Wigan-Bolton electrification. Construction updates only please

[themiller]

It would be interesting/informative to know the cost of the electrification without bridge renewals, track changes, signalling upgrades platform modifications etc. I.e. just the wires, steelwork and electricity feeds.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Why are platform extension counted as part of an electrification scheme?

Well, most people argue that electrification attracts additional passengers so obviously you’ll usually end up needing to run longer trains.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well, most people argue that electrification attracts additional passengers so obviously you’ll usually end up needing to run longer trains.

I think they're a good idea, and I'm sure they wouldn't have been included in the project without good reason, but it does strain the limits of "electrification" work!

 

[zwk500]

I thought that ‘bridge modification’ usually meant higher parapets with steeple copes and other anti-trespass measures. These can’t be avoided by track lowering and insulating paint.

It probably covers a whole load of things, but (a) it means there's lots of bridges that needed assessing and (b) it's still work that requires possessions, road closures, design, fitting/constructing work and signing off.

I get that no two routes or schemes are identical but isn’t it just a case of ‘win some, lose some’?

I reckon that £5,000,000/stk is a good rule of thumb at modern prices when envisaging or proposing new schemes.

I would suggest £5m/stkm is at the high end of modern prices. Scotland are pricing for £2m/stkm.

Why are platform extension counted as part of an electrification scheme?

Either because the Press Release was about the overall project to provide more capacity as the general public generally isn't interested in the finer distinctions, or because the introduction of the electric units triggered platform extensions to be able to operate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

I think they're a good idea, and I'm sure they wouldn't have been included in the project without good reason, but it does strain the limits of "electrification" work!

Electrification for the sake of electrification generally makes a poor justification. Electrification for the sake of longer trains makes a very good justification, but you also have to be able to run longer trains. Some schemes will already have long enough platforms.
I'd be interested to see if there's any proper estimates for what the £m/stkm costs would have been if this section had been included in Manchester-Bolton from the off, or as part of a rolling programme with a consistent team.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Were there any ‘feeders’, substations and whatnot on a short scheme like this that meets existing catenary at both ends? Wouldn’t that tend to make it ‘cheap’?

there are no substations but one neutral section around wigan where it connects with WCML and a minor extension to Lostock SATS which was famously vandalised on the day of energisation. But Lostock's substation is what feeds the new line - so it must have been built with this demand in mind and space for new equipment at the site

 

[Dr Hoo]

there are no substations but one neutral section around wigan where it connects with WCML and a minor extension to Lostock SATS which was famously vandalised on the day of energisation. But Lostock's substation is what feeds the new line - so it must have been built with this demand in mind and space for new equipment at the site

Thanks.

 

[The exile]

Electrification for the sake of electrification generally makes a poor justification. Electrification for the sake of longer trains makes a very good justification, but you also have to be able to run longer trains. Some schemes will already have long enough platforms.

Electrification to enable longer trains may be a justification - but it doesn’t mean that the cost of those platforms has to be hung like a millstone around electrification’s neck (any more than replacing 50 year old signalling should, even if electrification is the catalyst).

 

[zwk500]

Electrification to enable longer trains may be a justification - but it doesn’t mean that the cost of those platforms has to be hung like a millstone around electrification’s neck (any more than replacing 50 year old signalling should, even if electrification is the catalyst).

If you're electrifying to enable longer trains, it would be rather silly to then claim the platform lengthening is a completely separate project. They will have separate costs within the project accounting, for sure. But this is where things being described as 'capacity enhancement' mean that ever higher figures get included.

If you want to understand what the actual cost of the electrification only part of the project is, you'd need to get hold of the full project spend breakdown to isolate those costs solely the result of installing OLE.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Electrification for the sake of electrification generally makes a poor justification. Electrification for the sake of longer trains makes a very good justification, but you also have to be able to run longer trains. Some schemes will already have long enough platforms.

It is why I like the Phrase TPU - TP Upgrade - not TPE - TP Electrification. Wigan -Bolton was a route UPGRADE

I'd be interested to see if there's any proper estimates for what the £m/stkm costs would have been if this section had been included in Manchester-Bolton from the off, or as part of a rolling programme with a consistent team.

Me too!

 

[The exile]

If you're electrifying to enable longer trains, it would be rather silly to then claim the platform lengthening is a completely separate project. They will have separate costs within the project accounting, for sure. But this is where things being described as 'capacity enhancement' mean that ever higher figures get included.

Where the costs of electrification are under the microscope then the only things which should be included are those costs directly attributable to electrification. Raising a bridge because otherwise the pantograph will hit it, yes; lengthening platforms because we can run longer trains once they’re electric, no.

 

[zwk500]

Where the costs of electrification are under the microscope then the only things which should be included are those costs directly attributable to electrification. Raising a bridge because otherwise the pantograph will hit it, yes; lengthening platforms because we can run longer trains once they’re electric, no.

And in detailed analysis they would be broken down, but on the headlines for the press release they'll be quoted the entire project cost, and the project was to run longer trains.

 

[themiller]

Where the costs of electrification are under the microscope then the only things which should be included are those costs directly attributable to electrification. Raising a bridge because otherwise the pantograph will hit it, yes; lengthening platforms because we can run longer trains once they’re electric, no.

If the bridge is nearly at the end of its life whether by age, lack of maintenance or damage, this shouldn’t be reflected in the electrification cost as the structure would have been replaced under another budget, anyway.

 

[Gricer99]

The time it has taken to raise and reconnect the red Iron Bridge footbridge to the West of Hindley station is astonishing. It still has no ramps but at least they are working on it again now. They did nothing over the winter months once it had been raised to allow electrification. Talk is of October before it is finally reopened.

 

[Springs Branch]

The time it has taken to raise and reconnect the red Iron Bridge footbridge to the West of Hindley station is astonishing. It still has no ramps but at least they are working on it again now. They did nothing over the winter months once it had been raised to allow electrification. Talk is of October before it is finally reopened.

Here's a photo of the Iron Bridge (taken in a wintry 1981 before vegetation encroached), which nicely illustrates why it came to be heritage-listed.

My understanding (from local sources in the know) is the original plan in the electrification project was to dismantle and scrap the old bridge and replace it with an ugly, run-of-the-mill Network Rail two-track footbridge, which would carry the public footpath over the railway. Some more conspiracy-minded folk than I might suspect that the excruciatingly long time taken to complete the job is payback for imposing the last-minute heritage listing. Sort of "if you're going to mess us about with heritage listing, we'll make sure you have to wait a very long time until you can use that bridge again".

(Image shows Victorian-era wrought-iron footbridge at Hindley) Source Paul Taberner at Wigan World Album.

 

[WesternBiker]

It is why I like the Phrase TPU - TP Upgrade - not TPE - TP Electrification. Wigan -Bolton was a route UPGRADE

Exactly. One of those times when semantics really matters.

 

[317 forever]

I travelled this line on Saturday 2nd August on the 2O79 1503 Service from Southport to Manchester Oxford Road on a Class 769. I wondered whether it would switch to Electric power from Wigan Wallgate (or possibly Ince as I am not sure the platform at Wallgate was electrified) but when I got off the train at Westhoughton it still had the pantograph lowered, and it definitely departed using Diesel power. Later that same day on my return journey, I observed a later Service 2O74 2049 Class 769 service Southport to Manchester and that definitely had the pantograph raised at Westhoughton, and departed using Electric. At what point are they supposed to switch to Electric Traction or is it at Drivers discretion?

I made the same journey on a later train on May 31st. That time I could tell that the pantograph came up and engine went off at Bolton.

 

[John R]

on these figures, allowing for inflation it is under budget.

RPI since June 2021 has been +33%. That £78m then is the same as £104m now.

RPI is well understood by economists and indeed all govts to be a flawed measure of inflation. As such it is, controversially, only used by the govt where it benefits (student loan interest rates, rail fare increases etc).

The appropriate index to use would be CPI, which rose by 24.7% over the same period. Arguably the period used should be reduced too, as the expenditure in recent months would have been tiny in comparison with the heavy infrastructure work.

 

[Bald Rick]

RPI is well understood by economists and indeed all govts to be a flawed measure of inflation. As such it is, controversially, only used by the govt where it benefits (student loan interest rates, rail fare increases etc).

The appropriate index to use would be CPI, which rose by 24.7% over the same period. Arguably the period used should be reduced too, as the expenditure in recent months would have been tiny in comparison with the heavy infrastructure work.

You are quite correct that RPI is flawed (and will shortly be discontinued).

However the correct index to use would be constrcution output price index; the next update is due from ONS imminently, but it seems like the rate for 2021-2025 will be in the region of 30%.

 

[Formby EMU Fan]

I made the same journey on a later train on May 31st. That time I could tell that the pantograph came up and engine went off at Bolton.

I've learned from this thread that 769s started switching to Electric Traction at Ince from 28th July, so for your journey in May, Switching at Bolton would have been correct operation. It turns out my Unit 769 450 had a fault on 2nd August and drivers were instructed not to run on electric.

Yes, 450 had a fault last week and there was an instruction not to run in electric mode.

769s started running on electric from Ince yesterday, as well as one journey into Wigan North Western, which didn't use diesel at all.

 

[Mag_seven]

As it looks like construction is now complete and electric trains are now in use we shall lock the thread.

thanks all