Jump to content
 

Transpennine Electrification : Manchester/Leeds


Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Long way way off 2024, but my guess is every 30 mins Wigan to Stalybridge, 6-car 323's. Every 30mins Southport - Oxford road 4-car 769. All via Bolton.  Hourly Southport - Leeds, and hourly Southport Rochdale via Atherton, all 4-car. We will see how correct I am! Kev.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, kevpeo said:

Long way way off 2024, but my guess is every 30 mins Wigan to Stalybridge, 6-car 323's. Every 30mins Southport - Oxford road 4-car 769. All via Bolton.  Hourly Southport - Leeds, and hourly Southport Rochdale via Atherton, all 4-car. We will see how correct I am! Kev.

Quite how you will prise the 323s away from Cheshire I don't know - they tried it with the 319s, didn't go down well in Wilmslow and those people from Hadfield and Glossop do like their 323s too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
30 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Quite how you will prise the 323s away from Cheshire I don't know - they tried it with the 319s, didn't go down well in Wilmslow and those people from Hadfield and Glossop do like their 323s too.

Aren't they getting the ones from West Mids.

 

Jamie

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What puzzles me is given that most services on this line run through Wallgate, what's the benefit of electrification of the line?

 

Would this be considered a diversionary route if the line between Lostock Junction and Preston were blocked?

 

But more electrification is a good thing.

 

Regards,

 

John P

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jpendle said:

What puzzles me is given that most services on this line run through Wallgate, what's the benefit of electrification of the line?

 

Would this be considered a diversionary route if the line between Lostock Junction and Preston were blocked?

 

But more electrification is a good thing.

 

Regards,

 

John P

I would guess it is infilling the gaps - Southport next I would imagine and if they did Kirby & Walkden too it would eliminate most diesels west out of Victoria.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The only other infills would be Preston to Ormskirk and the Blackpool South line. That would only leave Preston to Colne and Copy Pit plus the Bolton to Blackburn.  I suspect that the Calder Valley will get done eventually.

 

Does anyone have any photos of progress on the Colton to Church Fenton route.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

The only other infills would be Preston to Ormskirk and the Blackpool South line. That would only leave Preston to Colne and Copy Pit plus the Bolton to Blackburn.  I suspect that the Calder Valley will get done eventually.

 

Does anyone have any photos of progress on the Colton to Church Fenton route.

 

Jamie

 

Calder Valley would make more sense than many, but it would severely reduce my enjoyment when watching the line on my visits to Hebden Bridge!

 

However,  that may make it possible to run a large number of electric freights, given the number that pass through with 66's etc, with last mile capability for many.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

The only other infills would be Preston to Ormskirk and the Blackpool South line. That would only leave Preston to Colne and Copy Pit plus the Bolton to Blackburn.  

 

Colne isn't an infill - it wants filling in....

And if those get done, then the Clitheroe line should be a shoe-in.

 

Ultimately extending north to Hellifield to meet an already electrified  (by then) S&C route.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This is all getting a bit fanciful; electrification is justified by traffic frequency or by eliminating very small pockets of diesel traction. 

I would like to see much more electrification in West Yorkshire around Leeds, taking place now.  The UK is throwing away EMUs with years of life left which could be used to spread the cost of electrification; infrastructure now, new rolling stock deferred for perhaps 10 years, just as the Leeds-Bradford/Ilkley/Skipton scheme did in the 1990s.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jpendle said:

What puzzles me is given that most services on this line run through Wallgate, what's the benefit of electrification of the line?

 

Would this be considered a diversionary route if the line between Lostock Junction and Preston were blocked?

There are several services that terminate at Wigan and could be converted to EMU, using the bay platforms at North Western to delay the question of how to deal with the low bridge under Wallgate (the street) needed to access Wallgate (the station).  There are also 769 bi-mode units running the Southport service at present, which could run on electric for longer, and/or judicious timetable rearrangement to run through diesel service beyond Wigan via the Atherton line so that more trains via Bolton terminated at Wigan and could be EMUs.  

 

If diversion is needed there is always the route via Parkside curve, which also avoids any problems in the Bolton area, though it needs to use the WCML for a longer distance.  So I doubt the scope for a second diversionary route adds much benefit into the business case.  

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

The only other infills would be Preston to Ormskirk and the Blackpool South line. That would only leave Preston to Colne and Copy Pit plus the Bolton to Blackburn.  I suspect that the Calder Valley will get done eventually.

 

Does anyone have any photos of progress on the Colton to Church Fenton route.

 

Jamie

I think Liverpool to Manchester via the CLC route would have a better case than these or Kirkby or Southport.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

 

I think Liverpool to Manchester via the CLC route would have a better case than these or Kirkby or Southport.  

 

Thats a given!

 

I think some people are running away with themselves here - the twigs from Wigan to Southport and Kirkby pale into insignificance compared to the main trans-pennine routes or the MML in terms of passenger revenue / frequency.

 

Another consideration is that with Bolton and Wigan already having 25KV it is possible that there will be no need for any new national grid feeders (just a case of upgrading what already exists) and as such this particular 'infill' is relatively cheap to do.

 

As for the future of the Kirby and Southport lines, bi-mode traction is far more likely than electrification!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

 

If diversion is needed there is always the route via Parkside curve, which also avoids any problems in the Bolton area, though it needs to use the WCML for a longer distance.  So I doubt the scope for a second diversionary route adds much benefit into the business case.  

 

 

The Treasury BCR calculations are quite clear, 'Diversionary routing' can play no part in the BCR decision as by their nature the need for such a route is limited to a few weeks a year.

 

Consequently the fact that a new piece of electrification may happen to be useful in diversionary terms is a mere co-incidence and forms no part of the business case for electrification schemes any more than weather related closures at Dawlish are with respect to reopening the LSWR route

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

There are several services that terminate at Wigan and could be converted to EMU, using the bay platforms at North Western to delay the question of how to deal with the low bridge under Wallgate (the street) needed to access Wallgate (the station). 

Yes, it is a bit of a squeeze! I would have thought that the only option to get wires to Wallgate would be to lower the track bed, but then that'd mean even more of a gradient to get in and out.

Raising the bridge would  presumably entail demolishing every property in the terrace that sits on top of it on the East side.

 

Regards,

 

John P

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jpendle said:

Yes, it is a bit of a squeeze! I would have thought that the only option to get wires to Wallgate would be to lower the track bed, but then that'd mean even more of a gradient to get in and out.

Raising the bridge would  presumably entail demolishing every property in the terrace that sits on top of it on the East side.

 

Regards,

 

John P

Insulation on the underside of the bridge or overgrown neutral section!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mark Saunders said:

Insulation on the underside of the bridge or overgrown neutral section!

I am definitely no expert on OHLE, but wouldn't a neutral section be a bit problematic for eastbound trains, having stopped at Wallgate and then having to climb the gradient after the bridge?

I assumed that electrics coasted through neutral sections?

 

John P

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thats a given!

 

I think some people are running away with themselves here - the twigs from Wigan to Southport and Kirkby pale into insignificance compared to the main trans-pennine routes or the MML in terms of passenger revenue / frequency.

 

Another consideration is that with Bolton and Wigan already having 25KV it is possible that there will be no need for any new national grid feeders (just a case of upgrading what already exists) and as such this particular 'infill' is relatively cheap to do.

 

As for the future of the Kirby and Southport lines, bi-mode traction is far more likely than electrification!

 

Could Merseyrail not be cajoled in to extending their 3rd rail to Upholland, then Wigan to Upholland would be an easy 25KV shoe-in with no need for a substation for such a short distance. Upholland could then become Skelmersdale Parkway! It would be a much better place to run the busses to rather than Wigan and Ormskirk.

 

It is not like Kirkby is a meaningful destination from either Manchester or Liverpool - it just happens to be at some municipal boundary I guess.

 

I would guess that Preston to Ormskirk would not need a substation either for 25KV.

 

At Wigan moving the Wallgate platforms to be adjacent to Northwestern would offer some scope for lowering the track under the bridge at the same time and make a much more sensible interchange station out of the sorry mess.

 

Making the Wallgate lines accessible by simple cross-platform interchange at Wigan, a bus connection to Skelmersdale from Upholland, and extending the Merseyrail to Upholland would significantly increase the ridership all round by providing facilities that are actually useable. Walking half way round Wigan, changing trains at Kirkby, and the mile or so walk from Upholland station to anywhere (including Upholland!) are all the sort of things that put people off.

 

I suspect that the Southport line will be able to justify electrification if destinations other than just Manchester Victoria can be found, and EMUs with smarter acceleration can reduce the journey time a bit on all-stopping services.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

This is all getting a bit fanciful; electrification is justified by traffic frequency or by eliminating very small pockets of diesel traction. 

 

 

Quite possibly.

But the day will probably come when no new-build diesels will be allowed.

And I guess that would also include hybrids with part-fossil fuel power.

 

There's only so long that "heritage" traction will be justified.

 

Although that would be many years from now.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Insulation and surge arrestors as used in Cardiff could be an option for Wallgate, though I think the bridge itself will probably need sorting out before too long - I seem to recall it's propped up.  Lowering the track would be difficult as the station platform would also need adjustment, particularly at the end where the steps and buildings are.  Given that there are terminating platforms available at North Western that can be accessed without blocking the WCML main lines, I can see why that issue has been ducked.  

 

The Kirkby line is complicated by the issue of a proposed branch to Skelmersdale.  The most sensible option would probably be for this to have a triangular junction and become the terminus from both Liverpool and Manchester, but if it's built at all something cheaper might be favoured instead.  Also the new Merseyrail units have provision for onboard batteries, so extension of the third rail might be avoided.  

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The Treasury BCR calculations are quite clear, 'Diversionary routing' can play no part in the BCR decision as by their nature the need for such a route is limited to a few weeks a year.

 

Consequently the fact that a new piece of electrification may happen to be useful in diversionary terms is a mere co-incidence and forms no part of the business case for electrification schemes any more than weather related closures at Dawlish are with respect to reopening the LSWR route

 

Which to my mind is yet another little example of the Government's implicit anti-electrification stance because it is a long established fact that rail travellers don't like bus replacements.  Revenue is lost indirectly through bus replacements and survey after survey shows passengers would rather have a diverted train, and the more electrified diversionary routes there are the more likely it is that they can be used to avoid bus replacements.  A bad bus experience puts passengers off and thus has a revenue effect.  It might not be much in the general scheme of things but it is not nothing. 

 

I have no doubt if the WCML were being electrified today the various diversionary routes around the West Midlands wouldn't get a look in, however the number of times they have made the difference over the years between just service disruption and complete meltdown must be off the charts.      

 

Every Government in the world except one thinks electrification is a no brainer.  The irony being the one that doesn't spends far more time than most spouting off on climate change.  You simply couldn't make it up. 

Edited by DY444
  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...