We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[HST43257]

For all the stuff in that area (Bolton and Wigan W), I’d like to see:
2tph Liverpool Central to Wigan Wallgate
2tph Liverpool Central to Skelmersdale
2tph Skelmersdale to Stalybridge via Atherton
2tph Kirkby (or Wigan North Western if not) to Stalybridge via Atherton
2tph Southport to Buxton via Bolton & Castlefield
2tph Preston to Rochdale via Bolton
2tph Clitheroe to Rochdale via Bolton
2tph Blackpool North to Stoke-on-Trent via Bolton & Castlefield

Salford gets 8tph to Man Vic
Salford gets 4tph to Man Pic
Bolton gets 4tph to Man Vic
Bolton gets 4tph to Man Pic
Wigan gets 4tph to Man Vic
Wigan gets 2tph to Man Pic
Preston gets 2tph to Man Vic
Preston gets 2tph to Man Pic

None of this includes the Scotland and Cumbria services, as I’m unsure what to do with them exactly.

 

[Philip]

Are 195s now booked for some Atherton line services?

What are these planned 4 trains per hour on the Ordsall Chord? I thought currently there are 2 trains using the chord?

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

There was also the Liverpool - Bank Quay stopper, which had to reverse in Platform 1 and run wrong road on the Up Slow back to Winwick Jn. But Northern has binned that in the May 2021 timetable. I don't know if it will ever be reinstated post-Covid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would Kirkby and Rainford lose their Manchester service?

Yes, but they would gain by having a doubled daytime service and a reinstated evening service.

 

[S&CLER]

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.

The Wigan bay used to be longer and could be extended again without too much difficulty.

In reply to Greybeard, splitting Wigan-Manchester services between Wallgate and NW raises a potential problem for connections from the west, but one which can be overcome if same-platform connections are made at Hindley instead.

 

[HST43257]

Yes, but they would gain by having a doubled daytime service and a reinstated evening service.

How possible would it be to give 777s the ability to run under OHLE, and run from Liverpool Central all the way to Stalybridge (via Rochdale)?

 

[JonathanH]

How possible would it be to give 777s the ability to run under OHLE, and run from Liverpool Central all the way to Stalybridge (via Rochdale)?

Not at all? You would need to increase the size of the fleet somewhat for quite a questionable aim. Moreover, it would play havoc with reliability of Merseyrail.

I assume you mean via Wigan? Rochdale isn't on the way.

 

[30907]

What services would you consider for that route?

Sheffield-Stockport-Liverpool is proposed to be half hourly in one of the options, is currently operated by 158s which aren't ideal for Castlefield, and as I said the through journey time wouldn't be much different (assuming paths could be found). But it would be a significant disadvantage to the majority coming from Sheffield.

 

[Purple Orange]

Sheffield-Stockport-Liverpool is proposed to be half hourly in one of the options, is currently operated by 158s which aren't ideal for Castlefield, and as I said the through journey time wouldn't be much different (assuming paths could be found). But it would be a significant disadvantage to the majority coming from Sheffield.

Surely there is a case for cascading 185s for the Liverpool-Nottingham service, giving 6-car operation? Even swapping the Hull & Huddersfield TPE services to Victoria and running them around the chord in 6-car formation too. Switch the Newcastle 802 and Redcar Mk5s to terminate at Piccadilly.

 

[Greybeard33]

In reply to Greybeard, splitting Wigan-Manchester services between Wallgate and NW raises a potential problem for connections from the west, but one which can be overcome if same-platform connections are made at Hindley instead.

Wigan - Manchester services are split between Wallgate and NW today. Some of the Atherton line services terminate at NW and NW also has the Cumbria services via Golborne (which of course do not call at Hindley). But the two Wigan stations are only just across the road from each other.

Option C reroutes the Cumbria services via Bolton, but has a fast peak service from NW to Hazel Grove via Golborne and Castlefield.

 

[HST43257]

I assume you mean via Wigan? Rochdale isn't on the way.

Sorry yes, you’re correct.

My thought behind this was ensuring that Kirkby kept a Manchester service. If not, the service can be split at Wigan, with the Merseyrail terminating at Wigan W and the Northern terminating at Wigan NW. Skelmersdale would get 2tph to Liverpool and Manchester though (separate services to others mentioned)

 

[Bletchleyite]

My thought behind this was ensuring that Kirkby kept a Manchester service. If not, the service can be split at Wigan, with the Merseyrail terminating at Wigan W and the Northern terminating at Wigan NW. Skelmersdale would get 2tph to Liverpool and Manchester though (separate services to others mentioned)

There are a few options for Skem. One is to run Merseyrail to there only and terminate. Another option is to run half the 4tph to Skem and half to Wigan, i.e. retain the direct line, but this would mean no Skem-Wigan service which would be a missed opportunity. A third is to reverse Merseyrail there and run to both. A fourth is that the Northern service remains as-is but with the changeover moved to Skem.

I think out of those I probably favour the last one, ideally with the services either side of a terminal island platform for ease of interchange (with an end-on concourse). However, the question does then remain where to send the residual Skem-Wigan service.

Wigan to Skem is quite a short run, so if you were wiring to Wigan and the bridge issue can be solved, taking it on to Kirkby may not be a bad idea, then you'd have 2tph Atherton as EMUs, one continuing to Kirkby and one terminating at Wallgate, plus the two Southport via Bolton DMUs. An alternative for Southport might be battery EMUs, which would also solve the issue of Westhoughton not being wired.

 

[HST43257]

There are a few options for Skem. One is to run Merseyrail to there only and terminate. Another option is to run half the 4tph to Skem and half to Wigan, i.e. retain the direct line, but this would mean no Skem-Wigan service which would be a missed opportunity. A third is to reverse Merseyrail there and run to both. A fourth is that the Northern service remains as-is but with the changeover moved to Skem.

I think out of those I probably favour the last one, ideally with the services either side of a terminal island platform for ease of interchange (with an end-on concourse). However, the question does then remain where to send the residual Skem-Wigan service.

Wigan to Skem is quite a short run, so if you were wiring to Wigan and the bridge issue can be solved, taking it on to Kirkby may not be a bad idea, then you'd have 2tph Atherton as EMUs, one continuing to Kirkby and one terminating at Wallgate, plus the two Southport via Bolton DMUs. An alternative for Southport might be battery EMUs, which would also solve the issue of Westhoughton not being wired.

So could you not just have these services in the Wigan area

2tph ME Liverpool Central to Wigan Wallgate
2tph ME Liverpool Central to Skelmersdale
2tph NT Skelmersdale to Stalybridge
2tph NT Wigan North Western to Stalybridge
2tph NT Southport to Buxton

 

[scrapy]

Are 195s now booked for some Atherton line services?

What are these planned 4 trains per hour on the Ordsall Chord? I thought currently there are 2 trains using the chord?

No. They are route cleared for the Atherton line but risk assessments have not yet been completed on platforms so they can only run non stop between Wigan and Salford Crescent as a diversion, there is no booked work. They are also route cleared Wigan to Southport and used for driver training.

 

[JonathanH]

The plight of the Southport travellers was raised at Prime Ministers Questions today (as recorded in Hansard). Obviously no specific response was given.

Damien Moore
(Southport) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows how important the rail link between Southport and Manchester Piccadilly is for my constituents and those living in the wider Lancashire area. All the changes put forward by the Manchester rail recovery taskforce are unacceptable: they would stop this service from happening and take our levelling-up agenda off track. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss changes to these proposals, so that we can keep this service and keep my constituents with the service that they have come to rely on and which is vital for their economy?

The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign for better local transport, and we are investing massively in rail connectivity in his area and in local bus routes. The particular line that he advocates is, I know, one of great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I will make sure that he has a chance to discuss it personally with my hon. Friend.

 

[Watershed]

The plight of the Southport travellers was raised at Prime Ministers Questions today (as recorded in Hansard). Obviously no specific response was given.

Pretty standard stuff but no-one ever seems to be able to give a good answer as to why it's OK to foist Manchester Victoria on others, but it's unacceptable for Southport residents.

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty standard stuff but no-one ever seems to be able to give a good answer as to why it's OK to foist Manchester Victoria on others, but it's unacceptable for Southport residents.

Which other route is, in all Options, going to be completely losing its service to Castlefield that currently has one?

I believe the Sandgrounder complaint is that they are the only ones.

 

[Watershed]

Which other route is, in all Options, going to be completely losing its service to Castlefield that currently has one?

I believe the Sandgrounder complaint is that they are the only ones.

Again, it comes down to the feeling of "them vs us", which is looking at the problem from completely the wrong angle.

I'm sure that Castlefield is more convenient for some passengers - perhaps even the majority. But there simply isn't the capacity to give everyone what they want, and what they were promised. Now we have to decide what the least worst alternative is.

 

[HST43257]

Remind me, why can’t freight go the other way out of Trafford Park (using a siding and a shunter)?

If that can happen, then I’d suggest this post HS2/NPR

4tph from Bolton (2 Southport, 2 Blackpool)
2tph from North West (1 Scotland, 1 Cumbria) - these would call at Bolton but set down/pick up only.
2tph from Chat Moss (2 Liverpool)
2tph from CLC (2 Liverpool)
2tph from Ordsall (1 Blackburn, 1 Saltburn)

 

[The Planner]

Remind me, why can’t freight go the other way out of Trafford Park (using a siding and a shunter)?

If that can happen, then I’d suggest this post HS2/NPR

4tph from Bolton (2 Southport, 2 Blackpool)
2tph from North West (1 Scotland, 1 Cumbria) - these would call at Bolton but set down/pick up only.
2tph from Chat Moss (2 Liverpool)
2tph from CLC (2 Liverpool)
2tph from Ordsall (1 Blackburn, 1 Saltburn)

The loop isn't going to be long enough to propel a 775m Intermodal out, and secondly, where is it going once it sets off down the CLC? Nowhere it needs to be.

 

[clagmonster]

Platform 1 at Oxford Road can't be used by scheduled services because it isn't accessible by lift. This is easy to resolve, probably would cost less than £1m.
Platforms 15/16 are pretty easy to build. They can be constructed next to the existing infrastructure, then connected up with the tracks over a few days shutdown. Doing these two things will pretty much resolve a fairly large % of the delays.

I'd suggest more work at Oxford Rd than that. Ideally you would want two platforms in each direction, each long enough to accommodate at least a 6 car 331 with sufficient overlaps that a train can be signalled into one platform whilst a train is signalled to depart the adjacent platform, thus giving the same capability of throughput as P15/16 would achieve at Piccadilly.

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.

How are you getting the trains from Salford Crescent to P1-4? I am guessing something involving Phillips Park. Why not just terminate them at Vic in that case?

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.

I'd suggest both should be candidates for electrification relatively soon. It should just be a question of which order to do them in, not either or.

 

[Andyh82]

The plight of the Southport travellers was raised at Prime Ministers Questions today (as recorded in Hansard). Obviously no specific response was given.

We are clearly going to get right honourable members from every effected route speaking out, and if they are on the opposition, probably in not so polite terms.

Someone will lose out whatever happens

 

[BrianW]

We are clearly going to get right honourable members from every effected route speaking out, and if they are on the opposition, probably in not so polite terms.

Someone will lose out whatever happens

Arguably that's their job- or at least the job their electorate expects, as per Wigan, Grimsby and Cleethorpes previously noted.
I agree someone has to lose out, in part because of over-promising and/or delusion or understandable reticence to say 'no'.
A cynic would suggest the result can be seen on the map of electoral gains (Red > Blue Wall) at the General Election.
I hope that those running the 'Consultation Exercise' will be able to stay firmly professional in their recommendations- do we know when that's due?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone will lose out whatever happens

They will, but the aim should ideally be that everyone loses a bit to share the pain. Southport (including Wigan itself due to the loss of the fast) passengers lose significantly.

 

[Watershed]

They will, but the aim should ideally be that everyone loses a bit to share the pain. Southport (including Wigan itself due to the loss of the fast) passengers lose significantly.

That's no different to saying "we don't want to lose out, so everyone else can suffer worse reliability, sod them". Not to mention longer journey times.

The industry should not be beholden to current patterns just because "that's the way it always was" or due to a perceived need to cushion the blow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's no different to saying "we don't want to lose out, so everyone else can suffer worse reliability, sod them". Not to mention longer journey times.

The industry should not be beholden to current patterns just because "that's the way it always was" or due to a perceived need to cushion the blow.

The industry absolutely should put significant weight on patterns which have been around for a long time, and around which lives have been built. That still might justify changing them, of course. And yes, there is a need to cushion the blow.

You speak as if the customer is unimportant, which is an attitude problem the railway often has. Cuts are necessary, but softening the blow for all users of Castlefield on all routes is vital.

 

[Watershed]

The industry absolutely should put significant weight on patterns which have been around for a long time, and around which lives have been built. That still might justify changing them, of course. And yes, there is a need to cushion the blow.

You speak as if the customer is unimportant, which is an attitude problem the railway often has. Cuts are necessary, but softening the blow for all users of Castlefield on all routes is vital.

The customer is vitally important but the industry cannot be, and shouldn't attempt to be, all things to all people. It should offer an attractive service to those markets which it is capable of effectively serving.

Southport to Castlefield (direct) is a market which the railway can serve, but doing so is operationally deleterious to all other markets in the area, and so it is not justifiable to do so given the passenger numbers in question.

If having to walk an extra 20 minutes or endure a same-platform change is a life-changing imposition then I'm afraid you have bigger issues!

 

[tbtc]

They will, but the aim should ideally be that everyone loses a bit to share the pain. Southport (including Wigan itself due to the loss of the fast) passengers lose significantly.

...but we are trying to build a simpler network around Manchester - we can't do that by removing ten percent of each line's Castlefield services, we either maintain the existing service (from each route) to Castlefield or divert/scrap it

It's funny, because you seem to love suggesting massive simplifications on other people's lines, but when people suggest altering services on your boyhood line you have a very different reaction - all of the Germanic order/simplification goes out the window, eh?

The industry absolutely should put significant weight on patterns which have been around for a long time, and around which lives have been built

You're the guy who wants to terminate bus services at the closest light rail/ heavy rail station to force people to change, right?

And who wants to cut other lines, like the CLC at Warrington, meaning no more services from places like Widnes to Manchester - that's you too?

Wasn't there a thread where you were arguing we should cut Kirkby's services to Manchester (and give the line west of Wallgate to Merseyraiil services instead)?

So it's okay (in your eyes) for other people to have their journeys disrupted.

But please me about how the poor people on your boyhood line must be protected from anyone amending their trains (I wonder if you'd have been against the "1988" changes that meant splitting the Wigans services so that not everything went to Victoria any more, and some were diverted over the Windsor line to Castlefield/ Piccadilly?)

 

[daodao]

The industry absolutely should put significant weight on patterns which have been around for a long time

Therefore, Victoria should be the M/c station to which all Southport trains should go, as it is the historic terminus of these ex L&Y services. It is only in the last few years that some Southport trains have run along the Castlefield line. However, it is clear that the current mix-up of services is causing major problems, so it would be best to revert to a simpler pattern, and running all services on a particular route to a single M/c station (e.g. Victoria for the Southport line) would contribute significantly to resolving the Castlefield line issues. Despite living on the south side of Manchester, I have never travelled by train to Southport other than from Victoria.

Longer-distance passengers from Southport to Crewe/Sheffield and beyond can travel via Liverpool (or Wigan NW for Brum/London), so there is no need for trains to run to Piccadilly for connectivity reasons.

While I am not suggesting bringing back the club trains, what is needed for the Southport line is a faster journey time and a regular service (e.g. hourly) with far fewer stops. The journey times between Manchester and Southport are much longer than in 1910 or 1960.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I am not suggesting bringing back the club trains, what is needed for the Southport line is a faster journey time and a regular service (e.g. hourly) with far fewer stops. The journey times between Manchester and Southport are much longer than in 1910 or 1960.

This is an interesting point, and I'd want to know passenger figures before looking at it. Certainly Burscough Bridge has significant passenger numbers (in so far as you get significant numbers on a line like that) - it's basically "West Lancashire Parkway" for people going to Manchester. I don't know about figures from stations further east - certainly Gathurst (sorry @Gathursty) might be one to miss out on a semifast, but I'm not sure about Appley Bridge and Parbold.

When the post-1998 service pattern was introduced (1tph to Vic, 1tph to Ringway) quite a few trains did run non-stop Southport to Wigan, but I'm not sure if this is the best way or not.

Other than that I'm not sure how else you'd speed it up that much. Running via Bolton will help provided they don't end up doing local stations between Bolton and Salford Crescent? There could really do with being a half-hourly Bolton-Vic-wherever EMU to do those separately if it could be pathed. You could I suppose send it non-stop via Parkside but I think people would rather have a Bolton stop than that.

Another worthwhile option might be turning Hoscar, New Lane and Bescar Lane into request stops, as very rarely are you likely to get a request. Or even close them; they are barely used and barely serve anything at all.