Farnworth Tunnel Electrification.

[northwichcat]

Line will be closed at weekends so Saturday evening services will only struggle with capacity not enough buses ordered, although usually on bus replacements supply usually exceeds demand.

Yes I forgot the line would be closed at weekends

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Thanks for that -- it must be one really small-radius curve if the best possible (with 150 mm + 130 mm deficiency, I assume) is only 25!

150mm is exceptional cant and 130mm is exceptional deficiency on jointed track; however canting the S&C is not going to be a vote-winner so E=0 D<=90 it is; at that radius that is Vm = 25mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've seen the LSI speed profiles for MVE1 and there's definitely some thing afoot. From what Ive seen its nothing like 100mph through out. Also I believe any renewals will be designed to the LSI line speeds (passive provision).

There is indeed a game afoot ... but that doesn't mean DfT will stick its short arms into its very deep pockets and fund anything yet.

Beware the dreaded ECAM's Razor!

 

[Senex]

150mm is exceptional cant and 130mm is exceptional deficiency on jointed track; however canting the S&C is not going to be a vote-winner so E=0 D<=90 it is; at that radius that is Vm = 25mph

That suggests a radius of just over 200 m -- say 10 chains. That really is tight! I wonder what the historical reasons were for two lines to make such an awkward junction. And indeed no-one nowadays would want to cant the S&C if they could avoid it and for [WISHFUL_THINKING] an hourly Scottish express [/WISHFUL_THINKING] it would hardly be worth doing anything.

I'm clearly either out of date or thinking of the wrong country with rules on permissible cant. I thought 150 mm as the successor to 6" was the normal maximum permitted on CWR plain track as long as the transitions allowed it, with a normal maximum deficiency or 130 mm, but no more than 110 on jointed track or with S&C and no more than 90 (?) in stations. At the other end of the scale, wasn't 150 mm deficiency allowed exceptionally for a time? That's how you get, for example, the 80 mph on the 34-chain curve at Wigston North Junction, now regarded as outwith today's rules.

 

[edwin_m]

What's the history of the current Bolton station site? Seems a bit surprising that both routes northwards are so tightly curved, unless it was originally intended to be a terminus.

(I'm not thinking of the Bolton and Leigh, which was the first railway in Bolton but terminated elsewhere).

 

[AM9]

Looking at the plan view and streetview on Google Maps, it does seem that Bolton station has a lot of poorly used space. If some profitable land disposal could be done it might be possible to slew the northbound Preston track eastwards to ease the curve. If the platforms were moved slightly south towards Orlando St, the curve could possibly be taken out of the platforms. The speed restriction on the Ribble branch could be endured as it would only affect stopping trains anyway.

 

[ALX400]

Be interesting to see what's actually going to be happening work and track wise at Bolton, Joseph do you know ? as your in on the action lol

 

[Ships]

Be interesting to see what's actually going to be happening work and track wise at Bolton, Joseph do you know ? as your in on the action lol

I have seen what I'm told is the agreed design...however given all the previous iterations.

I'm probably not allowed to give it all away but if you think more track in the station and less to the south you'd be getting warm.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That suggests a radius of just over 200 m -- say 10 chains. That really is tight! I wonder what the historical reasons were for two lines to make such an awkward junction. And indeed no-one nowadays would want to cant the S&C if they could avoid it and for [WISHFUL_THINKING] an hourly Scottish express [/WISHFUL_THINKING] it would hardly be worth doing anything.

I'm clearly either out of date or thinking of the wrong country with rules on permissible cant. I thought 150 mm as the successor to 6" was the normal maximum permitted on CWR plain track as long as the transitions allowed it, with a normal maximum deficiency or 130 mm, but no more than 110 on jointed track or with S&C and no more than 90 (?) in stations. At the other end of the scale, wasn't 150 mm deficiency allowed exceptionally for a time? That's how you get, for example, the 80 mph on the 34-chain curve at Wigston North Junction, now regarded as outwith today's rules.

To be fair I had 120mm in my head as maximum. Now (from what I've been taught) we try and maximise deficiency on mixed traffic lines so sidewear etc isn't so much of an issue. I've a nagging voice saying it helped high rail RCF but I might be talking none sense.

There used to be two through lines through Bolton. Not old enough to have seen in the flesh but I think S&C in question use to lead to the through roads instead across to the opposite roads. I'm not sure what it's used for but I'm sure some one more ops minded will know.

The curve was planned for renewal and LRPs on every sleeper would have been required AFAIK, I'm sure it was between 250 and 300 radius, sharp but check rail not required.

90 in stations is correct (but try telling Hyde north that...)

 

[Bevan Price]

What's the history of the current Bolton station site? Seems a bit surprising that both routes northwards are so tightly curved, unless it was originally intended to be a terminus.
.

It was built for the Manchester & Bolton Railway, and opened in 1838. A separate local company, the Bolton & Preston Railway, opened from Bolton northwards, as far as Chorley in 1841, but the remainder to Euxton Jn only opened in 1843, due to problems in the construction of Chorley Tunnel. (from J. Marshall, History of the L&YR). As almost all trains stopped at Bolton, low speed limits around curves were not much of a problem at that time.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I have seen what I'm told is the agreed design...however given all the previous iterations.

I'm probably not allowed to give it all away but if you think more track in the station and less to the south you'd be getting warm.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


To be fair I had 120mm in my head as maximum. Now (from what I've been taught) we try and maximise deficiency on mixed traffic lines so sidewear etc isn't so much of an issue. I've a nagging voice saying it helped high rail RCF but I might be talking none sense.

There used to be two through lines through Bolton. Not old enough to have seen in the flesh but I think S&C in question use to lead to the through roads instead across to the opposite roads. I'm not sure what it's used for but I'm sure some one more ops minded will know.

The curve was planned for renewal and LRPs on every sleeper would have been required AFAIK, I'm sure it was between 250 and 300 radius, sharp but check rail not required.

90 in stations is correct (but try telling Hyde north that...)

The westernmost proposed line at Bolton is 220m.

Ships, if you've seen the design for Bolton then we've probably already met!

 

[Darren R]

...There used to be two through lines through Bolton. Not old enough to have seen in the flesh but I think S&C in question use to lead to the through roads instead across to the opposite roads. I'm not sure what it's used for but I'm sure some one more ops minded will know....

In nigh-on thirty years since it was installed, I've never seen it used once!

The long trailing crossover at the north end of platform platform three was laid when the current station layout was adopted towards the late eighties. It allows an 'Up' train to terminate at Bolton and head back westwards - it's never been used in normal sevice. A similar crossover at the southern end of platform four allows trains to return southwards (Bay platform two being very short.)

Incidentally, wouldn't wider discussions about plans/proposals for Bolton station be better on the Manchester to Blackpool Electrification thread that's kicking around somewhere?

 

[edwin_m]

It was built for the Manchester & Bolton Railway, and opened in 1838. A separate local company, the Bolton & Preston Railway, opened from Bolton northwards, as far as Chorley in 1841, but the remainder to Euxton Jn only opened in 1843, due to problems in the construction of Chorley Tunnel. (from J. Marshall, History of the L&YR). As almost all trains stopped at Bolton, low speed limits around curves were not much of a problem at that time.

Thanks for that. So it sounds as if it was in fact designed as a terminus, and found to be pointing in the wrong direction when the line was extended. See also York, Bristol, etc, etc, although there the curve is actually in the station.

 

[Ships]

The westernmost proposed line at Bolton is 220m.

Ships, if you've seen the design for Bolton then we've probably already met!

I've only seen the track diagram, I think the plan would need a rather epic drawing board!

 

[Darren R]

...it sounds as if it was in fact designed as a terminus, and found to be pointing in the wrong direction when the line was extended. See also York, Bristol, etc, etc, although there the curve is actually in the station.

The station did start-off life as a terminus; the Manchester & Bolton opened in 1838. Unusually, the M&B adopted right-hand running from the opening and Farnworth Tunnel was the double-track bore that is going to be widened. The first station at Bolton was where it still stands, south of Trinity Street. The Bolton & Preston Railway Act gained Royal Ascent whilst the M&B was still under construction, with the two forming an end-on junction at the north-end of the station. June 1848 saw the opening of the Blackburn, Darwen & Bolton Railway. As originally planned, this company was to build its own station further east on an alignment that was to have headed south from roughly where Hall I' Th' Wood station now stands, joining the Manchester & Bolton nearer to Moses Gate. However Parliament insisted the BD&B used Trinity Street station - hence the horrendous curve and steep climb up through Bradshawgate Tunnel that is with us to this day. Finally, the Liverpool & Bury Railway joined the growing throng later in 1848, using existing tracks in from Lostock Junction before turning east just south of Bolton Trinity Street station.

As with so much of our present-day railway system, the routes through Bolton are no more than an accident of history.

 

[Bullfield WEst]

A view down onto the track at the North end of (now) P4 at Bolton is shown here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenward/4955917921/in/set-72157624875349818

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A view down onto the track at the North end of (now) P4 at Bolton is shown here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenward/4955917921/in/set-72157624875349818

A pity that 26A Newton Heath had turned out Jubilee 45710 "Irresistible" in a less than clean condtion...

 

[RAPC]

I believe that the timetables for the period when the line is restricted have not been published yet. With that in mind, would what is currently showing on RTT for dates at the start of the period be representative of the likely timetable? (Restricted services compared to normal for M-F and buses for Sat and Sun)

The weekday timetable for my commute at least looks like a challenge in the morning and absolutely horrific in the evening. If it is correct, I won't be seeing much of our little baby thanks to getting home 80 minutes later than I currently do thanks to my regular train being removed. Obviously the service isn't set up for my convenience, so not expecting them to re-plan the timetable on that basis. Just a bit gutted at 5 months of getting home late and family disruption.

 

[Senex]

The Bolton & Preston Railway Act gained Royal Ascent whilst the M&B was still under construction, with the two forming an end-on junction at the north-end of the station......

As with so much of our present-day railway system, the routes through Bolton are no more than an accident of history.

And the puzzle is that given the parliamentary insistence on the end-on junction they did it quite so badly, especially since the route chosen certainly didn't allow them to avoid substantial cutting through an existing built-up area.

As to accidents of history dictating much of our present-day railway system, that is so true -- and how many of the shortcomings of the system do indeed go straight back to those historical accidents!

I find it interesting that whilst so many of the early engineers, including Rastrick, who I think did the Bolton & Preston, engineered their own lines with easy gradients and very gentle curves they were happy to build junctions between lines with horrible curves, even when these were not at a station like Bolton.

 

[edwin_m]

I think there was just no appreciation initially that trains would become fast enough to allow long distance through journeys or that companies would merge into larger ones. Look at the way Bristol originally had the GWR station facing east-west and the Bristol and Exeter a hundred yards away facing north-south.

 

[lancastrian]

As it was the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway who were involved in the line construction of the route from Blackburn to Hellifield that was opened by 1st June 1880 and also the fact that the Farnworth new tunnel being of use to them for any onward Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway services that used the Manchester to Bolton section of such onward services to Blackburn and to Preston, I would be most interested in hearing of any financial matter that you can reveal.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to everyone over this. I have read and re-read John Marshall's Trilogy about the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway and found no reference about the Farnworth Tunnels.

However in Peter E. Baughan book The Midland Railway, North of Leeds on page 242 I found the following reference which I hope will help settle this. Here is the relevant passage:

" This, however, immediately posed a problem, for the tunnels on the L.Y.R. line at Sough and Farnworth were not large enough to take the proposed Pullman service. This despite the fact that the Midland's structure gauge was generally tighter than that of the L.Y.R. The Lancashire company therefore undertook to lower the track through Sough Tunnel and to bore a new tunnel parallel with that at Farnworth, so that the old tunnel could be used for single track."

I have underlined what I think is the important section, which does give the impression that the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway paid for the work. Although I accept that it is not conclusive evidence. If someone else has more information I would be very interested.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think the timetables for the work are now up - http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/BON/2015/05/13/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

[Inox]

Just working out which train I'll be getting. Think I'll get the early one. 6.18 from Buckshaw.

Bolton's going to be hell.

 

[Darren R]

Just working out which train I'll be getting. Think I'll get the early one. 6.18 from Buckshaw.

Bolton's going to be hell.

It's not going to be much fun for some considerable distance either side of Bolton! I am thankful that I'll be catching a train that's already full long before it gets to Bolton, but at least passengers from stations such as Buckshaw Parkway know it's temporary pain for long-term gain. My regular commute on the Clitheroe Line will still be on Sprinters and Pacers long after 319s are operating through Bolton. (I suspect it may be some time before Entwistle sees a 4-car EMU!)

You will therefore forgive me if I start posting "oh booh-hoo" everytime someone starts moaning on here when the work starts! (And we all know that the moaning will start as soon as commuters notice their usual train no longer runs from May! )

 

[Inox]

It's alright. I used Bromley Cross for 12 years before i moved up here. I know what commuters have to go through on the Clitheroe line.

you're in my thoughts.

 

[Beano123]

Quite surprised by the timetable tbh.

There appears to be:-
Bolton to Kirby
Hazel Grove to Preston
Manchester Victoria to Blackpool North
Manchester Victoria to Clitheroe

The route selected to be cut is most is Manchester Airport to Bolton! I'd have thought that they'd have prioritised the Airport connections over Stockport/Hazel Grove. 4 trains to Manchester Airport in the morning and 7 return workings from 1209 onwards. Have TPE decided to run most of there services via other route to keeping the timing paths correct I wonder? Also strangely the Hazel Grove services aren't extended to Blackpool North from Preston which would seem to be a logical idea. Just hope that all the Hazel Grove - Preston services are strengthened to four cars...

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Just hope that all the Hazel Grove - Preston services are strengthened to four cars...

Using what rolling stock?

 

[thealexweb]

Using what rolling stock?

From what is freed up from Bolton having half the its normal level of services.

 

[edwin_m]

I know what commuters have to go through on the Clitheroe line.

Farnworth Tunnel, for one thing.

 

[Darren R]

Is the timetable as it appears on RTT definitely confirmed yet? It seems to me a little bit odd, given the scarcity of paths during the works, that Blackburn/Clitheroe trains have emerged largely unscathed - even retaining the half-hourly peak services (albeit with extended journey times.)

 

[30907]

My guess, without checking, is that they've retained the services that cannot easily be diverted, and the Southports go via Atherton and TPE via Chat Moss or Atherton

 

[TOCDriver]

There will also be an hourly express service from Wigan NW to Man Vic via Chat Moss I believe.