high levels of funding for the railway you would 4-track (at least) Sandhills to Central and have sufficient turnround times to provide the necessary resilience. This is just a rare session of playing with the crayons on my part!
There is. They're expensive to run and maintain and they're chronically unreliable. Availability is very poor, which is a key reason for their being retired from GWR and TfW, in the former case before they were even able to enter service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do you have a source for that?
I've only heard of the reliability of the 769s going up recently (not close to the 15Xs but still).
I think the 8 of them are going to stick around for a good while now, and if not increase with the TfW ones possibly going free (Is it just me or is this thread REALLY off topic now)
No. It's just the general direction of travel, small or medium sized fleets of unreliable trains are likely to be handed back at the earliest opportunity.
More often than not the Southport services I’ve been on DO stop at Lostock Junction, being held there due to late running on the Preston line. There is effectively no reason why anyone passing through the station from the Wigan direction should have to waste time doubling back from Bolton to Lostock.
Both a neutral section and track lowering can be ruled out. You cannot have a neutral section where the train needs to draw power and lowering the track would require very substantial rebuilding of the platform.
Planned (and more importantly, funded) properly, there is no reason should require a total closure of more than a couple of months.
The station car park appears to be large enough to cast pre-fabricated bridge sections, so you'd need likely one or two week's railway closure for building demolition and bridge removal, then another series of weekend closures or a two to four-week closure for bridge replacement. The road would, naturally, remain closed throughout.
Doing any of this to clear the road bridge for electrification would be complete overkill for the sake of retaining the suboptimal arrangement of 2 stations. Building a diveunder at the southern end would likely not require closure of the WCML for as long as you would need to close the road to rebuild the bridge.
I would be of a mind to somehow retain the original Wallgate station building as the entrance to the new combined Wigan station, but ideally I would like it on the other side of the road from where it is now.
In a fantasy world we would undo the lack of integration caused by the rivalry between the L&YR and L&NWR and build a single station in Wigan as part of HS2. We would then stop worrying about the segregation of Merseyrail services from the rest of the network and run Kirkby line services through to Manchester once more. Though if such a level of funding were available not only would the Skem scheme go ahead but Bolton-Bury-Rochdale would be re-opened and some Liverpool/Kirkby services sent that way too. In the meantime let's hope that Headbolt Lane is completed on time and within budget.
Unless part of the new Wigan station has platforms suitable for continental loading gauge, what does it have to do with HS2? I am quite desperate for the Darcy Lever line to reopen. It is vital in order to free up capacity at Victoria.
Merseyrail's punctuality would be destroyed. Significant interaction with other services would turn the Sandhills-Central core into another Castlefield.
You do realise that sufficient levels of funding would be able to completely eliminate the performance and capacity problems in Manchester? Reopening of the Darcy Lever line and Timperley - Cadishead would create Manchester avoiding orbital routes, which would not only have a lower punctuality risk than running into Manchester, they would free up capacity in Manchester so as to reduce the risk there also.
In the fantasy world of high levels of funding for the railway you would 4-track (at least) Sandhills to Central and have sufficient turnround times to provide the necessary resilience. This is just a rare session of playing with the crayons on my part!
A 4 track corridor either through Castlefield or Sandhills could be configured with the 2nd pair of tracks being used only for late running trains, with punctuality of other services thus unaffected.
Why would they be allowed to take these on? They're not even suitable in their current form as they can't use AC.
There is. They're expensive to run and maintain and they're chronically unreliable. Availability is very poor, which is a key reason for their being retired from GWR and TfW, in the former case before they were even able to enter service.
No. It's just the general direction of travel, small or medium sized fleets of unreliable trains are likely to be handed back at the earliest opportunity.
What I have heard from Northern is that they are to receive the 769s from TfW in order to expand their bi-mode operations. They can do AC, they just need new pantographs purchasing and fitting. The originals are stored, but Northern never operated 319s with the original pantographs.
I never said they should necessarily, but this came from Northern, not a 3rd party rumour, but it is my view that a larger fleet (17 as opposed to 8) would be better able to tolerate low availability.
In the fantasy world of high levels of funding for the railway you would 4-track (at least) Sandhills to Central and have sufficient turnround times to provide the necessary resilience. This is just a rare session of playing with the crayons on my part!
You'd be basically creating a second version of the Link for the benefit of people from Fazakerley, Kirkby, Rainford, Upholland, Orrell and Pemberton (everybody else is quicker going to Manchester via Liverpool - and it might be borderline for the first two). Not in the slightest bit worth it.
So, firstly if Skelmersdale is out, let's improve Upholland Station and make it suitable for Skelmersdale traffic with easy access for buses, taxis, cycling and car parking to the town. Currently the access to Upholland Station is via a road disconnected from the main Skelmersdale network. You have to travel along a semi-rural road north and then either divert onto a dual carrigeway (which only allows exit southbound) and then loop round a huge roundabout and junction for the M58 motorway and then travel north again OR go through residential streets with speedbumps, a children's park, a sharp right turn, a 6 foot width restriction enforced with bollards and then turn back on yourself.
I'd suggest making a station entrance and car park in the shaded area would be cheap as chips compared to the sorts of money a Skelmersdale station would cost. I've shaded the area here.
Then I'd suggest a new station at Saddle, which is convenient for Wigan Pier, the Retail Park and the Sports Stadium. I've shaded the area here.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Then is the issue of the Wallgate bridge.
Here is a picture of the two props, from the video posted earlier.
And a close up of the Kirkby / Southport bound line
And a close up of the Manchester bound line
It seems clear that it is only the part of the bridge supporting the buildings on top which has needed to be propped. Presumably if these buildings were demolished the line could be lowered and clearance would not be an issue.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Finally, the buildings above are low value, under-utilised cr*p.
Noticing the tunnel appears to be wide enough for four tracks it also ocurred to me that the platforms could be rebuilt towards the Manchester end, as highlighted in red here.
You could keep the original station entrance (or perhaps not - if you knock down the shops you could rebuild a new station entrance in their place and sell the old station off maybe?
You could also then have direct access to North Western in one of the two places I've marked in blue.
Costly, but I guess not as much as rebuilding both stations further north which is another suggestion I've seen bandied about.
Are there actual cases of stations being built 7-13 minutes (walking time) where a station nearby hasn't closed shortly after (e.g. Meridian Water)?
I don't think there's much possibility of this being funded.
Are there actual cases of stations being built 7-13 minutes (walking time) where a station nearby hasn't closed shortly after (e.g. Meridian Water)?
I don't think there's much possibility of this being funded.
Headbolt Lane is 1 mile, circa 15 minutes from the existing Kirkby station. this one would be 0.8 miles. Maybe a bit optimistic, but as Merseyrail is a metro system I think it's more reasonable? hrug:
I never thought it would be. I was just pointing out that a tunnelled route can often work out cheaper than an overhead one since you don't have to compensate (many) landowners, nor deal with demolition, embankments, viaducts, etc.
Headbolt Lane is 1 mile, circa 15 minutes from the existing Kirkby station. this one would be 0.8 miles. Maybe a bit optimistic, but as Merseyrail is a metro system I think it's more reasonable? hrug:
Noticing the tunnel appears to be wide enough for four tracks it also ocurred to me that the platforms could be rebuilt towards the Manchester end, as highlighted in red here.
That bit of track is very steep, I don't really know how steep stations would/could/can work, but something tells me that a station on a heavy angle would not be good, especially for wheelchair users.
hrug: