What extensions should be made to the Merseyrail Network?

[jamesst]

Can someone please explain why the third rail is going to be removed? This doesn’t make much sense to me.

There are literally no plans to remove it.

 

[Class15]

There are literally no plans to remove it.

Thought that would be the case. Seemed very strange.

 

[Bertie the bus]

As for the discussion re Councils... West Lancashire, Chorley and South Ribble have collectively voted to form a single Unitary area. While it remains to be seen if the Government imposes Preston into this mix, I think it's at least possible that such a Council would have a little more interest in interface with the Liverpool City Region (and Bee Network for that matter) than LCC has done hitherto.

I'm not sure why you would think that when all 3 councils already have stations in their areas with direct trains to Liverpool.

 

[frodshamfella]

The third rail will eventually be removed from the Chester area entirely, probably when the next major infrastructure renewals are due.

You don't need an extra platform at Chester, you just need the ability to put Merseyrail in a platform other than 7.

Even if the third rail was to stay (which it won't) - you'd just electrify platform 4 instead.

Why would they remove power thats already been installed, bizarre.

 

[Grimsby town]

Personally I'd say the likely extensions are Wigan, Warrington, and Burscough. Perhaps Wrexham too. Preston is too far away from Liverpool and too rural to justify the surface. I'd say the best way to serve Burscough is to extend to Burscough Bridge without a physical connection to the Southport to keep costs down.

In terms of the current Ormskirk to Preston service, I wonder if a case can be made for a semi-fast extension to Bootle which is pretty densley populated and is also an employment hub. The infrastructure upgrades might be prohibitively expensive but Preston to Ormskirk as always seemed like a service that would be better used if it terminated closer to Liverpool. At the same time extending into Central Liverpool is a non-starter given it wouldn't easily integrate with Merseyrail.

 

[geoffk]

You would still be able to interchange at Bidston I would have thought?

Operationally Bidston is an unsuitable terminus though as the Wrexham train has to occupy a though platform and, if running late, it may delay a West Kirby train.

 

[markymark2000]

It might be possible to fit an extra Merseyrail platform in if you move the Down Through closer to the station. Then put a platform in the gap between the Down Through and Down & Up Goods. This could be third rail to enable the XX:15 & XX:45 services to be moved to platform 8 and providing greater standing time at Chester.

You don't need an extra platform at Chester, you just need the ability to put Merseyrail in a platform other than 7.

Even if the third rail was to stay (which it won't) - you'd just electrify platform 4 instead.

I agree with Tazi that you don't need more platforms at Chester. What you need is better track layouts that enable flexibility. Simple option for Chester is to throw in a set of points between platform 7A and 7B onto the Down Through. Bingo, you have solved any Merseyrail problem as there is then 2 platforms and trains can come in and out from both. Potentially here the is a chance of an Aberdare style system of drop off on 7A, pick up on 7B. Or it just means 7A is an 'if needed' platform for Merseyrail and at other times TFW can use 7A better rather than almost everything being forced through 4 or having to sit outside the station waiting for Merseyrail to leave.

Platform 8 lark is just silly in my opinion and not needed unless services ramp up significantly. If the track layout wasn't so restrictive and permitted more parallel movements, Chester would be perfectly fine with the current number of platforms.

 

[daodao]

Proposals to develop rail services in West Lancashire are likely to get short shrift from local politicians, given the results of the 2025 Lancashire County Council elections for the 8 seats in the West Lancashire Council area: Conservative 1, Our West Lancashire 2, Reform 5.

 

[Dr Day]

Why would they remove power thats already been installed, bizarre.

Maybe because the trains can run on batteries? Cheaper to maintain across both infrastructure and rolling stock?

 

[Djgr]

Maybe because the trains can run on batteries? Cheaper to maintain across both infrastructure and rolling stock?

Presumably it costs more money for a train with batteries than one without or to retrofit them?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'd say the best way to serve Burscough is to extend to Burscough Bridge without a physical connection to the Southport to keep costs down.

Not quite sure what you mean here: please could you expand a little?

Because it seems to me to be obvious that the best solution for Burscough is one station to serve everywhere - and probably for Bridge to be that station as it's better located than Junction. But I run into problems thinking about how much money would be needed. So if there's a way to do it and keep costs down, that's got to be worth a look.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I agree with Tazi that you don't need more platforms at Chester. What you need is better track layouts that enable flexibility. Simple option for Chester is to throw in a set of points between platform 7A and 7B onto the Down Through. Bingo, you have solved any Merseyrail problem as there is then 2 platforms and trains can come in and out from both. Potentially here the is a chance of an Aberdare style system of drop off on 7A, pick up on 7B. Or it just means 7A is an 'if needed' platform for Merseyrail and at other times TFW can use 7A better rather than almost everything being forced through 4 or having to sit outside the station waiting for Merseyrail to leave.

Platform 8 lark is just silly in my opinion and not needed unless services ramp up significantly. If the track layout wasn't so restrictive and permitted more parallel movements, Chester would be perfectly fine with the current number of platforms.

That might be a possible option as both 7A & 7B are longer than 120m currently.

The issue is crossing will have to fit under the roof beam to allow both platforms to be more than 120m long, Platform 7a & 7b would both be 127m long. This maybe insufficient for signal sighting and train dispatch and overlap requirements for the crossing.

 

[Grimsby town]

Not quite sure what you mean here: please could you expand a little?

Because it seems to me to be obvious that the best solution for Burscough is one station to serve everywhere - and probably for Bridge to be that station as it's better located than Junction. But I run into problems thinking about how much money would be needed. So if there's a way to do it and keep costs down, that's got to be worth a look.

There were proposals for a single platform Burscough Bridge with no connection into the Wigan to Southport line. It'd likely be east of the A59 so somewhat disconnected from the current Burscough Bridge station but it wouldn't require investment in signalling changes on the Wigan Southport line or a significant rebuild of Burscough Bridge Station.

It would provide interchange opportunities between Ormskirk and Manchester/Southport without the expense or a direct service that can't really be justified given the rural nature of Burscough to Southport. Burscough Junction could remain open too.

 

[urbophile]

Personally I'd say the likely extensions are Wigan, Warrington, and Burscough. Perhaps Wrexham too. Preston is too far away from Liverpool and too rural to justify the surface. I'd say the best way to serve Burscough is to extend to Burscough Bridge without a physical connection to the Southport to keep costs down.

In terms of the current Ormskirk to Preston service, I wonder if a case can be made for a semi-fast extension to Bootle which is pretty densley populated and is also an employment hub. The infrastructure upgrades might be prohibitively expensive but Preston to Ormskirk as always seemed like a service that would be better used if it terminated closer to Liverpool. At the same time extending into Central Liverpool is a non-starter given it wouldn't easily integrate with Merseyrail.

To Bootle? By which route, and how would it not have to integrate with Merseyrail?

 

[HSTEd]

I think a Merseyrail extension to Burscough Junction is certainly justifiable.... but from there it is only 20km to Preston.

The current Wigan-Headbolt Lane situation is a pain, do we really want to create another?

Burscough Junction is only ~2000m further from Preston than Wigan is from Headbolt Lane.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There were proposals for a single platform Burscough Bridge with no connection into the Wigan to Southport line. It'd likely be east of the A59 so somewhat disconnected from the current Burscough Bridge station but it wouldn't require investment in signalling changes on the Wigan Southport line or a significant rebuild of Burscough Bridge Station.

There were indeed such proposals in a report produced in 2020 in relation to making West Lancs, South Ribble and Chorley carbon neutral by 2030. As we are now 5 years down the road with just 5 years left and absolutely no progress has been made on any of the proposals in the report I think we can safely file them in the council fantasy bin.

 

[TheSel]

There were proposals for a single platform Burscough Bridge with no connection into the Wigan to Southport line. It'd likely be east of the A59 so somewhat disconnected from the current Burscough Bridge station but it wouldn't require investment in signalling changes on the Wigan Southport line or a significant rebuild of Burscough Bridge Station.

It would provide interchange opportunities between Ormskirk and Manchester/Southport without the expense or a direct service that can't really be justified given the rural nature of Burscough to Southport. Burscough Junction could remain open too.

There were indeed such proposals in a report produced in 2020 in relation to making West Lancs, South Ribble and Chorley carbon neutral by 2030. As we are now 5 years down the road with just 5 years left and absolutely no progress has been made on any of the proposals in the report I think we can safely file them in the council fantasy bin.

It's a sub-optimal "solution" that suits nobody.

If the 'Merseyrail' platform was to be east of the A59, and thus physically seperate from the existing infrastructure, you'd still need to rebuild the south curve, but the resultant service would fail to provide same- or cross- platform connections onto the Southport - Wigan - Manchester services. Not only that, but even a 2 tph service between Ormskirk and Burscough Bridge would interfere with the hourly Ormskirk - Preston service, unless you [re]-doubled pretty much the whole line from Ormskirk north to beyond Burscough Junction. And with the best will in the world, Burscough Junction to Ormskirk does not require 3 tph.

A slightly better option might be to terminate in what is presently the Southport bound platform at Burscough Junction, and put in a pair of crossovers, signalling etc (£cost) such that what is presently the Wigan bound platform becomes bi-directional, like, say, Malton. But that would interfere with the service pattern on the Southport - Wigan services, which are not exactly renowned for their punctuality as it is! Additionally, your "connections" - such as they are - would be very different according to the direction in which the a passenger from Ormskirk was headed. Cue the whingers! And even then, you've still got the issue of interfering with the Preston service to consider.

Either the 'Tamworth' solution, with a completely new station at the point whether the Ormskirk - Preston and the Southport - Wigan services cross (with or without retaining the existing Burscough Bridge station), or rebuild both curves, and extend the Merseyrail service from Liverpool via the south curve and the Northern service from Preston service the north curve to terminate at Burscough Bridge. You'd need at least three, and possibly four platforms at this rebuilt Burscough Bridge station, but hey! - you could save money by removing the track and the overbridge on the present through Ormskirk - Preston line between the two curves, and you might save Northern a unit.

Somehow I don't see it happening until the Magic Money Tree bears fruit again.

 

[HSTEd]

It's a sub-optimal "solution" that suits nobody.

If the 'Merseyrail' platform was to be east of the A59, and thus physically seperate from the existing infrastructure, you'd still need to rebuild the south curve, but the resultant service would fail to provide same- or cross- platform connections onto the Southport - Wigan - Manchester services. Not only that, but even a 2 tph service between Ormskirk and Burscough Bridge would interfere with the hourly Ormskirk - Preston service, unless you [re]-doubled pretty much the whole line from Ormskirk north to beyond Burscough Junction. And with the best will in the world, Burscough Junction to Ormskirk does not require 3 tph.

Why would you still be running a train from Preston to Ormskirk if you are extending Merseyrail north of there?

Wouldn't you just install buffer stops at Burscough Junction or some other convenient placfe?

 

[TheSel]

Why would you still be running a train from Preston to Ormskirk if you are extending Merseyrail north of there?

Wouldn't you just install buffer stops at Burscough Junction or some other convenient placfe?

It would technically be possible, I guess, but bearing in mind it's single track through Burscough Junction, the second platform hasn't been used in decades, and is remote from the current one, it would be an even less convenient arrangement than you've currently got at Ormskirk (end on end connection) for through passengers to/from Liverpool. ... and you'd have to accomodate both tracks from there north until the Burscough curves.

So with that, you're spending at two Burscough stations, plus Ormskirk.

 

[frodshamfella]

Maybe because the trains can run on batteries? Cheaper to maintain across both infrastructure and rolling stock?

Is it ? So would you start to do that say on South Eastern ?

 

[childwallblues]

Personally I'd say the likely extensions are Wigan, Warrington, and Burscough. Perhaps Wrexham too. Preston is too far away from Liverpool and too rural to justify the surface. I'd say the best way to serve Burscough is to extend to Burscough Bridge without a physical connection to the Southport to keep costs down.

In terms of the current Ormskirk to Preston service, I wonder if a case can be made for a semi-fast extension to Bootle which is pretty densley populated and is also an employment hub. The infrastructure upgrades might be prohibitively expensive but Preston to Ormskirk as always seemed like a service that would be better used if it terminated closer to Liverpool. At the same time extending into Central Liverpool is a non-starter given it wouldn't easily integrate with Merseyrail.

To run to Bootle from Ormskirk/Preston you would have to reopen the North Mersey branch from Aintree to Bootle. The branch is just over four miles long but has not been used for many years. If our Metro Mayor wasn't so intent on spending £100 million on the potential white elephant station at Baltic he could reopen the North Mersey Branch at a fraction of the cost of Baltic and serve parts of Bootle in the Harris Drive area which could do with improved public transport.

 

[frodshamfella]

To run to Bootle from Ormskirk/Preston you would have to reopen the North Mersey branch from Aintree to Bootle. The branch is just over four miles long but has not been used for many years. If our Metro Mayor wasn't so intent on spending £100 million on the potential white elephant station at Baltic he could reopen the North Mersey Branch at a fraction of the cost of Baltic and serve parts of Bootle in the Harris Drive area which could do with improved public transport.

Here here, clogged with traffic around that area.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Why would you still be running a train from Preston to Ormskirk if you are extending Merseyrail north of there?

Wouldn't you just install buffer stops at Burscough Junction or some other convenient placfe?

How do you suggest a service could run from Ormskirk - Burscough Bridge if there were buffers installed at Burscough Junction?

The extension of Merseyrail to Burscough, either Bridge or Junction, is academic anyway. It isn't going to happen and it most certainly isn't going to go to Burscough Bridge. It has been demonstrated several times over many years there is no business case for reopening the Burscough curves so reopening one of them just to run a few yards to Burscough Bridge and not even connect to the Southport line is total nonsense.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

There are literally no plans to remove it.

I think you will find that there are, and the working group is not exclusively looking at Merseyrail either.

Depots and sidings all over third rail territory will eventually be free of electrification, as will other assets which are consistent hostile environments like bridges and tunnels. Now, some of this will take many years, and will largely be associated with new fleet introductions, particularly for Southeastern Railway.

Chester and Bache area is probably further up the list.

Because batteries are now proven as viable and readily available and at a reasonable price - the industry concept of ALARP generally means there are now unacceptable safety hazards and risks which can be reasonably and quite easily mitigated. The other technological development is the ability to turn traction current off unless a train is in the section, again something else being reviewed.

 

[Class15]

Depots and sidings all over third rail territory will eventually be free of electrification

Chester is not a ‘depot or siding’

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Chester is not a ‘depot or siding’

But it might be an

other assets which are consistent hostile environments

And if (as I understand from higher up this thread) battery operation would allow more flexibility in what platforms M'rail could use at Chester, what's not to like?

 

[Class15]

But it might be an

And if (as I understand from higher up this thread) battery operation would allow more flexibility in what platforms M'rail could use at Chester, what's not to like?

The trains have batteries regardless of whether the platform is de-electrified or not. They can use another platform if needed even if P7 keeps its third rail.

Is there a source for Chester P7 being de-electrified please? At the minute one member is suggesting it is going to happen and that’s all we have.

 

[Mr. SW]

But there already is a bus shuttle from Parkway. A station purpose-built for that. A station in the middle of an industrial estate, a long walk from the residential part of Speke, wouldn't be much use, and surely not economically viable. By all means improve the bus connection (with Rotheram's 'glider trams' if necessary) and have integrated ticketing. But there's no point in fiddling around with more half-baked solutions if a proper rail link (both to the airport and Speke itself) can't be achieved.

It is the only place on that section of line where you can insert a station without rebuilding bridges or slewing tracks.
It's not in the middle of an industrial estate: it's on the northern border. Speke is one gigantic industrial hub anyway.
It's on the road from Hunts Cross that runs almost directly to the airport, through a large residential district.

But on the other hand, you wouldn't build a station there unless there was some major transport development like the "Liverpool-Manchester Railway" actually got constructed, in some form or other.

So, yes. Everyone should hold onto their pennies: It won't be built, probably ever.

 

[HSTEd]

How do you suggest a service could run from Ormskirk - Burscough Bridge if there were buffers installed at Burscough Junction?

The extension of Merseyrail to Burscough, either Bridge or Junction, is academic anyway. It isn't going to happen and it most certainly isn't going to go to Burscough Bridge. It has been demonstrated several times over many years there is no business case for reopening the Burscough curves so reopening one of them just to run a few yards to Burscough Bridge and not even connect to the Southport line is total nonsense.

Well I think you'd probably abandon the current platform, demolish part of it and rebuild the second platform into a stepped platform like that built at Nottingham ages ago. A bay facing towards Preston and a single through platform for Burscough Bridge.

However I must admit I don't really see the point in going to Burscough Bridge - from aerial photography it doesn't really seem to be an enormously more advantageous location.
Just going to Burscough Junction would cost enormously less than going to Burscough Bridge.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The trains have batteries regardless of whether the platform is de-electrified or not. They can use another platform if needed even if P7 keeps its third rail.

Is there a source for Chester P7 being de-electrified please? At the minute one member is suggesting it is going to happen and that’s all we have.

I'm not required to provide a source in this part of the forum.

You will see the first areas to have their third rail electrification removed before 2030, almost certainly the Southeastern and Merseyrail depots first, and some tunnels in the Southeast geographic area.

As I said earlier, when Chester next has money spent on the infrastructure and signalling - it's likely that is when the opportunity will be taken to remove the third rail in that area. However, some other working groups looking at enhancing the battery capability of the 777 fleet may well speed that up independently of infrastructure renewals.

Removing the third rail at/around Chester has significant safety benefits and cost savings, as well as making future infrastructure projects, like resignalling and (well into the future) potential AC electrification much cheaper and simpler.