Not quite, if you want to go to the Airport then some go from inside the shed and others from P14. I see you're point about Wallgate and NW though. If I'm travelling from Manchester I have to choose a station to depart from then decide whether getting to Preston is faster via Bolton or Wigan (or both). Coming the other way I rarely go via Wigan because I can't be bothered changing stations.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Wigan Northwestern
- Thread starter M60lad
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nym
Established Member
It's a station, it works, whats wrong with it looking a bit ugly?
It's generally clean and functional so whats wrong with that?
It's generally clean and functional so whats wrong with that?
Nym
Established Member
That would rather confuse old people, since Wigan Central used to be about half a mile away 
tbtc
Veteran Member
This is why I've tried to suggest simplifying the current service pattern from Manchester (which would mean some places lose an Airport service...) due to the confusion of places (Southport, St Helens Junction, Blackpool...) which have half their Manchester services from Piccadilly and half from Victoria.
Lets say you are in the Arndale, your train leaves from Victoria in ten minutes, do you risk it and rush there or do you walk over to Piccadilly?
Imagine how messy it'd get if you had:
- Piccadilly - North Western
- Piccadilly - Wallgate
- Victoria - North Western
- Victoria - Wallgate
Nym
Established Member
Quite asside from the fact that we don't know if Manchester - Scotland services will call at Wigan or run direct to Preston non-stop, to prevent Wigan passengers using it...
If it becomes the case that most services run into North Western, it will remain the same that Victoria will see most of the Wigan services (as is now, 1tph Piccadilly, 4tph Victoria), where currently everything, bar one or two services from Manchester runs to Wallgate, if this where to switch to North Western, with the inclusion of fast(er) services via Paitcroft at reasonable intervals (2 or 3tph) all into Victoria (Further adding the need for grade seperation at Ordstall Lane, that would then be seeing 34tph moving through the area, (10tph Chat Moss, 4tph Windsor, 4tph Cord, 11tph Victoria, 7tph Castlefeild Jcn.) that asside...
Victoria is the 'dominant' station for Wigan services, and should remain so, even if some changes are made to the timetable, so say that you turn up at Wigan Stns to go to Manchester, you'd walk to NW because they have the fastest services via Paitcroft, if the only traffic to use Wallgate is the through services, then it will also reduce local loading on these services into Manchester (reducing the reliance on Diesel units, if all the Wigan - Manchester flow runs via Paitcroft) so will reduce the overcrowding on Atherton Loop services (If they continue to run to Southport and Kirby) as Wigan - Manc flow would be handled by 4+ tph from Wallgate, with class 319 or 323 units, there also wouldn't be any issue in running 8 car units on that route)
At the moment a bigger dilema is a Bolton bound passenger, where to go...
During the day, 4tph from Victoria and 4tph from Piccadilly, but into the evening that goes though 4tph Vic 5tph Pic (xx16, xx21, xx27, xx46, xx54) and then after 6pm drops to 3tph Piccadilly and 2tph Victoria...
Anyway, I honestly beleive that moving the major flows back to North Western (especially when running via Paitcroft for the Manc - Wigan flow) should be the answer.
Since current Journey times are:
xx20 47mins via most shacks to Bolton and all shacks to Victoria
xx32 39mins via Atherton
xx48 37mins Bolton & Salford Only
xx53 42mins to Piccadilly
xx59 45mins via Atherton
If the Southport and Kirby services from Victoria stay via Atherton, the Southport via Bolton will need to remain at Wallgate.
From Wallgate I can make an educated guess that an EMU might be able to get sub 30mins, especially with the planned linespeed increases, (It's currently 31 Piccadilly - Newton-le-Willows, and about 7 from Newton-le-Willows to Wigan) cut the corner off and speed it up a lil and it should just come in at 30mins, now with most journies taking between 39 and 47mins via other routes, if 2tph where provided, the most one could gain in a worst case by using not travelling via Paitcroft would be 20mins (if the Bolton & Salford only leaves just after) if 3tph are provided between Wigan and Victoria via Paitcroft at reasonablly regualar intervals, the only passengers on other routes will be passengers wanting to go them ways, rather than the Wigan - Manchester flow, not directly releasing DMUs there, but, superseeding their need for journies between Manchester and Wigan, provided paths can be found.
If you turn up at North Western and see a 4 car electric train going every 20mins, and one via Bolton leaving inbetween that is publicised as taking 10 - 15mins longer, what would you choose?
If it becomes the case that most services run into North Western, it will remain the same that Victoria will see most of the Wigan services (as is now, 1tph Piccadilly, 4tph Victoria), where currently everything, bar one or two services from Manchester runs to Wallgate, if this where to switch to North Western, with the inclusion of fast(er) services via Paitcroft at reasonable intervals (2 or 3tph) all into Victoria (Further adding the need for grade seperation at Ordstall Lane, that would then be seeing 34tph moving through the area, (10tph Chat Moss, 4tph Windsor, 4tph Cord, 11tph Victoria, 7tph Castlefeild Jcn.) that asside...
Victoria is the 'dominant' station for Wigan services, and should remain so, even if some changes are made to the timetable, so say that you turn up at Wigan Stns to go to Manchester, you'd walk to NW because they have the fastest services via Paitcroft, if the only traffic to use Wallgate is the through services, then it will also reduce local loading on these services into Manchester (reducing the reliance on Diesel units, if all the Wigan - Manchester flow runs via Paitcroft) so will reduce the overcrowding on Atherton Loop services (If they continue to run to Southport and Kirby) as Wigan - Manc flow would be handled by 4+ tph from Wallgate, with class 319 or 323 units, there also wouldn't be any issue in running 8 car units on that route)
At the moment a bigger dilema is a Bolton bound passenger, where to go...
During the day, 4tph from Victoria and 4tph from Piccadilly, but into the evening that goes though 4tph Vic 5tph Pic (xx16, xx21, xx27, xx46, xx54) and then after 6pm drops to 3tph Piccadilly and 2tph Victoria...
Anyway, I honestly beleive that moving the major flows back to North Western (especially when running via Paitcroft for the Manc - Wigan flow) should be the answer.
Since current Journey times are:
xx20 47mins via most shacks to Bolton and all shacks to Victoria
xx32 39mins via Atherton
xx48 37mins Bolton & Salford Only
xx53 42mins to Piccadilly
xx59 45mins via Atherton
If the Southport and Kirby services from Victoria stay via Atherton, the Southport via Bolton will need to remain at Wallgate.
From Wallgate I can make an educated guess that an EMU might be able to get sub 30mins, especially with the planned linespeed increases, (It's currently 31 Piccadilly - Newton-le-Willows, and about 7 from Newton-le-Willows to Wigan) cut the corner off and speed it up a lil and it should just come in at 30mins, now with most journies taking between 39 and 47mins via other routes, if 2tph where provided, the most one could gain in a worst case by using not travelling via Paitcroft would be 20mins (if the Bolton & Salford only leaves just after) if 3tph are provided between Wigan and Victoria via Paitcroft at reasonablly regualar intervals, the only passengers on other routes will be passengers wanting to go them ways, rather than the Wigan - Manchester flow, not directly releasing DMUs there, but, superseeding their need for journies between Manchester and Wigan, provided paths can be found.
If you turn up at North Western and see a 4 car electric train going every 20mins, and one via Bolton leaving inbetween that is publicised as taking 10 - 15mins longer, what would you choose?
How do these extra trains from North Western fit in with other WCML paths? I know Parkside isn't very far but do we really want to be adding slower local trains with the potential conflicts on the long distance services (including Manchester-Scotland and possibly Euston-Blackpool)?
Nym
Established Member
I don't know the paths on that bit of the WCML well enough to comment, but at the current service levels of 2tph southbound fast (St Helens C services don't cross the mainline) and freight, I'd think theres a fair amount of space between Wigan and Parkside.
I'm just going to have a look for any potential bottleknecks, but if there are any I can see them around the junctions or Wigan Sta. not on route.
Just looked in the sectional appendix and it seems that photos are deceptive...
You've got under 6 miles between Golborne Junction and Wigan South Junction (where the slow services would leave the mainline).
Now assuming what I'm proposing as new services would run on the fast lines (110, no EPS) rather than slows, (75/60), and that we'd effectively have 4 'fast' services to contend with (Euston - Glasgow, Euston - Blackpool, Birmingham - Scotland, Manchester - Scotland) theoretically there would be space to flight a 'slow' behind each of these, if we're using 319s then the 100mph will be very advantagous to getting out of the way of the next fast, but if we're operating on a 4min headway, it would leave, with equal spacing 7mins padding between the slow and the next fast catching up, with essentially a 10mph speed difference, (not including accelarating up to 100 for a 319), now I know that it won't be an exact 15min frequency for 'fasts' through Wigan, so fitting these in exactly would be a challenge, but slotting two slower services onto the fasts shouldn't be a major calamity. (Especially if all freight is using the slows).
With a little re-modeling you could do a lot better, with Golbourne Jcn - Lowton Jcn being more busy than before,
2 track that link (NW1021 Seq2)
Shove the slows stright over, 2 track, as they are now, (keep in mind grade seperating this better later, but at the moment, thanks to various goods branches, the slows could do to be kept on that side, and not touching the fasts reduces possessions, aside from the new point work to cross them)
Improve the quality of the goods lines and bring them into passenger use between Bamfurlong Junction and Springs Branch Jcn
Restore 2 track between Springs Branch Jcn and Wigan Station Junction, giving the slows a 2 track approach up to Platforms 2 and 3 for terminating, and access to 1 and 4 for through services.
The current slows up to Springs Branch Jcn are retained as such for through 'slow' services, with terminating services from St Helens continuing to terminat on the D&UPL (Down and Up Passenger Loop) as now, if more space is needed for St Helens services these can run out to the SW as additional platforms (7).
If money becomes available later, see about more grade seperation, either moving onto paired by direction between Lowton and Wigan, or pushing the slows over the fasts and landing North of the current location, keeping slow services completely seperate from fasts.
I'm just going to have a look for any potential bottleknecks, but if there are any I can see them around the junctions or Wigan Sta. not on route.
Just looked in the sectional appendix and it seems that photos are deceptive...
You've got under 6 miles between Golborne Junction and Wigan South Junction (where the slow services would leave the mainline).
Now assuming what I'm proposing as new services would run on the fast lines (110, no EPS) rather than slows, (75/60), and that we'd effectively have 4 'fast' services to contend with (Euston - Glasgow, Euston - Blackpool, Birmingham - Scotland, Manchester - Scotland) theoretically there would be space to flight a 'slow' behind each of these, if we're using 319s then the 100mph will be very advantagous to getting out of the way of the next fast, but if we're operating on a 4min headway, it would leave, with equal spacing 7mins padding between the slow and the next fast catching up, with essentially a 10mph speed difference, (not including accelarating up to 100 for a 319), now I know that it won't be an exact 15min frequency for 'fasts' through Wigan, so fitting these in exactly would be a challenge, but slotting two slower services onto the fasts shouldn't be a major calamity. (Especially if all freight is using the slows).
With a little re-modeling you could do a lot better, with Golbourne Jcn - Lowton Jcn being more busy than before,
2 track that link (NW1021 Seq2)
Shove the slows stright over, 2 track, as they are now, (keep in mind grade seperating this better later, but at the moment, thanks to various goods branches, the slows could do to be kept on that side, and not touching the fasts reduces possessions, aside from the new point work to cross them)
Improve the quality of the goods lines and bring them into passenger use between Bamfurlong Junction and Springs Branch Jcn
Restore 2 track between Springs Branch Jcn and Wigan Station Junction, giving the slows a 2 track approach up to Platforms 2 and 3 for terminating, and access to 1 and 4 for through services.
The current slows up to Springs Branch Jcn are retained as such for through 'slow' services, with terminating services from St Helens continuing to terminat on the D&UPL (Down and Up Passenger Loop) as now, if more space is needed for St Helens services these can run out to the SW as additional platforms (7).
If money becomes available later, see about more grade seperation, either moving onto paired by direction between Lowton and Wigan, or pushing the slows over the fasts and landing North of the current location, keeping slow services completely seperate from fasts.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
If the idea is to move some of these types of services from Wigan Wallgate to Wigan North Western and noting what you say about potential conflicts in the quote above, what other options do you then suggest are looked at?
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
I'm not quite sure what everyone is getting at here, but remember if services are diverted from Wallgate to North Western via Eccles, then you would have to cover stops at Farnworth etc and Westhoughton with other services.
FWIW I think p3 still isn't in use at North Western.
FWIW I think p3 still isn't in use at North Western.
But whose idea is it that services need to be moved, other than the Manchester-Scotland route? It's being assumed by some that electrification should include services to Wigan but I personally don't see much wrong with the current arrangement.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
You dont think saving 20 minutes on a 50 minute journey is worthwhile?
The directs would also relieve crowding on Kirkby, Atherton and Southport to Manchester services without having to provide them extra capacity. The extra Wigan-Liverpool/Wigan-Manchester services will also be important for those coming down from Cumbria or Scotland and needing to interchange.
The directs would also relieve crowding on Kirkby, Atherton and Southport to Manchester services without having to provide them extra capacity. The extra Wigan-Liverpool/Wigan-Manchester services will also be important for those coming down from Cumbria or Scotland and needing to interchange.
Last edited:
Lampshade
Established Member
Not really, most people would change at Preston.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Half as many and slower Liverpool services post electrification? Also unable to change at Preston for anything on the Atherton, Kirkby or Southport lines. Depending on connection timings you would also save 10 minutes changing at Wigan rather than Preston for Manchester post electrification including extra journey time on the WCML. Its less geographically direct but the train spends longer at 110/125mph rather than the 90mph Manchester-Preston via Bolton line.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Would it involve a great deal of financial cost and infrastructural work to put in a new high-speed Manchester bound chord from the WCML at Parkside Junction. I only ask this because of the stated Todmorden Chord costs.
Nym
Established Member
I wouldn't say it's the junction that actually needs the work but the approaches, going North from the junction means funneling into a single track section, then crossing the fasts before hitting the slows at 75, it's fine at 15mph, so long as there isn't a shed tonne of waiting, if the link was wholey two tracked, with a direct flow onto the fasts and slows, it would speed everything up a bit, as would swapping the fasts and slows, to put the fasts on the west and slows on the east, so nothing has to cross until you get to Wigan Stn. Jcns. (But then the goods lines messes that up a bit).
tbtc
Veteran Member
I make no assumptions, but I think that this *should* happen due to the frequent DMU services through Wigan Wallgate.
Wiring Bolton - Wallgate - Kirkby and Salford - Wallgate - Southport would free up fourteen off-peak diagrams (IIRC), plus peak extras plus doubled up 142s on some of the Southport duties plus "spares" and you are looking at almost/around twenty DMUs (keeping one aside for the Rochdale - Victoria "short").
That's quite a number of DMUs "saved" by electrifying, especially when compared to some of the suggestions you see for electrifying much longer sections (that "save" fewer DMUs). The other advantage is that this tackles Pacers directly (or 150s which can replace Pacers), rather than getting into complicated cascades that result in 158s on short routes.
Nym
Established Member
Indeed...
It would also be quite politically popular, and if there is a small re-shuffle or increased co-operation between MerseyRail and Northern (Joint services) we could see Kirby returning to a through electrified route at 2tph.
It would be a 'rolling project' IMO to yeild the best results, starting with Lostock - Wallgate, freeing 2tph DMU (Wallgate - Bolton - Victoria) thats 4 actual DMU diagrams. then it's hard to decide weather to push onwards to Southport or complete the Atherton loop next, pushing on to Southport frees up the two Southport diagrams (cut Southport via Atherton to Wigan via Atherton and run it as an extention of one of the diagrams via Bolton, preferably the limited stop one) thats 1tph to Airport and 1tph to Victoria over to Electric from Diesel, Southport - Vic is 3 diargams IIRC and Southport - Airport is 4, but usually doubled up on two of these. So thats 7 diagrams, and 9 actual DMUs.
That leaves the Atherton Loop, 2tph to Electric, roughly four diagrams, four actual DMUs plus doubling up services, so I get a total of 17 diagrams, about 20DMUs ex. Maintenance Spares.
(What tbtc said)
It would also be a very politically popular move, making all but 1 or 2tph through Bolton electric and all services to Wigan electric would be very popular, not to mention the journey time improvments over the Atherton Loop and all services presumably formed of 319 units, running at nearly double the current length of units.
If Kirby through services came into being again, the two services via Atherton could be formed of a Manchester Victoria (Rochdale / Stalybridge) to Liverpool Central via Kirby service. (Since the Merseyrail EMUs will be three coach, and fit on the Atherton Loop) Or maybe not, looking at the sectional appendix...
Swinton: 68m and 45m
Moorside: 109m and 110m
Walkden: 77m and 75m
Atherton: 119m and 99m
Hag Fold: 96m and 96m
Daisy Hill: 105m and 102m
Hindley: 99m and 107m
Ince: 124m and 124m
So, since a 4 car 319 is 80m long, there might be issues at Swindon and Walkden, but there are now with the current DMU services, perhaps electrification could bring platform extensions to 80m minimum for the route...
Swindon seems to still have the platform there, but in a state of disrepair, Walkden seems to be the same deal, overgrown at the ends of the platforms.
Either way, very politically popular because it's spending fully within the TfGM area (Asside from Southport) it's all within the Greater Manchester Travel to Work Zone, and it lays the foundation for an electrified Burcsough curve..
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
Platforms have been extended recently at quite a few Atherton line stations, I know Swinton and Walkden have.
Nym
Established Member
Should be 80m and OK for a single 319 to run on it then...
Knocking linespeeds up to 75 would be nice too, not much point for DMUs as they wouldn't reach that speed, but a 319 should on the longer runs between stations, is it also wishful thinking for the junction being formed for a branch to Leigh via Tyldsley, electrified... heh
Knocking linespeeds up to 75 would be nice too, not much point for DMUs as they wouldn't reach that speed, but a 319 should on the longer runs between stations, is it also wishful thinking for the junction being formed for a branch to Leigh via Tyldsley, electrified... heh
tbtc
Veteran Member
Your electrification plan is a bit more ambitious than mine
(unless you meant Swinton?)Seriously though, this is one of the few areas with an intense Pacer/150 service (along with the Valley Lines), so would be where I'd start electrifying if I wanted to be Pacer Free by 1 January 2020.
Maybe one way of doing it would be to have four coach EMUs on the Bolton/Southport corridor (Bolton needs the capacity) whilst all Kirby services are three coach EMUs running via Atherton, which would allow the potential for through running of three coach Merseyrail EMUs in the longer term?
Nym
Established Member
Yes, Swinton, although Swindon is being done too, so technically via Wigan, the WLL and Reading, it will be electrified to Swindon...
Well, since the Bolton route wouldn't have enough capacity with 3 car 323s or 4 car 319s on a few services (namely those to Piccadilly / Oxford Road) I think we've just found the allocation for the 323 units...
319s can work the new S Manc lines and the services via Bolton into Victoria, but seriously for a moment, there isn't that much difference between a 3 car 323 and 4 car 319, the major difference is between a 319 and 2x323, the latter being needed on a lot of Bolton peaks, where as a 4 car 319 (with comparable running costs) would do nice all day on the Atherton Loop and the Southport runs (although too long for a couple of plarforms on the way there, lengthening could be done easily enough)
If this where to happen though, it's all the more reason to not split the 319 fleet up and either send them all to Northern or all to Great Western, especially if you implement another NW electrification programme covering another set of routes out of Manchester...
The 'Chinley Electrification Plan' I came up with before...
Hazel Grove - Chinley Electrification, extend Hazel Grove services to Chinley
Guide Bridge - Chinley
Romiley - Rose Hill Marple (Possibly re-opening the route to Macclesfeild, take some pressure off Stockport and provide an LDPE diversionary route for when HS2 works need doing, additional bays at Manchester Piccadilly East may be needed, as well as Guide Bridge - Ardwick 4 track)
Ashburys - Romiley
Then...
Anything that terminates at Marple or Rose Hill Marple continues to do so, services to New Mills Central continue onwards and terminate at Chinley
So that there will be 1tph via Stockport to Chinley and 1tph via Romiley to Chinley.
Services to Sheffeild would remain the same for LDPE services, 1tph EMT and 1tph TPE, via Stockport.
None would need to call at Chinley thanks to the regular Hazel Grove service, although some could to provide better links between Chinley and Sheffeild.
The stopper through the Hope Valley goes hourly, and between Chinley and Manchester only calls at Chinley, Guide Bridge and Piccadilly
Possibly extend one of the Marple terminators to Chinley, replace the bays at Chinley for these services to terminate.
Wires initally would end at Chinley.
If the line to Matlock is re-opened, services via Matlock would call at Chinley only and then onwards to Piccadilly in the same fassion as the Hope Valley services, running fast from Chinley to Piccadilly / Victoria.
That would kick out a fair few more pacers, and if combined with the TPE electrification, displacing 185s (as I wanted to happen) onto the Buxton - Piccadilly route, some calling patterns would change.
The Hazel Grove service could go half hourly all extended to Chinley, Chinley would have 2tph via Romiley and 2tph via Stockport stoppers, Buxton - Manchester is sped up so that between Hazel Grove and Manchester, it calls only at Hazel Grove, Stockport and Piccadilly, this would be re-cast to replace the current TPE service over the CLC as the timing to arrive into Piccadilly, running as the xx07 to Liverpool Lime St via CLC, meaning the CLC retains it's two semi fast services, and confilicts are minimal as they can run the approaches into Piccadilly on the slows from Stockport, flighted infront of a slow service (from Hazel Grove or Crewe, that will cover the stops at Levenshume and Heaton chapel) no diesel services running stoppers, in Greater Manchester, Anywhere, except!: Rochdale (Should be done to Rochdale with a turnback to push services through Victoria) and Chester via Alty, but the latter should get taken care of by Tram-Trains into a re-built Oxford Road via Sale.
Atherton Loop, Southport, Lostock - Wigan, Kirby, East Manchester Lines and Mid Cheshire TramTrains would be a massive policical positive move, get rid of a shed tonne of pacers, about 40 - 45ish, provide an increase in capacity where it is so desprately needed in the GM Travel to Work Area, and if new stock is gotten for these schemes (3x23m long EMUs and 4x23m EMUs) be a step increase in the quality of rolling stock in all of the north, (if there is a massive order of these EMUs for TPE and Northern (100+ units) the price should come down, and the 323s can be send down to LM for the XC Lines to get extras on there)
If the Valley Lines are completed aswell, (Thats up to the WAG) then thats pacers effectively gone, and general public opinion of the railway in areas where it is starting to suffer, gotten back, "Oh look, shiney new train is twice as long as it used to be and I don't stop everywhere on the way into Manchester any more."
And the 86 Class 319 units can have a gentler early retirement on the GW, go through a full refurb on a moving cycle and run crowdbuster services into Paddington at 12 or even 16 cars long from Newbury, Oxford, Didcot and Reading. Passengers get on the HSTs rather than what will be crossrail because of speed, if you knock together a 16 coach EMU that isn't much slower and STARTS at where a lot of passengers are boarding, they will use it since they can get a seat, or their own standing space, and having checked, platforms are available at 320m at Paddington (According to someone else on here) for 16 car units, or if I was halucinating, then a 240m platform for a 12 car unit shouldn't be a problem to find.
Well, since the Bolton route wouldn't have enough capacity with 3 car 323s or 4 car 319s on a few services (namely those to Piccadilly / Oxford Road) I think we've just found the allocation for the 323 units...
319s can work the new S Manc lines and the services via Bolton into Victoria, but seriously for a moment, there isn't that much difference between a 3 car 323 and 4 car 319, the major difference is between a 319 and 2x323, the latter being needed on a lot of Bolton peaks, where as a 4 car 319 (with comparable running costs) would do nice all day on the Atherton Loop and the Southport runs (although too long for a couple of plarforms on the way there, lengthening could be done easily enough)
If this where to happen though, it's all the more reason to not split the 319 fleet up and either send them all to Northern or all to Great Western, especially if you implement another NW electrification programme covering another set of routes out of Manchester...
The 'Chinley Electrification Plan' I came up with before...
Hazel Grove - Chinley Electrification, extend Hazel Grove services to Chinley
Guide Bridge - Chinley
Romiley - Rose Hill Marple (Possibly re-opening the route to Macclesfeild, take some pressure off Stockport and provide an LDPE diversionary route for when HS2 works need doing, additional bays at Manchester Piccadilly East may be needed, as well as Guide Bridge - Ardwick 4 track)
Ashburys - Romiley
Then...
Anything that terminates at Marple or Rose Hill Marple continues to do so, services to New Mills Central continue onwards and terminate at Chinley
So that there will be 1tph via Stockport to Chinley and 1tph via Romiley to Chinley.
Services to Sheffeild would remain the same for LDPE services, 1tph EMT and 1tph TPE, via Stockport.
None would need to call at Chinley thanks to the regular Hazel Grove service, although some could to provide better links between Chinley and Sheffeild.
The stopper through the Hope Valley goes hourly, and between Chinley and Manchester only calls at Chinley, Guide Bridge and Piccadilly
Possibly extend one of the Marple terminators to Chinley, replace the bays at Chinley for these services to terminate.
Wires initally would end at Chinley.
If the line to Matlock is re-opened, services via Matlock would call at Chinley only and then onwards to Piccadilly in the same fassion as the Hope Valley services, running fast from Chinley to Piccadilly / Victoria.
That would kick out a fair few more pacers, and if combined with the TPE electrification, displacing 185s (as I wanted to happen) onto the Buxton - Piccadilly route, some calling patterns would change.
The Hazel Grove service could go half hourly all extended to Chinley, Chinley would have 2tph via Romiley and 2tph via Stockport stoppers, Buxton - Manchester is sped up so that between Hazel Grove and Manchester, it calls only at Hazel Grove, Stockport and Piccadilly, this would be re-cast to replace the current TPE service over the CLC as the timing to arrive into Piccadilly, running as the xx07 to Liverpool Lime St via CLC, meaning the CLC retains it's two semi fast services, and confilicts are minimal as they can run the approaches into Piccadilly on the slows from Stockport, flighted infront of a slow service (from Hazel Grove or Crewe, that will cover the stops at Levenshume and Heaton chapel) no diesel services running stoppers, in Greater Manchester, Anywhere, except!: Rochdale (Should be done to Rochdale with a turnback to push services through Victoria) and Chester via Alty, but the latter should get taken care of by Tram-Trains into a re-built Oxford Road via Sale.
Atherton Loop, Southport, Lostock - Wigan, Kirby, East Manchester Lines and Mid Cheshire TramTrains would be a massive policical positive move, get rid of a shed tonne of pacers, about 40 - 45ish, provide an increase in capacity where it is so desprately needed in the GM Travel to Work Area, and if new stock is gotten for these schemes (3x23m long EMUs and 4x23m EMUs) be a step increase in the quality of rolling stock in all of the north, (if there is a massive order of these EMUs for TPE and Northern (100+ units) the price should come down, and the 323s can be send down to LM for the XC Lines to get extras on there)
If the Valley Lines are completed aswell, (Thats up to the WAG) then thats pacers effectively gone, and general public opinion of the railway in areas where it is starting to suffer, gotten back, "Oh look, shiney new train is twice as long as it used to be and I don't stop everywhere on the way into Manchester any more."
And the 86 Class 319 units can have a gentler early retirement on the GW, go through a full refurb on a moving cycle and run crowdbuster services into Paddington at 12 or even 16 cars long from Newbury, Oxford, Didcot and Reading. Passengers get on the HSTs rather than what will be crossrail because of speed, if you knock together a 16 coach EMU that isn't much slower and STARTS at where a lot of passengers are boarding, they will use it since they can get a seat, or their own standing space, and having checked, platforms are available at 320m at Paddington (According to someone else on here) for 16 car units, or if I was halucinating, then a 240m platform for a 12 car unit shouldn't be a problem to find.
Last edited:
Stonesourscotty
Member
If Kirkbys where Wired... Can 319's fit in the Merseyrail route theres tunnels isnt there? and are you proposing Dual Source vehicles and a Switch at Kirkby?
tbtc
Veteran Member
One problem with the 319s is the four coaches (since Merseyrail platforms are suited for three/six car operation). I can't comment about the "fit" of 319s though.
- Status