Could the Atherton line become part of Metrolink, and would that disbenefit passengers?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One thing that I hear from time to time is the acceptance of standing during tram journeys because many journeys are of short duration, but looking to expect this same argument on journey lengths from Manchester to Wigan via the Atherton line is somewhat worrying.

Quite a number of postings on different threads cover the type of seating in the M5000 series, which also has to be considered on long tram journeys and I would ask if contributors on this thread if the seats on the Vantage Guided Busway vehicles are more passenger friendly than those on the M5000 trams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite a number of postings on different threads cover the type of seating in the M5000 series, which also has to be considered on long tram journeys and I would ask if contributors on this thread if the seats on the Vantage Guided Busway vehicles are more passenger friendly than those on the M5000 trams.

It's fairly normal for urban buses in the UK to have better seats than urban trams, which is because bus journeys are typically longer, often over an hour.

I don't think the M5000 interior is particularly suitable for Wigan to Manchester via Atherton (nor really for Oldham which is the existing longer run). I think a longer tram with a more comfortable interior is necessary, such as that of the Stadler Citylink tram-trains on order for south Wales.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

if the seats on the Vantage Guided Busway vehicles are more passenger friendly than those on the M5000 trams.

They are very different seats, the Vantage ones due to being leather do get quite hot in the summer, which can be uncomfortable.
Although I can't say I've had problems with the M5000 seats, but they certainly aren't the most comfortable.
Due to my height high seat backs are favourable, and I don't get many high-back seats.

 

[cactustwirly]

I'd say that's a little harsh. The M5000s are quick off the mark, modern, bright (but definitely not too bright) and airy feeling on-board, they look stylish and they work as a homogeneous fleet. Their reliability put the T68s to shame, and is the reason all were withdrawn when some were intended to remain alongside the M5000s permanently. They've also got the capability of being singles or doubles. I think calling them awful is very unfair.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==


At least eight times you've gone on about toilets now (or to use that awful word that you and a few others like instead, "bogs,") and while I appreciate a fair few people may have IBS/Crohn IBD etc. I don't see why their conditions should be any more severe than those on the Oldham line, Cardiff Valleys, or the many, MANY commuter routes operated by 345, 376, 378, 455, 507, 508, 707, 710 or 777 stock, a fair few of which provide services of longer journey times than Atherton if not very similar.

Of course it's still a downgrade to lose a toilet, but the benefits of the tram-ification for this sort of route would largely outweigh that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==


That's another thing, I can't speak for Northern's 150/1s that serve the line, but the TfW 150s that serve where I live in Cardiff, including those hired from Northern themselves, and the TfW 769s of which the same class also runs Wigan services very regularly have toilets out of order anyway, especially since the crappy compliant sliding doors were fitted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==


To be honest, Moston and Chadderton are somewhat notorious for that sort of behaviour so I wouldn't be surprised. It's not the nicest of areas in Manchester.

So the M5000s are alright urban trans.
But they're still completely unsuitable for the Atherton line, both in terms of comfort and capacity. It needs a heavy rail solution

 

[Greybeard33]

I suggested that (with the EMUs picking up local stations between Salford and Bolton and between Bolton and Wigan to allow the Southports, Clitheroes and Blackpools to be sped up and for places like Moses Gate, Kearsley and Farnworth to get an increased service to make it actually useful; hourly is a bit of a joke on an urban commuter service) but the people who know such things explained that two more trains per hour couldn't be pathed via Bolton as there's too much other stuff. Though there must surely be room for 1tph more as the Preston to Manchester Victoria service ran hourly for a while and has been withdrawn without replacement.

The 1tph Preston to Victoria service was replaced on the Bolton line by the 1tph Barrow/Windermere to Manchester Airport. There are currently 8tph with a mix of stopping patterns, reducing to 7tph in some hours because of the TPE "temporary" service cuts.

It seems likely that the signalling on the Bolton line itself could handle additional services, the issue being the bottlenecks at Salford Crescent and through Central Manchester. So, contrary to what I previously suggested, I guess that removal of all Atherton line services from Salford Crescent (with tram-trains running on street through Salford) might release capacity for 2tph Southport services to run via Bolton in addition to 2tph EMUs from Wigan North Western.

If TfGM proceeds with detailed development of a tram-train proposal, no doubt timetable modelling will form part of the business case.

 

[javelin]

So the M5000s are alright urban trans.
But they're still completely unsuitable for the Atherton line, both in terms of comfort and capacity. It needs a heavy rail solution

The M5000s are never going to be used on the Atherton line, so the point is moot.

Seating layout/quality has nothing to do with whether a vehicle is a high-floor tram or heavy rail (low-floor tram is a bit different), it has to do with the type of journey it is planned to serve. As has been pointed out, the high-floor Citylink tram-trains in Cardiff mostly have a pretty standard 2+2. It will probably be more comfortable than many 'proper' trains, certainly 3+2s.

 

[507020]

The 2tph from Wigan Wallgate to Manchester via Bolton currently originate from Southport and are worked by a mix of 4-car Class 769 bi-modes and Class 150/156 DMUs. When the costly Wigan North Western to Bolton electrification project is completed next year there is likely to be a timetable recast that will see the 2tph via Bolton paths taken over by Class 323 EMUs, cascaded from the West Midlands. These will be able to operate in 6-car formations to increase capacity (the platforms between Wigan and Bolton are currently being extended to enable this). The 769s, which have proved unreliable and costly to operate, will likely be sent off lease, as is already happening to their cousins at GWR and TfW. The DMU services from Southport will probably have to be diverted via the Atherton line due to lack of capacity for more services between Bolton and Manchester.

If the Atherton line were later converted to light rail line of sight operation, DMUs from Southport would then have to terminate at Wigan Wallgate or run under the wires via Bolton in place of the EMUs. Either would be politically unacceptable, so the only solutions I can see would be to wire the Southport line, so that the via Bolton EMUs could be extended there, or purchase new bi-mode rolling stock (whether battery, electro-diesel, hydrogen or bionic duckweed) for Southport to Manchester via Bolton. Either of these would greatly increase the costs of the tram-train project and further weaken the business case.

I will point out that if the Atherton was to be Metrolinked, this would only be possible with the Metrolink joining the Atherton Slow lines from a street running alignment somewhere in Salford and then leaving them at Hindley to join a street running alignment into Wigan, with requadrupling throughout and the Atherton Fast lines then being retained by Network Rail for use by Southport, Headbolt Lane, freight and potentially diversionary services (as if the Atherton Fast lines are relaid in full I can see line speed increases happening for heavy rail).

It does seem likely that the Wigan - Bolton - Manchester paths will be taken by EMUs post-electrification, so the Southports will have to be diverted via Atherton again, but I can only see the loss of connectivity at Bolton being acceptable if journey times to Manchester can be reduced, so at least one will have to run fast via Atherton. This will probably go through onto the Calder Valley. Bear in mind that it is not possible with the current track layout west of Wigan for Southport services to access, let alone terminate in the bay, only Kirkby (Headbolt Lane) services are able to do so, but I suspect Headbolt Lane services will continue to run to Blackburn, with the Leeds services taken over by Southports and the Stalybridge services taken over by EMUs.

It is not possible for Southport to lose direct services to Castlefield and infinitely more likely that these will be extended back to Manchester Airport or even Hazel Grove than be cut back further or diverted to Victoria, although running to Alderley Edge was utterly useless. It is also more likely that Northern will take on at least some TfW 769s (the non-GWR ones could go for scrap though) but that they will not be used on Southport services, instead going to Buxton and Rose Hill Marple do so some actual electric running to Hazel Grove and Guide Bridge. There is no way 769s will ever run a Southport via Atherton service using the wires only between Ince and Hindley! Why exactly have Northern been running DMUs between Piccadilly and Hazel Grove only, when not running through to Buxton? They did something similar during works at Stockport where 150s ran a shuttle serving Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, when electrics could have done so.

The most important factor though is that if capacity between Wigan, Bolton and Manchester is insufficient for passenger demand, then it must be increased and by this I mean the number of paths, not just train lengths. In the past, capacity on these corridors was much greater, so why do we put up with such constraints today when the problems caused are so visible? It is more important for journey times and reliability between Southport, Clitheroe and Manchester to be improved by increased capacity between Wigan, Bolton and Manchester than it is for those services to be operated by EMUs throughout.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd say that's a little harsh. The M5000s are quick off the mark, modern, bright (but definitely not too bright) and airy feeling on-board, they look stylish and they work as a homogeneous fleet. Their reliability put the T68s to shame, and is the reason all were withdrawn when some were intended to remain alongside the M5000s permanently. They've also got the capability of being singles or doubles. I think calling them awful is very unfair.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==


At least eight times you've gone on about toilets now (or to use that awful word that you and a few others like instead, "bogs,") and while I appreciate a fair few people may have IBS/Crohn IBD etc. I don't see why their conditions should be any more severe than those on the Oldham line, Cardiff Valleys, or the many, MANY commuter routes operated by 345, 376, 378, 455, 507, 508, 707, 710 or 777 stock, a fair few of which provide services of longer journey times than Atherton if not very similar.

Of course it's still a downgrade to lose a toilet, but the benefits of the tram-ification for this sort of route would largely outweigh that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==


That's another thing, I can't speak for Northern's 150/1s that serve the line, but the TfW 150s that serve where I live in Cardiff, including those hired from Northern themselves, and the TfW 769s of which the same class also runs Wigan services very regularly have toilets out of order anyway, especially since the crappy compliant sliding doors were fitted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2023 ==


To be honest, Moston and Chadderton are somewhat notorious for that sort of behaviour so I wouldn't be surprised. It's not the nicest of areas in Manchester.

On another thread earlier on, you were decrying a suggestion to replace Heathrow Express, a service which is quite pointless and frivolous given that the line has a service through central London.

I think that residents and visitors between Manchester and Wigan who have to take the journey on a regular basis, have more justification in expecting a swift rail service with appropriate facilities, rather than a tram crawling around the houses and getting stuck behind vans etc.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I think that residents and visitors between Manchester and Wigan who have to take the journey on a regular basis, have more justification in expecting a swift rail service with appropriate facilities, rather than a tram crawling around the houses and getting stuck behind vans etc.

I'd much rather have more frequent service and less facilities rather than the current setting.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd much rather have more frequent service and less facilities rather than the current setting.

I find the half hourly service perfectly good for my needs, although it would be good if it could be raised to three an hour. I wouldn't fancy being sat cross legged for ages.

On another point, if we are planning to send all the Southport trains and freight via Bolton, doesn't that leave little room for expansion or contingency in terms of the double track main line between Bolton and Salford ? I've stood at Moses Gate during the afternoon rush and there have been a lot of trains whizzing through in quick succession already.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I find the half hourly service perfectly good for my needs, although it would be good if it could be raised to three an hour.

The half hourly service is good (Except for Moorside which only get hourly).
But I'd be happy to get 5tph that 12 minutely trams (which seems to be Metrolink's standard) allows.
More service will always be better.

 

[Greybeard33]

The half hourly service is good (Except for Moorside which only get hourly).
But I'd be happy to get 5tph that 12 minutely trams (which seems to be Metrolink's standard) allows.
More service will always be better.

A more frequent service would not be better if, in 20 years' time, the rammed tram-trains are leaving people behind on the platforms. 150m long heavy rail trains at 4tph (realistic in that timescale) could shift roughly twice as many people as 60m long tram-trains at 5tph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A more frequent service would not be better if, in 20 years' time, the rammed tram-trains are leaving people behind on the platforms. 150m long heavy rail trains at 4tph (realistic in that timescale) could shift roughly twice as many people as 60m long tram-trains at 5tph.

Surely the ultimate conclusion of this is that if things get busier you look to turn Metrolink at least in part into an underground system? It's sort of a pre-metro at the moment. If you remove the street running you can then run longer LRVs.

 

[Arkeeos]

Surely the ultimate conclusion of this is that if things get busier you look to turn Metrolink at least in part into an underground system? It's sort of a pre-metro at the moment. If you remove the street running you can then run longer LRVs.

Yes, metrolink should have been an actual metro from the get go.

You could truncate and isolate some of the urban heavy rail lines, Warrington, atherton, glossop, maybe airport? Combine them with the old heavy rail metrolink lines and run them through a central tunnel like Oslo.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, metrolink should have been an actual metro from the get go.

Was that not why because the Bury electric line was life-expired and a direct connection to the Altrincham electric line gave a good-sized conjoined north-south transport link with tram stops in the city centre?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Surely the ultimate conclusion of this is that if things get busier you look to turn Metrolink at least in part into an underground system? It's sort of a pre-metro at the moment. If you remove the street running you can then run longer LRVs.

Yes, metrolink should have been an actual metro from the get go.

You could truncate and isolate some of the urban heavy rail lines, Warrington, atherton, glossop, maybe airport? Combine them with the old heavy rail metrolink lines and run them through a central tunnel like Oslo.

They wanted to;

How 30 years of Metrolink transformed Manchester - and where it's going now

Three decades ago the first Metrolink tram left Bury station. A lot's changed since then...

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

In 1971, the Pic-Vic tunnel - an electric rail route beneath the city centre to connect Piccadilly and Victoria - came closest to fruition. It even got as far as exploratory excavations, but with money tight because of the energy crisis, vital government cash was pulled and the scheme went the same way as its predecessors.

it almost happened, it would've been amazing to see how different the system we have today would be if the money was there and the metrolink was never made.
I think if these plans went ahead it could've been likely that more abandoned rail routes could've been taken over, or Atherton's line might already be Metro

 

[Whistler40145]

Would the Metrolink service be travelling through Crow Nest Junction?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They wanted to;

it almost happened, it would've been amazing to see how different the system we have today would be if the money was there and the metrolink was never made.
I think if these plans went ahead it could've been likely that more abandoned rail routes could've been taken over, or Atherton's line might already be Metro

I think if we look at Merseyrail it's a whole lot more likely that if we'd had Picc-Vic there would have been no further expansion, or it would have been very minor (e.g. perhaps Bury-Heywood). Local control of Metrolink has meant it has expanded hugely when the best Merseyrail has done is Hooton-Ellesmere Port/Chester, Headbolt Lane and a couple of stations.

The trouble with being part of Network Rail is that you get constrained to their control periods, and trains are more expensive than trams.

OTOH I do think we need an underground third city crossing, allowing the segregated routes to be upgraded to longer trains and keeping only the non-segregated routes on the surface, as per Den Haag.

 

[Arkeeos]

Was that not why because the Bury electric line was life-expired and a direct connection to the Altrincham electric line gave a good-sized conjoined north-south transport link with tram stops in the city centre?

There’s nothing there that really conflicts with the fact that it should have been linked with a tunnel, not Street running.

They wanted to;

it almost happened, it would've been amazing to see how different the system we have today would be if the money was there and the metrolink was never made.
I think if these plans went ahead it could've been likely that more abandoned rail routes could've been taken over, or Atherton's line might already be Metro

Picc-vic was a bit different given that it was a National rail tunnel, not a metro tunnel.

But does anyone know the expected frequencies of the lines if picc-vic were to have happened? Would it have included electrification and would that be 3rd rail or Overhead? It’s hard to find information on the project.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think if we look at Merseyrail it's a whole lot more likely that if we'd had Picc-Vic there would have been no further expansion, or it would have been very minor (e.g. perhaps Bury-Heywood). Local control of Metrolink has meant it has expanded hugely when the best Merseyrail has done is Hooton-Ellesmere Port/Chester, Headbolt Lane and a couple of stations.

The trouble with being part of Network Rail is that you get constrained to their control periods, and trains are more expensive than trams.

OTOH I do think we need an underground third city crossing, allowing the segregated routes to be upgraded to longer trains and keeping only the non-segregated routes on the surface, as per Den Haag.

It needs a new heavy rail line from Victoria to Piccadilly.
You'd send a newly electrified Atherton line via this line plus the more local services from Castledfield

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

But does anyone know the expected frequencies of the lines if picc-vic were to have happened? Would it have included electrification and would that be 3rd rail or Overhead? It’s hard to find information on the project.

I have a PDF of a Greater Manchester Council brochure (can't find a date, but seems to be circa 1975; I'm also unsure of its provenance, but it doesn't seem to be online any more) that proposes four routes:

Bolton (via Radcliffe)-Wilmslow
Bury-Alderley Edge
Victoria-Hazel Grove
Victoria-Macclesfield

Each would have had 6 tph in the peak and 2 tph in the off-peak (thus 24 tph peak and 8 tph off-peak through the tunnel). It's also mentioned that 1 tph off-peak would extend to Crewe and certain Macclesfield trains might extend to Stoke in the peak. The signalling in the tunnel would have permitted up to 40 tph.

Electrification was going to be 25 kV (so requiring conversion of the Bury line).

I also have a PDF of the 1973 SELNEC Public Transport Plan for the Future, which I acquired from the Museum of Transport Greater Manchester (https://www.motgmshop.uk/product-page/selnec) - this mentions that the PTE was considering an increase to 4 tph off-peak on each route, and that extensions to Oldham/Rochdale and Buxton were considered longer-term possibilities.

 

[Greybeard33]

So even if the Picc-Vic tunnel had been built, none of the services through it would have gone to Atherton or Wigan. I fail to see the relevance to the topic of this thread.

The Metrolink tunnel that the TfGM 2040 strategy mentions as a potential long term project is proposed to go from Cornbrook to Piccadilly, to relieve the existing on street city crossings, and so would not connect to the Atherton line.

 

[snowball]

But does anyone know the expected frequencies of the lines if picc-vic were to have happened? Would it have included electrification and would that be 3rd rail or Overhead? It’s hard to find information on the project.

It would have been 25kV overhead electrified for compatibility with the existing electrification on the lines to the south. Electrification would have been extended to Bury, Bolton (via Radcliffe), and maybe Buxton (I forget). I have a leaflet somewhere which I think may show proposed frequencies. I think the leaflet exists online somewhere.

 

[Arkeeos]

I have a PDF of a Greater Manchester Council brochure (can't find a date, but seems to be circa 1975; I'm also unsure of its provenance, but it doesn't seem to be online any more) that proposes four routes:

Bolton (via Radcliffe)-Wilmslow
Bury-Alderley Edge
Victoria-Hazel Grove
Victoria-Macclesfield

Each would have had 6 tph in the peak and 2 tph in the off-peak (thus 24 tph peak and 8 tph off-peak through the tunnel). It's also mentioned that 1 tph off-peak would extend to Crewe and certain Macclesfield trains might extend to Stoke in the peak. The signalling in the tunnel would have permitted up to 40 tph.

Electrification was going to be 25 kV (so requiring conversion of the Bury line).

I also have a PDF of the 1973 SELNEC Public Transport Plan for the Future, which I acquired from the Museum of Transport Greater Manchester (https://www.motgmshop.uk/product-page/selnec) - this mentions that the PTE was considering an increase to 4 tph off-peak on each route, and that extensions to Oldham/Rochdale and Buxton were considered longer-term possibilities.

Very Interesting, The on-peak/off-peak drop off seems quite harsh, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was changed, if it were ever built.

So even if the Picc-Vic tunnel had been built, none of the services through it would have gone to Atherton or Wigan. I fail to see the relevance to the topic of this thread.

The Metrolink tunnel that the TfGM 2040 strategy mentions as a potential long term project is proposed to go from Cornbrook to Piccadilly, to relieve the existing on street city crossings, and so would not connect to the Atherton line.

The proposed metro tunnel is actually for the heavy rail routes (glossop to warrington being the obvious conclusion).

"Besides providing a step-change in capacity, a Regional Centre metro tunnel would improve rapid transit services between locations throughout Greater Manchester through conversion of shorter-distance-focused suburban rail lines to create a network of high-capacity metro services."

I wouldn't be surprised if it were to happen, It would be optimised to route more rail lines through it, like Atherton.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think a city centre tunnel is likely to happen any time soon, the path of least resistance is for a third surface city crossing.

It could be delivered more rapidly and at a fraction of the cost, allowing more lines to be converted.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Once you start to consider going underground you have to consider the value for money aspect of building a tunnel. Since cut and cover is not a realistic option, for pretty much any modern urban centre, that means using TBMs. Of course a light-rail tunnel can be smaller than one for heavy rail but might not generate the same level of economic benefit.

So it could be the best bet is more of a RER type link, say from Salford Crescent to Longsight with stations at Spinningfields/Royal Exchange and Piccadilly. Service levels at 4tph on both Atherton and Bolton lines (various options for starting points between Blackburn, Blackpool, Southport, Kirkby/Skem) with southside distribution depending on what is done with Slade Lane Jn (Airport, Wilmslow/Alderley Edge/Crewe, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove/New Mills).

Obviously such a scheme, while normal in continental Europe, is no more than a pipe-dream here but it would take a huge amount of pressure off the current pinch points around Manchester (Piccadilly throat, Castlefield corridor, Ordsall La Jn) allowing for much more reliable operation of the other routes in the area. And nearly all the construction would be on brown-field sites.

It would also avoid the inevitable slowing down of a Metrolink service, compared to the existing heavy rail one, approaching Manchester via Salford: even a 5tph service on the Atherton line would be difficult to accommodate at Salford Crescent meaning any such line would have to join the road network somewhat further west meaning an extended road-running section to reach the city centre. Not to mention whether Metrolink's city centre sections have enough spare capacity to take on further routes and services.

Bottom line is that Manchester, just like Birmingham and Leeds, could really do with both additional trackage and platform capacity to allow for greater throughput and increased reliability. All the talk of trams or tram-trains for what are really suburban, rather than truly urban, routes is just the continued insistence in this country of preferring the cheapest option rather than the best one.

 

[Arkeeos]

I don't think a city centre tunnel is likely to happen any time soon, the path of least resistance is for a third surface city crossing.

It could be delivered more rapidly and at a fraction of the cost, allowing more lines to be converted.

Fraction of the cost and a fraction of the benefit. If it were to ever happen its got the best chance of happening soon(ish)

 

[cactustwirly]

Once you start to consider going underground you have to consider the value for money aspect of building a tunnel. Since cut and cover is not a realistic option, for pretty much any modern urban centre, that means using TBMs. Of course a light-rail tunnel can be smaller than one for heavy rail but might not generate the same level of economic benefit.

So it could be the best bet is more of a RER type link, say from Salford Crescent to Longsight with stations at Spinningfields/Royal Exchange and Piccadilly. Service levels at 4tph on both Atherton and Bolton lines (various options for starting points between Blackburn, Blackpool, Southport, Kirkby/Skem) with southside distribution depending on what is done with Slade Lane Jn (Airport, Wilmslow/Alderley Edge/Crewe, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove/New Mills).

Obviously such a scheme, while normal in continental Europe, is no more than a pipe-dream here but it would take a huge amount of pressure off the current pinch points around Manchester (Piccadilly throat, Castlefield corridor, Ordsall La Jn) allowing for much more reliable operation of the other routes in the area. And nearly all the construction would be on brown-field sites.

It would also avoid the inevitable slowing down of a Metrolink service, compared to the existing heavy rail one, approaching Manchester via Salford: even a 5tph service on the Atherton line would be difficult to accommodate at Salford Crescent meaning any such line would have to join the road network somewhat further west meaning an extended road-running section to reach the city centre. Not to mention whether Metrolink's city centre sections have enough spare capacity to take on further routes and services.

Bottom line is that Manchester, just like Birmingham and Leeds, could really do with both additional trackage and platform capacity to allow for greater throughput and increased reliability. All the talk of trams or tram-trains for what are really suburban, rather than truly urban, routes is just the continued insistence in this country of preferring the cheapest option rather than the best one.

Well to me the obvious answer is to convert Castlefield to a S bahn like Berlin's Stadtbahn.
You just need to segregate the TPE and EMR and the freight services and install a moving block signalling system like ECTS

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

So even if the Picc-Vic tunnel had been built, none of the services through it would have gone to Atherton or Wigan. I fail to see the relevance to the topic of this thread.

What the 1973 public transport plan has to say about the Atherton line is:

While it is clear that both Wigan and Westhoughton require links to the conurbation centre, these can be provided either via the existing direct line or by way of Bolton using either diesel trains connecting into the Piccadilly-Victoria trains or by extending the existing [sic] Piccadilly-Victoria network to Wigan via Westhoughton.

Mention is also made of the possibility of converting "the inner part of the Atherton line" (the mapping suggests this means approximately east of Walkden) as part of an "intermediate rapid transit" (light rail) system, which does bring us right back on topic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What the 1973 public transport plan has to say about the Atherton line is:

Mention is also made of the possibility of converting "the inner part of the Atherton line" (the mapping suggests this means approximately east of Walkden) as part of an "intermediate rapid transit" (light rail) system, which does bring us right back on topic.

That has a bit of a smell of "Merseyrail style end on bufferstops" about it...