We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Class 170101]

They used either, depending where the next train was from. Even so, plenty of folk still used Wallgate as the "default" option, as that's where most Manchester-bound services left from.

But looks like the only non-stop Wigan to Manchester service unless there are services from Wallgate that are non-stop missing from the COVID Timetable.

 

[Killingworth]

The more you look at it the more you realise it's an impossible tangle to unravel and keep everyone happy. We all have our regular and occasional travel patterns. After a post-Covid reset things will settle down and it's very likely those patterns will materially change and influence future train plans.

Personally I'm concerned that the TPE service from Cleethorpes is to go to Liverpool - despite the fact that I'm likely to travel to Liverpool more often than to the Airport! An hourly service to Liverpool is adequate for me. I'd also be happy to change at Piccadilly for the Airport - as happens now, from the main shed!

I'd normally avoid the EMR service from crowded Platform 13 back to Sheffield. It's usually the least reliable for punctuality going east. If these changes don't work we'll probably get two unreliable services coming through from Liverpool onto that platform with the basic waiting area above. Moreover, those going to Liverpool from Piccadilly are probably more likely to get a delayed train from Cleethorpes than currently from the Airport. My observations pre-Covid of Airport trains from Sheffield suggest that only a few early and late trains will have had over 10% of passengers travelling through to the Airport. On many others it was under 5%. Today even fewer are flying. Over 90% of future Sheffield - Manchester users having to walk to and from Platforms 13/14 is not an improvement!

But most of us will have to accept some pain in the hope that it can be made to work better for the majority. A few small tweeks here and there now may be OK, but any major changes will threaten the overall benefits. With loadings unlikely to reach January 2020 levels by May 2021 we should have a few months to look at the details again for implementation in 2023 and 2024 - by which time the Hope Valley Scheme should be complete when another hourly service along the Hope Valley is due to start, with all the knock on issues that will raise.!.

If only some of the old tracks could be reinstated, crossovers re-positioned, signals re-sited, and bay platforms extended. Two old west facing bays at Stockport might have been of use, but one's had track lifted and the other is probably too short for regular practical use - Platform 0 remains almost unused. Over in Sheffield we have Platform 2C that's too short for anything over 2 carriages and will be very expensive to extend.

 

[Greybeard33]

Two old west facing bays at Stockport might have been of use, but one's had track lifted and the other is probably too short for regular practical use - Platform 0 remains almost unused.

Stockport Platform 0 is a bit of a white elephant. I believe it was constructed as part of a plan to reconfigure the tracks from paired by direction to paired by use. P2 would then have become a Down platform and Up trains from the easternmost track over the viaduct would have been sorted into P0 for Hazel Grove and P1 for Cheadle Hulme.

But the resignalling project went pear-shaped and we were left with the old layout, under which there is no real need for three adjacent Up platforms.

 

[stephen rp]

How is Cleethorpes - M/c Airport "operationally challenging"? Slow line from Slade Lane Jn into Picc 10 or 11, SL back out, 4 min reverse with same TC - how is that more challenging than a terminating service spending 20-40 mins in a platform and changing crews?

N Wales to Manchester becoming slower than the Manchester Exchange - Llandudno Club Trains in the 1950s...
Going via mid-Cheshire ruins the idea of reopening Middlewich to give 2 tph. And no airport link. I guess the Senedd says no....

Fewer trains, but can't have longer than 6 cars on many routes - how does that help with overcrowding on platforms at Ox Rd and Picc 13/14? It's not late running that causes the problems on Castlefield, it's cancellations - fewer trains means any cancellation is likely to mean more people waiting longer for the next train.

£100m on the Ordsall Chord for one tph? And anyone who does need to change stations in Manchester (or get to Uni or south Manchester) having to use bus or tram (at extra cost) rather than take a 5-minute journey over the chord MCV to MCO.

Splitting services at Warrington Central - it's rare for delays to be caused by late running locals, it's the EM from Norwich, or the Airport express that cause most delay - and late running Nottingham or Cleethorpes trains would still disrupt the split service (shunt to WAC sidings, wait for late express to go through). The Glazebrook down loop provides a fairly efficient way to mitigate delays westbound; why hasn't it been possible to have an up loop at WAC? With only one tph local calling all stations WAC-MCO, what happens when one is cancelled?

The Airport has to try and increase public transport use (part of planning consent) for both travellers and staff (who may have chosen where to live based on existing services - or taken an airport job knowing they had a convenient service). And it's a lot of places that lose that direct link, and using platforms 13/14 with luggage is never going to be an attractive proposition. (It used to be my quiz question: after Thomson and Thomas Cook, which company has most people going through Manchester Airport? A: Transpennine Express.)

Plus I don't trust the modelling of the effects.

 

[Ianno87]

How is Cleethorpes - M/c Airport "operationally challenging"? Slow line from Slade Lane Jn into Picc 10 or 11, SL back out, 4 min reverse with same TC - how is that more challenging than a terminating service spending 20-40 mins in a platform and changing crews?

Because it reduces the number of services having to cross and interact with each other, and gives a proper layover at Piccadilly/Lime Street, rather than at Manchester Airport which is relatively tightly scheduled.

Fewer trains, but can't have longer than 6 cars on many routes - how does that help with overcrowding on platforms at Ox Rd and Picc 13/14? It's not late running that causes the problems on Castlefield, it's cancellations - fewer trains means any cancellation is likely to mean more people waiting longer for the next train.

There are simply too many trains for the capability of the infrastructure - one late trains knocks back through following trains and takes too long to recover.

Pre-Covid you could find several instances of trains that ran 5 or more minutes late consistently every single day. They only ran on time when a train in front had been cancelled!

£100m on the Ordsall Chord for one tph? And anyone who does need to change stations in Manchester (or get to Uni or south Manchester) having to use bus or tram (at extra cost) rather than take a 5-minute journey over the chord MCV to MCO.

The key objective of the chord is to enable Manchester-Leeds trains to be concentrated on Victoria, enabling a faster journey time Liverpool/Manchester-Leeds. Which still holds true, even with only 1tph.

With only one tph local calling all stations WAC-MCO, what happens when one is cancelled?

Wait for the next one, like everywhere else. An hourly service is actually an improvement at some station.

The proposal is also to add some extra calls into the semi-fast services at busier stations to compensate.

The Airport has to try and increase public transport use (part of planning consent) for both travellers and staff (who may have chosen where to live based on existing services - or taken an airport job knowing they had a convenient service). And it's a lot of places that lose that direct link, and using platforms 13/14 with luggage is never going to be an attractive proposition. (It used to be my quiz question: after Thomson and Thomas Cook, which company has most people going through Manchester Airport? A: Transpennine Express.)

All well and good, but there's no way to thin out the service without this being a consequence to one route or another.

I think in all cases where an Airport link is lost, a same or cross platform interchange os possible instead.

Plus I don't trust the modelling of the effects.

Reason? These are industry standard modelling tools, so feel free to say what is wrong with them - the industry ought to be aware.

 

[Metrolink]

So I have done some research on this topic and it’s a tough problem. However I have looked at a different option than increasing connectivity. What if at Ardwick, there was a chord that means trains could run from Stockport to Ashburys avoiding Manchester Piccadilly completely. Consequently a secondary chord should be built to turn north towards the Phillips Park Jn from the TPE Ardwick Sidings entrance. Services could then join onto the line into Victoria and carry on toward Liverpool or Preston or Warrington or reverse and head toward Leeds avoiding MCO and the Ordsall Chord.

I had a look on http://raildar.co.uk/map and took a screenshot and pencilled in blue what I thought it could look like as a junction.

The services that could use the chord could be Redcar Central- Manchester Airport, Blackpool North- Hazel Grove, Edinburgh/ Glasgow- Manchester Airport, All TFW services to North Wales. These services could be diverted via Victoria, where TFGM could choose which services would avoid the corridor.

The only downside to this is that it will have to cut into the land of a business ‘Olympia Storage’.

What do you think about this proposal?

 

[Ianno87]

So I have done some research on this topic and it’s a tough problem. However I have looked at a different option than increasing connectivity. What if at Ardwick, there was a chord that means trains could run from Stockport to Ashburys avoiding Manchester Piccadilly completely. Consequently a secondary chord should be built to turn north towards the Phillips Park Jn from the TPE Ardwick Sidings entrance. Services could then join onto the line into Victoria and carry on toward Liverpool or Preston or Warrington or reverse and head toward Leeds avoiding MCO and the Ordsall Chord.


I had a look on http://raildar.co.uk/map and took a screenshot and pencilled in blue what I thought it could look like as a junction.

The services that could use the chord could be Redcar Central- Manchester Airport, Blackpool North- Hazel Grove, Edinburgh/ Glasgow- Manchester Airport, All TFW services to North Wales. These services could be diverted via Victoria, where TFGM could choose which services would avoid the corridor.

The only downside to this is that it will have to cut into the land of a business ‘Olympia Storage’.

What do you think about this proposal?

The problem is what I've highlighted in bold above. Serving central Manchester is always a priority for passenger demand, the airport secondary to this.

 

[HST43257]

So I have done some research on this topic and it’s a tough problem. However I have looked at a different option than increasing connectivity. What if at Ardwick, there was a chord that means trains could run from Stockport to Ashburys avoiding Manchester Piccadilly completely. Consequently a secondary chord should be built to turn north towards the Phillips Park Jn from the TPE Ardwick Sidings entrance. Services could then join onto the line into Victoria and carry on toward Liverpool or Preston or Warrington or reverse and head toward Leeds avoiding MCO and the Ordsall Chord.

I had a look on http://raildar.co.uk/map and took a screenshot and pencilled in blue what I thought it could look like as a junction.

The services that could use the chord could be Redcar Central- Manchester Airport, Blackpool North- Hazel Grove, Edinburgh/ Glasgow- Manchester Airport, All TFW services to North Wales. These services could be diverted via Victoria, where TFGM could choose which services would avoid the corridor.

The only downside to this is that it will have to cut into the land of a business ‘Olympia Storage’.

What do you think about this proposal?

The problem is what I've highlighted in bold above. Serving central Manchester is always a priority for passenger demand, the airport secondary to this.

So what about just sending it into Man Pic platform 4? No need to reverse for Airport, just walk across the station.

 

[Metrolink]

The problem is what I've highlighted in bold above. Serving central Manchester is always a priority for passenger demand, the airport secondary to this.

Yes but by diverting services to Manchester Victoria could also be a possibility or even sending some service to Victoria and then Manchester Oxford Rd. As @Hey 3 said on a seperate thread:

The Airport is the main dumping area of trains that run through Castlefield, as there is only one bay at Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly(P13/14) is unsuitable as a terminus.

Diverting some airport services on this chord makes some sense. For example Blackpool North to Hazel Grove does not need to go through Piccadilly, as Buxton-bound trains accomodate Manchester Piccadilly- Hazel Grove, and Blackpool Nth- Manchester Airport accomodates the rest. Furthermore, if tram could be integrated so passengers can move on the tram between Victoria and Piccadilly to change trains e.g if Redcar/Edinburgh/Glasgow bound trains were to call at Victoria. The system would be more integrated so passengers can move across the city as if it was London, moving between different stations. That way pressure is taken off the Castlefield corridor, the trains run on time (hopefully) and therefore there could be an opening for maybe one or two tph for local services.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes but by diverting services to Manchester Victoria could also be a possibility or even sending some service to Victoria and then Manchester Oxford Rd. As @Hey 3 said on a seperate thread:

Diverting some airport services on this chord makes some sense. For example Blackpool North to Hazel Grove does not need to go through Piccadilly,

It kind of does; passengers from Stockport/Hazel Grove want to get straight into Piccadilly; not a round the houses route to Victoria.

 

[30907]

So I have done some research on this topic and it’s a tough problem. However I have looked at a different option than increasing connectivity. What if at Ardwick, there was a chord that means trains could run from Stockport to Ashburys avoiding Manchester Piccadilly completely. Consequently a secondary chord should be built to turn north towards the Phillips Park Jn from the TPE Ardwick Sidings entrance. Services could then join onto the line into Victoria and carry on toward Liverpool or Preston or Warrington or reverse and head toward Leeds avoiding MCO and the Ordsall Chord.

I had a look on http://raildar.co.uk/map and took a screenshot and pencilled in blue what I thought it could look like as a junction.

The services that could use the chord could be Redcar Central- Manchester Airport, Blackpool North- Hazel Grove, Edinburgh/ Glasgow- Manchester Airport, All TFW services to North Wales. These services could be diverted via Victoria, where TFGM could choose which services would avoid the corridor.

The only downside to this is that it will have to cut into the land of a business ‘Olympia Storage’.

What do you think about this proposal?

Purely on practical grounds, bringing airport trains across the layout at Ardwick is a non-starter, and then you conflict with another lot of trains at Ashburys.
You could consider Stockport-Denton-Ashton Moss-Victoria, a route that actually exists: it would be competitive for (Sheffield-)Stockport-Liverpool but would add a fair amount to the journey into Manchester, so (sadly) decidedly unpopular with the majority of users.

 

[Metrolink]

It kind of does; passengers from Stockport/Hazel Grove want to get straight into Piccadilly; not a round the houses route to Victoria.

Yes thats right, they could be served by trains from Buxton if going to Piccadilly, however for Blackpool-bound services should go to Victoria, seeming as there are already existing services available to Piccadilly. Furthermore, if needs be extra services could be introduced between Manchester Piccadilly and Hazel Grove, and Stockport has a vast range of services to the city already

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2021 ==

Purely on practical grounds, bringing airport trains across the layout at Ardwick is a non-starter, and then you conflict with another lot of trains at Ashburys.
You could consider Stockport-Denton-Ashton Moss-Victoria, a route that actually exists: it would be competitive for (Sheffield-)Stockport-Liverpool but would add a fair amount to the journey into Manchester, so (sadly) decidedly unpopular with the majority of users.

What services would you consider for that route?


EDIT: I dont understand also how platforms 15/16 at Manchester Piccadilly is going to do much use when we cant add tracks between MCO and Piccadilly, can there be any other solutions, such as using disused lines or building new lines?

 

[HSTEd]

EDIT: I dont understand also how platforms 15/16 at Manchester Piccadilly is going to do much use when we cant add tracks between MCO and Piccadilly, can there be any other solutions, such as using disused lines or building new lines?

I think you mean, when we won't get permission to add tracks!
You very much could do it, given that most of the buildings in the way are condemned anyway.

But even without intermediate four tracking, having four platforms at both ends allows you to stack trains through the bottleneck at minimum headways, since there will always be a free platform for them to go into.

Full realisation would probably require a Thameslink style stacked ATO/ETCS/permissive signalling system, but it is well within our technical capability.

 

[Watershed]

Slow line from Slade Lane Jn into Picc 10 or 11, SL back out

That involves crossing the Up Styal and Down Slow at Slade Lane Jn, and then the Up Styal again (at that point called the Up Slow) at Ardwick Jn or the Picc throat.

In reality you'd do as the Cleethorpes-Manchesters do now, and go on the Down Fast until Picc, where platforms 9-12 are conveniently in the vee between the Fast and Slow lines.

So it's conflict-free when going to the Airport, but there is still a conflict on the way back (you need to cross the Up Styal/Slow somewhere between Slade Lane and the station throat).

4 min reverse

Can only be done with a single 185 and imports significant performance risk - if the train is even 2 minutes late it's going to delay the surrounding trains.

how is that more challenging than a terminating service spending 20-40 mins in a platform and changing crews?

It involves a needless conflict and has very little resilience for delays. There are few crew changes at Picc for these services with the Cleethorpes service now terminating there, as the trains are entirely Sheffield/Cleethorpes crewed and mostly involve out and back trips to Manchester on the same unit(s).

£100m on the Ordsall Chord for one tph?

Poor value in hindsight, but the scheme also involved other upgrades (such as more extensive bidirectional signalling around the Water Street Junction area). Either way there's no point falling to the sunk cost fallacy.

Splitting services at Warrington Central - it's rare for delays to be caused by late running locals, it's the EM from Norwich, or the Airport express that cause most delay - and late running Nottingham or Cleethorpes trains would still disrupt the split service (shunt to WAC sidings, wait for late express to go through). The Glazebrook down loop provides a fairly efficient way to mitigate delays westbound; why hasn't it been possible to have an up loop at WAC? With only one tph local calling all stations WAC-MCO, what happens when one is cancelled?

The CLC is going to remain a thorn in the Corridor's side until it's sorted out properly once and for all - i.e. electrify the line, put 323/331s on it, and give Warrington Central a central turnback platform, preferably two bays facing east and west.

However, to put it mildly, that's still a long way off.

EDIT: I dont understand also how platforms 15/16 at Manchester Piccadilly is going to do much use when we cant add tracks between MCO and Piccadilly, can there be any other solutions, such as using disused lines or building new lines?

The minimum dwell at Piccadilly is 2 minutes. At Oxford Road it's 1 minute off-peak and 1.5 at peak times. Add on the 2 minute headway and you can see that the maximum theoretical capacity of the corridor is 15tph (323s have a derogation to stop at Picc for 1 minute but it's not ideal).

If you have 2 platforms in each direction at Picc and Oxford Road, with sufficient overlaps, your theoretical capacity doubles to 30tph, as the constraint is now only the headway rather than platform availability. Of course trains stopping at Deansgate, trains coming out from platform 5 at Oxford Road, as well as the many flat junctions and the length of freight trains, will limit this in practice, but at least the constraint would no longer be how many trains you can fit through Picc & Oxford Road.

Unfortunately the longer that the DfT prevaricates, the more expensive and time consuming it will become to build extra platforms, as more and more skyscrapers are built in the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what about just sending it into Man Pic platform 4? No need to reverse for Airport, just walk across the station.

This is precisely what I would do (and I wouldn't have built Ordsall as a result). The change to an Airport service at Picc involves less walking, even if it's P13, than you need to do from a train at the Airport to one of the terminals.

 

[HST43257]

This is precisely what I would do (and I wouldn't have built Ordsall as a result). The change to an Airport service at Picc involves less walking, even if it's P13, than you need to do from a train at the Airport to one of the terminals.

With a minor recast, could the Scotland and the Cumbria both do this? 20(ish) min turnarounds in both cases. Taking up only 1 of P1-4. Only issue is that this would import delays into the Ashburys high frequency network, which would have commuter services into Manchester every 5 minutes in my idea.

 

[Ianno87]

This is precisely what I would do (and I wouldn't have built Ordsall as a result). The change to an Airport service at Picc involves less walking, even if it's P13, than you need to do from a train at the Airport to one of the terminals.

And, for the umpteenth time, the effect is a longer Leeds-Manchester journey time and/or splitting the TPE service across two stations.

 

[Glenn1969]

So how do you remove the crush at 13/14 without spending plenty extending platforms at other stations given that you seem to be happy to have most/more people change trains there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And, for the umpteenth time, the effect is a longer Leeds-Manchester journey time

One that was acceptable for many years.

and/or splitting the TPE service across two stations.

Given how much Sandgrounders are shouting to retain this, is it actually a problem?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2021 ==

So how do you remove the crush at 13/14 without spending plenty extending platforms at other stations given that you seem to be happy to have most/more people change trains there?

There isn't really a crush on 13 because more people alight there than board (and obviously don't wait around once they have). 14 is the problem, and only really with regard to boarding passengers.

 

[HST43257]

I’ve talked about this a little on another threat, but would it be worth upgrading (and electrifying?) the Stalybridge to Stockport route? Stockport could have an express bus link to Manchester Airport, with 2tph out of 6tph (as part of TRU) avoiding Manchester altogether and connecting new areas to Yorkshire and the North East. Once HS2 comes around, this could be part of a XC service to Bristol, so it’s not going into Manchester but keeping Stoke and Macclesfield connected. Only issue is that a Newcastle - Leeds - Stalybridge - Stockport - Stoke - Birmingham - Bristol service may be a little (just a little ) unreliable. Also, HS2 could have a London to Huddersfield service, extending from the Macclesfield terminator.

Stockport would have been grade separated by this time, with no conflicts for anything going from Hazel Grove to Stockport.

 

[Metrolink]

I’ve talked about this a little on another threat, but would it be worth upgrading (and electrifying?) the Stalybridge to Stockport route? Stockport could have an express bus link to Manchester Airport, with 2tph out of 6tph (as part of TRU) avoiding Manchester altogether and connecting new areas to Yorkshire and the North East. Once HS2 comes around, this could be part of a XC service to Bristol, so it’s not going into Manchester but keeping Stoke and Macclesfield connected. Only issue is that a Newcastle - Leeds - Stalybridge - Stockport - Stoke - Birmingham - Bristol service may be a little (just a little ) unreliable. Also, HS2 could have a London to Huddersfield service, extending from the Macclesfield terminator.

Stockport would have been grade separated by this time, with no conflicts for anything going from Hazel Grove to Stockport.

There was a similar proposal in 2006 on a Bradford - Stalybridge - Stockport - Crewe/Stoke - London Euston. It would make sense to avoid Manchester even for services from North Wales via Northwich towards Leeds. And the truth is that Stockport already has an express bus link, but the Bus Station is poorly connected to the Train Station.

 

[S&CLER]

The March issue of Modern Railways has good diagrams of Options A, B and C. Looking at diagram C, I wondered if there might be a case for swapping the 2 tph Chester-Leeds with the 2 tph Southport-Stalybridge, to run Southport-Leeds and Chester-Stalybridge. That would segregate departures from the east end of Manchester Victoria more completely than is done now or proposed in Option C. The Rochdale and Stalybridge routes each have 6 eastbound departures an hour, which would presumably be from platforms 6 and 4 respectively, except in the peak when one Newcastle is proposed to start from Victoria. (I have never fully understood why the 2 pairs of tracks at the east end of Victoria are known as the Rochdale fast and Rochdale slow, and not Stalybridge and Rochdale.) There would be few or no conflicting movements.

Chester-Stalybridge would be as suitable for the class 769s as the Southport route, since I think a slightly greater proportion of it is electrified than Southport-Stalybridge via Lostock.

I admit to a purely personal interest, since before Covid I often travelled to stations between Littleborough and Sowerby Bridge, and enjoyed the benefit of a through train while we had it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The March issue of Modern Railways has good diagrams of Options A, B and C. Looking at diagram C, I wondered if there might be a case for swapping the 2 tph Chester-Leeds with the 2 tph Southport-Stalybridge, to run Southport-Leeds and Chester-Stalybridge. That would segregate departures from the east end of Manchester Victoria more completely than is done now or proposed in Option C.

It would, but the Chester-Leeds is a regional express and Southport-Staly is a local stopping service - are they compatible?

 

[HSTEd]

It would, but the Chester-Leeds is a regional express and Southport-Staly is a local stopping service - are they compatible?

Does it really matter?

It's not like we really have specialised rolling stock for such things any more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not like we really have specialised rolling stock for such things any more.

I suppose to be fair 4-car Class 158 formations would work for both ends of such a service.

 

[Greybeard33]

Chester-Stalybridge would be as suitable for the class 769s as the Southport route, since I think a slightly greater proportion of it is electrified than Southport-Stalybridge via Lostock.

Maybe there would be an issue with the leisurely diesel performance of the 769s between Warrington and Chester, compared with the speedy 195s? The plan is for Runcorn E, Frodsham and Helsby to get 2tph, which will eat into the turnaround time at Chester. The paths through Warrington are constrained by the WCML timetable.

Future electrification of Victoria - Stalybridge and Lostock - Wigan might see the Stalybridge services become EMU operated and terminate at Wigan NW. Southport would then get extensions of the two Atherton line services (Leeds via Brighouse and Blackburn via Todmorden), with Kirkby reduced to a shuttle from Wigan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Future electrification of Victoria - Stalybridge and Lostock - Wigan might see the Stalybridge services become EMU operated and terminate at Wigan NW. Southport would then get extensions of the two Atherton line services (Leeds via Brighouse and Blackburn via Todmorden), with Kirkby reduced to a shuttle from Wigan.

Arguably Atherton needs electrifying (or tramming) in preference to Bolton-Westhoughton-Wigan, as being a local stopping service it would benefit far more from high-acceleration EMUs (or trams) than an ambling DMU to Southport would. There is no real case for sending anything long distance via Westhoughton when you already have the choice of Parkside (if you want to stop at Wigan) or Chorley (if you don't).

Kirkby needs to be a 2tph 4-car Merseyrail extension into the bay (which appears from Google Earth to be 80m long, so they would fit), and this might yet happen with battery 777s being talked about.

 

[Greybeard33]

Arguably Atherton needs electrifying (or tramming) in preference to Bolton-Westhoughton-Wigan, as being a local stopping service it would benefit far more from high-acceleration EMUs (or trams) than an ambling DMU to Southport would. There is no real case for sending anything long distance via Westhoughton when you already have the choice of Parkside (if you want to stop at Wigan) or Chorley (if you don't).

I think the Leeds via Brighouse service will remain operated by 195s - not really "ambling DMUs". The Copy Pit service could do with the performance of 195s too, to cope with the gradients, if Northern can spare them. That would give the Atherton line EMU-like performance without waiting for electrification.

The Westhoughton line is a much shorter stretch of infill electrification and would enable quicker EMUs to operate between Bolton and Salford Crescent in place of the sluggish 769s.

 

[HST43257]

Kirkby needs to be a 2tph 4-car Merseyrail extension into the bay (which appears from Google Earth to be 80m long, so they would fit), and this might yet happen with battery 777s being talked about.

Would Kirkby and Rainford lose their Manchester service?

 

[Watershed]

The paths through Warrington are constrained by the WCML timetable.

Only to a limited extent - pre-Covid it was 2tph Avanti Scotland services (relatively bunched), plus freight. So it's unlikely to be the defining limitation of the exercise.