Should the closed stations between Preston and Lancaster be reopened? ?

[Bartsimho]

Sorry for picking this up so long after you posted it, but something was playing on my mind here and I finally figured what it was: As far as I'm aware Preston already has 5 through platforms that are broadly dedicated to through trains on the WCML: Platforms 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Off the top of my head, these platforms are used by about 4tph in each direction (2 * London-Scotland, 1 * Manchester-Scotland, 1 * Manchester-Barrow/Windermere) plus a few occasional extras like Liverpool-Scotland, plus freight. That works out at about 2 trains per hour calling per platform. It seems odd if that leaves no capacity to fit an extra 2tph in somewhere, since numerous platforms up and down the country accommodate far more trains than that.

I would expect about 9tph to be possible in either direction thinking about it being double track with enough headway for conflicting moves across the lines to Blackpool as well as the WCML. This is for passenger and freight.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The plan for Hazelrigg to be a second campus with another eight colleges was instituted as a long term objective back in the 1970s. I saw the plans, along with those for J33A linking the two sites during a student occupation of University House years ago.
J33A would have lined up with the central underpass through the university site

As for not adding a new junction..........have you forgotten J31A?

That was the 70s, I imagine plans have changed quite a bit since. If they wanted a 2nd campus, I reckon they'd go for the city centre or north of it?
J31A was a 90s idea, road policy has changed significantly since.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Preston P7 is disused, though is very occasionally used as a non passenger loop.

 

[eldomtom2]

Yet again, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

I was talking about your comments about modal shift from air to rail in other threads.

 

[zwk500]

As far as I'm aware Preston already has 5 through platforms that are broadly dedicated to through trains on the WCML: Platforms 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Platform 7 is barred from passenger use and is only a goods loop. I'm not sure what work would be needed to bring it back into passenger use, although it is in theory possible it would have a price tag attached.
3 and 4 are the main fast lines, use of 5 or 6 requires crossing moves for down trains and is a very slow approach.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Platform 7 is barred from passenger use and is only a goods loop. I'm not sure what work would be needed to bring it back into passenger use, although it is in theory possible it would have a price tag attached.
3 and 4 are the main fast lines, use of 5 or 6 requires crossing moves for down trains and is a very slow approach.

I would guess that the cost of bringing Platform 7 back into passenger use would be orders of magnitude less then the cost of building new platforms and extending the station, and negligible compared to the cost of 4-tracking in order to add stations between Preston and Lancaster.

Operationally, if you want to avoid conflicting moves, you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to have Platform 3 and 4 for northbound trains and 5-6 for southbound trains. I guess there's a minor issue that passenger facilities are much better on P3-4, and maybe as you imply that would require some works to speed up the P5/6 approaches. With that kind of arrangement, I'd be astonished if there wasn't capacity to insert some additional commuter trains on that line, at least as far as platforming at Preston is concerned.

 

[Bevan Price]

I would guess that the cost of bringing Platform 7 back into passenger use would be orders of magnitude less then the cost of building new platforms and extending the station, and negligible compared to the cost of 4-tracking in order to add stations between Preston and Lancaster.

Operationally, if you want to avoid conflicting moves, you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to have Platform 3 and 4 for northbound trains and 5-6 for southbound trains. I guess there's a minor issue that passenger facilities are much better on P3-4, and maybe as you imply that would require some works to speed up the P5/6 approaches. With that kind of arrangement, I'd be astonished if there wasn't capacity to insert some additional commuter trains on that line, at least as far as platforming at Preston is concerned.

Preston Platform 7 is quite useable already; a short part of it is used as the east side exit from the subway - and although I have not done it for a couple of years, it was still possible to walk safely along the full length of Platform 7.

Reinstating the former mail platforms (the original nos. 1 & 2) would also be feasible. Viewed from the current platforms 1 &2, the platorms look to be in reasonable condition, but some work on the subway would be necessary to restore public access.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the issue is anyone planning a new development is hit with the persermism seen so often on the forum.

Anyone responsible for planning a new development along the lines of what is proposed here won’t be reading this forum for advice.

“The cost! The timetables! The problems!"

“The facts!”

But, like most public sector projects, the actual cost is less relevant than the worth of the project to the Government who will quite happily spend public money to promote their interests.

But how do you know that the actual cost is less relevant than the worth of the project, unless you know not the costs and the “worth” (benefits)? That’s why you do a business case with a cost benefit analysis.

Sorry for picking this up so long after you posted it, but something was playing on my mind here and I finally figured what it was: As far as I'm aware Preston already has 5 through platforms that are broadly dedicated to through trains on the WCML: Platforms 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Off the top of my head, these platforms are used by about 4tph in each direction (2 * London-Scotland, 1 * Manchester-Scotland, 1 * Manchester-Barrow/Windermere) plus a few occasional extras like Liverpool-Scotland, plus freight. That works out at about 2 trains per hour calling per platform. It seems odd if that leaves no capacity to fit an extra 2tph in somewhere, since numerous platforms up and down the country accommodate far more trains than that.

Well it depends if these extra services are carrying on to the south or not. I had assumed not, which could be a mistake on my part, annd thus they needed to terminate at Preston. Although if they do continue south, there are then questions to answer about where, capacity on those routes, etc. As ever, the rail network has to be considered as a network, and whilst an increased service could unquestionably be timetabled at Preston, that timetable solution might not work elsewhere on the network.

I was talking about your comments about modal shift from air to rail in other threads.

In which, IIRC, I said that experience all over the world has proved that regardless of how fast / frequent the train service is, for journeys over around 200miles some people will still choose to fly, usually for flight connections. I don’t see what relevance that has here, nor how that can be implied to suggeSt in anyway some sort of anti rail agenda.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Its just accepting the reality.

What is? Are you saying that projects are geared by political parties to benefit their own business mates as a matter of course?

Projects will happen if the Government is so minded, it doesn't need the railway to start off as a blocker in the first place.

This is not an answer to my point.

But even "the railway" - perhaps you mean Network Raily here? - cant afford time and manpower ( = money, taxpayers' money) to study crackpot ideas like re-opening wayside stations between Preston and Lancaster.

With the exception of a station near Lancaster University, I'd say this must be up there with re-opening Aber******h to Car*******n.

Carnforth main line platforms should stand a chance too, depending on how you serve the Windermere branch, ie assuming there is a service you could stop there.

 

[zwk500]

Preston Platform 7 is quite useable already; a short part of it is used as the east side exit from the subway - and although I have not done it for a couple of years, it was still possible to walk safely along the full length of Platform 7.

I expect the problem with Platform 7 is having suitable overlap protection at either end. If it only needs to be long enough for a local train this issue becomes much easier to solve.

 

[JamieL]

But even "the railway" - perhaps you mean Network Raily here? - cant afford time and manpower ( = money, taxpayers' money) to study crackpot ideas like re-opening wayside stations between Preston and Lancaster.

With the exception of a station near Lancaster University, I'd say this must be up there with re-opening Aber******h to Car*******n.

Carnforth main line platforms should stand a chance too, depending on how you serve the Windermere branch, ie assuming there is a service you could stop there.

A "crackpot" idea that you acknowledge includes a suitable proposition at Bailrigg.

Disappointing to see diversity in language hasn't reached the railway yet. It rather illuminates the broader problem here.

 

[eldomtom2]

In which, IIRC, I said that experience all over the world has proved that regardless of how fast / frequent the train service is, for journeys over around 200miles some people will still choose to fly, usually for flight connections. I don’t see what relevance that has here, nor how that can be implied to suggeSt in anyway some sort of anti rail agenda.

It was the tone of it - "oh well, nothing we can do about it, some people will always fly short distances".

 

[30907]

Operationally, if you want to avoid conflicting moves, you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to have Platform 3 and 4 for northbound trains and 5-6 for southbound trains.

Whenever I have been at Preston it has worked like that, but with southbound trains using 4 when it is free.

 

[Bald Rick]

It was the tone of it - "oh well, nothing we can do about it, some people will always fly short distances".

but that’s the truth!

Even in France, where there is an LGV all the way from Paris to Bordeaux, on which non-stop trains take 2 hours, and there is an outright ban on selling point to point air tickets between Bordeaux and Paris, there are still 5 flights a day each way.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well it depends if these extra services are carrying on to the south or not. I had assumed not, which could be a mistake on my part, annd thus they needed to terminate at Preston. Although if they do continue south, there are then questions to answer about where, capacity on those routes, etc. As ever, the rail network has to be considered as a network, and whilst an increased service could unquestionably be timetabled at Preston, that timetable solution might not work elsewhere on the network.

That was possibly due to my vagueness. I've referred a couple of times in this thread to what I would see as a good solution being a half hourly Morecambe-Lancaster-Preston service to serve the new stations, but I've also said that I think it would be better if that hypothetical service continued further South - but that would require discussing infrastructure improvements that are way out of scope for this thread. FWIW I think the WCML has a similar problem right the way down to Crewe - a largely 2-track railway (except for a bit South of Preston) with long distance services eating all the capacity which means there's little no scope for much needed commuter services to serve quite a few significant towns along the route (Golborne says 'hi' ).

At any rate it seems to me that Preston itself probably doesn't pose a major problem:

• If the service I'm suggesting continued further South, then no works would be needed at Preston to accommodate it, as we already have ample WCML platforms at Preston. (3, 4, 5 and 6 are all essentially dedicated to the WCML and in passenger use). You'd certainly need do do something substantial further South, but probably nothing too significant at Preston.
• If the service I'm suggesting terminated at Preston, then it sounds like you might need to get Platform 7 up to scratch for passenger use to accommodate the services - although that does seem generous to me. Then you could do something like, Platform 3/4 for through Northbound trains. Platform 5 for the terminating service - in between the through platforms so there are no new conflicting moves. Platform 6/7 for southbound through trains. There would be some cost associated with the Platform 7 works, but compared to the cost of 4-tracking at least several miles of the WCML and building brand new stations and access roads and car parks etc., I'd expect that to be like a rounding error

 

[randyrippley]

Operationally, if you want to avoid conflicting moves, you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to have Platform 3 and 4 for northbound trains and 5-6 for southbound trains. I guess there's a minor issue that passenger facilities are much better on P3-4, and maybe as you imply that would require some works to speed up the P5/6 approaches. With that kind of arrangement, I'd be astonished if there wasn't capacity to insert some additional commuter trains on that line, at least as far as platforming at Preston is concerned.

Prior to the WCML speed improvements that was the case, but Virgin wanted dedicated platforms for its services, and also all the shops and catering were on 3/4 with nothing on 5/6

 

[30907]

I've referred a couple of times in this thread to what I would see as a good solution being a half hourly Morecambe-Lancaster-Preston service to serve the new stations,

I can't see how opening Bailrigg could justify a 50% increase in Preston-Lancaster services, but I agree it would need 2tph to stand a chance of competing for Preston traffic. So 1tph extra, 1tph Barrow (with a timetable rewrite to make it work!)

but I've also said that I think it would be better if that hypothetical service continued further South

I agree. The pre-covid timetable had a stopper to Manchester which would fit in theory (if you rejigged another chunk of timetable so that north and south of Preston matched and used bimodes - or ran it to Carnforth at the northern end to get it out of the way).

 

[randyrippley]

I agree. The pre-covid timetable had a stopper to Manchester which would fit in theory (if you rejigged another chunk of timetable so that north and south of Preston matched and used bimodes - or ran it to Carnforth at the northern end to get it out of the way).

If you're going to do that you might as well re-open Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands stations as well. If you're going to waste money you might as well make it a big waste..............
Or if you want a proper job run it to Windermere, reopening Carnforth, Burton & Holme, and Milnthorpe as well. Once you've done that reopen the Milnthorpe-Arnside curve to allow direct Windermere-Barrow services, bound to be tourist demand for that.........
You'd save so much Lake District congestion

Next in line you could reopen Shap and Tebay, they'd make good parkway stations, removing so much traffic off the M6. So convenient for the local area

 

[eldomtom2]

but that’s the truth!

Even in France, where there is an LGV all the way from Paris to Bordeaux, on which non-stop trains take 2 hours, and there is an outright ban on selling point to point air tickets between Bordeaux and Paris, there are still 5 flights a day each way.

Really? Do you honestly think France has exercised every option available to reduce flights?

 

[Bald Rick]

Really? Do you honestly think France has exercised every option available to reduce flights?

SNCF has done all within its power, that’s for sure. And French Government has gone further than any other Government.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Anyone responsible for planning a new development along the lines of what is proposed here won’t be reading this forum for advice.

Brutal response but true!

 

[JamieL]

Brutal response but true!

Equally true is the pointer that statement gives about the intransigence that blights railway development.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Equally true is the pointer that statement gives about the intransigence that blights railway development.

Dont forget the laws of physics and economics

 

[eldomtom2]

And French Government has gone further than any other Government.

So they haven't done everything, in other words.

 

[Bald Rick]

Equally true is the pointer that statement gives about the intransigence that blights railway development.

What does that mean?

So they haven't done everything, in other words.

That depends on your definition of ‘everything’.

 

[yoyothehobo]

What does that mean?

It means you shouldnt ask a lawyer to defend you in a case, just get some random bloke from down the Pub.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Anyone responsible for planning a new development along the lines of what is proposed here won’t be reading this forum for advice.

*gasp* But surely these forums are internationally respected as the leading source of expertise on all matters related to railways (as well as to transport generally, politics, science, life, the universe, and - basically, everything really)! What's gone wrong?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In fairness, there are a few really knowledgeable people in certain areas on this forum.

 

[eldomtom2]

That depends on your definition of ‘everything’.

Hence my points about complacency and fatalism.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hence my points about complacency and fatalism.

What do you suggest then? and how would you implement it ?