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!
Pemberton will be fine, if the Headbolt Lane Northern is running late (or sometimes if it's on time too) the back two will be checked and locked out at/before Pemberton, as the whole train fits.
If two 156s (22.3*4=89.2m) can fit, a 65m 777 will have no problems (especially since they have a lot of spare distance at the front/back thanks to door positions)
According to railwaydata.co.uk, the platforms shorter than a 777 are
Rainford P1 - 51 metres
Upholland - 46 and 49 metres - lots of out of use area.
Orrell - 55 metres - lots of out of use area.
Pemberton will be fine, if the Headbolt Lane Northern is running late (or sometimes if it's on time too) the back two will be checked and locked out at/before Pemberton, as the whole train fits.
If two 156s (22.3*4=89.2m) can fit, a 65m 777 will have no problems (especially since they have a lot of spare distance at the front/back thanks to door positions)
According to railwaydata.co.uk, the platforms shorter than a 777 are
Rainford P1 - 51 metres
Upholland - 46 and 49 metres - lots of out of use area.
Orrell - 55 metres - lots of out of use area.
If it's even worth doing (which I would say it's not). The 777s have SDO and assuming Merseyrail will actually decide to use it (I think there's some complications iwth its usage in other places), it would work fine here, just lock the back door and then you fit everywhere (if you allow for a slight overshoot of the front carriage at Upholland)
If it's even worth doing (which I would say it's not). The 777s have SDO and assuming Merseyrail will actually decide to use it (I think there's some complications iwth its usage in other places), it would work fine here, just lock the back door and then you fit everywhere (if you allow for a slight overshoot of the front carriage at Upholland)
Even if you decided not to use SDO, the platform extensions don't seem like a major issue. I'd say Merseyrail to Wigan only (initially) is probably the second best extension project for Merseyrail to consider after EP - Helsby.
Even if you decided not to use SDO, the platform extensions don't seem like a major issue. I'd say Merseyrail to Wigan only (initially) is probably the second best extension project for Merseyrail to consider after EP - Helsby.
Given the potential population served (and the potential for further housebuilding), that it's a short route so OK for battery, as well as serving Skem via an upgraded Upholland I actually think it's the strongest case of any of the viable options, to the point that I think that building Headbolt as a non-through station (even though it can be converted into one) was a massive shame. If it'd been done as a through station and signalled as such it would have been easier to experiment cheaply with it.
And sticking a building in Wallgate bay seems a particularly short sighted thing to do.
Ellesmere Port-Helsby is physically easier to do (as it's already a through station) but you'd need a lot more battery 777s to convert Wirral operations to them and the population served is much lower than the Headbolt-Wigan line.
Given the potential population served (and the potential for further housebuilding), that it's a short route so OK for battery, as well as serving Skem via an upgraded Upholland I actually think it's the strongest case of any of the viable options, to the point that I think that building Headbolt as a non-through station (even though it can be converted into one) was a massive shame. If it'd been done as a through station and signalled as such it would have been easier to experiment cheaply with it.
And sticking a building in Wallgate bay seems a particularly short sighted thing to do.
Eh, I think EP to Helsby is probably still the best in theory, because it's probably the easiest.
No rebuilding of any stations needed (apart from Stanlow and Thornton, but that's probably not worth effectively reopening until the area is redeveloped), platforms are long enough for a single 777 at every station AFAIK, and it's only approx. 5.5 miles EP-Helsby (which likely means you'd need no charging system at Helsby to top-up batteries).
Back on the topic of Wigan - I agree the way Headbolt Lane was built was slightly counterintuitive, but at least provision was put in for later conversion.
The building at Wallgate bay seems stupid on the surface though - why not take some of the spacious concourse on the Wallgate bridge itself? Surely the bridge cannot be in that much of a state - if it is, demolition and replacement should be probably be scheduled soon!
Why on earth would you waste money on a Northern service to Skem? Building an additional spur of track and 2 more junctions for a town where the travel flow into Merseyside is dominant over all other destinations seems nuts.
Looking at a different mode of local transport, the existing bus services from Skelmersdale Concourse will be one in which to measure traffic flows to Liverpool and to Wigan (which is a part of Greater Manchester that was in tranche 1 of the Bee Network).
What is this new building intended to be used for and under which organisation was it constructed?
Wigan Wallgate railway station is part of the rail network of Greater Manchester, not Merseyrail. If the rail aspirations of Mayor Andy Burnham comer to fruition, that station will be part of the Bee Network of Greatrer Manchester.
The new bus station in Wigan town centre that has services to a wide range of services is under the aegis of Greater Manchester.
As far as I am aware, there a no plans to bring Wigan as a regional area out of Greater Manchester and into the Liverpool conurbation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The building at Wallgate bay seems stupid on the surface though - why not take some of the spacious concourse on the Wallgate bridge itself? Surely the bridge cannot be in that much of a state - if it is, demolition and replacement should be probably be scheduled soon!
The referred-to Wallgate road area that the railway line passes under is a major road traffic hub into the town centre and "demolition and replacement" will be a matter that will take a long period of time.
Can I cite the example of the road system five-way roundabout proposed replacement at Greek Street in Stockport that atops the major railway lines into Stockport railway station that is due to be commenced in 2025 as similar in road transport disruption to that put forward for Wallgate.
Looking at a different mode of local transport, the existing bus services from Skelmersdale Concourse will be one in which to measure traffic flows to Liverpool and to Wigan (which is a part of Greater Manchester that was in tranche 1 of the Bee Network).
Well, yes, partly. They are better prioritised in the Liverpool direction than the buses heading into Wigan I believe. Another way to build the case would be to count cars registered with a Skem address at the busy Switch Island junction at the Liverpool end of the M58 (the main road from Skelmersdale into Liverpool).
What is this new building intended to be used for and under which organisation was it constructed?
Wigan Wallgate railway station is part of the rail network of Greater Manchester, not Merseyrail. If the rail aspirations of Mayor Andy Burnham comer to fruition, that station will be part of the Bee Network of Greatrer Manchester.
The new bus station in Wigan town centre that has services to a wide range of services is under the aegis of Greater Manchester.
As far as I am aware, there a no plans to bring Wigan as a regional area out of Greater Manchester and into the Liverpool conurbation.
I think it has been mentioned that it may be a crew rest area.
While it is true that Wigan is in GM, Merseyrail already crosses the county boundary into Cheshire and Lancashire at multiple points to provide more convenient interchange with local and intercity services. This would be a good example of an extension that could fulfill the existing criteria that justifies Merseyrail's border crossing.
While it won't be as fast as TPE from Wigan NW into Lime St or the Blackpool North to Liverpool Lime St Northern service from Wigan NW, the combined Wigan Wallgate - Kirkby Headbolt Lane + Kirkby Headbolt Lane - Liverpool Central running time would only be 45 mins - without any acceleration and timing improvements taken into account (likely with through running and the improved acceleration capabilities of the 777s, compared to any Sprinter class unit.)
That is faster than the Wigan NW to Liverpool Lime St stopper, and Liverpool Central is a better location for a lot of Liverpool city centre. The advantage only increases for the sizeable population in the western suburbs of Wigan, and of course Skem passengers heading for Upholland etc..
It's not something that is completely out of this world to consider.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The referred-to Wallgate road area that the railway line passes under is a major road traffic hub into the town centre and "demolition and replacement" will be a matter that will take a long period of time.
Can I cite the example of the road system five-way roundabout proposed replacement at Greek Street in Stockport that atops the major railway lines into Stockport railway station that is due to be commenced in 2025 as similar in road transport disruption to that put forward for Wallgate.
While I agree that it will take a significant amount of time, it is not a project that can be continuously deferred. A decision will be needed soon on the timing of a blockade.
Four cars getting a bit cosy at times isn't overly optimistic, but demand reaching the sorts of levels where eight cars would be worth investing in (in terms of platform extensions), is quite another thing. I was maybe being a bit facetious with the heat-death of the universe comment, but it's more likely that there would be sufficient growth across Merseyrail as a whole that would justify adding intermediate sections to some of the existing 777 sets. Doubling up is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
While it is true that Wigan is in GM, Merseyrail already crosses the county boundary into Cheshire and Lancashire at multiple points to provide more convenient interchange with local and intercity services. This would be a good example of an extension that could fulfill the existing criteria that justifies Merseyrail's border crossing.
Whilst noting that you say about Merseyrail incursions in areas of Cheshire and Lancashire, I am more concerned with similar Merseyrail aspirational incursions into Greater Manchester. The two Metro Mayoral areas are ones that look after regions within their remit and I still remain unconvinced that the Mayor of Greater Manchester would be happy at proposals for his Bee Network plans for rail to include Merseyrail running their rail services into the Greater Manchester area stations of Orrell, Pemberton and Wigan Wallgate railway stations.
The railway from St Helens to Wigan North Western railway station has Bryn as a solitary station where Greater Manchester rail travel is covered. Have there been any plans to make Bryn a Merseyrail administered railway station?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
While I agree that it will take a significant amount of time, it is not a project that can be continuously deferred. A decision will be needed soon on the timing of a blockade.
Do you agree that the decision when taken will be made by Greater Manchester and not by Liverpool and it will be them who decides the time period when works will commence?
What I mean is that there's basically no practical difference between Merseyrail and the T&W Metro other than historical constructs. They are both using the same types of vehicle now, or will be doing soon. There is now a massive overlap between the concepts of light and heavy rail.
Historically, the electric services of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway were identical in concept to those of the North Eastern Railway. The only thing the NER had that the L&YR didn’t was an integrated city centre station, with 3rd rail on a section of the ECML between Newcastle and Benton, including Heaton. The L&YR had 3rd rail overlaid on the Preston line to Ormskirk (and Crossens) and through running onto the Overhead, but the actual main line through Kirkby never saw mixed running of steam and electric. Liverpool Exchange was of course a main line terminus, but couldn’t cater for services in different directions like 3rd rail into Lime Street or Wigan could.
It’s a shame the First World War ruined the plans to extend the electrification from Southport to Goole and Doncaster.
The Stadler METRO stock for both Merseyrail and the Tyne and Wear Metro is not identical, but the only mechanical differences are to cater for compatibility with different electrification systems etc.
Neither is more light or heavy rail than the other.
Whilst noting that you say about Merseyrail incursions in areas of Cheshire and Lancashire, I am more concerned with similar Merseyrail aspirational incursions into Greater Manchester. The two Metro Mayoral areas are ones that look after regions within their remit and I still remain unconvinced that the Mayor of Greater Manchester would be happy at proposals for his Bee Network plans for rail to include Merseyrail running their rail services into the Greater Manchester area stations of Orrell, Pemberton and Wigan Wallgate railway stations.
The railway from St Helens to Wigan North Western railway station has Bryn as a solitary station where Greater Manchester rail travel is covered. Have there been any plans to make Bryn a Merseyrail administered railway station?
I highly doubt the mayor of Greater Manchester will be concerned if a Merseyrail extension results in a few fringe Greater Manchester stations receiving an upgrade and better links into the city which they have stronger commuting links with (in the case of Orrell and Pemberton).
It's time to put away municipal rivalries when considering practical extensions of commuter rail systems, which should be based on the need for as much integration for passengers as possible.
Do you agree that the decision when taken will be made by Greater Manchester and not by Liverpool and it will be them who decides the time period when works will commence?
I agree TfGM will probably be a key stakeholder (unlike LCR/Merseytravel), but I doubt they will be the final decision makers. That will probably lie with Network Rail.
I highly doubt the mayor of Greater Manchester will be concerned if a Merseyrail extension results in a few fringe Greater Manchester stations receiving an upgrade and better links into the city which they have stronger commuting links with (in the case of Orrell and Pemberton).
I was not aware that the stations of Orrell and Pemberton would be receiving an upgrade, presumably in the station building facilities I take that to mean by "station upgrades". Do you have information on the Merseyrail published documentation that confirms the Merseyrail extension to Wigan Wallgate railway station will take place?
I did ask about Bryn station, but received no answer to that query.
I was not aware that the stations of Orrell and Pemberton would be receiving an upgrade, presumably in the station building facilities I take that to mean by "station upgrades". Do you have information on the Merseyrail published documentation that confirms the Merseyrail extension to Wigan Wallgate railway station will take place?
I did ask about Bryn station, but received no answer to that query.
I would count platform extensions as an upgrade, and, in response to your comment about Bryn, I would see no reason why it would be included as it's not necessary to fulfill wider plans.
It's time to put away municipal rivalries when considering practical extensions of commuter rail systems, which should be based on the need for as much integration for passengers as possible.
The "need" as seen by who? I have discussed this Merseyrail speculative line extension with a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester who was dismissive of these as being just internet chat with no Merseyrail actual proposals being submitted for first-stage discussions between the two adjoining Mayoral authorities.
Was this documentation published after the officially-taken decision not to proceed with a railway station in Skelmersdale?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The "need" as seen by who? I have discussed this Merseyrail speculative line extension with a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester who was dismissive of these as being just internet chat with no Merseyrail actual proposals being submitted for first-stage discussions between the two adjoining Mayoral authorities.
The "need" as seen by who? I have discussed this Merseyrail speculative line extension with a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester who was dismissive of these as being just internet chat with no Merseyrail actual proposals being submitted for first-stage discussions between the two adjoining Mayoral authorities.
TfGM's opinion is less relevant on this. Merseytravel/LCR published their Long Term Rail Strategy in April 2018, in which they identified the following:
A number of routes require substantial service improvements. For example, infrastructure constraints exist on some of the key diesel lines that serve peripheral parts of the City Region. Southport to Wigan, Preston to Ormskirk, and Wigan to Kirkby all have sections of single track, or otherwise constrained running, that limit the number of services that can effectively run on each route.
Kirkby – Wigan Line (CP6) • Electrification of the line between Kirkby and Wigan Wallgate, including new electric spurs between Rainford and Skelmersdale and between Upholland and Skelmersdale • New stations at Headbolt Lane (Kirkby) and Skelmersdale • Increased service frequencies between Kirkby and Manchester Victoria – Rochdale line with potential through services to Liverpool
So it has been a long held desire of the LCR/Merseytravel to improve services on the Wigan line, and I expect TfGM will only be consulted as a stakeholder when a firmer proposal is made. But the above quote proves that it is a current part of LCR's plans for improvement (and investment when the funds are available).
I agree that 4 would be fine - thanks for highlighting that some stations would probably need small platform extensions to avoid unnecessary SDO use too (Rainford looks like it needs another 25m, 20m for the eastbound platform at Upholland, 20m each for the platforms at Orrell, Pemberton looks long enough AFAIK).
I'm sure 2tph of the Kirkby/Wigan service using a single 777 won't be an issue for the meantime.
Why on earth would you waste money on a Northern service to Skem?
Building an additional spur of track and 2 more junctions for a town where the travel flow into Merseyside is dominant over all other destinations seems nuts.
By far the most sensible solution is to run Merseyrail 2tph to Skem and 2tph to Wigan.
For the very little traffic that would head east of Wigan from the new Skem/Wigan Merseyrail line, a simple interchange would be available at Wallgate, or for the few Skem passengers that would be heading east from Rainford on a regular basis, a quick change would be available at Rainford.
I think you need to understand the vision of Mayor Andy Burnham of "Bee Network" eventually being an all-encompassing mixture of buses, trams and trains.
I think you need to understand the vision of Mayor Andy Burnham of "Bee Network" eventually being an all-encompassing mixture of buses, trams and trains.
I'm sure Mr Burnham is intelligent enough to realise that transport (especially rail) routes don't stop neatly at political boundaries, and that some services across the border will be best provided by a neighbouring authority, while others, provided by TfGM, will serve destinations outside the region.
I'm sure Mr Burnham is intelligent enough to realise that transport (especially rail) routes don't stop neatly at political boundaries, and that some services across the border will be best provided by a neighbouring authority, while others, provided by TfGM, will serve destinations outside the region.
Indeed, including Bee Network trains into Derbyshire (Hadfield) and possibly also Derbyshire (Buxton). It would be interesting to know what the plan for the Stoke stopping train is under the Bee Network (likewise Liverpool).
I suspect Merseyrail into Wigan Wallgate would not trouble Burnham greatly. Especially on the assumption that Southport is not a Bee Network route. Wigan Wallgate probably would not be a Bee Network station.
There may be some form of revenue share needed to let the Bee Network tickets work on Merseyrail services in Greater Manchester, but that is no more/less awkward than having acceptance on Northern or any other TOC serving Manchester.
There may be some form of revenue share needed to let the Bee Network tickets work on Merseyrail services in Greater Manchester, but that is no more/less awkward than having acceptance on Northern or any other TOC serving Manchester.
A point well-made noting future aspirational rail service changes. It is noticeable that plans are afoot (if not already in place) for operator permits being required for cross-border bus services that enter into Greater Manchester.
Whilst noting that you say about Merseyrail incursions in areas of Cheshire and Lancashire, I am more concerned with similar Merseyrail aspirational incursions into Greater Manchester. The two Metro Mayoral areas are ones that look after regions within their remit and I still remain unconvinced that the Mayor of Greater Manchester would be happy at proposals for his Bee Network plans for rail to include Merseyrail running their rail services into the Greater Manchester area stations of Orrell, Pemberton and Wigan Wallgate railway stations.
The railway from St Helens to Wigan North Western railway station has Bryn as a solitary station where Greater Manchester rail travel is covered. Have there been any plans to make Bryn a Merseyrail administered railway station?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do you agree that the decision when taken will be made by Greater Manchester and not by Liverpool and it will be them who decides the time period when works will commence?
Surely this is a case where borders should not be the be all and end all,.moreover the convenience of passengers. A Merseyrail train running via Headbolt Lane to Wigan, makes more sense for passengers for connections than ending at some odd border station. To me that is a policy of the past.
Surely this is a case where borders should not be the be all and end all,.moreover the convenience of passengers. A Merseyrail train running via Headbolt Lane to Wigan, makes more sense for passengers for connections than ending at some odd border station. To me that is a policy of the past.
Are you blaming Merseyrail for not putting forward the line extension proposals to Wigan Wallgate years ago, if it is such an obvious matter, that seems logical to a very large number of posters upon this thread.
Do not Merseyrail have staff members capable of doing that?
Are you blaming Merseyrail for not putting forward the line extension proposals to Wigan Wallgate years ago, if it is such an obvious matter, that seems logical to a very large number of posters upon this thread.
Do not Merseyrail have staff members capable of doing that?
Can't really comment on years ago for political reason the network stopped at administrational borders, but that is not how people move around.
I'm sure they have capable employees within the company, not privy to their staff.
Can't really comment on years ago for political reason the network stopped at administrational borders, but that is not how people move around.
I'm sure they have capable employees within the company, not privy to their staff.
It is not as if there are not existing rail connections from the existing terminal 3rd rail service from Headbolt Lane (previously Kirkby) to Wigan Wallgate railway station. What seems to annoy people is that the service frequency on that rail service is not the same as on the service into Liverpool. Whilst admitting that Rainford is in the St Helens administered area of Greater Liverpool and Upholland is in the West Lancashire Council administered area, where is the demand for increased rail travel frequency at the railway stations of Rainford, Upholland, Orrell and Pemberton for rail passengers using these stations? Have any of those four railway stations seen a dramatic passenger footfall increase in recent years that would warrant a change in service frequency?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
