• 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!

Future of the Blackpool South line

Status
Not open for further replies.

bradford758

Member
Joined
26 May 2016
Messages
226
There's an interesting pamphlet by the local historical society available from the lighthouse in Lytham, all about when Lytham had a beach and why it's not there anymore.

Sent from my 4009X using Tapatalk
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

seasidersfan

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2017
Messages
81
Location
Blackpool
Think we've gone a bit off topic.

Back to the line, there's an ongoing campaign supporting one of the tram options. It definitely seems like some sort of light rail scheme is the most popular option for us locals. Whether that is the one that goes ahead remains to be seen.

Link to page here: https://www.facebook.com/tramstolytham
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
989
Location
Blackpool south Shore
Nothing against a barrage as such but I have an interest in the impact of silting in this area.

By comparison with old photographs and maps, it is evident that this part of the Fylde coast has been topographically altered due to heavy silting.

As a couple of examples, silting has enabled significant land reclamation on the southern bank of the Ribble estuary and old photographs show vessels moored up at the St. Anne's pier-end (not possible now due to the loss of draught).

Anecdotally, the outer basin of Preston dock is also becoming badly silted.

The real problem is the vast quantities of materials that come down the Ribble. A barrage would lead to the water movement being rapidly arrested with the attendant deposition of same.

Not to say a barrage wouldn't work for electricity generation but only for a limited timescale before the loss of upstream volume rendered the operation uneconomic.

Dredging would be an act of futility as it is very expensive and generally only used for the maintenance of discrete channels for navigation.

I would have thought it might have the opposite effect. When generating at full power the water level inside a barrage could fall as fast as 6 feet in 20 minutes - timed at low tide this could help scour the river bed.
One of the old fashioned ways of keeping smaller rivers clear of sand etc were to have sluice ponds, which were emptied at low spring tides.
 
Last edited:
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
989
Location
Blackpool south Shore
Think we've gone a bit off topic.

Back to the line, there's an ongoing campaign supporting one of the tram options. It definitely seems like some sort of light rail scheme is the most popular option for us locals. Whether that is the one that goes ahead remains to be seen.
There are several extensions to the Blackpool light railway which imo is worthwhile. Fleetwood to Poulton. The North Station could be better if it actually called at North Station, and continued to another point in Town, maybe even the Vic hospital via Layton.
I honestly cannot not see any advantage in converting the South line to a tramway. Cost of double track. Lowering all the platforms. Much slower timings. Creating a poor change over at Lytham, especially with luggage - probably a bit like Ormskirk. Eventually it would terminate at Kirkham. Lytham etc would no longer have direct trains to Preston & beyond. Cost 120 million plus? Possibility there is more cash in this pot!!
All that is required is a passing loop, cost around (as suggested previously) £10m.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,386
I honestly cannot not see any advantage in converting the South line to a tramway. Cost of double track. Lowering all the platforms. Much slower timings.

Why would the timings necessarily be much slower?
Trams accelerate so fast they leave diesel multiple units in the dust.
 

Nean

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2013
Messages
158
Location
Sheffield
Why would the timings necessarily be much slower?
Trams accelerate so fast they leave diesel multiple units in the dust.

Sectional Appendix is listing the linespeed to Kirkham North Junction at 70 for most of the route, is there any point where an all-stations DMU reaches that?
 

Lytham Local

Member
Joined
5 May 2017
Messages
103
Had a wonder round Lytham today and saw the orange army working on the line at the station.

Looks like they are putting some cable ducting down but given the position of it, can we say goodbye to any chance of adding a passing loop and reinstating platform 2? 199.JPG
 

kevjs

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2013
Messages
470
It would only get built in conjunction with a Road bridge IMHO. It would be an M65 extension and loop around to the M55 and would need a bridge across the Ribble.

That's kinda being built isn't it? - new dual carriageway from the A583/A5085 (Blackpool Road) junction to Junction 2 of the M55 via Cottom (with link to the proposed Parkway and planned housing developments), and the dualing of the A582 from the end of the M65 to the A59.

All thats missing then is the bridge... Will be daft once that's built - quicker to get to my parents via the M6, M55, new link road, Blackpool road (i.e. the long way round) than that more direct route....

A tram line from Preston to Blackpool via Lytham and Warton would have been really handy when we were kids - when it's quicker to drive to Tesco Blackpool than it is to drive to Preston Railway station and walk to the ticket office it was a no brainier to drive to Blackpool/Fairaven rather than drive into Preston and get the train. Linking to BAE may also have taken some pressure of the roads too....
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,749
Had a wonder round Lytham today and saw the orange army working on the line at the station.

Looks like they are putting some cable ducting down but given the position of it, can we say goodbye to any chance of adding a passing loop and reinstating platform 2?

Cables can be moved.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
Cables can be moved.

Those cables might not need to be: it depends which bit needs doubling to meet the service pattern - nearer Blackpool than halfway would make sense, so that Kirkham - Loop, Loop - end (+dwell and reverse) - Loop and Loop - Kirkham are all about equal - that's nearly St Annes-OTS rather than Lytham. If you had two platforms at Blackpool South then midway (Lytham) would make sense, but the extra cost could only be supported if there was a case for more than two an hour.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
Those cables might not need to be: it depends which bit needs doubling to meet the service pattern - nearer Blackpool than halfway would make sense, so that Kirkham - Loop, Loop - end (+dwell and reverse) - Loop and Loop - Kirkham are all about equal - that's nearly St Annes-OTS rather than Lytham. If you had two platforms at Blackpoo South then midway (Lytham) would make sense, but the extra cost could only be supported if there was a case for more than two an hour.

Interesting. My reasoning would've been completely different, but leads to roughly the same answer. I would have thought that if you want a half-hourly service, then you need to place the loop somewhere that allows reasonable dwell times at Blackpool South. Say 10 minutes, which gives a few minutes recovery time for late trains. (No point giving more than a few minutes recovery time because the nature of single track working means the timetable is completely screwed anyway if a train is more than a few minutes late).

That suggests that you want the loop and therefore the train passing-place to be just under 10 minutes from Blackpool South, so that a train is in the right spot to pass the train half an hour ahead/behind it. St. Annes is 8 minutes from Blackpool South, so that seems to be the best location: 16 mins to/from Blackpool South, and say 2 mins for a train to get from having passed the previous train at the station to get out of the loop, giving 12 minutes dwell time at Blackpool South. Lytham isn't remotely a good location by that reasoning, unless you can reduce journey times substantially.

Don't understand the relevance of equalising the time to reach Kirkham, unless you specifically want the trains to pass exactly at Kirkham (and not anywhere else East of Kirkham)
 
Last edited:

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
Interesting. My reasoning would've been completely different, but leads to roughly the same answer. I would have thought that if you want a half-hourly service, then you need to place the loop somewhere that allows reasonable dwell times at Blackpool South. Say 10 minutes, which gives a few minutes recovery time for late trains. (No point giving more than a few minutes recovery time because the nature of single track working means the timetable is completely screwed anyway if a train is more than a few minutes late).

That suggests that you want the loop and therefore the train passing-place to be just under 10 minutes from Blackpool South, so that a train is in the right spot to pass the train half an hour ahead/behind it. St. Annes is 8 minutes from Blackpool South, so that seems to be the best location: 16 mins to/from Blackpool South, and say 2 mins for a train to get from having passed the previous train at the station to get out of the loop, giving 12 minutes dwell time at Blackpool South. Lytham isn't remotely a good location by that reasoning, unless you can reduce journey times substantially.

Don't understand the relevance of equalising the time to reach Kirkham, unless you specifically want the trains to pass exactly at Kirkham (and not anywhere else East of Kirkham)

You'd want to plan to pass them at Kirkham as that gives you the longest dwell/reverse at Blackpoo South and therefore the greatest resilience.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,767
Location
Nottingham
You'd want to plan to pass them at Kirkham as that gives you the longest dwell/reverse at Blackpoo South and therefore the greatest resilience.

However if you schedule them to pass exactly at Kirkham then if the train from Blackpool is late it will delay the next one going towards Blackpool, which then delays the next one coming back at the new loop, with the risk this will go on all day. So I think it would be better to schedule them to pass a couple of minutes east of Kirkham at the expense of a shorter dwell at South. This pushes the optimum loop position back eastwards. But if there is extra waiting time at the loop the Kirkham to Kirkham time may go over the hour anyway, in which case some double track is needed west of Kirkham as well as an intermediate loop.

Also the service needs considering as a whole. There is a very similar situation at the other end, where the time out and back from Rose Grove to Colne is also a shade under an hour. Any increase in service on the South line would have to include another loop on the Colne branch, or have one or both trains running somewhere else instead.
 
Last edited:

InOban

On Moderation
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,538
Sorry for intruding here, but I thought that the present practice was not to locate passing loops at stations because of the enormous cost of disabled access to both platforms. It is much cheaper to have a longer dynamic loop elsewhere.
 

Geeves

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Messages
2,654
Location
Rochdale
Slightly related here but according to some Northern bumf in 2018 the longstanding Blackpool South - Colne services are being split in two at Preston. Another step towards the eventual tram training of the line?
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,767
Location
Nottingham
Sorry for intruding here, but I thought that the present practice was not to locate passing loops at stations because of the enormous cost of disabled access to both platforms. It is much cheaper to have a longer dynamic loop elsewhere.

As with most things it depends. For example ramped access from a nearby road bridge might be possible, and a station footbridge may be cheaper than the extra cost of a long loop over a short one. There's also the Penrhyn/Dovey Jn arrangement where two trains can stop at the same platform, but they have to arrive in a specific order.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
I'm slightly guessing here, but I would assume that, if you do have to stop and wait in the loop for a delayed train coming the other way, then doing so in a station is preferable: Slightly less frustrating to passengers; and since the train would already stopped anyway, you don't lose additional time because of extra accelerating/breaking. I don't know how important those considerations are in deciding where to place a loop though.
 

InOban

On Moderation
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,538
A significant factor will whether the route was originally doubletracked, so reinstating a substantial length of second track may be reasonably straightforward, to create a useful dynamic loop. If it has always been single, then you may be stuck with reinstating a station loop which had been removed in previous years.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,767
Location
Nottingham
I'm slightly guessing here, but I would assume that, if you do have to stop and wait in the loop for a delayed train coming the other way, then doing so in a station is preferable: Slightly less frustrating to passengers; and since the train would already stopped anyway, you don't lose additional time because of extra accelerating/breaking. I don't know how important those considerations are in deciding where to place a loop though.

A dynamic loop can be that much shorter for the same amount of "tolerance of delay" if it includes one or more stations, as the time in the station counts as part of the time in the loop (unless the station is right at the end of the loop, in which case signalling overlaps make things more complicated). And if the loop is very short at least one of the trains will always have to stop anyway, so it is better to make that coincide with a station.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,584
Location
Lancashire
A significant factor will whether the route was originally doubletracked, so reinstating a substantial length of second track may be reasonably straightforward, to create a useful dynamic loop. If it has always been single, then you may be stuck with reinstating a station loop which had been removed in previous years.

The entire tote was double track for its entire length originally
 

Lytham Local

Member
Joined
5 May 2017
Messages
103
Had a walk along Lytham station today. To the railway uneducated (ie me) it would appear that NR are putting up a signal as there is this and also an AWS magnet on the approach to the station from the Blackpool end.

Seems strange to have a signal in the middle of what is a 12 mile siding, but anyone have some inkling as to what NR are doing?

002.jpg 006.jpg
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,144
Location
Leeds
Does anyone have the information to clarify Lytham Local's observation? What's the point of a signal in the middle of an all-single-track branch?
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,584
Location
Lancashire
No idea the only thing requiring signals of any description are Moss Side Crossing and the Junction at Kirkham, both of which gave reflectorised fixed distant signs
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,375
Location
Yorkshire
Certainly whatever is being put there, it looks like it would make any future double track in that area a bit tricky...

Given the Blackpool electrification, it would surely have been worthwhile to install a loop on the Fylde Coast branch a year ago to allow a doubling of the frequency during the blockade of the line through Poulton. If the extra service was then no longer required afterwards, the loop could be removed again or simply mothballed.
 

seasidersfan

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2017
Messages
81
Location
Blackpool
I really think this idea shown would work...

slITTRBpYXdwgSR-800x450-noPad.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yllaofWYuM
 
Last edited:

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,584
Location
Lancashire
Lytgam would be the wrong place for a loop, it would need to be dynamic between Lytham and Ansdell
 
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
790
Location
Brigg Line
Would Lytham station form a suitable location for a passing loop?:

Always thought that St Annes was the option on the table for a passing loop.

The other plus for Blackpool South is that Blackpool South is near the football ground.

Sadly like the Brigg Line and others, this was a line singled in the 1980s cut backs.
 

Geeves

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2009
Messages
2,654
Location
Rochdale
This might be a silly question but I am not sure of the answer. While the station at Blackpool North is closed is the line to South still open or is everything closed from Fylde Junction?

I am wondering if the signals are to split the line two and have a captive unit for events such as the golf or as above line closures?
 
Last edited:

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,572
Location
Preston Lancs
This might be a silly question but I am not sure of the answer. While the station at Blackpool North is closed is the line to South still open or is everything closed from Fylde Junction?

It is in two parts. November 11th to January 26th everything is closed from Fylde Junction. After January 26th the line to Blackpool South will be open from Fylde Junction but until March 25th Kirkham to Blackpool North remains blockaded
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top