Blackpool - Manchester Electrification

[QueensCurve]

Poulton-L-F is detailed here http://www.pwrs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NR-Plain-Line.jpg not sure which document this is taken from..

Seems to come from this Document.

http://www.pwrs.org/poulton-station-alternative-proposal/

 

[ALX400]

Just been past the work site near to what was Watson Steel near middlebrook and there's a hype of activity going on at rail level, noticed road rail vehicles loading piles on both sides of the tracks, unable to stop to get photos this time but at least we know things are afoot during the dark hours.

 

[deltic08]

Well before Hendy, Guide Bridge to Stalybridge ceased to have the same nominal target date as Victoria to Stalybridge. It now has the same timescale as Stalybridge-Hudds-Leeds-York/Selby.

Not that that's a very big subtraction from the work to be done.

Does that include the 60mph junction at Guide Bridge that has been talked about for the last 20 years?

 

[Senex]

Does that include the 60mph junction at Guide Bridge that has been talked about for the last 20 years?

That aspiration (plan?) seems to have been overtaken by the miserable low-speed new layout NR put in just a few years ago.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

Seems to come from this Document.

http://www.pwrs.org/poulton-station-alternative-proposal/

Yep thanks QC, I saw that - but presume this would have come from some NR document originally, which I couldn't find...

 

[LDECRexile]

ALX400 has been out and about again and sent us shots from Lostock Lane where the new contractors appear to be redoing ones which Balfour Beatty did some time ago.

I've added them to his album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157651121057352

and to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157661069863633

Thank you once again ALX, keep 'em coming!

 

[cool2005]

Seems to be the official plan.
Looks like a new Up platform at Kirkham and the elimination of the avoiding lines. The Blackpool South branch gets its own platform.
6 platforms at Blackpool North instead of 8, and a much simpler and faster layout with 80mph towards Poulton (but still 75 at Kirkham).
.

isnt that a bad thing when they reduce the number of platforms at blackpool north?

 

[Ianno87]

isnt that a bad thing when they reduce the number of platforms at blackpool north?

Not really.

Blackpool North unquestionanly has platform capacity far in excess of its actual need for what, most of the day, is a 4 trains per hour service (this could realistically go to, say 6 trains per hour in the longer term with a London train and an extra Manchester (say). But still nowhere near 8 platforms' worth of trains - so you might as well reduce, straighten out the remaining platforms and have faster areivals and departures to reduce journey times.

Kirkham is about removing an anachronistic low speed layout, rather than absolute capacity (which will be more driven by availanle paths through Preston/Euxton Jn and beyond). I recall the Down Through road was seldom used (due to the need to conflict with the Up Platform road), so the layout becomes simplified and much higher speed, reducing journey times further. Plus, having a "turn off" platform for the Blackpool South branch aids performance by allowing a train waiting for the single line to become clear to not block the path of a following train through to Blackpool North. Still, oodles of capacity for the likely train service.

 

[Whistler40145]

Not really.



Blackpool North unquestionanly has platform capacity far in excess of its actual need for what, most of the day, is a 4 trains per hour service (this could realistically go to, say 6 trains per hour in the longer term with a London train and an extra Manchester (say). But still nowhere near 8 platforms' worth of trains - so you might as well reduce, straighten out the remaining platforms and have faster areivals and departures to reduce journey times.



Kirkham is about removing an anachronistic low speed layout, rather than absolute capacity (which will be more driven by availanle paths through Preston/Euxton Jn and beyond). I recall the Down Through road was seldom used (due to the need to conflict with the Up Platform road), so the layout becomes simplified and much higher speed, reducing journey times further. Plus, having a "turn off" platform for the Blackpool South branch aids performance by allowing a train waiting for the single line to become clear to not block the path of a following train through to Blackpool North. Still, oodles of capacity for the likely train service.

I totally agree that during the daytime, Blackpool North has excessive platform capacity. I've noticed at times whereby only 2 platforms are occupied and even an empty station.

 

[QueensCurve]

Blackpool North unquestionanly has platform capacity far in excess of its actual need for what, most of the day, is a 4 trains per hour service (this could realistically go to, say 6 trains per hour in the longer term with a London train and an extra Manchester (say). But still nowhere near 8 platforms' worth of trains - so you might as well reduce, straighten out the remaining platforms and have faster areivals and departures to reduce journey times.

For comparison Manchester Airport has only 4 platforms for something like 14 trains per hour. Tight, but doable.

 

[Lankyline]

Chorley a hive of activity today, top and tail 66's on ballast train, northbound track lifted, crossover removed, subway being cut out and one big crane located one street away, operator has no sight of the track ! Pics to follow

 

[Whistler40145]

Network Rail at their best, ensuring that the job has started and already showing progress, even better that it's a Bank Holiday weekend, so more work can take place with less people wishing to travel.

 

[Ianno87]

For comparison Manchester Airport has only 4 platforms for something like 14 trains per hour. Tight, but doable.

A large portion of the North West timetables are written around Manchester Airport, to make the most of the limited capacity.

Blackpool North will always, to some extent, "get what it's given" in train planning terms, as paths are more constrained elsewhere. So the platforming will never be as optimised as at Manchester Airport for this reason, with lower frequencies of trains per platform. However, Blackpool North *still* doesn't need anything like 8 platforms to allow for this.

 

[Sheepy1209]

Blackpool North will always, to some extent, "get what it's given" in train planning terms, as paths are more constrained elsewhere

11, 24, 35 and 58 past the hour today - so irregularly spaced, though not as bad as it has been in the past. Not really a problem at Blackpool North, but can lead to crush loadings on one train and spare seats on the next leaving Preston for Blackpool.

While I'm here, I've searched but can't find much information on what the effect is likely to be on Carleton Crossing - not so much how it will be operated, more what will be the combined effect of new signalling and higher speeds on the time the crossing spends closed? Better or worse?

Congestion in the area isn't entirely down to the crossing being closed - there are only three roads that cross the railway in Blackpool (one of which will be closed over the winter) so each one is a bit of a bottleneck - but it would be interesting to know if the amount of time it's closed will change (assuming current service patterns of course).

 

[Whistler40145]

11, 24, 35 and 58 past the hour today - so irregularly spaced, though not as bad as it has been in the past. Not really a problem at Blackpool North, but can lead to crush loadings on one train and spare seats on the next leaving Preston for Blackpool.



While I'm here, I've searched but can't find much information on what the effect is likely to be on Carleton Crossing - not so much how it will be operated, more what will be the combined effect of new signalling and higher speeds on the time the crossing spends closed? Better or worse?



Congestion in the area isn't entirely down to the crossing being closed - there are only three roads that cross the railway in Blackpool (one of which will be closed over the winter) so each one is a bit of a bottleneck - but it would be interesting to know if the amount of time it's closed will change (assuming current service patterns of course).

Regarding Carleton Crossing. I do know that at present, if there's only one train due e.g. direction of Preston, then as soon as the train has cleared the next signal, the gates are raised, whereas when there's trains due in both directions, even if there's a few minutes between each train passing over the crossing, the gates remain lowered until both trains have cleared the relevant signals in each direction.

 

[Elecman]

I think you mean cleared the crossing detection rather than signal otherwise the wait would be even longer

 

[Whistler40145]

I think you mean cleared the crossing detection rather than signal otherwise the wait would be even longer

Sorry for my ignorance, I don't have much knowledge on these matters.

 

[LDECRexile]

Wrinkley has kindly sent a batch a photos from Lostock Lane.

I've added them to his album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157654034635234

and to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157661069863633

Thank you Wrinkley, good to hear from you.

Chorley sounds good Lankyline, I bait with weighted breath.

 

[childwallblues]

A large portion of the North West timetables are written around Manchester Airport, to make the most of the limited capacity.

Blackpool North will always, to some extent, "get what it's given" in train planning terms, as paths are more constrained elsewhere. So the platforming will never be as optimised as at Manchester Airport for this reason, with lower frequencies of trains per platform. However, Blackpool North *still* doesn't need anything like 8 platforms to allow for this.

Both the platforms and carriage sidings at Blackpool North were built to carry the excursion traffic of yesteryear.

 

[Geeves]

As mentioned by Childwallblues, its often not realised that the platforms at Blackpool that remain are not the original station but the over flow platforms, quite surprising even to when I found out!

Please see link here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/14581...l_north__blackpool_south_lines_past__present/

Some excellent shots in here. hard to imagine BPN with a big St Pancras style overall roof.

Good to see Chorley is coming along

 

[Elecman]

As mentioned by Childwallblues, its often not realised that the platforms at Blackpool that remain are not the original station but the over flow platforms, quite surprising even to when I found out!

Please see link here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/14581...l_north__blackpool_south_lines_past__present/

Some excellent shots in here. hard to imagine BPN with a big St Pancras style overall roof.

Good to see Chorley is coming along

Indeed the present station was the former excursion platform extension. The original main station was where the present Wilkinsons building is that is about to be demolished to make way for the new tram extension. In fact that the original main station was several hundred feet beyond the excursion platforms was the cause of a serious buffer collision when a driver was routed into the excursion platforms instead of the main platform and completely misjudged his braking thinking he had the length of the overall roof he could see to go.

 

[superkev]

Indeed the present station was the former excursion platform extension. The original main station was where the present Wilkinsons building is that is about to be demolished to make way for the new tram extension. In fact that the original main station was several hundred feet beyond the excursion platforms was the cause of a serious buffer collision when a driver was routed into the excursion platforms instead of the main platform and completely misjudged his braking thinking he had the length of the overall roof he could see to go.

I wonder if anyone considered moving the station nearer the seafront rather than extending the tram to the station. Just a thought.
K

 

[Lankyline]

In fact the whole line was put under scrutiny for possible closure and was then later reprieved under the governments subsidy scheme, the same scheme that put paid to Fleetwood and Colne to Skipton

 

[QueensCurve]

In fact the whole line was put under scrutiny for possible closure and was then later reprieved under the governments subsidy scheme, the same scheme that put paid to Fleetwood and Colne to Skipton

That seems extraordinary.

Was it before or after the closure of Blackpool Central?

 

[Ianno87]

I wonder if anyone considered moving the station nearer the seafront rather than extending the tram to the station. Just a thought.
K

It would require a colossal amount of demolition! Tram extension much cheaper and less disruptive.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That seems extraordinary.
Was it before or after the closure of Blackpool Central?

Actually, Beeching had Blackpool services from Manchester and Liverpool "to be modified", but the stations on the Kirkham-Blackpool North/Fleetwood branches were included in the closure list.

In the end the local authorities and BR decided to close the direct route into Blackpool Central instead, reprieving Blackpool North (but not the Fleetwood branch), and putting Blackpool South at the end of the branch via Lytham.

 

[Ianno87]

Actually, Beeching had Blackpool services from Manchester and Liverpool "to be modified", but the stations on the Kirkham-Blackpool North/Fleetwood branches were included in the closure list.

In the end the local authorities and BR decided to close the direct route into Blackpool Central instead, reprieving Blackpool North (but not the Fleetwood branch), and putting Blackpool South at the end of the branch via Lytham.

I understand that it was the local council's preference that Central was closed, as it was (in their view) a better site for the car park that replaced it?

 

[Lankyline]

I understand that it was the local council's preference that Central was closed, as it was (in their view) a better site for the car park that replaced it?

Your correct, Beeching listed North for closure, the council didn't like this so petitioned for Central to be closed, because they wanted the land for development ! And as you know it turned into a massive waste of space (some could say that about Blackpool !) It was acknowledged as a huge misuse of local authority powers.
On the point of potential closure, the reason behind it was the holiday specials traffic wasn't costed into the line revenue, as it was deemed to be allocated to the originatng station that issued the tickets. Plus Beechings survey was conducted in April and so completely ignored summer holiday traffic!

 

[QueensCurve]

Your correct, Beeching listed North for closure, the council didn't like this so petitioned for Central to be closed, because they wanted the land for development ! And as you know it turned into a massive waste of space (some could say that about Blackpool !) It was acknowledged as a huge misuse of local authority powers.
On the point of potential closure, the reason behind it was the holiday specials traffic wasn't costed into the line revenue, as it was deemed to be allocated to the originatng station that issued the tickets. Plus Beechings survey was conducted in April and so completely ignored summer holiday traffic!

A fate that befell several seaside towns.

Returning to Blackpool I believe part of the route to Blackpool Central was required for the M55. The remainder is used by the connecting road thereto.

 

[Lankyline]

A fate that befell several seaside towns.

Returning to Blackpool I believe part of the route to Blackpool Central was required for the M55. The remainder is used by the connecting road thereto.

The M55 does run on the old central alignment, but at the time of closure it wasn't part of the council's decision, it was driven by the redevelopment opportunity so close to the town centre.