Electrification of Fylde line

[WestCoast]

Sadly, Blackpool Airport is not doing all that well at the moment. It had a boom before the recession with daily budget flights, but that has passed and trade has slowed down considerably. They have also upset their largest customer (Jet2) with a refusal to open the airport at night, which led to a court case, which the airport then lost. They have to charge an Airport Development Fee of £10pp over 16 just to keep the airport in business!

As for the stupid plan of putting houses on the "eyesore" (:roll:clearly never seen something I would class as that), I really hope permission is refused. We need to be planning for the future! Who would want to live there anyway? There is going to be screeching pacers passing right by your window all day and everyone on the opposite platform can stare right in your house!

 

[yorksrob]

http://www.lythamstannesexpress.co....-and-rural/platform_for_homes_plans_1_3481687

Looks like the plans are out there.

Would anyone like to see squires gate better connected to the airport? There was talk of runway 28 being extended over the line. This was a while back when they had money. considering their recent closure of 25 this may not happen.

Also Blackpool airport being on the border with fylde and blackpool there could be some issues.

It seems a very heavy handed and short sighted way of tidying up the area. Wouldn't it be less damaging to the future prospects of the railway for someone to just mow the platform for the time being ?

 

[boing_uk]

Blackpool Airport needs to go. The BAe site at Warton has a longer runway and conceivably better access provision; which (should BAe decide to ever consolidate at Samlesbury), would make a much better regional airport.

What should happen is that the old Blackpool Airport site should be reveloped in to a mini New Town, the CIF from which could fund a dynamic loop on the Fylde.

 

[WestCoast]

What should happen is that the old Blackpool Airport site should be reveloped in to a mini New Town, the CIF from which could fund a dynamic loop on the Fylde.

That's the conspiracy theory about Balfour Beaty buying the airport. Personally, due to local interests, I wouldn't advocate building on the "greenbelt" (yes, I know it's not really a greenbelt, but it does act as one!).

We're more likely to see further extensions of the Blackpool Business Park at the back of Morrisons, which wouldn't be terribly exciting or regenerating.

 

[umontu]

Having looked at the article again it smacks of one man thinking "I could make a bit of money off this" rather than "What a great place to live!".
If there is some kind of meeting about it I will try to go and ask about a loop.

 

[boing_uk]

That's the conspiracy theory about Balfour Beaty buying the airport. Personally, due to local interests, I wouldn't advocate building on the "greenbelt" (yes, I know it's not really a greenbelt, but it does act as one!).

We're more likely to see further extensions of the Blackpool Business Park at the back of Morrisons, which wouldn't be terribly exciting or regenerating.

With my local hat on, I wouldn't like to see the airport closed either. I like watching the planes out of my windows taking off and landing.

However with my engineers hat on, looking at the surrounding developments and transport infrastructure, Warton makes more sense. Leaving the airport to be redeveloped as a larger business park - you could fit a sizable business park in between Squires Gate and Runway 07/25 without getting anywhere near a green belt.

A new housing estate could then be built at the end of Runway 31 at Leach Lane.

Of course, if we are feeling ambitious, the Blackpool Tram could be extended along Squires Gate to Leach Lane, St Annes Road and back up Clifton Drive. And while we're at it, lets extend Merseyrail to Preston and bin off Northerns Ormskirk service.

 

[yorksrob]

Having looked at the article again it smacks of one man thinking "I could make a bit of money off this" rather than "What a great place to live!".
If there is some kind of meeting about it I will try to go and ask about a loop.

Well, it's true. To the layman it ticks all the boxes:

Can I (the developer) make money - tick
Is there a housing shortage -tick (probably - I don't know the area)
Is it a brownfield site - tick
Is it a derelict eysore in publick view - tick

Alas, whilst such considerations would normally quite rightly rank quite highly together, the layman wouldn't necessarily realise the strategic importance of that derelict land to the railway.

 

[WestCoast]

Is there a housing shortage -tick (probably - I don't know the area)

There is a lack of new affordable housing, plenty new developments of expensive properties in the area.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a lack of new affordable housing, plenty new developments of expensive properties in the area.

As always seems to be the way. Would be worth asking the planning authorities to confirm what proportion of the development would be affordable though.

 

[boing_uk]

The article says: five three bedrommed affordable homes.

To be honest, I can see this being recommended for refusal by officers anyway, due to traffic concerns and more than anything else because it would contravene Policy TR4 of the Fylde Local Plan.

POLICY TR4

DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WHICH WOULD PREJUDICE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING SCHEMES:

1. THE PROPOSED NEW STATION AT WREA GREEN;

2. THE ELECTRIFICATION OF THE BLACKPOOL TO MANCHESTER LINE;

3. THE PROVISION OF PASSING PLACES ON THE SOUTH FYLDE LINE;

4. THE EXTENSION OF THE BLACKPOOL TRAMWAY INTO FYLDE BOROUGH OR ITS LINKAGE WITH THE SOUTH FYLDE RAILWAY LINE;

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS AT STATIONS OR IN THE RAILWAY CORRIDOR GENERALLY;

6. THE PROVISION OF RELATED CAR PARKING, CYCLE PARKING AND IMPROVED ACCESS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE;

7. THE UPGRADING AND IMPROVEMENT OF ST ANNES STATION AS A MAJOR TOURIST AND TRANSPORTATION ENTRANCE TO THE TOWN.

 

[Lampshade]

There should be a station/halt at the point where the Colne line and the Ormskirk line "meet" (that is, where the former starts to go "higher" than the latter, you can tell I'm not in the industry).

You mean where the East Lancashire Line is grade separated to cross over the WCML

If there was (I don't know...), would that have used the spur off what is now the WCML which runs adjacent to Lostock Hall?

Would be popular I suspect. Liverpool --> St Helens --> Wigan --> Leyland --> Bamber Bridge --> Blackburn.

It would either have run via Ormskirk and Farington Curve Junction (were these two lines ever connected?) or via Wigan and Chorley via White Bear (Adlington), I can't work out where this line was though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Blackpool Tram could be extended along Squires Gate

This item that you mention is one of the options that will be examined in the five-year project study authorised by the European Union that will feature Blackpool as an area as one of the five peripheral regions of Western Europe.

 

[PR1Berske]

You mean where the East Lancashire Line is grade separated to cross over the WCML



It would either have run via Ormskirk and Farington Curve Junction (were these two lines ever connected?) or via Wigan and Chorley via White Bear (Adlington), I can't work out where this line was though.

Well, no, there's an opportunity for a very small, cramped but useful "halt" (rather than "station"), with two platforms on the East Lancs, one platform on the Ormskirk branch.....

I say "opportunity", perhaps I mean, "in my head it would seem to fit that...."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In my head, (and out the window of a train!) this has always looked large enough for a stop of some kind...



http://www.google.co.uk/maps?q=Coot...639,-2.619209&sspn=0.023346,0.054846&t=h&z=17

 

[Buttsy]

Well, no, there's an opportunity for a very small, cramped but useful "halt" (rather than "station"), with two platforms on the East Lancs, one platform on the Ormskirk branch.....

I say "opportunity", perhaps I mean, "in my head it would seem to fit that...."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In my head, (and out the window of a train!) this has always looked large enough for a stop of some kind...



http://www.google.co.uk/maps?q=Coot...639,-2.619209&sspn=0.023346,0.054846&t=h&z=17

I seem to remember seeing pictures of a halt in that area in one of Martin Bairstow's books on the area, though I can't remember if it was before the Ormskirk line split for Preston & Lostock Hall or where the Ormskirk and Lostock Hall lines met heading towards Preston.

 

[driver9000]

The connection between the East Lancs and the West Lancs line ran between the top of Farington curve (just as the train comes off/goes onto the curve) and Moss Lane junction (at the top of the climb from Farington curve jn on the West Lancs).

 

[Lampshade]

I seem to remember seeing pictures of a halt in that area in one of Martin Bairstow's books on the area, though I can't remember if it was before the Ormskirk line split for Preston & Lostock Hall or where the Ormskirk and Lostock Hall lines met heading towards Preston.

There was a station at Farington where the East Lancs and Ormskirk lines currently run parallel to the WCML, it's long gone now though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for the stupid plan of putting houses on the "eyesore", I really hope permission is refused. Who would want to live there anyway? There is going to be screeching pacers passing right by your window all day and everyone on the opposite platform can stare right in your house!

Don't be too disheartened. The Pacers will not be with us forever and the rolling stock that will replace them will hopefully be of a more of a standard railway coach set than the current "bus on wheels".

With regard to your comment concerning the overlooking of rail passengers from the platform into the houses, this is something that should be addressed by the developers in conjunction with the planning application to the Local Authority.

 

[WestCoast]

Don't be too disheartened. The Pacers will not be with us forever and the rolling stock that will replace them will hopefully be of a more of a standard railway coach set than the current "bus on wheels"

I'd say they will be with Northern until 2019, when they will be forcefully retired. By which time, London Midland will be complaining its 170s are getting old.....

With regard to your comment concerning the overlooking of rail passengers from the platform into the houses, this is something that should be addressed by the developers in conjunction with the planning application to the Local Authority.

Yes, I am sure it will be. However, I don't want to see this valuable land, which could be used for a passing loop in order to increase the frequency of services on the line, used for other purposes.

 

[boing_uk]

Having spoken to my Planning colleagues at work, the suggestion is that it will be an additional dwellinghouse on the end of each row of houses on the adjoining streets.

However, the local plan shows the railway boundary to be within the town centre core zone and not within the housing area adjacent. While the Local Plan is a consideration in deciding planning applications, it isn't apparently absolute that planning consent would be refused.

I'll do a land search tomorrow find out who the owner is, because apparently it is not Network Rail.

 

[lancastrian]

I seem to remember seeing pictures of a halt in that area in one of Martin Bairstow's books on the area, though I can't remember if it was before the Ormskirk line split for Preston & Lostock Hall or where the Ormskirk and Lostock Hall lines met heading towards Preston.

There was a station at Farington where the East Lancs and Ormskirk lines currently run parallel to the WCML, it's long gone now though.

There has never been a station at Farington on either the East Lancashire or the Ormskirk lines. The nearest on the East Lancashire line was Lostock Hall (the original station) which was along side the Loco Sheds. In the past, before the short sighted closing of the Line from Bamber Bridge/Lostock Hall, through todd Lane Junction to the former East Lancashire line platforms at Preston.

As both the East Lancashire and Ormskirk/Liverpool Exchange services used Todd Lane Junction, it was there that any interchange between both services, without the need to travel into Preston. There was a former Station at Farington, BUT it was a 4 platform station, similar to Leyland on the WCML.

There did used to be a direct link between Lostock Hall and Midge Hall, all the former Liverpool line services used to us it until the closure of the line to the East Lancs Platforms at Preston. Yet again a short sighted closure.

 

[Invincibles]

I am not convinced that the closure of the old East Lancashire lines is actually that short sighted. What trains would benefit from their reopening?

I believe that Preston could benefit from having the old RES platforms back in use so that there was a north facing bay as well as one more through platform for Blackpool trains.

However, ignoring that there is a 2 track section between Farrington and Skew Bridge there is still 4 tracks from the station almost to the junction now used for East Lancashire trains.

I would look to treat Preston as follows:

Platform 7 - Emergency
Platform 6 - Up Fast
Platform 5 - Terminal from the North
Platform 4 - Down Fast / up Manchester (Blackpool - Manchester fast only)
Platform 3 - Down Blackpool Fast (only Manchester - Blackpool I think)
Platform 3c - Terminates from South
Platform 2 - Down Blackpool (to Manchester/Liverpool)
Platform 1 - Up East Lancashire*
Platform 0 - Down East Lancashire*

East Lancashire here means anything from the Fylde Line to Ormskirk/Blackburn

As far as I can see that would allow the lines to operate essentially independently with the 2 fast lines coming from 6 and 4 and carrying:

Scotland - Euston
Scotland - Birmingham
Scotland - Manchester
Lancashire - London
Lancashire - Manchester
Blackpool - Manchester* (from Platform 3/4)

Which is just 6tph

That then leaves:

Blackpool - Manchester (slow) 2 tph
Blackpool - Liverpool 1 tph
Blackpool - York 1 tph
Preston - Manchester 1tph
Blackpool - Colne 1 tph
Preston - Ormskirk 1 tph

Which is still just 7tph

Both offer potential for more services (including additional trains to Manchester via Bolton to compensate for the Chat Moss diversion) and so I do not see why there is a big problem.

I do know that Preston would be better if all of the long distance trains could use 3 and 4 and that is actually possible if you configure the platforms as:

0 East Lancs - Blackpool: 4
1 Blackpool - East Lancs: 4
2 Blackpool - Manchester*: 2
2 Manchester - Blackpool *: 2
3 Manchester - Scotland/Lancashire: 2
3 Birmingham - Scotland: 2
3 London - Scotland/Lancashire: 2
4: (reverse of 3)
5: Preston - Lancaster
6: Not needed (but could take the Manchester bound fast trains if necessary)
7: Spare.

Basically just shift everything artifically right and the station will work with 3 and 4 taking everything from the fast lines through Farrington with 5 and 6 offering alternatives in emergencies.

If the East Lancashire trains could still come in and terminate in 6 and 7 then OK but I think the current flying jucntion is better for eliminating path crossings.

 

[Buttsy]

As both the East Lancashire and Ormskirk/Liverpool Exchange services used Todd Lane Junction, it was there that any interchange between both services, without the need to travel into Preston. There was a former Station at Farington, BUT it was a 4 platform station, similar to Leyland on the WCML.

Todd Lane was the station I was thinking of. I got my bearings slightly out. Thanks

 

[driver9000]

What 2 track section between Farington and Skew? There are 4 lines there becoming 6 at Skew where the Goods line starts/ends.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Having spoken to my Planning colleagues at work, the suggestion is that it will be an additional dwellinghouse on the end of each row of houses on the adjoining streets,

I'll do a land search tomorrow find out who the owner is, because apparently it is not Network Rail.

The news that it is NOT Network Rail who owns the land is interesting. I look forward to the news that you have said that you will be providing.

 

[lancastrian]

I am not convinced that the closure of the old East Lancashire lines is actually that short sighted. What trains would benefit from their reopening?

I believe that Preston could benefit from having the old RES platforms back in use so that there was a north facing bay as well as one more through platform for Blackpool trains.

However, ignoring that there is a 2 track section between Farrington and Skew Bridge there is still 4 tracks from the station almost to the junction now used for East Lancashire trains.

The main reason I say that the closure of the East lancs lines was short sighted. Not only did it give people who live around Todd Lane Station a decent rail service into Preston, as well as to Ormskirk/Liverpool and East Lancashire, it also kept the trains to those places clear of the WCML, where they use up valuable capicity. Using the old bay platforms 10, 11 & 12 would have meant that you weren't guessing which train is which on the current platforms 1 & 2. When ever I have used them recently, I was told the wrong train at least on 1 out of 3 occassions. Better information is needed. In fact the last time I was trying to catch a train to Bolton which was starting at Preston, I was told it was the middle of the three trains on platform 2. I discovered that it was wrong as we took farrington junction, fortunately it was a East Lancashire train so I changed at Blackburn for Bolton. Both the platform staff & the guard leaving the train told me it was the Bolton train, silly me I should have asked the new guard to confirm the information. I was one of 8 people who thought they were on a Manchester train. If the trains to East Lancashire were still using the old East Lancs platforms it would not have happened.

I agree with you that the should reopen the old platforms 1 & 2 (the RES platforms) although they will have to remove the blockage they built on platform 1 which made it a double bay platform, accessed from either end, but no longer a through platform.

What 2 track section between Farrington & Skew Bridge??? There are four tracks from just south of the reopened Balshaw Lane & Euxton station through to Skew Bridge, were they become 6 track into Preston Station. The thing I have never been able to understand is the de-quadrifing of the WCML between Standish & Balshaw Lane. This really needs to be re-quadrified, and at least the Station at Coppull reopened. This could be done as an island platform, the underpass is available, and the space is there, as there was space for two platforms and two tracks through Coppull.

 

[PR1Berske]

I would certainly join in any pressure to get a station at Coppull.

Though it feels like I've considered this to be a decent idea for decades now, I'm quite bored of thinking it, and thinking it's bleedingly obvious (cf. Cottam/Preston Sports Arena).

 

[Invincibles]

I hoped I had made it clear I was treating the fasts as one line and then talking about the East Lancashire and other services alone.

It does not seem a good idea to have too many trains pathed onto the fasts approaching Preston as there are already 6 tph that could be considered fast.

Then you are left with the other 2 tracks for everything else, which I was suggesting does not limit the amount of trains that can be run to Manchester (slow), Liverpool (slow), Ormskirk and Blackburn too greatly.

Of course the thing can be complicated as necessary but I just wanted to show that the closure was not too short sighted as it is a long way from all of the capacity on the slows being used.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In fact the last time I was trying to catch a train to Bolton which was starting at Preston, I was told it was the middle of the three trains on platform 2. I discovered that it was wrong as we took Farrington junction, fortunately it was a East Lancashire train so I changed at Blackburn for Bolton. Both the platform staff & the guard leaving the train told me it was the Bolton train. I was one of 8 people who thought they were on a Manchester train.

This sounds a worrying state of affairs to have happened upon a major interchange station, such as Preston. Could it have just been a one-off mistake due to the positioning of the three trains due to operational difficulties on that particular day?

I hope that your unplanned diversion via Blackburn and the wait there for a Bolton connection did not add a great amount of time to what should have been a fast and simple Preston to Bolton journey.

 

[lancastrian]

This sounds a worrying state of affairs to have happened upon a major interchange station, such as Preston. Could it have just been a one-off mistake due to the positioning of the three trains due to operational difficulties on that particular day?

I hope that your unplanned diversion via Blackburn and the wait there for a Bolton connection did not add a great amount of time to what should have been a fast and simple Preston to Bolton journey.

Well it was a saturday late afternoon, I was travelling home after chairing an AGM in May 2010. I enjoyed the change of route although I was about 45 minutes later arriving home. It might have been a one of misstake, I certainly hope so. When more than one train is waiting at a platform at any station, then I feel that the platform staff need to make it clear to the passengers which is which.

Thanks for your concern.

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree that Platforming trains @ Preston can be unique e.g. on Monday the 18:44 Blackpool North-Manchester Airport used Platform 3, with trains already in Platforms 2 & 4!

On Sunday evening though, I arrived @ Preston in Platform 2 from Manchester Piccadilly! I know the Fast lines were closed. All above trains were TPE.

This does seem to be rather crackers or bad organisation!