Lostock- Wigan electrification

[driver_m]

Point taken - that would have a far larger amount of support. My school of thought was that "finishing the job" would tick a few GNRP boxes.

I think the only way you'd win Tory support on that route section, is to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for shutting down all the mines, inflicting the poll tax, Thatcher etc. Putting the knitting up won't cut it! Anyway, as has already been said, the current government will probably re-reanounce it as a ''new" scheme by tacking on Kirkby or Southport to it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think the only way you'd win Tory support on that route section, is to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for shutting down all the mines, inflicting the poll tax, Thatcher etc. Putting the knitting up won't cut it! Anyway, as has already been said, the current government will probably re-reanounce it as a ''new" scheme by tacking on Kirkby or Southport to it.

That seems highly unlikely. There would be no point in doing one and not the other, and even less point without also wiring the Atherton line. I suspect it would be more likely included as almost a footnote to some other announcement with minimal fanfare to avoid dealing with the embarrassing questions as to why it was ever deferred in the first place.

 

[driver_m]

That seems highly unlikely. There would be no point in doing one and not the other, and even less point without also wiring the Atherton line. I suspect it would be more likely included as almost a footnote to some other announcement with minimal fanfare to avoid dealing with the embarrassing questions as to why it was ever deferred in the first place.

I know. I'd have said a tiny length of track like Morecambe-Lancaster or similar if it was nearby.

 

[Elecman]

That seems highly unlikely. There would be no point in doing one and not the other, and even less point without also wiring the Atherton line. I suspect it would be more likely included as almost a footnote to some other announcement with minimal fanfare to avoid dealing with the embarrassing questions as to why it was ever deferred in the first place.

Windermere branch ?

 

[Chester1]

I think the only way you'd win Tory support on that route section, is to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for shutting down all the mines, inflicting the poll tax, Thatcher etc. Putting the knitting up won't cut it! Anyway, as has already been said, the current government will probably re-reanounce it as a ''new" scheme by tacking on Kirkby or Southport to it.

At the risk of being rude, a substantial proportion of people where born after 1990 or are where too young to remember even the late 80s and at some point enough people around at the time will be dead that it will no longer hold importance. The world moves on and working in a mine or the poll tax is the stuff of history for most younger adults. Bolton West is Tory, while Labour won Leigh by 56.2% to 35.8%, a convincing win that shows they will hold the area for long into the future. However, it is close enough to show that the quasi religious anti Tory culture is not as strong as it once was. Tees Valley (Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Darlington, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-On-Tees) even voted a Tory in as mayor last year! I hasten to add I am a Lib Dem and want them to fall on their arses! Although to the more blindly anti Tory segment of society, anyone who doesn't hate the Tories is one! Electrification won't win votes but few rail policies win votes

 

[59CosG95]

At the risk of being rude, a substantial proportion of people where born after 1990 or are where too young to remember even the late 80s and at some point enough people around at the time will be dead that it will no longer hold importance. The world moves on and working in a mine or the poll tax is the stuff of history for most younger adults. Bolton West is Tory, while Labour won Leigh by 56.2% to 35.8%, a convincing win that shows they will hold the area for long into the future. However, it is close enough to show that the quasi religious anti Tory culture is not as strong as it once was. Tees Valley (Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Darlington, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-On-Tees) even voted a Tory in as mayor last year! I hasten to add I am a Lib Dem and want them to fall on their arses! Although to the more blindly anti Tory segment of society, anyone who doesn't hate the Tories is one! Electrification won't win votes but few rail policies win votes

Indeed; being born in '95, I can't really speak for remembering the 80s, but the hatred for the Conservative Party is still fairly strong within universities (so what's new, eh?); I'm a Lib Dem myself on that bombshell.

Party allegiance aside, you are sadly correct that electrification (nor many other rail policies) doesn't win much votes - but I suspect that a few minor changes here & there by the GNRP might stop people bashing Northern/TPE left, right & centre.

Emphasis on the word "might", mind.

 

[driver_m]

At the risk of being rude, a substantial proportion of people where born after 1990 or are where too young to remember even the late 80s and at some point enough people around at the time will be dead that it will no longer hold importance. The world moves on and working in a mine or the poll tax is the stuff of history for most younger adults. Bolton West is Tory, while Labour won Leigh by 56.2% to 35.8%, a convincing win that shows they will hold the area for long into the future. However, it is close enough to show that the quasi religious anti Tory culture is not as strong as it once was. Tees Valley (Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Darlington, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-On-Tees) even voted a Tory in as mayor last year! I hasten to add I am a Lib Dem and want them to fall on their arses! Although to the more blindly anti Tory segment of society, anyone who doesn't hate the Tories is one! Electrification won't win votes but few rail policies win votes

Maybe, but as we keep hearing, the young tend not to bother voting. Whereas the older generations, who do know them very well, Do vote.
Truthfully honest, even though I'm very left wing, I'm aware enough that they're all cynical enough to promise the earth and not deliver. So in today's climate, I dont think any promise would work off any politician. I'd actually raise an eyebrow in surprise towards grayling if it gets an announcement, but I will stand by my conviction that he's the worst transport secretary we've ever had and will just do nought bar look gormless. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[td97]

I think the only way you'd win Tory support on that route section, is to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for shutting down all the mines, inflicting the poll tax, Thatcher etc. Putting the knitting up won't cut it! Anyway, as has already been said, the current government will probably re-reanounce it as a ''new" scheme by tacking on Kirkby or Southport to it.

Don't think so - Bolton West is only marginally (936) a Conservative seat, so if this goes ahead it could be a boost for Tory support in the area.
And if any future electrification is announced, it would likely just be rebranded as NPR (Northern Powerhouse Rail); that way there's no need to extend the wires anywhere further than Wigan.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Windermere branch ?

No no, that's part of the bionic duckweed network. Failing that you can be sure Grayling wants no part of agreeing to "unsightly" OHLE in the heart of the Lake District

I'd actually raise an eyebrow in surprise towards grayling if it gets an announcement, but I will stand by my conviction that he's the worst transport secretary we've ever had and will just do nought bar look gormless. I hope I'm wrong.

If you look back there have been plenty of truly awful SoS's for Transport, it's just that Grayling is the current one. But yes he does seem to have at least one "talent".

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, for those of us old enough to remember the Tory years in the 80s one feature was a procession of transport secretaries of varying merits. I seem to remember Nicholas Ridley being a particular lowlight, like Grayling there for ideological reasons.

 

[Senex]

Yes, for those of us old enough to remember the Tory years in the 80s one feature was a procession of transport secretaries of varying merits. I seem to remember Nicholas Ridley being a particular lowlight, like Grayling there for ideological reasons.

Is that entirely fair to Ridley? Bob Reid (the first one) was able to build a good working relationship with him, which resulted in permission for significant investment if I recall. All Grayling's good for is stopping investment.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is that entirely fair to Ridley? Bob Reid (the first one) was able to build a good working relationship with him, which resulted in permission for significant investment if I recall. All Grayling's good for is stopping investment.

A bloody boat load got electrified in those years though- and a Channel Tunnel got built. Great years imho

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes, for those of us old enough to remember the Tory years in the 80s one feature was a procession of transport secretaries of varying merits. I seem to remember Nicholas Ridley being a particular lowlight, like Grayling there for ideological reasons.

Is that entirely fair to Ridley? Bob Reid (the first one) was able to build a good working relationship with him, which resulted in permission for significant investment if I recall. All Grayling's good for is stopping investment.

Ridley was an arch-Thatcherite so it is not too difficult to understand what his thinking was about transport. Indeed he was responsible for Bus Deregulation, hardly an example of an improvement for the benefit of the people. His earlier time at the FCO also led to the Argentines believing that the UK had no interest in the Falklands, in fact he was all for transferring sovereignty with a Hong Kong style arrangement. We all know how that turned out! And he was also responsible for the contingency planning which allowed the government to effectively destroy the NUM. It is unlikely that anyone whose views are even vaguely to the left of centre would consider him to have been good ministerial material. [/OT]

 

[deltic08]

Ridley was an arch-Thatcherite so it is not too difficult to understand what his thinking was about transport. Indeed he was responsible for Bus Deregulation, hardly an example of an improvement for the benefit of the people. His earlier time at the FCO also led to the Argentines believing that the UK had no interest in the Falklands, in fact he was all for transferring sovereignty with a Hong Kong style arrangement. We all know how that turned out! And he was also responsible for the contingency planning which allowed the government to effectively destroy the NUM. It is unlikely that anyone whose views are even vaguely to the left of centre would consider him to have been good ministerial material. [/OT]

I agree he was pathetically poor. That was the last time I voted Tory.
At that time, car ownership was less than it is now and public transport was more important. Thatcher assumed, wrongly, that everybody had a car. There was less congestion and peak time gridlock than now.

 

[Grumpy]

I agree he was pathetically poor. That was the last time I voted Tory.
.

While Ridley was Secretary of State he authorised ECML electrification to Leeds and Edinburgh, Hastings electrification,Cambridge electrification,North London wiring, East Grinstead and Weymouth electrifications. Rolling stock he authorised included the 142's, 150's,156's, 442's, 319's and some 58's. Other significant projects authorised during his tenure included the Windsor Link and the Snow Hill Link(aka Thameslink).

Hardly "pathetically poor" . If that's the result of an "arch-Thatcherite's" "thinking about transport" then lets have another like him please.

 

[deltic08]

While Ridley was Secretary of State he authorised ECML electrification to Leeds and Edinburgh, Hastings electrification,Cambridge electrification,North London wiring, East Grinstead and Weymouth electrifications. Rolling stock he authorised included the 142's, 150's,156's, 442's, 319's and some 58's. Other significant projects authorised during his tenure included the Windsor Link and the Snow Hill Link(aka Thameslink).

Hardly "pathetically poor" . If that's the result of an "arch-Thatcherite's" "thinking about transport" then lets have another like him please.

Sorry, wrong Ridley. I must have been thinking of Arnold.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

While Ridley was Secretary of State he authorised ECML electrification to Leeds and Edinburgh, Hastings electrification,Cambridge electrification,North London wiring, East Grinstead and Weymouth electrifications. Rolling stock he authorised included the 142's, 150's,156's, 442's, 319's and some 58's. Other significant projects authorised during his tenure included the Windsor Link and the Snow Hill Link(aka Thameslink).

Hardly "pathetically poor" . If that's the result of an "arch-Thatcherite's" "thinking about transport" then lets have another like him please.

And one feature of many of those was that BR was forced to do them on the cheap. Some continue to cause headaches, others have required additional work and expenditure to put them right. And the Windsor Link was part funded by the European Regional Development Fund; something tells me that without that funding it would not have been built. Sadly it would appear that penny-pinching ethos is alive and well at the DfT, hence the lack of clarity regarding electrification of the relatively short Westhoughton line and the insistence that the Windermere line should be operated long-term by "alternative traction".

 

[twpsaesneg]

A bump to ask “ any news?”

It's still simmering away, but nothing meaty will get underway until after the Autumn government announcements as another poster has said, unfortunately.

Fingers crossed it will be given the green light as a lot of good work has gone into it so far.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sounds like the over runs are at least getting/got done

 

[modernrail]

I don't know the route well. If you are travelling from Manchester to Southport does the train pass through Lostock and is that the limit of electrification in the Southport direction?

 

[Ianno87]

I don't know the route well. If you are travelling from Manchester to Southport does the train pass through Lostock and is that the limit of electrification in the Southport direction?

If it's a train via Bolton (as opposed to via Atherton), it passes Lostock, although not through the platforms - the junction towards Wigan is immediately before the station and the line is immediately behind the Preston-bound platform.

A couple of hundred metres of the Wigan tracks are electrified (masts coded LCN) up to what (I believe) would be a Neutral section should the onwards route be electrified.

 

[Elecman]

More likely a section isolator than a Neutral Section

 

[Greybeard33]

More likely a section isolator than a Neutral Section

I recall that Joseph_Locke posted on another thread that the reason for the long overrun was provision for the neutral section to be well away from Lostock Junction.

Perhaps the plan was to feed the branch from the Wigan end rather than the Lostock end?

 

[twpsaesneg]

I recall that Joseph_Locke posted on another thread that the reason for the long overrun was provision for the neutral section to be well away from Lostock Junction.

Perhaps the plan was to feed the branch from the Wigan end rather than the Lostock end?

Currently the plan, such as it is, is insulated overlaps at the Lostock end and a Neutral Section between Ince and Wigan. There has been talk of it swapping ends but nothing definite as yet.

Subject to funding being found!

 

[modernrail]

If it's a train via Bolton (as opposed to via Atherton), it passes Lostock, although not through the platforms - the junction towards Wigan is immediately before the station and the line is immediately behind the Preston-bound platform.

A couple of hundred metres of the Wigan tracks are electrified (masts coded LCN) up to what (I believe) would be a Neutral section should the onwards route be electrified.

Many thanks. What is the limit of electrification via Atherton?

 

[Ianno87]

Many thanks. What is the limit of electrification via Atherton?

A short run-off on the Down Line only beyond the junction at Salford Crescent. Ends at the first overbridge.

 

[Greybeard33]

Currently the plan, such as it is, is insulated overlaps at the Lostock end and a Neutral Section between Ince and Wigan. There has been talk of it swapping ends but nothing definite as yet.

Subject to funding being found!

From the 769 thread:

From May 2019 Northern (under pressure from local rail users group) are looking at running the services which originate from Alderley Edge and now terminate at Wigan through to Southport. The trains which are currently from Leeds to Southport would terminate at Wigan NW instead.

If this happens the Stalybridge to Wigans would be on the same diagrams as the Leeds to Wigans so very unlikely to use 769s. This would probably then leave enough 769s to operate most Alderley to Southports.

If this timetable change is implemented, the wires between Lostock and Wigan could only be used by one bi-mode hourly, instead of two EMUs hourly as per the Northern franchise agreement. I should think this would fatally undermine the business case for electrification.

This illustrates the conflict between the economic and environmental imperative to avoid running diesels under the wires on the one hand, and the political pressure to have direct services from everywhere to everywhere on the other.

 

[ic31420]

I was commenting on the issues; I fully understand that Phase 6 will only go to Wigan North Western.

The issues at Wallgate are:

• The headroom under the road bridge is way below the minimum to even physically get a raised pantograph under
• This can be fixed by either not trying (current plan), lowering the track or raising the bridge
  • Lowering the track will require a steepening of the already steep gradient back up to Wigan Station Junction, and quite likely the lowering of the Wallgate station too
  • Removing Wigan Station Junction would allow the track lowering to be run out better, but there is still the canal bridge to get over and the station to lower, plus getting back up for the Southport/Kirby Junction (sorry the name of which I forget)
    
  • Raising the Wallgate bridge will require demolition of the oversailing buildings, a prolonged closure of Wallgate and a permanent raising of the road level, potentially affecting multiple properties and the entrance to WNW car park

In summary, this would kill any business case for trying to do it!

I've just mentioned this to my civil engineer father who 20 yrs ago had a brief stint working on the railway and did a couple of jobs around wallgate.

Hes replied that the bridge was Goosed then and had some minor put you on works then, but the end was nigh.

He mentioned about modern bridge decks being thinner or top hung (like Newport Street on Bolton) to give clearance for wires. His view is to take the opportunity to redevelop both sides of the road incl the station buildings. But that's engineers and not been counters.

Disruption to Wallgate traffic will be enevitable in any event of the bridge replacement. Wires clearance or not.

 

[twpsaesneg]

From the 769 thread:

If this timetable change is implemented, the wires between Lostock and Wigan could only be used by one bi-mode hourly, instead of two EMUs hourly as per the Northern franchise agreement. I should think this would fatally undermine the business case for electrification.

This illustrates the conflict between the economic and environmental imperative to avoid running diesels under the wires on the one hand, and the political pressure to have direct services from everywhere to everywhere on the other.

Yes, however, I'm trying to be optimistic
There's also Wigan Depot to think of - any 331s needing to get to the Manchester area will.have to use the WCML South of Wigan as it stands, Lostock to Wigan would provide useful redundancy.

Hes replied that the bridge was Goosed then and had some minor put you on works then, but the end was nigh.

It has "temporary" supports under each span and is in poor condition. Unforunately the buildings above preclude an easy fix as you say. For the Lostock to Wigan wiring, the wires would finish just before the Footbridge on the Manchester side though, so that problem is definitely someone else's!

 

[ic31420]

Yes, however, I'm trying to be optimistic
There's also Wigan Depot to think of - any 331s needing to get to the Manchester area will.have to use the WCML South of Wigan as it stands, Lostock to Wigan would provide useful redundancy.

I'd also thought if it's give the 323s more to do if we got the full set.

It has "temporary" supports under each span and is in poor condition. Unforunately the buildings above preclude an easy fix as you say. For the Lostock to Wigan wiring, the wires would finish just before the Footbridge on the Manchester side though, so that problem is definitely someone else's!

Sorry yes I wasn't suggesting it was an issue for the proposed knitting, just future future knitting.

Even if the ball gets rolling now on the bridge replacement its going to be 5 - 8 years away.

Having had involvement in a similar site clearence it just drags on and on as people dig their heels in. I wonder if the oversailing properties were sold off like the arches Spaces.