"Unglamorous" infrastructure improvements- North

[Ianno87]

Has happened with the Galashiels-Edinburgh service....

The X95 was a much closer duplication of the railway. The X2 and X43 basically take completely different routes.

 

[RT4038]

The X95 was a much closer duplication of the railway. The X2 and X43 basically take completely different routes.

So, if you say that there are no passengers travelling from Preston to Southport on the X2 who may switch to a new rail service, there does not seem a very good case for spending money on infrastructure and subsidy for a new rail service? I accept that there may be some new business attracted, and some out of cars, but if there is none to be attracted from the bus service ...... If passengers are attracted from the existing bus service this will inevitably damage the profitability of this service and lead to service reductions, ENCTS use notwithstanding. Would a Southport-Preston rail route carry any more passengers than the Ormskirk-Preston route, hardly a beacon of profitable rail operation?

 

[Ianno87]

So, if you say that there are no passengers travelling from Preston to Southport on the X2 who may switch to a new rail service, there does not seem a very good case for spending money on infrastructure and subsidy for a new rail service? I accept that there may be some new business attracted, and some out of cars, but if there is none to be attracted from the bus service ...... If passengers are attracted from the existing bus service this will inevitably damage the profitability of this service and lead to service reductions, ENCTS use notwithstanding. Would a Southport-Preston rail route carry any more passengers than the Ormskirk-Preston route, hardly a beacon of profitable rail operation?

Southport is much more of a 'destination' than Ormskirk.

Not that Preston-Southport features particularly high on my list of most valuable reopenings.

 

[The Planner]

Much more trivially, I still wish Headbolt Lane could be renamed Simonswood (pron. Simmonswood). I haven't seen any info. on whether or not the Headbolt Lane scheme includes any redoubling; the M57 bridge near Switch Island would be prohibitively expensive to widen, but the A506 bridge might be more affordable.

No re-doubling from what I can recall.

 

[WAO]

1. It is pointless to electrify just Manchester Victoria to Rochdale when most of the services go beyond Rochdale. It only makes sense if the entire Calder Valley line is electrified through to Halifax, Bradford & Leeds (followed at some stage by the Copy Pit route through to Blackburn & Preston

2. I would scrap the proposal for Kirkby to Skelmersdale and instead reinstate Ormskirk to Skelmersdale, with a new extension to a couple of new stations in the "new town" area (possibly involving some new tunnels). I would also electrify from Ormskirk to Burscough Bridge (over-riding objectors to new 3rd schemes.) Then Ormskirk line services would then be extended alternately to Skelmersdale or Burscough Bridge.

Platform 4 at Rochdale was opened recently for turnback services, (2 per hour normally) so extending the wires from Bromley Street is justified, without the Bradford services. Adding Stalybridge shares some track and invloves only c16.5 route miles in total.

The Ormskirk route into Skelm would be much easier but would not give the town Manchester access - important to its economic development. The other problem for Skelm is that even with a Central station, most people would still need to catch a bus to the Concourse (or wherever a line through Westhead terminated). That's why it would be quicker and cheaper to send the Skelm buses directly to Rainford or Upholland.

The Skelm planners of the '60's and '70's must have really hated the decanted scousers destined for Skelmersdale.

WAO

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Ormskirk route into Skelm

You must be the first person I ever "heard" call it "Skelm" rather than "Skem" - and I'm a former local (to Ormskirk, anyway)!

would be much easier but would not give the town Manchester access - important to its economic development. The other problem for Skelm is that even with a Central station, most people would still need to catch a bus to the Concourse (or wherever a line through Westhead terminated). That's why it would be quicker and cheaper to send the Skelm buses directly to Rainford or Upholland.

If you were going to do that, you would probably use Upholland and rename it "Skelmersdale South Parkway" or something. A new entrance could be added with a big car park on the Pimbo industrial estate side.

Indeed, I've long wondered why this hadn't already been done as it's a cheap solution.

That said, Skem is more centralised than MK - shopping and leisure all in the centre by the Concourse including "de Asda", and a lot of employment in a small number of industrial estates to the south. So it's much easier to have all the buses meeting in the middle with a central transport interchange.

The Skelm planners of the '60's and 70's must have really hated the decanted scousers destined for Skelmersdale.

The situation is the same as MK and most/all other New Towns - the whole concept of a New Town was that it had everything you needed for your life - home, work, shopping and leisure - and you wouldn't need to leave it very often. The trouble is that things didn't really turn out like that - even for the much bigger MK. You may not know, but Milton Keynes Central station was an afterthought - the existing Wolverton and Bletchley were originally thought sufficient. I suspect it's been a profitable afterthought overall!

With regard to Scousers, though, it was conceived as Liverpool overspill, so they can't have hated them that much! Similarly MK (and before that the newer bits of Bletchley) were designed for London overspill. The point was that you'd move there for a new life (people were about as well-travelled as they are now for COVID back then!) and maybe occasional visiting would be done by way of the wonderful, new motor car.

 

[WAO]

As my Mum lived in Skelm (yes I know the "l" is silent here but grammar school spelling rules are ingrained) and my Dad's family was from Newton Longville, Bletchley, I know something of both towns. While Skelm has a centre it is really several townships, from old Skelm eastwards. That's why both Rainford and Upholland links are needed.

Exiled Liverpool people really wanted a stop nearby for a (then) green LCPT bus, to take them along one of Brodie's superb dual carriageways to the Pier Head or shops, like Kirkby next door, which also had a station to the North. The planners should have been aware of that and of Ribble's limitations.

The planners of Roundabout City had the good sense to string it alongside the WCML, giving it several main and branch line stations.

WAO

 

[Grumpy]

This is somewhat difficult as the OP suggests “small” infrastructure improvements but then mentions flyovers and new platforms.

I suggest realigning the bridge(s) where the Bentley jn-Hexthorpe jn (Doncaster avoiding) line crosses over the ECML, and bringing a spur down to join the Wakefield-Doncaster line. At Doncaster station a new island platform with two faces would be provided to the west of the existing. The existing line from Hexthorpe would be closed.

East-West services passing through Doncaster would use this route and cease to conflict with North-South services giving resultant service reliability improvements to both. Also journey time improvements through reduction of pathing etc. allowances.

Shifting the E-W services to the new platforms would free up capacity on the other platforms and reduce the number of occasions where ECML trains are held outside the station waiting for platforms to become free.

Similarly the new arrangement should facilitate a longer term simplification of the existing track and signalling in the station area.

 

[Senex]

This is somewhat difficult as the OP suggests “small” infrastructure improvements but then mentions flyovers and new platforms.

I suggest realigning the bridge(s) where the Bentley jn-Hexthorpe jn (Doncaster avoiding) line crosses over the ECML, and bringing a spur down to join the Wakefield-Doncaster line. At Doncaster station a new island platform with two faces would be provided to the west of the existing. The existing line from Hexthorpe would be closed.

East-West services passing through Doncaster would use this route and cease to conflict with North-South services giving resultant service reliability improvements to both. Also journey time improvements through reduction of pathing etc. allowances.

Shifting the E-W services to the new platforms would free up capacity on the other platforms and reduce the number of occasions where ECML trains are held outside the station waiting for platforms to become free.

Similarly the new arrangement should facilitate a longer term simplification of the existing track and signalling in the station area.

A Nuneaton-type solution for Doncaster, needed a long time ago. Isn't this one of those ideas that actually is in the thinking but has never managed to get the necessary momentum behind it to get as far even as the detailed planning process?

 

[Revaulx]

This is somewhat difficult as the OP suggests “small” infrastructure improvements but then mentions flyovers and new platforms.

I suggest realigning the bridge(s) where the Bentley jn-Hexthorpe jn (Doncaster avoiding) line crosses over the ECML, and bringing a spur down to join the Wakefield-Doncaster line. At Doncaster station a new island platform with two faces would be provided to the west of the existing. The existing line from Hexthorpe would be closed.

East-West services passing through Doncaster would use this route and cease to conflict with North-South services giving resultant service reliability improvements to both. Also journey time improvements through reduction of pathing etc. allowances.

Shifting the E-W services to the new platforms would free up capacity on the other platforms and reduce the number of occasions where ECML trains are held outside the station waiting for platforms to become free.

Similarly the new arrangement should facilitate a longer term simplification of the existing track and signalling in the station area.

I'm struggling to picture this. Any chance of a sketch?

 

[30907]

I'm struggling to picture this. Any chance of a sketch?

Sorry, can't manage a sketch, but the Avoiding Line crosses the ECML North of Marshgate Jn.
A new line would curve down from it (it would require a new bridge in practice) on the west side of the ECML. There is no housing in the way, but caravans and a commercial site.
Unfortunately, it looks as though you would have to raise the A19 by several metres to get a reasonable gradient, though if it were passenger only (retaining the existing Avoiding Line) it would be less of a problem.

 

[Revaulx]

So to connect the avoiding line to either/both of the Wakefield and York Lines?

I'm not sure where you'd put the platforms. It's a proper avoiding line in that it's a long way from the station!

 

[Grumpy]

Senex-Sorry I have no idea. Never heard it discussed before.

30907-I think you’re probably right re the need to retain all the existing route for freight, although I would have thought modern passenger stock should be ok with the short gradient given they would have a run at it.

Revaulx- Apologies if I’ve not explained it properly. The new platforms wouldn’t be on the avoiding line, they would be alongside the existing ones, i.e. to the west of platform 8. The new line would provide a connection from the avoiding line down to the Wakefield line i.e. facing towards Doncaster

 

[Revaulx]

Senex-Sorry I have no idea. Never heard it discussed before.

30907-I think you’re probably right re the need to retain all the existing route for freight, although I would have thought modern passenger stock should be ok with the short gradient given they would have a run at it.

Revaulx- Apologies if I’ve not explained it properly. The new platforms wouldn’t be on the avoiding line, they would be alongside the existing ones, i.e. to the west of platform 8. The new line would provide a connection from the avoiding line down to the Wakefield line i.e. facing towards Doncaster

Ah! Now I understand. Seems like an excellent idea.

 

[WAO]

Another small increment would be the wiring of the routes from Chester to Liverpool/Manchester via Helsby, adding a mere c18 route miles to the existing wires at Halton and Acton Grange. It might therefore involve splitting some North Wales services or (if they eventually work) creating more 769's.

It would also suggest a North to West chord at Sutton Weaver alongside and south of the M56 to allow WCML electrics to reach Chester unaided!

WAO

 

[Ianno87]

It would also suggest a North to West chord at Sutton Weaver alongside the south of the M56 to allow WCML electrics to reach Chester unaided!

WAO

But adds extra paths to the constrained section north of Winsford. And extends journey times quite considerably.

 

[Halifaxlad]

In the mean time for Piccadilly I would look at less frequent longer trains, and also perhaps get away from the idea that everywhere in the north needs a train to Manchester and particularly Manchester Airport.

(clapping hand emoji here)

1) Electrification to Rochdale and Stalybridge would be an opportunity to push through electric services that currently terminate at Victoria to free up capacity there

(and here)

With more services turning back towards Leeds at Halifax I would revisit the third platform scheme that did partially start going through the Grip process a few years ago.