Bolton Station Re-Modelling

[Nym]

This start/ed as a reply in the NW Electrification Thread, but grew too big and off topic so it's here instead now.

There has been talk in the NW Electrification threads about services overtaking at Bolton now, as you may know there is not currently facility at Bolton Staiton to be able to acceive this. So, there are a few things that could be done to alleviate this.

Platform 5:

Put Platform 5 back into use again, it wouldn't be too much effort to simply lay track and have it as a loop of platform 4, but with a bit more thought and re-modelling it could be a hell of a lot better than this.

The northern approaches from Lostock would remain broadly the same with a crossover before reaching Bolton Station. From Blackburn though I'd propose a significant change.

I'd model the station initially on the Lostock Approaches, as this sees 7tph as apposed to the 1/2 tph on the blackburn route, it would approach as 2 track with a crossover, then have the track split for platforms 4/5 and 1/3, with an additional crossover between the tracks for platforms 3 and 4. The line from blackburn would approach as it does now for platform 1, but would join into the line for platform 3, prior to the 3/4 crossover, so that services for blackburn could use platforms 1, 3 or 4. all of these being bi-directional. To the south the layout would merge pt. 1/2 into one line immediately south of pt. 2, with a similar crossover again between 3/4 before the lines merge into the unidirectional layout to the south with an additional crossover. All platforms would be unidirectional.

This brings me onto what I think is currently the biggest problem with Bolton Station, the Car Park, it's dreadfully inadequate, and re-building platform 5 would destroy it. I would propose building a new multi-storey car park close to the current station, there is plenty of land. There would be a charge for using this station, but would be discounted for rail users to a token amount, of a flat daily rate, such as 50 pence. This could be leased and contracted to NCP who would make more money from non-rail passengers.

Platform 6...?
This is a rather silly or not idea, but have another platform, with it's face against the big wall opposite platform 5, and operate it as an additional bi-directional loop for platform 5.

Trams?
Now, back in the days of the 'manchester crossrail' or whatever the hell it was called, there was an idea to have high quality trains to Bolton via Radcilffe, now there is no reason why this cannot be done with the current metrolink network, linked into the Bury Line at Radcliffe and using for most part the old permanent way to Bolton (With some on street running), including some of the disused bridges, it would need to be run around Asda and Halfords, but could then link into the current NR Network at Bolton (Tram/Train anyone?).
This could use Platform 2 that is rarely used anyway and if the station was layed out as described above would be even less used, or, run on street a bit more and have it on street level near the entrance, or even in a new pair of bay platforms at the Manchester end of 4/5 (not as hard as it sounds as Light Rail bridges are a lot easyer and bendyer then heavy rail ones, and there is enough space on the PWay to do this). There would then be able to have 8 trams per hour from Bolton and 8 Trams per hour from Bury, 3tph shuttling between (Wigan?) - Bolton - Bury - (Castleford/Rochdale?) and the existing 5tph from bury in addition to a new 5tph from Bolton to Victoria, now this sounds like a lot to push through the city zone, simple, have a couple of bays (or 4 platforms) for trams at Victoria, the lines into there can easily take 15tph (5ea from Rochdale/Oldham, Bury, Bolton), will leave that for discussion. But then I'd be wanting Metrolink to be part of ATOC...

Some more bits with less detail:
A loop at Westhaughton to enable Crescent - Walkden - Atherton - Lostock - Bolton services?
Walkden - Tyldsley - Leigh? / Wigan? new express route, trackbed is still there...
Walkden - Bolton? (Making it two 2track routes from Manchester to Bolton)
Chat Moss Line (Weaste) - Walkden


Tired fingers now, discuss.....

 

[Invincibles]

I want to see bolton remodelled but suggested a simple loop arrangement to make it possible to have two trains in what are very long platforms at the same time.

I always liked the way midland mainline introduced the turbostars on the london route with the slow arriving at leicester, allowing a cross platform change onto the fast, then continuing as a slow to london. A similar thing with Bolton could relieve a lot of pressure on commuter services out of Manchester and generally give better connections between stations on the route.

Of course I always look at Platform 5 and think that should come back, but realistically splitting 3 and 4 seems most possible for a sensible budget.

 

[Nym]

1/3 4/5 would be cross platform change, how you mean split the platforms anyway? re-instate the through lines and have crossovers on and off it half way down the platforms?

And there is one other problem with your statment there, if you're refering to southbound 'slow' trains, there is only one pathed, and off peak it arrives fast from Wigan. Northbound, there is the same point, anything leaving or passing crescent will be in Bolton 12 to 16 minutes later, the idea of doubling platforms isn't to allow interchange, pepole already do this on trains off blackburn changing onto the airport services. It would however, releive the ques that frequently spring up either end of the station, now having halfway down the platform corssovers at bolton would need a turnout speed of 5 - 10mph, two new tracks laying, and 10 points. and would not gain that much as trains would crawl into the station, and no-one would walk to the far end to get them, theres also the problem of then limiting train lengths to approximatly 6 carrages when you want to use both platforms, this would be a problem. Alternativly lay 1 more track (pt.5) two points for that (1 each end), and a short section to allow the lostock lines to access platform 1, loosing some network rail compound and two more points... witch is more cost effective for a quick deployment? even the big plan with 6 platforms only requires the same length of track to be comissoned.

 

[lancastrian]

Well all this is very interesting, but it all needs to be done before the line is electrified. As someone who lives in Bolton and has used the station many times there are a few simple things that need to be done.

1. Yes Platform 5 needs to be reopened, so that cross platform interchange can take place in both directions.
2. At least one centre road should be reinstated, so that services not stopping at Bolton can pass without blocking the platforms. I dont think that much freight now passes through Bolton, but even so it is a capacity enhancement that would be really helpful, especially if it was bi-directional.
3. Platform 1 needs to be fully accesable from the Lostock direction, again so that slow trains from Wigan/Southport can be passed by fast services from the Preston line.
4. With all the derilict siding space to the south of the station a decent carpark should be developed for park and ride. For those people using the trains, then their carpark ticket can be discounted against their fare, as is done in many places.

Just my thoughts.

 

[WatcherZero]

Can add another, some reduction in crowding at Bolton if they built a Southport bound platform at Lostock for interchange.

 

[lancastrian]

Yes I agree, it was typical politicval short sightedness that caused only the Preston line platforms to be rebuilt. The fact it has easy access to an overbridge means no new footbridge required. Also there is space for the Bolton direction,Southport platform to be reinstated very easily, a little more effort would be required for the Southport direction platform, but it would not be that difficult. All it needs is the will to do it.

 

[Nym]

The only problem is that you can only have two platforms used at once, the interlocking is too close to the junction, for best effect at the Junction you'd need to re-signal, so that both southbound platforms could be used at the same time. But yeah, the other problem is, there is now a massive new car park at lostock, and thats always full now, so if they have more platforms, they'd also need to build either more car parking down the tracks (not really possible), or put a multi storey car park on the site, but TBH, that needs doing at Horwich Parkway aswell, it would be used as a park & ride if you could park there. When electrification comes, a turnback siding at Horwich could make it so that there are stopping elecrtic services there in the peak, as you could easilly fill an 8 carrage train with passengers only from Horwich, Lostock and Bolton in the peak, possibly add one at Chorley...

PS: I used to commute through Bolton station, now use Lostock instead.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its been named Lostock Parkway in the past, so returning to its primary use isnt a bad idea.

 

[Nym]

Its been named Lostock Parkway in the past, so returning to its primary use isnt a bad idea.

Problem is road access, if there where a junction to the A58 for the car park, or a multi storey then it would be a lot nicer for the pepole of the village in Lostock

Or just upgrade Junction Road West and provide a long stay car park on the opersite side of Rumworth Road, with a new booking office and overbridge to the platforms.

 

[lancastrian]

Problem is road access, if there where a junction to the A58 for the car park, or a multi storey then it would be a lot nicer for the pepole of the village in Lostock

Or just upgrade Junction Road West and provide a long stay car park on the opersite side of Rumworth Road, with a new booking office and overbridge to the platforms.

I agree that access is the major problem for parking at Lostock Parkway. That is why it might be better if a reversing platform was put in at Horwich Parkway and have a large carpark there accessed from the M61 link road, on the Motorway side of the Railway.

There was a very large area to the west of lostock station that was used a large storage sidings for condemed wagons for many years. As far as I am aware it is still derilict, so if a proper access road was put in to there, with a well lit, proper footpath to Lostock Station, that might solve the parking problem for Lostock.

 

[PR1Berske]

In an ideal world, Lostock station would be rebuilt just prior to the split to Westhoughton....

 

[Nym]

In an ideal world, Lostock station would be rebuilt just prior to the split to Westhoughton....

Yeah, but then you're jamming up capacity when a serivce does stop at Lostock, it's better off moving it slightly further west, then continue an alignment from Junction Road West to access a new car park on the farmland there, a new ticket office on an island between the junction, and with the amount of work being done, move all platforms west of the bridge to facilitate 4 tracking, when done, make this easyer to start with by putting lostock's platforms on loops with a big enough gap through the centre for two tracks, similar layout to Northalleteron, then dependant on the track layout if 4 tracking comes, platforms could be configued apropriately, if the centre tracks where bi-directional. The 4 track extending to an extra pair of platforms at Horwich with a BIG car park between the running lines and the M61, with access 'the linkway' by sliproad, with access back to the road network via a new bridge over the lines, next to Horwich Police Station, nice roundabout there to gain access. (Have that car park as free long stay, and then the current one as short stay/pickup/disabled, whatever)

PS: This layout at Lostock could actually be managed without any new bridges over the lines, placing the ticket office off the road over the lines already means you could use that one, although it would be better to have a ticket office and platform access route, then automated ticket barriers could be added in. Horwich would need a bridge over the line near the police station, and an extended footbridge, proberbly an ancillary ticket office near the new car park.

 

[furryfeet]

I want to see bolton remodelled but suggested a simple loop arrangement to make it possible to have two trains in what are very long platforms at the same time.

platform permissive working was used in BR days.... but under modern rules this is a non-starter.

Agree with putting platform 5 back in.
Re-instating the pre 1985 connection from the Lostock line to platform 1 may now be seen as overkill - there is a loop (goods only ?) at what was Burnden Jn for trains to pass. Maybe they will upgrade this loop to passenger standard, with faster turnouts.

 

[lancastrian]

platform permissive working was used in BR days.... but under modern rules this is a non-starter.

Agree with putting platform 5 back in.
Re-instating the pre 1985 connection from the Lostock line to platform 1 may now be seen as overkill - there is a loop (goods only ?) at what was Burnden Jn for trains to pass. Maybe they will upgrade this loop to passenger standard, with faster turnouts.

Concerning more than one train using the same platfom not now being allowed, well I don't think that is true. I used both Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly this last weekend and all 4 through platforms at Victoria and 13/14 at Piccadilly and they all had more than one train in each through platform while I was at each station observing them. So I don't see why it cannot happen at Bolton, the platforms are long enough.

Concerning the potential link from the Lostock direction on to Platform 1 at Bolton. It needs to be done to increase the capacity at Bolton. If all you do is to upgrade the goods loops to passenger usage, is to allow trans to overtake each other, not to conect the services. What is needed are cross platform conections in each direction, it is very possible at Bolton but to do it two things are needed, reconection from the Lostock line to Platform 1 and reopening platform 5.

 

[ukrob]

It has little to do with the length of the platforms, but is to do with the signalling setup.

I wasn't aware it was made a 'non-starter' under current rules providing the signalling is correct?

 

[lancastrian]

OK that is completely a different situation. If the changes where made then I would hope that the requisite signalling changes would be made at the same time.

 

[Nym]

Concerning more than one train using the same platfom not now being allowed, well I don't think that is true. I used both Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly this last weekend and all 4 through platforms at Victoria and 13/14 at Piccadilly and they all had more than one train in each through platform while I was at each station observing them. So I don't see why it cannot happen at Bolton, the platforms are long enough.

Concerning the potential link from the Lostock direction on to Platform 1 at Bolton. It needs to be done to increase the capacity at Bolton. If all you do is to upgrade the goods loops to passenger usage, is to allow trans to overtake each other, not to conect the services. What is needed are cross platform conections in each direction, it is very possible at Bolton but to do it two things are needed, reconection from the Lostock line to Platform 1 and reopening platform 5.

The main diference between Vic/Pic and Bolton for the platforms is the pedestrian access points, at both these stations it is in the centre of the platform, I must ask, have you ever walked to the far end of Bolton from the ticket office, it's a good 5 min walk for me, but can take upto 10mins for a free traveler.

On the topic of overtaking trains, theres only 1tph that would want to be overtaken off Bolton southbound, but this is already timed to hold at Wigan Wallgate and is behind the Southport - Airport service, and holds at Lostock to be in the right order. Hence why extra platforms at Lostock, to be effective there'd also need to be some minor resignalling, basically, putting starting signals at the end of the lostock platforms, rather than west of the station, with the current setup and interlocking (again, short sightedness) you wouldn't be able to have a train sat in both platform 1 and 3 as it would violate interlocking

 

[strange6]

On the topic of overtaking trains, theres only 1tph that would want to be overtaken off Bolton southbound, but this is already timed to hold at Wigan Wallgate and is behind the Southport - Airport service, and holds at Lostock to be in the right order. Hence why extra platforms at Lostock, to be effective there'd also need to be some minor resignalling, basically, putting starting signals at the end of the lostock platforms, rather than west of the station, with the current setup and interlocking (again, short sightedness) you wouldn't be able to have a train sat in both platform 1 and 3 as it would violate interlocking[/QUOTE]

Yes, we're quite often held up for a few minutes at the Lostock junction signal coming from Westhoughton so that the FTP express train can go through to Bolton in front of us.

 

[furryfeet]

It has little to do with the length of the platforms, but is to do with the signalling setup.

I wasn't aware it was made a 'non-starter' under current rules providing the signalling is correct?

Can someone comment on whether Network Rail actually allow platform permissive anymore ?
Also, why did they stop using platform permissive working at Bolton ( and indeed Stockport !) in the first place ?
i.e. was it due to a change in signalling installation, or just some new rules, because someone thought that it was too risky to have two trains so close to one another ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Can someone comment on whether Network Rail actually allow platform permissive anymore ?
Also, why did they stop using platform permissive working at Bolton ( and indeed Stockport !) in the first place ?
i.e. was it due to a change in signalling installation, or just some new rules, because someone thought that it was too risky to have two trains so close to one another ?

It is certainly allowed for existing operations, Southampton would come to a grinding halt in a few minutes without it, as would everywhere else in the south where trains split and join all day.

I've read somewhere that if they built a completely new station layout, such as the new Reading, they'd use intermediate signals half way down the platform, but I have never heard of any form of embargo on existing use.

 

[lancastrian]

The main diference between Vic/Pic and Bolton for the platforms is the pedestrian access points, at both these stations it is in the centre of the platform, I must ask, have you ever walked to the far end of Bolton from the ticket office, it's a good 5 min walk for me, but can take upto 10mins for a free traveler.

Yes Nym, I have walked the length of Bolton's platforms many times, especially when it was still a parcles depot in the seventies when I worked there, Platform 4 used to be even longer when the western end was platform 4A and used for Wigan/Southport trains. I agree it is even worse since the moved the entrance to where it is now, but if Manchester Piccadilly can have travelators for access to platforms 13/14, surely if a car park is built around the Orlando Street Bridge area, then a footbridge access could be built at the southern end of the station.

Since the "improvements" to Bolton Station in the mid 80's, the cappacity was drastically reduced. This now means that although the platforms could be better used for cross platform interchanges. So with a few new conections, the platforms could go back to how they used to be, able to have multi line use. But with all things like this, improvement often really means things get worse.

 

[ffcphone]

£4m is currently being spent on what appears to be little more than a couple of hundred yards of platform canopies and a remodelling of the booking hall and former travel centre.

If it was up to me I'd knock the whole thing down and start again. The distance required to walk to exit the station from an arriving train on any platform must be similar to that at a mainline platform such as Preston or Piccadilly particularly if on a 180 or a coupled 185. The available on-platform facilities are a joke.

Over on platform 3 windows etched with "gentlemen's first class waiting room" are still visible. History has its place but not when it hinders the present.

A complete rebuild would also enable attention to be given to overtaking lines and the car park, as above.

In any event, I'm no expert but doesn't FOUR MILLION QUID sound a lot of dosh for what they are doing now?

 

[Nym]

Knowing GMPTE that will be £1mil of actual work and £3mil of Risk assesments and consultant fees. If somone asked me if I'd rather they just re-painted and re-floored the footbridge for £200k, and spend the other £3.8mil paying Network Rail to re-install Platform 5, install access to Platform 1 from Lostock, and fund a multi-storey ticket subsidised car park off Orlando street with ticket machines and it's own footbridge and ticket barriers. (Might have gone a tad over the remaining £3.8mil there) I think I know what I'd choose. Would proberbly need to be on the operside side of Orlando Street, or both sides.

Why don't modern railway developments in this country follow the likes of Manchester Airport, They built a massive runway for trans-atlantic flights, but still had no terminal. Get the track in place first, then put trains on it, and if you can't afford a shiney nice ticket office at first, just put one there! I don't care if it's a portacabin, if the waiting rooms on the platforms are a couple of portacabins etc, so long as it's warm and in out of the rain. If I can have a service with 10tph into Manchester with sensible connections evenly spaced out then I don't think any other passengers will care either, if it's set up right it means you wouldn't be waiting more than 6mins for a train, or 12mins for a train into the Manchester Station you want. Or upto 20mins for a Northbound service, on an evening there are less passengers, so the waiting facilities can be used effectily still. Christ myself and quite a lot of other paseengers would be happy with a burger van parked on the platform, and some patio heaters and furnature.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its £3m Network rail (through dft funded NSIP program) and £1m GMITA, the full program of works is:

* The existing booking office, travel centre and shop will be completely stripped out, as will the toilet block and redundant parcels office. The internal walls will be removed to allow for a completely new layout to incorporate a new ticket office with four positions, one of which will be for wheelchair users.

* There will be a new retail unit, lighting and security doors, and the information screens and public address systems will be relocated.

* Flooring will be renewed and the walls and ceilings painted.

* At platform level, the café will get a new conservatory frontage. In light of the decidion to move the train stopping point nearer the foot of the stairs to reduce the walking distance for passengers, the canopies at the northern end of platforms one/three and four will be extended to protect passengers from the elements.

* The existing waiting rooms will benefit from new lighting, information screens and public address speakers, the flooring will be replaced and the walls and ceilings painted.

* The existing toilets on both main platforms will be gutted and refitted with new fixtures and fittings, including disabled and baby change facilities.

* New cycle stands will be provided at the ends of platforms one/three and four, and existing cycle cabinets will be relocated to these positions. There will also be new litter bins on the platforms.

* Lighting will be upgraded, new seats installed along the length of the platforms and the exterior of the platform buildings will be steam cleaned.

* The platform surfaces will be pressure washed and repaired and renewed as necessary, and new tactile paving installed.

* Finally, passenger security will be considerably improved with the installation of a new CCTV system with monitoring and recording equipment (50 new cameras).

 

[Nym]

OK then, thats quite a lot of work is can say it's £4m worth, shame the're not doing anything about the Car Park or Platform 5 though...

 

[WatcherZero]

OK then, thats quite a lot of work is can say it's £4m worth, shame the're not doing anything about the Car Park or Platform 5 though...

There was an NR staff member interview in November where they said the project had come in a couple of hundred thousand under budget and any savings would be reinvested in Bolton stations, whether it still is underbudget I dont know.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm glad the platform buildings are being retained, although sadly no mention of a Dewsbury/Stalybridge style pub/buffet occupying any of them yet. Regarding through lines, I would have thought that these would be relatively easy to reinstate with the current layout.

 

[Nym]

But wholey un-nessesarry! Anything that would be running through fast would be a scottish service, and they'll run via Chat Moss anyway, and all services stop at bolton, it has a hell of a lot of passengers...

 

[WatcherZero]

Looks like its still underbudget, a GMITA report says their considering where to spend the underspend:

The potential further improvements include: improvements to the station footbridge, painting/cleaning of the canopy fascias on each platform, new fencing on Platform 4, works to the underside of the road bridge piers including new cladding and drainage to deal with rain water seepage; and upgrading the external main entrance including the introduction of new signage.

 

[lancastrian]

Well I am glad that they are finally improving Bolton Station, and with the New Bus Station being built nearby, we might have a decent Transport Exchange at last. They are even supposedly reinstating the footbridge over the Johnson Street curve site, but not exactly in the same place.

However, the biggest problem for Bolton Station is the woeful lack of decent, cheap and easy access carpark for users. Until they address that they will have major problems. It was fun the other day to watch a taxi, trying to get into traffic travelling over Trinity Street Bridge, and seing them try and race a heavy lorry, and see the front of the taxi (not a black cab) being crushed as the driver ingnored the lorry thinking he could get into the lane before it hit him. I question if he had passed any driving test?