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!
Yes i understand that, but these days perhaps authorities ought to be working together a bit more for the greater good. The LU Met continues to Amersham and Chesham and the Central to Epping ( and Ongar at one point) all way out of the London area. A Gateacre extensions would be a very useful addition. Is anywhere else possible on the the north end of that loop line , or all built over now ?
The original plan was to loop back at Broad Green towards the city centre. Probably far too ambitious in the present climate. But I don't think the trackbed is anywhere built over, albeit used as a cycle path/ bridleway.
Of course there should be more co-operation between local authorities, but this is Britain we're talking about. Reform are 'in charge' of Lancashire for God's sake.
Absolute no to extending Merseyrail onto the CLC unless it is the ONLY service on the CLC on that section (ie buffer stops at Warrington C and an end to the Lime St CLC service). The punctuality on the route is utterly woeful and serious delay would be imported on a daily basis.
I agree, Merseyrail and Metrolink with buffer stops at Warrington is the only logical way to do it. In my opinion it would be very advantageous, as it removes a whole load of conflicts at both ends of the CLC.
On the topic of Gateacre, doing this would also reduce the cost of a Gateacre extension, as you wouldn't have to demolish the signal box as the line could come directly off the CLC.
That is just you saying something and expecting others to believe it is a fact. The Liverpool - Blackpool service takes 30 minutes to Wigan. The stopper takes about 45 - 50 minutes. Extending the Headbolt Lane services to Wigan would take the same as the current stoppers, +/- a couple of minutes, and would use stock that you recently started a thread about a dozen or so things that people hate about the 777s.
Absolutely. Friends of mine live at Rainford. They currently go to St Helens to take a train to Liverpool. Using Rainford Station is deemed by them too unreliable. Was a lost opportunity only going to Headbolt Lane.
Curious that they go to St Helens (driving into a town, paying to park, inferior Northern service) rather than Maghull North (straight off the motorway, free parking, better service). Old habits die hard I guess.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hourly fast vs. every 15 or 30 minutes slow/on Merseyrail. If they did go every 15, frequency would win, just like it does for the popular but long and slow Southport service, or the Chester service where there's a choice between 1tph fast with TfW and 4tph slow with Merseyrail - and guess which one of those is most popular?
Plus you've got the choice of Central and Moorfields rather than just Lime St.
Extending the Headbolt Lane services to Wigan would take the same as the current stoppers, +/- a couple of minutes, and would use stock that you recently started a thread about a dozen or so things that people hate about the 777s.
Not everyone dislikes them. But even those who do will still use a service like Merseyrail or Metrolink due to other things that are better about it than a conventional rail service.
Hourly fast vs. every 15 or 30 minutes slow/on Merseyrail. If they did go every 15, frequency would win, just like it does for the popular but long and slow Southport service, or the Chester service where there's a choice between 1tph fast with TfW and 4tph slow with Merseyrail - and guess which one of those is most popular?
Plus you've got the choice of Central and Moorfields rather than just Lime St.
I will refer to another one of your recent threads. This time reducing the Wigan - Southport services to hourly because transporting fresh air is a waste of money. So you want to halve the Wigan - Southport services but quadruple Wigan - Headbolt Lane services when reopening the line would provide no benefit to passengers to Wigan. There is no consistency in your posts.
I will refer to another one of your recent threads. This time reducing the Wigan - Southport services to hourly because transporting fresh air is a waste of money. So you want to halve the Wigan - Southport services but quadruple Wigan - Headbolt Lane services when reopening the line would provide no benefit to passengers to Wigan. There is no consistency in your posts.
Wigan-Southport is mostly used for travelling to Manchester, whereas extending Headbolt-Wigan would provide a higher frequency/quality service from Wigan to Liverpool, provide an upgraded service to Skelmersdale (by way of an upgraded Upholland) and allow potential housing development for Liverpool commuting around Rainford. It has far more potential benefits than the Southport-Wigan line overall, and at a potentially very low cost.
I don't think Wigan-Southport transports fresh air by the way, it was more about saving money and compromising on what Southport line users want in terms of a Manchester destination.
The stopping service from Wigan to Liverpool via St Helens is not solely about end to end passengers. Nor would be Merseyrail.
That's like saying there's no need for the Watford-Euston stopping service in addition to the fasts even given that nobody within their right mind uses that for a through journey.
The North West's entire network (I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with it) is heavily about connectivity because commuting and general travel is like a big messy cobweb. It's not mono centric like the South East.
Nor is the south-east, to a greater extent than one might imagine. There are many centres of employment even just within Greater London; people commute in many different directions. Shopping and leisure, maybe even more so.
Nor is the south-east, to a greater extent than one might imagine. There are many centres of employment even just within Greater London; people commute in many different directions. Shopping and leisure, maybe even more so.
However the network, and demands on it, are primarily radial. There are exceptions e.g. East West Rail, but they aren't as big in demand terms as the web-like North West commuting.
My intel may be a bit outdated being from the early 2000s, but the large car park at Ormskirk was usually close to full during the day. I'd have thought passenger numbers will have grown since then even if they've taken a bit of a hit post Covid. For someone living in Burscough and working in Liverpool there's a case for using Ormskirk as a railhead (shorter drive, better chance of a seat) but also a case for using Maghull North (lower fares as your journey is entirely within Merseyside, less likely to be caught in the congestion around Ormskirk's one-way system on the way home). Swings and roundabouts.
I find it very odd too how Merseyrail just ends at stations when there is a more useful destination not much further on, stopping at an administrations boundary seems something frkm a different age. At least they extended from Hooton, and look how that has done. Again before it was a funny DMU service. People are put off using rail, when changing is involved.
I agree, Merseyrail and Metrolink with buffer stops at Warrington is the only logical way to do it. In my opinion it would be very advantageous, as it removes a whole load of conflicts at both ends of the CLC.
This idea is up there competing with Bradford Crossrail and Skipton to Colne for the title of "Daftest idea found on RailForums". The enforced changes at Ormskirk and Headbolt Lane are a bad thing, so let's repeat that at Warrington. What could possibly go wrong?!
I can see the advantage of running Merseyrail to Warrington, but not Metrolink's rattly trams that ride like a horse-drawn chariot at speed. Maybe if Picc-Vic had happened and Greater Manchester had got a proper Metro system, that side of the CLC could work too.
As I said earlier, when Chester next has money spent on the infrastructure and signalling - it's likely that is when the opportunity will be taken to remove the third rail in that area. However, some other working groups looking at enhancing the battery capability of the 777 fleet may well speed that up independently of infrastructure renewals.
Removing the third rail at/around Chester has significant safety benefits and cost savings, as well as making future infrastructure projects, like resignalling and (well into the future) potential AC electrification much cheaper and simpler.
This idea is up there competing with Bradford Crossrail and Skipton to Colne for the title of "Daftest idea found on RailForums". The enforced changes at Ormskirk and Headbolt Lane are a bad thing, so let's repeat that at Warrington. What could possibly go wrong?!
Warrington isn't really the smae as Ormskirk or Headbolt Lane.
Those stations are in the middle of nowhere. Warrington is the logical breakpoint for services between Manchester and Liverpool on the CLC. It is like Wigan and Preston.
The CLC is hardly a particularly fast route for stopping trains. An all shacks stopping pattern has an absolute maximum station spacing of ~4700m (Birchwood-Glazebrook and Deansgate-Trafford Park come out about the same distance). Most stations are much closer.
There is precious little "fast" running today.
Personally I don't find them to ride badly at all, and they don't have the vibration from ancient diesels!
Going to Metrolink helps fix the mess that is Castlefield by turning the Trafford Park line into a freight siding used by a comparative handful of trains.
I suppose we could build a dedicated bay platform west of Deansgate and run Merseyrail all the way to Manchester, but that seems... suboptimal!
The stopping service from Wigan to Liverpool via St Helens is not solely about end to end passengers. Nor would be Merseyrail.
That's like saying there's no need for the Watford-Euston stopping service in addition to the fasts even given that nobody within their right mind uses that for a through journey.
The North West's entire network (I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with it) is heavily about connectivity because commuting and general travel is like a big messy cobweb. It's not mono centric like the South East.
You just go off on tangents and never answer simple questions. Debating with you is like nailing jelly to a wall. I'm well aware Wigan - Liverpool services are not just about the Wigan - Liverpool flow but it is you who have argued that the Headbolt Lane service should be extended to Wigan as it would be the primary link between the 2 places. Which is a completely bonkers suggestion.
As for your patronising comment about me being unfamiliar with the North West's network, I can pretty much guarantee I'm far more familiar with it than you are.
Curious that they go to St Helens (driving into a town, paying to park, inferior Northern service) rather than Maghull North (straight off the motorway, free parking, better service).
Warrington isn't really the smae as Ormskirk or Headbolt Lane.
Those stations are in the middle of nowhere. Warrington is the logical breakpoint for services between Manchester and Liverpool on the CLC. It is like Wigan and Preston.
Ormskirk is hardly "the middle of nowhere". Sure it isn't a huge place but it has a large and growing university.
Saying that Warrington is "the logical breakpoint" is making a pretty big assumption that the route should have a breakpoint at all. Metro-ifying the CLC just strikes me as the sort of idea that gets suggested because it's an intervention, and any intervention will do.
Even if Manchester's urban rail system was more comparable to Merseyrail, removing the ability for through-running entirely would be the exact same sort of vandalism that was imposed on Ormskirk and Kirkby.
Personally I don't find them to ride badly at all, and they don't have the vibration from ancient diesels!
Going to Metrolink helps fix the mess that is Castlefield by turning the Trafford Park line into a freight siding used by a comparative handful of trains.
When those trams get up to any sort of speed, such as on sections of the Bury line, the hunting oscillation is quite severe... and don't get me started on the rattly interior panels. Sure the M5000s compare reasonably well with a tired 150, but not so much with a 185 or 195. Or even a 158 of similar vintage to the trams they replaced.
As for your patronising comment about me being unfamiliar with the North West's network, I can pretty much guarantee I'm far more familiar with it than you are.
Even if Manchester's urban rail system was more comparable to Merseyrail, removing the ability for through-running entirely would be the exact same sort of vandalism that was imposed on Ormskirk and Kirkby.
The Ormskirk split made sense because the fast trains could go via Wigan and it kept Merseyrail isolated and thus punctual and reliable. Ormskirk at the time it was done was very much the edge of the Liverpool travel to work area with a very rural character beyond that - indeed the line was looking like it might end up closed as late as the 1990s. Burscough has since expanded hugely and the travel to work area pushed out a bit (it was a small primarily farming village as late as the 90s, since then it's probably about tripled in size, still growing and heading towards being a posh suburb of Ormskirk like Aughton is on the other side but with better retail etc) and so it might make sense to go there but probably not beyond.
Kirkby made much less sense, as the line was at the time the main way people went from Liverpool to Wigan - Merseyrail should really have gone to Wigan, which would be more comparable to Ormskirk, from day one of Kirkby line electrification. Though at least Kirkby retained its station - Skem (with similar demographics) had no such luck.
Warrington is a bit more like Wigan than the Headbolt split. It's a major destination in its own right, and there are (as with Preston) main services between Liverpool and Manchester that go another way. Thus if (and only if) NPR was built so Warrington would retain fast services to Liverpool and Manchester, I can see the Merseyrail/Metrolink (or Merseyrail/25kV perhaps) split making a bit of sense.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You just go off on tangents and never answer simple questions. Debating with you is like nailing jelly to a wall. I'm well aware Wigan - Liverpool services are not just about the Wigan - Liverpool flow but it is you who have argued that the Headbolt Lane service should be extended to Wigan as it would be the primary link between the 2 places. Which is a completely bonkers suggestion.
It's really not. What is bonkers is that the third rail stopped at Kirkby to start with, and that only really happened because of political considerations, something the North West has long suffered. (It could really do with one PTE type organisation covering the whole thing and including most of Lancashire and Cheshire, a bit more like how things are in the West Midlands, which would mean the whole overlapping sets of travel to work areas would be far better connected, but the constant falling out between Liverpool and Manchester makes such a sensible approach practically impossible).
In a really, really sensible world Skem would have been built a few miles to the south (probably as Rainford new town instead), straddling the railway as the far more successful new towns of Milton Keynes and Telford do, and the line would have been super busy throughout and the town far better for it.
No, no and more no. The CLC punctuality is terrible. The only way Merseyrail should go anywhere near it is if it is ONLY Merseyrail operating on it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I am pretty certain you aren't TBH...you know I grew up on Merseyside/in West Lancs and visit frequently, right?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Ormskirk split made sense because the fast trains could go via Wigan and it kept Merseyrail isolated and thus punctual and reliable. Ormskirk at the time it was done was very much the edge of the Liverpool travel to work area with a very rural character beyond that - indeed the line was looking like it might end up closed as late as the 1990s. Burscough has since expanded hugely and the travel to work area pushed out a bit (it was a small primarily farming village as late as the 90s, since then it's probably about tripled in size, still growing and heading towards being a posh suburb of Ormskirk like Aughton is on the other side but with better retail etc) and so it might make sense to go there but probably not beyond.
Kirkby made much less sense, as the line was at the time the main way people went from Liverpool to Wigan - Merseyrail should really have gone to Wigan, which would be more comparable to Ormskirk, from day one of Kirkby line electrification. Though at least Kirkby retained its station - Skem (with similar demographics) had no such luck.
Warrington is a bit more like Wigan than the Headbolt split. It's a major destination in its own right, and there are (as with Preston) main services between Liverpool and Manchester that go another way. Thus if (and only if) NPR was built so Warrington would retain fast services to Liverpool and Manchester, I can see the Merseyrail/Metrolink (or Merseyrail/25kV perhaps) split making a bit of sense.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's really not. What is bonkers is that the third rail stopped at Kirkby to start with, and that only really happened because of political considerations, something the North West has long suffered. (It could really do with one PTE type organisation covering the whole thing and including most of Lancashire and Cheshire, a bit more like how things are in the West Midlands, which would mean the whole overlapping sets of travel to work areas would be far better connected, but the constant falling out between Liverpool and Manchester makes such a sensible approach practically impossible).
The split at Ormskirk may have made sense at the time, but by completely severing the two routes it's made any future changes (even just going to Burscough) so much more difficult. Ormskirk and Burscough have both grown massively since the 1960s & 1970s, but now plugging Burscough into Merseyrail is far more difficult. If it were to happen though, there's no sense in "half-arsing" it by simply moving the split to a single platform in a Burscough backstreet (namely Junction station). Stick the curves back in and rebuild Burscough Bridge station as a proper interchange from day one. Maybe keep the Liverpool side segregated if there's genuinely no case for running through to Southport via Ormskirk, but send the current Preston DMU up to Southport- taking the local stops off the Manchester trains as you suggested upthread.
Given how much Burscough has grown in recent years, there's probably potential for significant (if not quite as substantial) growth at Croston and Midge Hall* (which currently has no station but trains have to stop there anyway). In fact Midge Hall is already quite built up near the Ormskirk line, currently those residents have to get to Leyland, or more likely drive all the way into Preston. If that line had just been absorbed into Merseyrail in the 1970s with 2tph beyond Ormskirk to Preston) nobody would seriously propose cutting the Merseyrail services back.
*Rufford doesn't quite have that growth potential, and nor should it. I don't want to propose building houses on every patch of farmland in West Lancashire!
How are you going to get it there without passing through Castlefield Junction, one of the most congested pieces of railway outside London? Grade separate it and take it over the top or underneath?
TBH if we are going to keep through working between Liverpool and Manchester on the CLC I'd probably go for shoving the wires up and running a 4tph EMU service with alternate services running semifast either side of Warrington and the Norwich (and Cleethorpes) lopped back to Piccadilly (assuming it couldn't be pathed via Chat Moss), given that it is the main cause of the route's long running punctuality issue.
My intel may be a bit outdated being from the early 2000s, but the large car park at Ormskirk was usually close to full during the day. I'd have thought passenger numbers will have grown since then even if they've taken a bit of a hit post Covid. For someone living in Burscough and working in Liverpool there's a case for using Ormskirk as a railhead (shorter drive, better chance of a seat) but also a case for using Maghull North (lower fares as your journey is entirely within Merseyside, less likely to be caught in the congestion around Ormskirk's one-way system on the way home). Swings and roundabouts.
Ormskirk isn't the administrative boundary, Maghull North is.
This idea is up there competing with Bradford Crossrail and Skipton to Colne for the title of "Daftest idea found on RailForums". The enforced changes at Ormskirk and Headbolt Lane are a bad thing, so let's repeat that at Warrington. What could possibly go wrong?!
I can see the advantage of running Merseyrail to Warrington, but not Metrolink's rattly trams that ride like a horse-drawn chariot at speed. Maybe if Picc-Vic had happened and Greater Manchester had got a proper Metro system, that side of the CLC could work too.
My intel may be a bit outdated being from the early 2000s, but the large car park at Ormskirk was usually close to full during the day. I'd have thought passenger numbers will have grown since then even if they've taken a bit of a hit post Covid. For someone living in Burscough and working in Liverpool there's a case for using Ormskirk as a railhead (shorter drive, better chance of a seat) but also a case for using Maghull North (lower fares as your journey is entirely within Merseyside, less likely to be caught in the congestion around Ormskirk's one-way system on the way home). Swings and roundabouts.
Ormskirk isn't the administrative boundary, Maghull North is.
This idea is up there competing with Bradford Crossrail and Skipton to Colne for the title of "Daftest idea found on RailForums". The enforced changes at Ormskirk and Headbolt Lane are a bad thing, so let's repeat that at Warrington. What could possibly go wrong?!
I can see the advantage of running Merseyrail to Warrington, but not Metrolink's rattly trams that ride like a horse-drawn chariot at speed. Maybe if Picc-Vic had happened and Greater Manchester had got a proper Metro system, that side of the CLC could work too.
Ormskirk is hardly "the middle of nowhere". Sure it isn't a huge place but it has a large and growing university.
Saying that Warrington is "the logical breakpoint" is making a pretty big assumption that the route should have a breakpoint at all. Metro-ifying the CLC just strikes me as the sort of idea that gets suggested because it's an intervention, and any intervention will do.
Even if Manchester's urban rail system was more comparable to Merseyrail, removing the ability for through-running entirely would be the exact same sort of vandalism that was imposed on Ormskirk and Kirkby.
Trying to maintain through running prevents Merseyrail from reaching Warrington. Merseyrail has demonstrated its ability to generate enormous traffic uplift across its entire system. It is possibly the best validation for the potential of metro-isation outside of London.
I don't think there can be much question that if Merseyrail extended from Hunt's Cross to Warrington there would be a major uplift in traffic.
Compared to that potential, through running doesn't really offer us much. It's already not the premier railway for traffic between Manchester and Liverpool - and buffer stops at Warrington still allows it to move passengers during disruption. There isn't even that much traffic "across" Warrington Central as it stands compared to the prize that is potentially available. Stations to the east of Warrington are all dominated by Manchester, stations to the west are largely dominated by Liverpool, although less strongly.
We don't need three railways between Manchester and Liverpool for end to end traffic, we don't even need two. We need one with the lines via Wigan and Warrington being able to help during disruption - and for that duty a change of train is acceptable.
Once you break the line at Warrington Central (seems to be the most logical position I can think of), then we end up with an awkward stub that resembles Glossop and Hadfield, except that it is coupled into ludicrously congested infrastructure on the Castlefield corridor. At that point, metrolink conversion saves us all those very valuable Castlefield paths whilst still providing a high intensity service to the served stations. Warrington's fastest journey time to Manchester is largely protected against too much decline by the fast trains from Bank Quay. The line from Central is fastest sure, but the very fast train only runs once per hour.
How are you going to get it there without passing through Castlefield Junction, one of the most congested pieces of railway outside London? Grade separate it and take it over the top or underneath?
The dedicated platform 'west of Deansgate' would be built adjacent to the south side of the viaduct, and the track would not touch the Castlefield corridor trackwork at all. Only a single lead junction for freight access to Trafford Park (pending its redevelopment) would be retained.
Access to the main part of Deansgate station would likely be by a footbridge.
When those trams get up to any sort of speed, such as on sections of the Bury line, the hunting oscillation is quite severe... and don't get me started on the rattly interior panels. Sure the M5000s compare reasonably well with a tired 150, but not so much with a 185 or 195. Or even a 158 of similar vintage to the trams they replaced.
But no other station on Merseyrail splits at the local authority boundary. If such an arbitrary system had been adopted, the Kirkby branch would have continued to Rainford. Hooton admittedly was a boundary station for some years, but Merseyrail was extended beyond it later. The natural break was at the major population or commuting hub in all cases. Not a halt in the middle of fields.
Interestingly in the 90s TfGM tickets were valid to Rainford despite passing through Lancashire and being in Merseyside. This changed in the late 90s, I once fell foul of it due to an old map but the guard let me off.
For the airport it's important to balance giving the Speke estate a fixed commuter link to town with producing something affordable for the airport - and that means being realistic that Liverpool John Lennon is never going to be a serious rival to Manchester Airport.
"From Sunday, September 1, 2024, Arriva will be doubling the daytime frequency of its popular 86A service, which runs between the airport and city centre.
It will be increased from every 15 minutes to up to every 7/8 minutes.
This will give customers an additional 260 journeys per week with the first bus arriving at the airport at 05:04 and last bus departing at 23:36 Monday-Saturday.
Additionally back in July they increased the frequency of the 500 Express Bus that goes from the City Centre to the Airport from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes.
I can imagine there is talks about a rail/tram link ongoing amongst the higher ups as there has always been with all the rapid growth ongoing at the Airport currently but securing funding is another different story.
Is some sort of rapid boat/ferry service from Liverpool Airport to the Pier Head/Wirral area not viable? The river seems a very underused asset in the Merseyside area.
As a Wigan resident I agree that if the Headbolt Lane service were extended to Wigan Wallgate it would have the potential to be the main service between the two places.
Current time from Wigan Wallgate (most centrally located station in Wigan) to Headbolt Lane is 28 minutes. Current time from Headbolt Lane to Liverpool Central (most centrally located station in Liverpool) is 20 minutes. I would imagine that with 777s this journey would be a maximum of 45 minutes with better acceleration. This would be quicker than the existing Wigan North Western to Liverpool Lime Street stopper which the quickest journeys appear to be around 48 minutes.
The faster Blackpool to Liverpool service takes 33 minutes but when you consider the c. 2-minute further walk from Wallgate to the North Western platforms plus the c. 6-minutes walk between Lime Street and Central, the journey from Wallgate to Liverpool Central (the two more central stations) via the Blackpool service would be only 4 minutes faster and for most travellers would involve less walking.
If 2 services per hour were extended from Headbolt Lane then most travellers would simply check which service is next to leave and get that as they do now for services into Manchester. If all 4 services per hour were extended then I imagine a fair proportion of travellers would simply go for the (in my view, I know others feel a greater frequency is needed) ‘turn up and go’ Merseyrail service, particularly as this is more likely to have a greater reliability than Northern services if it is fully segregated.
I would agree that Upholland presents the best option value for money wise to better serve Skelmersalde with a car park, housing development adjacent and improved bus services - especially if a 15-minute frequency is provided. I would also promote housing development around Rainford Junction - these new developments providing a financial contribution towards the infrastructure works needed to the line paid for through the uplift in values created by the improved rail services and the new residents improving the business case of the extension through the additional journeys.
Is some sort of rapid boat/ferry service from Liverpool Airport to the Pier Head/Wirral area not viable? The river seems a very underused asset in the Merseyside area.
Very few do change trains at some mid-way station like Ormskirk. Most people from Burscough will just drive to Ormskirk and, something many people conveniently seem to forget, there are already direct service between Preston and Liverpool so neither travelling via Ormskirk nor changing trains are required. The same applies to Headbolt Lane. Nobody is going to travel between Wigan and Liverpool via Kirkby when there are 3 direct tph.
The last time I was at Headbolt Lane, there were a good 20 or so of us who got off the 777, walked over to the Northern platform and saw it was cancelled (by the time the next train arrived, only a few of us remained).
When going to Liverpool I usually go via Headbolt Lane (especially towards Liverpool) since I can get a direct train to there, and then after a quick change be off to Liverpool.
The trains via Headbolt are also a bit emptier than via St Helens
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.
