Merseyrail Expansion

[MarkyT]

It should be fairly straightforward to wire a pantograph on a 777 straight to the lower voltage side instead of going via a step-down transformer. Some southern region locos had low voltage pantographs for safer yard work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2024 ==

Minor point - stuff doesn't last forever. At some point renewals need to happen, and that is your opportunity to decide if you spend your budget on replacing like for like or with something better. I can eventually see isolated 3rd rail conversions being considered at renewal time once there's a bit more AC around them.

If the ideal situation was ever reached where the surface sections were all upgraded to OHLE and the tunnels were the last remaining 3rd rail due to the clearances, could it then be viable to use battery+OHLE units to rip out the last of the third rail entirely to improve safety? The batteries would have plenty of time to charge up on the surface sections...

I don't think conversion of tunnel and other highly segregated metro sections would bring much safety benefit. Access for maintenance and repairs on such busy railways is already tightly controlled and requires power off and traffic blockage in the appropriate areas. These can be backed up with trackside lockouts operated by the workers. The major risk remaining is people falling from platforms. Having the juice rail on the opposite side of the track from the platform edge helps to control that risk but there's a risk some who fell might stumble over to the wrong side in their confusion and there's a problem with 'spanish solution' platforms with faces either side of the track. Prominent hazard signage and side shielding can help but the most effective measure would be to remove the conductor rail from the platform area altogether, which could be possible if all trains had line haul traction batteries. They all have some small provision for emergencies and depot movements.

What type of OHLE is proposed for the very long Standedge rail tunnel between Diggle and Marsden which is far longer than any Merseyside tunnel?

I don't think length is a great concern. It's the detail of clearances and the condition of the tunnel lining. A ceiling conductor rail or similar low-profile system would require a great many anchor points at cost and risk. A low voltage line would be larger in section and thus heavier than a high voltage conductor. A 3rd rail simply attaches to the sleeper by contrast so is bound to be cheaper at full renewal

 

[Gareth]

There's even less DC overhead stock available in the market than there is 3rd rail, so the costs would be grossly disproportional to sticking to much more standardised technology used everywhere else.

Oh well. We'll just stick with 3rd rail then.

I didn't think we were talking about replacing the rolling stock anyway, considering it's brand new.

 

[MarkyT]

Oh well. We'll just stick with 3rd rail then.

I didn't think we were talking about replacing the rolling stock anyway, considering it's brand new.

I think DC overhead could be useful for extensions, maybe some conversions at extremities in areas more rural in character, perhaps more difficult to protect from incursions. With a low voltage panto and no step-down transformer, units could still have batteries as well for emergencies and 'enhanced gapping' surrounding stations in remaining 3rd rail areas. Having batteries onboard can also allow a degree of power management so battery energy can be blended with conductor current to overcome any volt drop losses at short extreme peaks of demand without performance loss. Braking energy can also be captured whether or not the line is receptive to the current. All that said there are heavy losses in such low voltage systems, whether overhead or 3rd rail which get heavier the larger the trains are so perhaps the Cardiff approach using 25kV wherever possible but allowing gaps through difficult or expensive infrastructure under battery power is better. Fewer feeders are required to avoid voltage drop problems at peak traffic. The problem with that on Merseyrail is the new units have space and weight budget for a main 25kV step-down transformer or a line haul battery bank, but not both, so a statement some considerable time ago claimed. Maybe tech has marched on from there and that's no longer the case.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there any real need for Merseyrail expansion?

 

[MarkyT]

Is there any real need for Merseyrail expansion?

A separate issue really. If politicians so desire and can make a case then this is a potential solution.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A separate issue really. If politicians so desire and can make a case then this is a potential solution.

So do I understand we are in the situation of a solution looking for a problem?

 

[MarkyT]

So do I understand we are in the situation of a solution looking for a problem?

It's just an idea, not a fully worked-up engineering design!

 

[daodao]

Is there any real need for Merseyrail expansion?

A wise question, to which the answer is very little if any. There are reasonable cases for a short extension from Hunt's Cross to Gateacre (as originally envisaged), and incorporating the existing Headbolt Lane-Wigan Wallgate service into Merseyrail using the newly acquired battery electric class 777 emus, but that is all.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't think conversion of tunnel and other highly segregated metro sections would bring much safety benefit.

IIRC the 777s can be DC/battery or DC/AC, but not both. Is it a battery or transformer issue, which would prevent an AC/battery conversion?

 

[MarkyT]

IIRC the 777s can be DC/battery or DC/AC, but not both. Is it a battery or transformer issue, which would prevent an AC/battery conversion?

Correct according to a statement I read some years ago. That suggests line haul batteries would be accommodated in the same space allocated to the 25kV step-down transformer, but there's not sufficient space and/or weight allocation for both. On the DC only (non battery) units I understand the transformer space is filled with a ballast weight to mimic the transformer so carefully tuned suspension and riding characteristics assumptions wouldn't be affected by adding the component and pantograph later (or a battery presumably). Note all units have an emergency/depot shunt battery, possibly housed elsewhere onboard?

 

[Meerkat]

Correct according to a statement I read some years ago. That suggests line haul batteries would be accommodated in the same space allocated to the 25kV step-down transformer, but there's not sufficient space and/or weight allocation for both. On the DC only (non battery) units I understand the transformer space is filled with a ballast weight to mimic the transformer so carefully tuned suspension and riding characteristics assumptions wouldn't be affected by adding the component and pantograph later (or a battery presumably). Note all units have an emergency/depot shunt battery, possibly housed elsewhere onboard?

Well that ruins my answer to the DC to AC conversion of having AC on the surface and using batteries in the tunnels!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

https://letstalkwestlancashire.uk.engagementhq.com/skelmersdale-town-centre-masterplan-consultation is the Skelmersdale Town Centre Masterplan Consultation. I haven't looked to see how much detail it goes into, and in my experience 'Masterplans' aren't far from wishlists. But for the railway it says

New Rail Station

Alongside the proposals for the residential development at the former Glenburn site a new rail station is proposed.

• The train station would add to the existing sustainable transport links to local and regional destinations such as Wigan, Manchester and Liverpool
• enabling work related or leisure trips without relying on private vehicles.

So West Lancashire Council (the district council and planning authority) would still like a town centre station, which logically also requires a branch line to it.

 

[CaramellDansen]

So West Lancashire Council (the district council and planning authority) would still like a town centre station, which logically also requires a branch line to it.

If the route to Skem goes via (what used to be) the north-west Rainford curve, then diesel services could terminate at the existing Rainford station and the Merseyrail route could go via the alignment of the Ormskirk to Rainford branch of the East Lancashire Railway and terminate at the site of the old Skelmersdale station, with an intermediate station near Bushey Lane for interchange with diesel services (and another where White Moss halt was, potentially), surely this would solve the "branch line" problem... at least for the time being?

Unless, of course, you mean a branch line in the way the Ormskirk line is a branch of the Northern line. Regardless, I still advocate this route.

Edit: Upon further reading, this document you listed seems to imply the railway line will take the route via the Southway / Bone Island / Thorn Island roads' alignment. This is by no means a new idea, but I don't understand in what ways it might be better than the above mentioned route. Can anyone shine some light on this?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Unless, of course, you mean a branch line in the way the Ormskirk line is a branch of the Northern line.

I mean branch line in the way that it will be a branch coming off the existing route. I make no judgement of the precise alignment and leave it to readers to work out that a new line (whether on an historic alignment or otherwise) will have cost implications in the way that a new/enhanced station on the existing alignment wouldn't.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If the route to Skem goes via (what used to be) the north-west Rainford curve, then diesel services could terminate at the existing Rainford station and the Merseyrail route could go via the alignment of the Ormskirk to Rainford branch of the East Lancashire Railway and terminate at the site of the old Skelmersdale station, with an intermediate station near Bushey Lane for interchange with diesel services (and another where White Moss halt was, potentially), surely this would solve the "branch line" problem... at least for the time being?

Unless, of course, you mean a branch line in the way the Ormskirk line is a branch of the Northern line. Regardless, I still advocate this route.

Edit: Upon further reading, this document you listed seems to imply the railway line will take the route via the Southway / Bone Island / Thorn Island roads' alignment. This is by no means a new idea, but I don't understand in what ways it might be better than the above mentioned route. Can anyone shine some light on this?

I think any Skem branch on Merseyrail could only justify 2tph for the time being, it makes sense to continue the other 2tph into Wigan Wallgate (using the northern bay to charge during turnaround time - only issue is that you may need to use a single 777 on that route as the bay is only long enough for 1 777 without extension further towards the station building).

Then you create a decent interchange point for Kirkby line stations towards Manchester/Bolton (and other destinations via a short walk to Wigan North Western), and you keep Merseyrail mostly isolated from issues caused by congestion in the Manchester area.

 

[frodshamfella]

I think any Skem branch on Merseyrail could only justify 2tph for the time being, it makes sense to continue the other 2tph into Wigan Wallgate (using the northern bay to charge during turnaround time - only issue is that you may need to use a single 777 on that route as the bay is only long enough for 1 777 without extension further towards the station building).

Then you create a decent interchange point for Kirkby line stations towards Manchester/Bolton (and other destinations via a short walk to Wigan North Western), and you keep Merseyrail mostly isolated from issues caused by congestion in the Manchester area.

Makes sense to me. The extension to Headbolt Lane is hardly earth shattering. It's glaringly obvious the Skelmersdale and Wigan should be the destinations..

 

[AlastairFraser]

Makes sense to me. The extension to Headbolt Lane is hardly earth shattering. It's glaringly obvious the Skelmersdale and Wigan should be the destinations..

Indeed! Now, if they could finally get on with building the Skem branch please....

 

[frodshamfella]

Indeed! Now, if they could finally get on with building the Skem branch please....

Quite, just get on with it !

 

[Djgr]

Quite, just get on with it !

Again it is difficult to see how this will progress without funding coming from outside the Liverpool City Region.

Even if you believe that LCR would realistically fund out of region schemes, they already have a full waiting list for cash, not least of which is Liverpool Baltic (£96m).

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed! Now, if they could finally get on with building the Skem branch please....

How much gain is there over just doing a major upgrade of Upholland station?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Quite, just get on with it !

Indeed

How much gain is there over just doing a major upgrade of Upholland station?

More population within walking distance. You'd probably need to upgrade the roads to Upholland station as well, to be able to provide bus connections from all areas of Skem and surrounding villages/towns.

 

[Meerkat]

More population within walking distance. You'd probably need to upgrade the roads to Upholland station as well, to be able to provide bus connections from all areas of Skem and surrounding villages/towns.

Is that enough to overcome the considerable extra cost? I think there is a risk that you might get the funding for Upholland, but if you demand a branch then its too high a cost and you get nothing.

 

[urbophile]

Indeed

More population within walking distance. You'd probably need to upgrade the roads to Upholland station as well, to be able to provide bus connections from all areas of Skem and surrounding villages/towns.

Depends if you define 'walking distance' as the distance it is possible for a reasonable fit person to walk, as against the distance such a person would be willing to walk. Skelmersdale (built for the motor car just before a period of austerity in which few people in the town could actually afford cars) is not an attractive place to walk around. It might have improved since I lived there in the 1980s, but I remember a 15-20 minute walk took you through beaten-up housing estates, graffiti-covered and threatening underpasses, across dual-carriageways either by a direct, illegal and dangerous route or an extremely circuitous one involving long ramps and footbridges. How many people would put up with that as part of a daily commute, if when you finally got to the station you found your train had been cancelled?

For the station to be viable it needs enough people living within a pleasant 5-10 minute walk along with a much improved and co-ordinated bus network serving all areas. If the balance went towards the latter, it would be much cheaper to divert all the buses to, say, Upholland and rebuild that station. Even if it involved upgrading the roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More population within walking distance. You'd probably need to upgrade the roads to Upholland station as well, to be able to provide bus connections from all areas of Skem and surrounding villages/towns.

Very few would walk to the Glenburn site due to personal safety issues on the isolated paths (like Milton Keynes they are mostly away from roads). A few might cycle, but almost all would drive or take a taxi, which is where the "just use Maghull North" argument might come in (when I last checked that was just 11 minutes' drive from a random house on a random Skem estate, and traffic congestion on the M58 is basically not a thing at all).

As for Upholland, the best way to do it would be a new entrance and multi storey car park on Pimbo at the other end of the platforms to the current one, where there is presently unused, suitable land and where the roads are perfectly well up to scratch for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2024 ==

either by a direct, illegal and dangerous route

Direct and dangerous, but for correctness it is not illegal for a pedestrian to cross a dual carriageway in the UK where they wish unless it is a special road or motorway, and none of the dual carriageways in Skelmersdale are.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is that enough to overcome the considerable extra cost? I think there is a risk that you might get the funding for Upholland, but if you demand a branch then its too high a cost and you get nothing.

You could extend 2tph from Headbolt Lane initially to Wigan, you'd need to invest in the charger/bay at Wallgate and then build the business case for a Skem branch.

Depends if you define 'walking distance' as the distance it is possible for a reasonable fit person to walk, as against the distance such a person would be willing to walk. Skelmersdale (built for the motor car just before a period of austerity in which few people in the town could actually afford cars) is not an attractive place to walk around. It might have improved since I lived there in the 1980s, but I remember a 15-20 minute walk took you through beaten-up housing estates, graffiti-covered and threatening underpasses, across dual-carriageways either by a direct, illegal and dangerous route or an extremely circuitous one involving long ramps and footbridges. How many people would put up with that as part of a daily commute, if when you finally got to the station you found your train had been cancelled?

For the station to be viable it needs enough people living within a pleasant 5-10 minute walk along with a much improved and co-ordinated bus network serving all areas. If the balance went towards the latter, it would be much cheaper to divert all the buses to, say, Upholland and rebuild that station. Even if it involved upgrading the roads.

I think West Lancs Council's regeneration plans avoid a lot of the issues you mentioned, and Merseyrail is a network with probably one of the lowest rate of cancellations in the North West. But we could see what happened if we just extended 2tph to Wigan first and then built a case for further extensions that way.

Very few would walk to the Glenburn site due to personal safety issues on the isolated paths (like Milton Keynes they are mostly away from roads). A few might cycle, but almost all would drive or take a taxi, which is where the "just use Maghull North" argument might come in (when I last checked that was just 11 minutes' drive from a random house on a random Skem estate, and traffic congestion on the M58 is basically not a thing at all).

Maybe better security would be a decent idea as part of the regeneration project. Driving to Maghull North is not suitable for the population that Skem has reached these days.

As for Upholland, the best way to do it would be a new entrance and multi storey car park on Pimbo at the other end of the platforms to the current one, where there is presently unused, suitable land and where the roads are perfectly well up to scratch for it.

Perhaps that is a temporary solution, but that doesn't provide a decent solution for a lot of the other parts of the area, given Upholland's peripheral nature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe better security would be a decent idea as part of the regeneration project.

How would you propose this to work?

Driving to Maghull North is not suitable for the population that Skem has reached these days.

Taking 11 minutes it'll be the best option for most people. I can barely get to Bletchley station that quickly.

 

[AlastairFraser]

How would you propose this to work?

Decent lighting and a CCTV network.

Taking 11 minutes it'll be the best option for most people. I can barely get to Bletchley station that quickly.

It's got to account for local users from Maghull too though. A station can only take so many passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Decent lighting and a CCTV network.

Massively costly and will change nothing as most of it is perception. I take it you've never lived in a New Town?

You'd need serious levels of on the ground policing to have people happy to walk to/from Glenburn in the dark. Free taxis to Maghull North would probably cost less.

It would be a Parkway station in any meaningful sense.

It's got to account for local users from Maghull too though. A station can only take so many passengers.

No Merseyrail station except Liverpool Central is even remotely near capacity. Merseyrail is seriously underused (both passengers and train movements) compared to what it was built for.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am currently very much out of touch with the subject of this thread. The last news that I heard about the proposed station for Skelmersdale was that it received an official negative response. Yet a reading of some recent postings made upon this thread talk about it as if new life had been infused into the project and logically, based upon that reasoning, the required finance had also been promised.

What exactly is the officially recognised position on this matter.

 

[Bevan Price]

The way Skelmersdale has been built, no single location seems ideal for a station. If affordable, a terminal loop (possibly underground) , with 3-4 stations on that loop would be more useful - but even more unaffordable.