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!
You're then getting expensive with little real benefit. If I was going to throw money at the network around there it would be either the Burscough Curves or Burscough Interchange where the lines cross (I'm really not sure which I prefer, both have strong arguments for them), not on upping that line to half hourly which wouldn't be justified by demand unless you did something like a major New Town around Rufford or something.
Have you been to Burscough recently? It's expanding and gentrifying fast, starting to look a bit like the Didsbury of West Lancs. It isn't what it was 20 years ago, not at all.
It isn't a big destination (but then nor really is Ormskirk) but it is certainly an increasingly important origin for Liverpool travel to work, which will presently be driving to Ormskirk.
I'm not sure the relatively low traffic from Ormskirk to Preston should be prioritised over a potentially rather bigger flow. And the argument there is exactly the same as Headbolt - I assume you opposed that too?
It isn't a destination and the drive from Burscough - Ormskirk is literally 5 minutes or slightly longer to drive to the other stations on the line with large car parks - Maghull North and Maghull.
It isn't at all obvious. Replacing a shuttle DMU with one extra 777, working through to/from Liverpool, on a route that as you state would not require infrastructure investment would be a cheap way to turn a pretty useless route into a somewhat more useful one.
It isn't a destination and the drive from Burscough - Ormskirk is literally 5 minutes or slightly longer to drive to the other stations on the line with large car parks - Maghull North and Maghull.
It isn't at all obvious. Replacing a shuttle DMU with one extra 777, working through to/from Liverpool, on a route that as you state would not require infrastructure investment would be a cheap way to turn a pretty useless route into a somewhat more useful one.
I'm not sure an extra 777 would be needed to get to Burscough Jn. The Ormskirk line is presently artificially slowed (because there can only be one unit laying over at once at each end, unlike Headbolt) and even then has long layovers. I think it could potentially be done with no extra unit. Years ago before Maghull North I worked out a timetable and diagrams for it and I'm fairly sure it only required one back then, and that one has been put in already for Maghull North.
Edit: at present the Ormskirk service (ignoring the temporary Hunts Cross working, so I'm looking at January) arrives at Ormskirk at xx38 and leaves at xx49, so an 11 minute layover. At the other end it's an xx38 arrival and an xx46 departure, so 8 minutes. Running is glacially slow, I'd be amazed if combining DOO (as the drivers get more used to it) and the higher performance of 777s over 507s didn't mean you could get 5 minutes off the running time (in the 80s it was 10 minutes faster, and only one station has been added), so you have potentially 24 minutes to play with subject to pathing at Central. Ormskirk to Burscough Junction is 4 minutes, 6 are allowed the other way, so that's 10 minutes.
That looks decidedly possible to me, and if things at the Liverpool end can be pathed to allow the layover at Burscough to be fairly short (so a unit was only north of the junction at Ormskirk for 15 minutes at most) you'd just need to connect the lines up, extend the platform at Junction a bit to create an Ormskirk like layout, put some buffer stops in and make that extra stub part of the Ormskirk single line for signalling purposes - far cheaper than even Headbolt Lane.
Or at worst if you couldn't quite squeeze that in, you could rejig Ormskirk at relatively low cost to a Dyfi Junction like layout with 2 8 car platforms end on and a bypass line so you could go either way from either platform, though that would cost more.
If the trains continued to Helsby, the .00 arrival would make it to Helsby at .10
It would have to depart at .32 to make it back to Ellesmere Port for the .42 departure (instead of forming the .12 departure currently).
This would require one extra 777, and increase the merseyrail turn-around time from 12 minutes to 22 minutes, reducing the chance of returning delays into the main merseyrail network.
The only cost is using a merseyrail 777 instead of the DMU, which is likely to be minimal.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm not sure an extra 777 would be needed to get to Burscough Jn. The Ormskirk line is presently artificially slowed (because there can only be one unit laying over at once at each end, unlike Headbolt) and even then has long layovers. I think it could potentially be done with no extra unit. Years ago before Maghull North I worked out a timetable and diagrams for it and I'm fairly sure it only required one back then, and that one has been put in already for Maghull North.
You're then getting expensive with little real benefit. If I was going to throw money at the network around there it would be either the Burscough Curves or Burscough Interchange where the lines cross (I'm really not sure which I prefer, both have strong arguments for them), not on upping that line to half hourly which wouldn't be justified by demand unless you did something like a major New Town around Rufford or something.
I think as the branch has a population of around 12k I think it could justify a half hourly service. Considering the smallest settlement is around 2.5k and for comparison Bentley (Hampshire) with 1.1k gets 2tph in parts of the day with 8 & 12 car trains I think a 2tph Burscough to Preston service with 2 car 150s can be justified.
That is totally untrue. Except on Fridays, when many "work" from home, or at weekends I almost always drive to Town Green and Ormskirk's car park is almost always full and at least with Town Green if that is also full there is on street parking very close to the station.
It isn't at all obvious. Replacing a shuttle DMU with one extra 777, working through to/from Liverpool, on a route that as you state would not require infrastructure investment would be a cheap way to turn a pretty useless route into a somewhat more useful one.
There isn't a shuttle DMU. There are a couple of services per day. Helsby already has a direct service to Liverpool and that has been such a success TfW didn't reinstate the service for about 1 year after Covid and only then reintroduced a 2 hourly service until they came under political pressure to reinstate the hourly.
Helsby already has a direct service to Liverpool and that has been such a success TfW didn't reinstate the service for about 1 year after Covid and only then reintroduced a 2 hourly service until they came under political pressure to reinstate the hourly.
That latter service is the stub of a future Liverpool-Llandudno service which will do very well indeed when it is eventually introduced (which requires all the 197s to be reliably in service and a few level crossings on the Coast to be closed). It has low value as a shuttle but given the number of Scousers you see in Llandudno the through hourly service is likely to be extremely popular - probably full and standing all day on a hot summer Saturday.
When this is introduced the Manchester service will run to Bangor instead.
There isn't a shuttle DMU. There are a couple of services per day. Helsby already has a direct service to Liverpool and that has been such a success TfW didn't reinstate the service for about 1 year after Covid and only then reintroduced a 2 hourly service until they came under political pressure to reinstate the hourly.
How many units would you say Ellesmere Port-Helsby currently uses? I took it as 1, but even if you take it as 0.25 the extra cost will be limited.
The advantages include:
- turning the service between Ellesmere Port and Helsby into something that is actually useable, a few trains a day is useless, you might as well just close the line at that point.
- Direct connection for Helsby to Birkenhead.
- Longer turn-around on Ellesmere port service (good for merseyrail reliability).
- Eliminating an odd, outlying Northern service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That latter service is the stub of a future Liverpool-Llandudno service which will do very well indeed when it is eventually introduced (which requires all the 197s to be reliably in service and a few level crossings on the Coast to be closed). It has low value as a shuttle but given the number of Scousers you see in Llandudno the through hourly service is likely to be extremely popular - probably full and standing all day on a hot summer Saturday.
When this is introduced the Manchester service will run to Bangor instead.
What's got worse to cause it to be used more, 777s? It was rarely used in my youth, though I have set foot on it when the Loop was closed due to engineering works once.
That would be a downgrade as the connection would no longer be cross platform in one direction. A service to Birkenhead itself isn't that useful as people are by and large going to Liverpool.
That would be a downgrade as the connection would no longer be cross platform in one direction. A service to Birkenhead itself isn't that useful as people are by and large going to Liverpool.
Why wouldn't you just run it through the loop. There is capacity for more services on the loop, so no reason not to make the service as useful as possible.
Have you been to Burscough recently? It's expanding and gentrifying fast, starting to look a bit like the Didsbury of West Lancs. It isn't what it was 20 years ago, not at all.
It isn't a big destination (but then nor really is Ormskirk) but it is certainly an increasingly important origin for Liverpool travel to work, which will presently be driving to Ormskirk.
I'm not sure the relatively low traffic from Ormskirk to Preston should be prioritised over a potentially rather bigger flow. And the argument there is exactly the same as Headbolt - I assume you opposed that too?
Headbolt to Wigan should definitely happen, makes far more sense to terminate at a large town with onwards connection potential. Im sure Northern would be happy to loose that bit anyway, they hardly provide a great service.
Headbolt to Wigan should definitely happen, makes far more sense to terminate at a large town with onwards connection potential. Im sure Northern would be happy to loose that bit anyway, they hardly provide a great service.
Headbolt is rather a barrier to a "tidier" Wigan service, i.e. 2tph via Atherton to Vic (DMU from Wallgate) and 2tph via Bolton to Castlefield (EMU from North Western). The third train per hour makes things rather messy in a situation where the pattern is based on 2tph.
That would be a downgrade as the connection would no longer be cross platform in one direction. A service to Birkenhead itself isn't that useful as people are by and large going to Liverpool.
This would require one extra 777, and increase the merseyrail turn-around time from 12 minutes to 22 minutes, reducing the chance of returning delays into the main merseyrail network.
If this extra unit was put in, I wonder if it would be worth interworking Ellesmere Port with Chester, which might make use of that extra time to make Chester more punctual - at present it's way too tight.
I think you'd need substantial housing development to make it worthwhile. It could happen if the oil sites closed - how likely is this? I have a feeling I recall reading that expansion of Ince/Elton is generally not considered a good idea because of the added risks posed by being so close to a major oil terminal.
Ince & Elton is literally on the edge of Elton, the entire village is within a 1km radius of the station so it's hard to complain it isn't conveniently located.
Even if the refinery was to close tomorrow, you're looking at decades to clear and decontaminate the site and make it fit for residential development.
Ormskirk to Burscough Junction is 4 minutes, 6 are allowed the other way, so that's 10 minutes.
That looks decidedly possible to me, and if things at the Liverpool end can be pathed to allow the layover at Burscough to be fairly short (so a unit was only north of the junction at Ormskirk for 15 minutes at most) you'd just need to connect the lines up, extend the platform at Junction a bit to create an Ormskirk like layout, put some buffer stops in and make that extra stub part of the Ormskirk single line for signalling purposes - far cheaper than even Headbolt Lane.
Burscough has quite a large cachment area, even at the south end. A proper 777/1 service would test (and prove) cheaply, the case for a further extension. One should be able to reach Southport by train without going via Sandhills.
But if trains run to time you only need the one train to connect onto! And so there would be no benefit.
The only real advantage of Birkenhead North over BIdston is an easier journey onto the New Brighton branch from Borderlands but I think that usage would be fairly minimal (despite the vast improvement of New Brighton as a day trip destination over the past few decades)
I'm sure he would be delighted with me hiring St George's Hall and holding a public seminar with a Powerpoint slideshow with a two and a half hour Q&A session followed by a meet-and-greet with wine and finger buffet.
Further to that, here is Map 6 which I carelessly omitted.
Map 6: A station at Woodend Avenue with bus shuttle to the Airport. This is the only reasonable scheme for bringing heavy rail to Speke. And would cost about 1/30th the price of the full scheme detailed above.
One problem with a Burscough terminator is the very small car park at Burscough Junction, with no obvious room to expand. There's a little (but not much) more room at Burscough Bridge, but that opens up the idea of restoring the South Curve, which I imagine would significantly whack up costs.
As for the discussion re Councils... West Lancashire, Chorley and South Ribble have collectively voted to form a single Unitary area. While it remains to be seen if the Government imposes Preston into this mix, I think it's at least possible that such a Council would have a little more interest in interface with the Liverpool City Region (and Bee Network for that matter) than LCC has done hitherto.
If this extra unit was put in, I wonder if it would be worth interworking Ellesmere Port with Chester, which might make use of that extra time to make Chester more punctual - at present it's way too tight.
It might be possible to fit an extra Merseyrail platform in if you move the Down Through closer to the station. Then put a platform in the gap between the Down Through and Down & Up Goods. This could be third rail to enable the XX:15 & XX:45 services to be moved to platform 8 and providing greater standing time at Chester.
The original station at Speke was situated at the eastern side of Woodend Avenue. It was opened in September 1852 and closed on September 1930, 95 years ago.
Time for the RailUK Forums folk group to sing.... "Don't want to go to Kirkby, don't want to go to Speke,
Don't want to go from all I know in Back Buchanan Street"
It might be possible to fit an extra Merseyrail platform in if you move the Down Through closer to the station. Then put a platform in the gap between the Down Through and Down & Up Goods. This could be third rail to enable the XX:15 & XX:45 services to be moved to platform 8 and providing greater standing time at Chester.
I'm sure he would be delighted with me hiring St George's Hall and holding a public seminar with a Powerpoint slideshow with a two and a half hour Q&A session followed by a meet-and-greet with wine and finger buffet.
Further to that, here is Map 6 which I carelessly omitted. View attachment 187401
Map 6: A station at Woodend Avenue with bus shuttle to the Airport. This is the only reasonable scheme for bringing heavy rail to Speke. And would cost about 1/30th the price of the full scheme detailed above.
But there already is a bus shuttle from Parkway. A station purpose-built for that. A station in the middle of an industrial estate, a long walk from the residential part of Speke, wouldn't be much use, and surely not economically viable. By all means improve the bus connection (with Rotheram's 'glider trams' if necessary) and have integrated ticketing. But there's no point in fiddling around with more half-baked solutions if a proper rail link (both to the airport and Speke itself) can't be achieved.
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.
