Wigan to Bolton electrification: possible changes to services

[Bletchleyite]

Option 1 would be to retain the service pattern as above, using Class 769s on all services via Bolton, changing power mode at Hindley. The wires Hindley-North Western would be unused except for stock positioning moves to/from Springs branch.

Option 2 would be to truncate one or both Southport services at Wigan (to be pure EMUs), with Atherton route services extended in their place. Given that access to Castlefield is now apparently sacrosanct, that would suggest:
-Retaining the Southport-Oxford Road services (as 769s)
-Truncating the Southport-Stalybridge service to be Wigan NW-Stalybridge (could be pure EMU)
-Extending the Wigan-Atherton-Leeds service back to Southport. (As DMU)
(So Southport keeps 1tph to each of Victoria and Piccadilly, albeit 1tph each way via Bolton/Atherton rather than 2tph via Bolton)

Are there enough 769s to use them on all trains to Southport and leave it as is? Not the most optimum solution operationally, but it would save having to mess with things again.

 

[Ianno87]

Are there enough 769s to use them on all trains to Southport and leave it as is? Not the most optimum solution operationally, but it would save having to mess with things again.

"Messing with things again" isn't massive deal if the core structure of the timetable is kept unchanged. Southport would lose 1tph (or 2tph) to Bolton but gain a direct Yorkshire link again.

My hunch would be for "Option 2", personally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Messing with things again" isn't massive deal if the core structure of the timetable is kept unchanged. Southport would lose 1tph (or 2tph) to Bolton but gain a direct Yorkshire link again.

My hunch would be for "Option 2", personally.

To be fair classically Southport was always Castlefield via Bolton and Vic via Atherton, and has been since the Windsor Link opened, so this might actually please more people than not.

 

[Halish Railway]

My hunch is that post-electrification all Southport services will go via Atherton, one per hour to Oxford Road & one to Victoria and beyond with all electric services via Bolton terminating going to Victoria & beyond. That way the only station to completely lose its connection to the Castlefield corridor would by Westhoughton, although the nearby Daisy Hill station will gain a direct service to the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My hunch is that post-electrification all Southport services will go via Atherton, one per hour to Oxford Road & one to Victoria and beyond with all electric services via Bolton terminating going to Victoria & beyond. That way the only station to completely lose its connection to the Castlefield corridor would by Westhoughton, although the nearby Daisy Hill station will gain a direct service to the Castlefield corridor.

Though there is also the long term question of Atherton itself - Metrolink or 25kV "S-Bahn" from Wigan NW through to perhaps Stalybridge? Either way DMUs aren't the future.

 

[tbtc]

My hunch is that post-electrification all Southport services will go via Atherton, one per hour to Oxford Road & one to Victoria and beyond with all electric services via Bolton terminating going to Victoria & beyond. That way the only station to completely lose its connection to the Castlefield corridor would by Westhoughton, although the nearby Daisy Hill station will gain a direct service to the Castlefield corridor.

That would make more sense to me - keeps the DMUs/ EMUs separate, a simple fifteen minute service from Wigan to Manchester (well, not that simple, given the need for one of the Southport services to go to Oxford Road, but as simple as it can be in the circumstances I guess)

The alternative ideas (like having one Southport service via Bolton and one Southport service via Atherton) would presumably either leave Southport with an awkward 15/45 split or make Wigan's service to Manchester closer to a 5/25/5/25 split instead of a simple fifteen minutes

But I don't know how you tie all of the different bits together (I'd prefer a simple 30 minute Leeds - Atherton - Southport service - much easier to recover in the event of any delays, I don't think that we should have 769s running huge distances away from the wires, I'd like to have the "via Bolton" stuff in the hands of pure EMUs if possible)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The alternative ideas (like having one Southport service via Bolton and one Southport service via Atherton) would presumably either leave Southport with an awkward 15/45 split or make Wigan's service to Manchester closer to a 5/25/5/25 split instead of a simple fifteen minutes

A split like that for Southport doesn't really matter because people will choose the train they take based on which central Manchester destination they want (Manchester is by far the main destination; it's not that heavily used to go to Wigan). Half hourly isn't a walk-up frequency anyway, people will plan for the timetable.

You can also take into consideration that the Southport line has opportunities to even it out by the time you get to/from Southport itself by adding/removing station calls at the smaller stations. Traditionally the Castlefield service hasn't called at Meols Cop, New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar; adding those in to whichever of the two makes sense might be a handy way to at least shift one of those by about 5 minutes or so.

Ideally what you'd probably do (if you ignore your real-ideal of both Southports to Vic) is you go for every 20 mins to Vic and just lay the Southport-Castlefield on top. 15-15-30 isn't really any better.

 

[daodao]

"Messing with things again" isn't massive deal if the core structure of the timetable is kept unchanged. Southport would lose 1tph (or 2tph) to Bolton but gain a direct Yorkshire link again.

My hunch would be for "Option 2", personally.

While this is a reasonable compromise, the introduction of electric trains on the Wigan NW-Bolton-Victoria-Stalybridge route in a few years could be used as an opportunity to undo the worst aspects of option B+, by running that service every 30 minutes, calling at the local stations between Bolton and Salford. The [diesel] Southport services could then be diverted via the non-electrified Atherton route to Victoria (and beyond). That would simplify operations and enhance reliability. The Kirkby-Wigan line could be served by an hourly dmu shuttle.

This would have the added benefit of freeing up the bay platform at Manchester Oxford Road for a second CLC stopping service.

 

[Ianno87]

While this is a reasonable compromise, the introduction of electric trains on the Wigan NW-Bolton-Victoria-Stalybridge route in a few years could be used as an opportunity to undo the worst aspects of option B+, by running that service every 30 minutes, calling at the local stations between Bolton and Salford. The [diesel] Southport services could then be diverted via the non-electrified Atherton route to Victoria (and beyond). That would simplify operations and enhance reliability. The Kirkby-Wigan line could be served by an hourly dmu shuttle.

This would have the added benefit of freeing up the bay platform at Manchester Oxford Road for a second CLC stopping service.

That's good on paper.

But (like it or not, and I cannot believe this is driving everything, frankly), "Southport to Castlefield directly" is going to be a sticking point, unless some very serious benefits of removing this connectivity can be demonstrated (particularly benefits to the good vocal folk of Southport). Or alternatively, it's just decided for them that they lose Castlefield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's good on paper.

But (like it or not, and I cannot believe this is driving everything, frankly), "Southport to Castlefield directly" is going to be a sticking point, unless some very serious benefits of removing this connectivity can be demonstrated (particularly benefits to the good vocal folk of Southport). Or alternatively, it's just decided for them that they lose Castlefield.

Ensuring the connection is of good quality would be a start. I'd go for 2tph of quality* connections over 1tph direct. However, I don't trust the UK railway to even slightly bother about that, and I can just see them being 29 minutes which is unacceptable.

The consultation should have included an indicative timetable - they'd have to draw one up to prove it was viable anyway.

* "Quality" means low interchange time (ideally 5 but definitely no more than 10 minutes**), same or cross-platform and reliability, i.e. regulating the service to ensure it doesn't miss, and dropping something else in e.g. additional calls if it does rather than leaving people standing for 29 minutes. An example of this is the connection that used to* exist from the 1816 Euston-Brum with the previous slow 1805 from Euston at Leighton Buzzard, which was quite popular as for operational reasons the slow would always wait at Ledburn. About 50 people used this daily, though post COVID the 1816 has a Bletchley call so it's no longer necessary.

** The proper ideal would be a two-island Salford Crescent where both trains would be there at the same time, enabling bi-directional interchange with no wait.

 

[Ianno87]

Ensuring the connection is of good quality would be a start. I'd go for 2tph of quality connections over 1tph direct. However, I don't trust the UK railway to even slightly bother about that, and I can just see them being 29 minutes which is unacceptable.

The consultation should have included an indicative timetable - they'd have to draw one up to prove it was viable anyway.

It would be interesting to see the actual timetable behind Option C.

Although putting a timetable out inevitably generates hundreds of responses along the lines of "my current train is 08:15 and now it's 08:07 so now I have to set my alarm earlier"; i.e. micro detail rather than the big picture. Or picking up on stuff that could still be refined with more development (I remember an ECML consultation being put out some years back, and everybody focusing on stuff like dwell times of Aberdeen services at Edinburgh getting longer dwell times, when subsequent development improved that anyway). Plus it "commits" specific timings leaving little room for maneuver later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be interesting to see the actual timetable behind Option C.

Although putting a timetable out inevitably generates hundreds of responses along the lines of "my current train is 08:15 and now it's 08:07 so now I have to set my alarm earlier"; i.e. micro detail rather than the big picture. Or picking up on stuff that could still be refined with more development (I remember an ECML consultation being put out some years back, and everybody focusing on stuff like dwell times of Aberdeen services at Edinburgh getting longer dwell times, when subsequent development improved that anyway). Plus it "commits" specific timings leaving little room for maneuver later.

Also true. The thing is, though, that I won't say a connection is acceptable unless I know its quality. As I said 5-10 minutes is acceptable (ideally nearer 5), 29 is absolutely not.

 

[tbtc]

Ideally what you'd probably do (if you ignore your real-ideal of both Southports to Vic) is you go for every 20 mins to Vic and just lay the Southport-Castlefield on top. 15-15-30 isn't really any better.

So, essentially, design a nice balanced timetable for north west England, but with the sacred Southport - Castlefield service being layed on top of all the balanced network of other services... sounds like your kind of thing!

(a twenty minute frequency would be a non-starter though, given that everything else through Manchester is moving to simple half hourly (Liverpool - Sheffield, Blackpool - Airport, Blackburn - Rochdale... apart from the CLC stoppers of course which can no longer be half hourly and have to be cut because there's no space at Oxford Road for them)

While this is a reasonable compromise, the introduction of electric trains on the Wigan NW-Bolton-Victoria-Stalybridge route in a few years could be used as an opportunity to undo the worst aspects of option B+, by running that service every 30 minutes, calling at the local stations between Bolton and Salford. The [diesel] Southport services could then be diverted via the non-electrified Atherton route to Victoria (and beyond). That would simplify operations and enhance reliability. The Kirkby-Wigan line could be served by an hourly dmu shuttle.

This would have the added benefit of freeing up the bay platform at Manchester Oxford Road for a second CLC stopping service.

Sounds much better than what we are going for - keeps the EMUs on a half hourly service, keeps the DMUs on a half hourly service, much simpler, much more resilient (scope to bounce back if things are delayed), doesn't mean that CLC passengers have to lose out as they will be doing under the worst aspects of B+... but, of course, the demands of one town scuppers all of that!

Ensuring the connection is of good quality would be a start. I'd go for 2tph of quality* connections over 1tph direct. However, I don't trust the UK railway to even slightly bother about that, and I can just see them being 29 minutes which is unacceptable

I don't know why you persist with this straw man "29 minute" connection at Salford - you'd never schedule services that close together at a station like that

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know why you persist with this straw man "29 minute" connection at Salford - you'd never schedule services that close together at a station like that

It was slightly sarcastic - in reality anything longer than 10 minutes would not be acceptable as you can walk across Manchester in about 15. My point was that you can't go "just change trains" to people without ensuring the quality of the connection and expect them not to kick off a pretty hefty campaign.

That said, the silly examples do happen. Before the through Scotland-Brum-Euston services were introduced, the connection between Scotland-Brum and Crewe-MKC (at Crewe) did miss, every hour, by about 58 minutes.

 

[cle]

So another Sutton loop or Rainham TL concession after something has been painstakingly untangled? Ridiculous.

Southport is not a major node of Greater Manchester - it's a Scouse seaside town. If we are overhauling the timetable to make operational sense, they can get what they are given. They have zero influence, other than bitching and local outrage - nor should they. Lucky to have a direct service at all, to another metro entirely.

 

[Starmill]

It's been speculated upon for some time that the 2tph on diesel between Wigan and Manchester via Atherton will end up serving Southport. This seems reasonable to me because then you could have (for example) Southport - Wigan Wallgate - Atherton - Manchester Victoria - Rochdale DMUs and Wigan - Bolton - Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge EMUs. Kirkby (Headbolt Lane) services can work from Wigan as two cars. This would make very significantly better use of the DMU fleet than is currently the case.

 

[Manutd1999]

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/g1277/Public%20reports%20pack%2009th-Mar-2022%2011.00%20Rail%20North%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Manchester & North West Transformation Programme

Network Rail are currently tendering for contractors to undertake design development work for two electrification schemes. The lucky lines concerned are Manchester to Rochdale and the CLC line (Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington). Public domain detailed here suggests early 2030 for...

www.railforums.co.uk

The latest information suggests that an all EMU service between Wigan and Stalybridge is indeed the ambition, once the electrification schemes have been completed (2024 ish).

To remind, the planned 'Option B+' for Dec 22 proposes:

1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge (bi-mode?)
1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Oxford Rd (bi-mode?)
2x Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Calder Valley (DMU)
1x Victoria - Stalybridge (DMU)

Perhaps this switches to:

2x Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge (EMU)
2x Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Calder Valley (DMU)

A much neater solution, but at the cost of another war with the Southport rail users.....

 

[Halish Railway]

A much neater solution, but at the cost of another war with the Southport rail users.....

I think you could get around that by having a 1tph Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Golborne-Castlefield-? service to kill two birds with one stone by solving the problem of how to serve Golborne and giving Southport direct Castlefield connectivity.

So I’d do the same as you except having this service and having one of the two Southport to Calder Valley via Atherton services start at Wigan Wallgate.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A much neater solution, but at the cost of another war with the Southport rail users.....

It's too bad I wasn't around for all the previous discussion in this thread but I'll make this point anyway. The heated discussion about Southport line services is actually very little to do with Southport. The main usage of the line is from Burscough Bridge eastwards with plenty of Manchester bound commuters from there onwards. Indeed pre-Covid during the annual commuting peak (November/December) the prime eastbound commuter runs regularly departed Wallgate full and standing even with 2x156. And yes a good proportion of them were going to jobs on the south side of Manchester. So yes, expect another "war" if such needs are blatantly ignored.

As for the points made upthread about needing to deal with the needs of purely the Manchester metro area how can such thinking possibly justify cutting stations in Greater Manchester from through services to the city centre ie Pemberton and Orrell which happen to be on the (current) Kirkby line. Any sort of decent strategic thinking will have to take account of the real likelihood of Skelmersdale being reconnected to the national rail network and service provision from there will need to be to both Liverpool and Manchester, otherwise we might just as well truncate the service west of Wigan at Orrell.

Ultimately it's the lack of through platforms at Picc/Vic that's the real problem, just 6 compared with Birmingham New Street's 12 (and Birmingham also has the Snow Hill line). I'm afraid Grayling's refusal to progress the Manchester/Northern hub has set back the cause of rail in the north-west many years.

 

[Greybeard33]

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/g1277/Public%20reports%20pack%2009th-Mar-2022%2011.00%20Rail%20North%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Manchester & North West Transformation Programme

Network Rail are currently tendering for contractors to undertake design development work for two electrification schemes. The lucky lines concerned are Manchester to Rochdale and the CLC line (Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington). Public domain detailed here suggests early 2030 for...

www.railforums.co.uk

The latest information suggests that an all EMU service between Wigan and Stalybridge is indeed the ambition, once the electrification schemes have been completed (2024 ish).

To remind, the planned 'Option B+' for Dec 22 proposes:

1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge (bi-mode?)
1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Oxford Rd (bi-mode?)
2x Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Calder Valley (DMU)
1x Victoria - Stalybridge (DMU)

Perhaps this switches to:

2x Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge (EMU)
2x Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Calder Valley (DMU)

A much neater solution, but at the cost of another war with the Southport rail users.....

The December 22 timetable, as consulted by Northern, is actually:
1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge
1x Victoria - Stalybridge (interworked with the Southport)
1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Oxford Rd
1x Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Brighouse - Leeds
1x Kirkby - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Todmorden - Blackburn
1x Wigan - Atherton - Victoria (peaks only).

The Southport services cannot all be 769s, as they total 9 diagrams, with the interworking at Stalybridge. Presumably 3 diagrams will be worked by 4-car 150s, with a daily turnout of 6 769s, as currently.

Post electrification, the Manchester Blueprint chart (download link https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/s4262/Appendix 1 Manchester Blueprint for Services and Infrastructure.pdf) has a "service improvement opportunity" box labelled:

Electrification Options
2024 or 2025
Options to reconfigure the train service to enable full electric operation. e.g.Wigan to Stalybridge all EMU.

This strongly suggests that the Task Force is considering 2tph EMU Wigan NW - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge. So then the diesel Southport and Kirkby services would have to use the Atherton line and/or terminate at Wallgate.

To try to mollify OPSTA happy, I guess one option might be:
1tph Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Oxford Road
1tph Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Brighouse - Leeds
1tph Kirkby - Wigan (- Atherton - Victoria peaks only)
1tph Victoria - Todmorden - Blackburn
Although with the December paths this would give uneven timings on the Atherton line.

Alternatively, it might be possible to go to 3tph all day on the Atherton line, if the proposed Victoria capacity improvements are completed in time. Enabling the Kirkby service to continue running through to Blackburn.

I think you could get around that by having a 1tph Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Golborne-Castlefield-? service to kill two birds with one stone by solving the problem of how to serve Golborne and givin

I think a Golborne service is more likely to be EMU from Wigan NW rather than DMU/769 from Southport. Not sure of the proposed timescale for the Golborne station?

 

[507020]

Perhaps this switches to:

2x Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge (EMU)
2x Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Calder Valley (DMU)

A much neater solution, but at the cost of another war with the Southport rail users.....

Such a horrific proposal is absolutely unworkable. Intermediate stations from Southport simply MUST have a direct service to Piccadilly on the south side of Manchester. This is not something that can be negotiated.

I think you could get around that by having a 1tph Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Golborne-Castlefield-? service to kill two birds with one stone by solving the problem of how to serve Golborne and giving Southport direct Castlefield connectivity.

This is quite a good solution. The only problem is where for 769s to do a power changeover. Southport has been accused of depriving the Golborne service of a path through Castlefield, so joining them rectifies this as well as providing Southport with a faster journey. It could also run through to the airport if Wigan otherwise loses its airport service when the Barrow/Windermeres are diverted via Bolton and Chorley. It should also stop at Eccles as well as Golborne when it opens, with Hindley and Westhoughton served by Wigan - Stalybridge EMUs.

It's too bad I wasn't around for all the previous discussion in this thread but I'll make this point anyway. The heated discussion about Southport line services is actually very little to do with Southport. The main usage of the line is from Burscough Bridge eastwards with plenty of Manchester bound commuters from there onwards. Indeed pre-Covid during the annual commuting peak (November/December) the prime eastbound commuter runs regularly departed Wallgate full and standing even with 2x156. And yes a good proportion of them were going to jobs on the south side of Manchester. So yes, expect another "war" if such needs are blatantly ignored.

As for the points made upthread about needing to deal with the needs of purely the Manchester metro area how can such thinking possibly justify cutting stations in Greater Manchester from through services to the city centre ie Pemberton and Orrell which happen to be on the (current) Kirkby line. Any sort of decent strategic thinking will have to take account of the real likelihood of Skelmersdale being reconnected to the national rail network and service provision from there will need to be to both Liverpool and Manchester, otherwise we might just as well truncate the service west of Wigan at Orrell.

Ultimately it's the lack of through platforms at Picc/Vic that's the real problem, just 6 compared with Birmingham New Street's 12 (and Birmingham also has the Snow Hill line). I'm afraid Grayling's refusal to progress the Manchester/Northern hub has set back the cause of rail in the north-west many years.

Exactly

The December 22 timetable, as consulted by Northern, is actually:
1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge
1x Victoria - Stalybridge (interworked with the Southport)
1x Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Oxford Rd
1x Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Brighouse - Leeds
1x Kirkby - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Todmorden - Blackburn
1x Wigan - Atherton - Victoria (peaks only).

The Southport services cannot all be 769s, as they total 9 diagrams, with the interworking at Stalybridge. Presumably 3 diagrams will be worked by 4-car 150s, with a daily turnout of 6 769s, as currently.

The present Southport - Bolton - Stalybridge/Alderley Edge service is 9 diagrams which can not all be covered by 769s. With the Alderley Edge portion split and run with 323s from the main shed at Piccadilly (as it should always have been) there should be a reduced number of diagrams. A Diesel Victoria - Stalybridge shouldn’t be run by a 769 so if this is interworked with the Southport, these diagrams should try and be kept as 150/156s. We also can’t rule out Northern receiving additional 769s from TfW if they aren’t withdrawn when they are replaced there.

This strongly suggests that the Task Force is considering 2tph EMU Wigan NW - Atherton - Victoria - Stalybridge. So then the diesel Southport and Kirkby services would have to use the Atherton line and/or terminate at Wallgate.

To try to mollify OPSTA happy, I guess one option might be:
1tph Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Oxford Road
1tph Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Brighouse - Leeds
1tph Kirkby - Wigan (- Atherton - Victoria peaks only)
1tph Victoria - Todmorden - Blackburn
Although with the December paths this would give uneven timings on the Atherton line.

Alternatively, it might be possible to go to 3tph all day on the Atherton line, if the proposed Victoria capacity improvements are completed in time. Enabling the Kirkby service to continue running through to Blackburn.

I’m sure you mean EMUs Wigan NW - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge

This is still suboptimal however due to crossing movements at Victoria. I believe before Chat Moss electrification that a Liverpool Lime Street - Stalybridge service was common, so perhaps when Rochdale is done it could revert to:
Wigan NW - Bolton - Victoria P5/6- Rochdale and
Lime St - Victoria P3/4 - Stalybridge

In May 2018 the Atherton line was supposed to go to 4tph all day so 3tph is more than doable. There are presently uneven timings between Wigan and Southport and these are required due to the signalling arrangement since the closures of New Lane and Bescar Lane boxes.

What is needed for capacity at Victoria is for an 802 not to sit occupying a platform for nearly half of every hour.

 

[daodao]

Perhaps this switches to:

2x Wigan - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge (EMU)
2x Southport - Wigan - Atherton - Victoria - Calder Valley (DMU)

A much neater solution,

I agree.

Such a horrific proposal is absolutely unworkable. Intermediate stations from Southport simply MUST have a direct service to Piccadilly on the south side of Manchester. This is not something that can be negotiated.

It is eminently "workable" and there is no MUST about rail service provision. It is much more important, particularly from a Greater Manchester perspective, to use the path into Oxford Road that has been allocated to a Southport service, to restore a regular half hourly stopping service to CLC stations east of Warrington Central, as these trains have no alternative Manchester terminating station.

This is still suboptimal however due to crossing movements at Victoria. ...... so perhaps when Rochdale is done it could revert to:
Wigan NW - Bolton - Victoria P5/6- Rochdale and
Lime St - Victoria P3/4 - Stalybridge

A sensible suggestion. I presume that you are referring to arrangements post Rochdale line electrification.

 

[Manutd1999]

I think you could get around that by having a 1tph Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Golborne-Castlefield

It's possible, but accessing Wallgate and Southport from the WCML is not ideal and you would also introduce a requirement for DMUs or Bi-modes for this route.

Longer term and if the infrastructure upgrades enable 3ph Manchester - Sheffield, Southport could perhaps be a candidate to get a Sheffield service instead (via Castlefield and Atherton)?

Indeed pre-Covid during the annual commuting peak (November/December) the prime eastbound commuter runs regularly departed Wallgate full and standing even with 2x156. And yes a good proportion of them were going to jobs on the south side of Manchester. So yes, expect another "war" if such needs are blatantly ignored.

It's a fair point, but many other commuter towns around Manchester with similar commuting needs do not have access to Castlefield (e.g. Rochdale and all Calder Valley stops, Blackburn). In ideal world, everywhere would probably have access to both Victoria and Castlefield but clearly that isn't possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the best solution to the Southport problem would be developing Salford Crescent properly as a quality interchange, with the signalling centre moved to allow for two 270m island platforms (allowing for e.g. double 397s) and all trains stopping in both directions, platform staff for the full period of service and indoor waiting and toilet facilities. Then it wouldn't matter if your train was for Picc or Vic, there'd always be a connection to the other in a few minutes.

Ideally, if possible, you'd timetable for a Picc and Vic train to arrive within a minute of each other, wait there two minutes for bi-directional cross platform interchange, then head to their respective terminus and vice versa.

People hate changing because it is usually badly provided for, and this is no exception. Nobody baulks at changing trains on the Tube or in Switzerland or the Netherlands.

I'd do this at Salford rather than Bolton because a change near your origin/destination is much less disruptive than one mid-way.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think you could get around that by having a 1tph Southport-Wigan Wallgate-Golborne-Castlefield-? service to kill two birds with one stone by solving the problem of how to serve Golborne and giving Southport direct Castlefield connectivity.

This is quite a good solution. The only problem is where for 769s to do a power changeover.

The 769 power changeover would have to be at Golborne station (assuming it is reopened) unless Wallgate were electrified (challenging because of the low bridge). But to get to Wallgate from Golborne, I believe it is necessary to run on the Down Goods line from Bamfurlong Jn to Wigan Station Jn. I doubt this would acceptable for a passenger service, which is why I think a Golborne service would terminate at Wigan North Western not Southport.

The present Southport - Bolton - Stalybridge/Alderley Edge service is 9 diagrams which can not all be covered by 769s. With the Alderley Edge portion split and run with 323s from the main shed at Piccadilly (as it should always have been) there should be a reduced number of diagrams. A Diesel Victoria - Stalybridge shouldn’t be run by a 769 so if this is interworked with the Southport, these diagrams should try and be kept as 150/156s. We also can’t rule out Northern receiving additional 769s from TfW if they aren’t withdrawn when they are replaced there.

Per the draft December 2022 timetable, the Southport - Oxford Road service will need 3 diagrams and the Southport - Stalybridge - Victoria - Stalybridge - Southport circuit will need 6 diagrams. I see no reason why the 769s will not be used on the latter, particularly since this provides the stopping service between Bolton and Salford Crescent, where the 769s on AC will outperform 15x units. The Oxford Road service is to run fast on the Bolton line and so it would be better for this one to be DMU-worked unless more 769s are acquired.

I’m sure you mean EMUs Wigan NW - Bolton - Victoria - Stalybridge

Oops! Corrected, thanks.

This is still suboptimal however due to crossing movements at Victoria. I believe before Chat Moss electrification that a Liverpool Lime Street - Stalybridge service was common, so perhaps when Rochdale is done it could revert to:
Wigan NW - Bolton - Victoria P5/6- Rochdale and
Lime St - Victoria P3/4 - Stalybridge

Possibly so, if Rochdale electrification goes ahead, but the topic of this thread is specifically the (already funded) Wigan - Bolton electrification.

In May 2018 the Atherton line was supposed to go to 4tph all day so 3tph is more than doable. There are presently uneven timings between Wigan and Southport and these are required due to the signalling arrangement since the closures of New Lane and Bescar Lane boxes.

The MRTF has decided that even 3tph (outside the peaks) on the Atherton line is not feasible with the current central Manchester infrastructure, which is why there are only 2tph in the draft December timetable. However, the Tranche 1 (2025) proposals in the Blueprint include a third platform at Salford Crescent and a west facing bay at Victoria, which hopefully might increase capacity sufficiently.

What is needed for capacity at Victoria is for an 802 not to sit occupying a platform for nearly half of every hour.

The current 15 minute dwells of 802s at Victoria, working Liverpool - Newcastle services, are a consequence of the temporary reduced TPE North timetable. Later this year TPE should hopefully have enough driver resource to revert from 2tph to 4tph between Victoria and Leeds, with normal dwells on the 2tph Liverpool services, so this issue is not relevant to the timeframe of this thread. The Newcastle service is to be cut back to Victoria, where it will layover in the Reversing Siding not a platform.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Agree wholeheartedly with the fact that Southport lot will have to learn to change at Salford Crescent or get a tram. Or walk to North Western in the mornings.

Its high time that lot learned it’s not all about them so that the CLC can be improved.

 

[Starmill]

Such a horrific proposal is absolutely unworkable. Intermediate stations from Southport simply MUST have a direct service to Piccadilly on the south side of Manchester. This is not something that can be negotiated.

It's uncertain if this response is tongue-in-cheek or serious, but just for the benefit of anyone reading it is worth noting that there will be no services from Southport to Manchester Piccadilly from December, only to Manchester Oxford Road.

 

[Purple Orange]

It's uncertain if this response is tongue-in-cheek or serious, but just for the benefit of anyone reading it is worth noting that there will be no services from Southport to Manchester Piccadilly from December, only to Manchester Oxford Road.

I note that the argument put forward for Southport retaining a direct link to Piccadilly related to access to employment. However I wonder if the Victoria lino was removed, would the same argument be put forward? For those that don't know Manchester very well, if you were wanting to access the most significant areas of the city's employment areas, it would be Spinningfields, NOMA and the central area surrounding the town hall, King Street and St. Peters Sq. For that central zone, any station will do. For Spinningfields and NOMA, you really want Salford Central and Victoria. The Southport question is one that has never made sense to me.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think the best solution to the Southport problem would be developing Salford Crescent properly as a quality interchange, with the signalling centre moved to allow for two 270m island platforms (allowing for e.g. double 397s) and all trains stopping in both directions, platform staff for the full period of service and indoor waiting and toilet facilities. Then it wouldn't matter if your train was for Picc or Vic, there'd always be a connection to the other in a few minutes.

Ideally, if possible, you'd timetable for a Picc and Vic train to arrive within a minute of each other, wait there two minutes for bi-directional cross platform interchange, then head to their respective terminus and vice versa.

People hate changing because it is usually badly provided for, and this is no exception. Nobody baulks at changing trains on the Tube or in Switzerland or the Netherlands.

I'd do this at Salford rather than Bolton because a change near your origin/destination is much less disruptive than one mid-way.

AIUI the Manchester Blueprint proposal for Salford Crescent is much more modest. Just a third platform on the existing Up Bolton line, which is currently a relief line (the existing island is sandwiched between the Down Bolton and the Up and Down Bolton lines, which are both bidirectional).

The Windsor Bridge North junction layout does not permit a train from the Up Atherton to get to the Up Bolton, so a change to a Castlefield-bound service might require crossing a footbridge from the island to the new platform. But if both Southport services use the Atherton line, to clear the Westhoughton line for 2tph EMUs from Wigan North Western, changing at Bolton instead will no longer be a viable option.

The existing platforms are only 158m and 153m, squeezed in between the two Windsor Bridge Junctions. No chance of fitting 270m platforms into the current station location.

 

[adrock1976]

My suggestion is as follows:

2x Southport - Leeds via Atherton, Victoria, and either Brighouse or Halifax (DMU/bimode)
2x Wigan North Western - Rochdale via Bolton and Victoria (EMU)
1 or 2x Wigan Wallgate - Kirkby/Headbolt Lane (until transferred to Merseyrail)
2x Blackburn (1 each from Clitheroe and Colne) - Blackburn via Bolton, Victoria, Todmorden, and Burnley Manchester Road (DMU)
2x Blackpool North - Man Airport via Chorley, Bolton, and Castlefield limited stop (EMU)
2x Wigan Wallgate (or NW) - Airport via Atherton and Castlefield (bimode)
1x Preston (or Blackpool North/Lancaster/Barrow) - Man Airport via Wigan NW, Golborne, and Castlefield (also calls Eccles for interchange with Manchester Metrolink) (EMU/bimode). This will run in the opposite half hour to the Glasgow/Edinburgh - Airport routed via Wigan if possible to do so.
2x Preston - Victoria via Bolton (all stations) (EMU)
2x Warrington Central - Man Airport local all stations (EMU/bimode). Possible interworking with Airport - Rochdale.*
2x Airport - Rochdale via Ordsall Curve local all stations (EMU/bimode). Possible interworking with Warrington Central - Airport.*

Connections available at Salford Crescent depending which of Victoria or Castlefield is the destination.

In summary:
4tph via Atherton
10tph via Bolton
8tph Victoria
10tph Castlefield (including WAC - MIA and MIA - Rochdale)

Note there is an additional 2x Liverpool - Sheffield.

*Post HS2/NPR, the Merseyrail Southport - Hunts Cross extended to Warrington Central calling all stations every 15 minutes.