Wigan to Bolton electrification officially given go ahead

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think you're confusing the currently in progress project with the remaining gap to bridge to reach Leeds, which is what the question was regarding.

Yes, I was.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Or CLC Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester?

I'm biassed, but this section remining un-wired after the Chat-Moss was done, must be one of the craziest decisions ever made as its a diversionary route that is about the same distance.

I know you have to draw a line somewhere when planning/costing projects, but in my opinion, not wiring this section was like redecorating your hall and landing, but leaving-out the stairs.

 

[Bald Rick]

Getting picky here "two-level crossings." - there's a foot crossing west of Westhoughton but there's not a second crossing anywhere between Wigan and Lostock Jct.

The 2nd crossing was closed years ago

It might be closed on the ground, but officially it’s still open and needs formal closure. That costs money.

Network Rail had a "no regrets" list, I don't know if this line was on it.

It was.

 

[prod_pep]

I'm biassed, but this section remining un-wired after the Chat-Moss was done, must be one of the craziest decisions ever made as its a diversionary route that is about the same distance.

I know you have to draw a line somewhere when planning/costing projects, but in my opinion, not wiring this section was like redecorating your hall and landing, but leaving-out the stairs.

Fully agreed. This was one of those decisions I couldn't believe at the time and it doesn't make any more sense now.

With the impending arrival of additional 323s from Birmingham, one could hardly imagine a more suitable route for these units.

 

[507020]

Fully agreed. This was one of those decisions I couldn't believe at the time and it doesn't make any more sense now.

With the impending arrival of additional 323s from Birmingham, one could hardly imagine a more suitable route for these units.

The CLC line is now a Diesel island, but they probably want to run a battery 777 to Liverpool Central or Southport.

 

[Efini92]

Presumably a train stationary in a platform contributes more to delaying the trains behind it than does a train moving along a track. Especially if the platform is at a major station where a lot of journeys start or finish. One track feeding two platforms alternately seems an efficient arrangement to me.

Under normal circumstances yes but when you’ve got Piccadilly throat at one end and castlefield at the other it doesn’t work.

 

[plugwash]

I'm biassed, but this section remining un-wired after the Chat-Moss was done, must be one of the craziest decisions ever made as its a diversionary route that is about the same distance.

I know you have to draw a line somewhere when planning/costing projects, but in my opinion, not wiring this section was like redecorating your hall and landing, but leaving-out the stairs.

Electrifying diversion routes only makes sense if you have long distance pure electric (not bi-mode) routes that are important enough to be diverted rather than cancelled.

The only pure electric (not bi-mode) trains on Liverpool to Manchester are the Northern services from Manchester airport. Which I suspect would be cancelled rather than diverted in the event the chat moss line was closed even if the CLC was electrified. The CLC crosses the WCML without a junction, so it couldn't be used as a diversion route for liverpool to London/scotland trains even if it was electrified.

 

[Elecman]

Most of the overbridges look very small on the OS 1:50k and 1:25k maps. The only ones that look like majorish roads are

the M61, which will undoubtedly have adequate headroom but may need its parapets raised

A6 Manchester Road

B6236 Church Street (at Westhoughton station)

Hall Lane/ Ladies Lane (at Hindley station)

Ince Green Lane (at Ince station)

Has LDECRexile been heard from in the last year?

The M61 Bridge has had its parapets dealt with already ( interestingly the M61 bridge over the Chorley line near Horwich Parkway has not had any parapets at all an& is totally non compliant, I do wonder if Highways England did the wrong bridge at the time ??).

 

[Watershed]

I'm sure TPE used to run 8 car trains to scotland sometimes when they had the 350s, did those run through oxford road without stopping? or were they shorter cars that could squeeze in.

They were indeed shorter carriages (20 vs 23m) but it was far from ideal, with only the doors in the front portion opening, and the back half overhanging the end of the platform.

6 carriages is the longest that is likely to be needed (or possible) for quite some time - certainly on commuter routes like Wigan-Manchester - so this seems a perfectly sensible decision to me.

 

[Gathursty]

Speaking as a Wiganer, this is exciting!

Obviously Kirkby* and Southport line users may whinge and say electrify us too but that can wait.

*I want Merseyrail to operate the Kirkby line and Skelmersdale branch in full but that's for another thread.

 

[Kenni]

What is 100% needed is the platforms re-built on the Hindley lines at Lostock! It will give the people of Lostock and surrounding areas a direct connection with the wcml instead of having to change at Bolton.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Electrifying diversion routes only makes sense if you have long distance pure electric (not bi-mode) routes that are important enough to be diverted rather than cancelled.

The only pure electric (not bi-mode) trains on Liverpool to Manchester are the Northern services from Manchester airport. Which I suspect would be cancelled rather than diverted in the event the chat moss line was closed even if the CLC was electrified. The CLC crosses the WCML without a junction, so it couldn't be used as a diversion route for liverpool to London/scotland trains even if it was electrified.

Electrifying ANY route makes sense if you are serious about cleaning-up diesel emissions (which are particularly nasty, try P12 at New St next to a ticking-over Voyager for 30 seconds).

Its also a rather handy diversion if you need to run Liverpool-Manchester services with EMU's

 

[edwin_m]

Wonder who thought this line was more worthy of wiring than Leeds - Church Fenton?

Or CLC Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester?

I'm biassed, but this section remining un-wired after the Chat-Moss was done, must be one of the craziest decisions ever made as its a diversionary route that is about the same distance.

I know you have to draw a line somewhere when planning/costing projects, but in my opinion, not wiring this section was like redecorating your hall and landing, but leaving-out the stairs.

At the time this was first seriously proposed (early 2010s) there were no bi-modes.

Assuming no change to service pattern, Leeds to Colton Junction (including Church Fenton) wouldn't have allowed any diesel mileage to be converted to electric because all the trains using it continued onto non-electrified lines beyond Leeds or York. Possibly the stopping service could have been converted to EMU, but would have needed another path to be found along with terminating capacity both ends.

Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester would have allowed the stopping services to be converted to EMU, but these only ran (as they still do) between Oxford Road and Lime Street. At the time the two fast trains were the Liverpool-Norwich and the Liverpool-Scarborough (I think - certainly a TPE), neither of which could run as EMU.

On the other hand Bolton-Wigan would allow trains all the way to Manchester and beyond to be converted to EMU, especially if the Southport DMUs were routed via Atherton as discussed above. So in terms of DMU mileage replaced by EMU relative to miles electrified, which was the metric for prioritising routes in the 2009 electrification strategy, Bolton-Wigan scored more highly than the other two.

The Chat Moss was electrified as part of a strategy to electrify the entire Transpennine route to from Liverpool to York, with the trains running via Victoria. Electrifying Bolton to Wigan (along with Manchester to Bolton and Wigan to Huyton) creates a diversionary route for Chat Moss. Creating a second diversionary route would add almost nothing to the benefits in the business case, especially with access only possible via Piccadilly.

 

[Starmill]

What is 100% needed is the platforms re-built on the Hindley lines at Lostock! It will give the people of Lostock and surrounding areas a direct connection with the wcml instead of having to change at Bolton.

This was a proposal included in the 2008 Transport Innovation Fund referendum.

The Fund was, of course, rejected, so most of it's public transport improvements had to be delayed while funding was found elsewhere, or simply abandoned such as this idea.

 

[Ianno87]

What is 100% needed is the platforms re-built on the Hindley lines at Lostock! It will give the people of Lostock and surrounding areas a direct connection with the wcml instead of having to change at Bolton.

Lostock was my local station for many years (and still is for my Mum), and I'm not sure what Wigan line platforms are really for. Of course it's handy for local journeys to Wigan, but Lostock has WCML connections at Piccadilly and Preston already.

Then do you:
-Use the platforms to increase service at Lostock to 4tph or more (with a mix of Wigan and Preston services), in which case you risk people driving to Lostock instead of the better facilities straight off the M61 at Horwich, or
-You use calls in Wigan trains to replace some calls in Preston services, in which case Lostock sees no benefits.

 

[WatcherZero]

Is there a bye-election due in Bolton or Wigan?

Announcing a transport scheme in the Shadow Foreign Secretary's constituency during the middle of a foreign policy crisis....
I am sure its purely co-incidental.

 

[childwallblues]

Electrifying diversion routes only makes sense if you have long distance pure electric (not bi-mode) routes that are important enough to be diverted rather than cancelled.

The only pure electric (not bi-mode) trains on Liverpool to Manchester are the Northern services from Manchester airport. Which I suspect would be cancelled rather than diverted in the event the chat moss line was closed even if the CLC was electrified. The CLC crosses the WCML without a junction, so it couldn't be used as a diversion route for liverpool to London/scotland trains even if it was electrified.

There was actually a connection from the Warrington Central direction on to the WCML going north in the past.

 

[NorthWestRover]

That must have been a very long time ago.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Leeds-Church Fenton doesn't do very much for the overall network, it just moves the class 802 bi-mode switch point 5 miles nearer Leeds.
Lostock-Wigan does at least close a wiring gap and convert more end-to-end services to electric working.
It was probably the cheapest scheme on the table, and with the least complicated planning implications for other services.
Network Rail had a "no regrets" list, I don't know if this line was on it.
It had also been announced previously (but so had MML, TP, electric spine, Bristol/Oxford etc).
From other announcements I rather thought a few short freight links would be first in the queue (eg at Acton, connecting the GW network to everything else).

On the last update of the RNEP this scheme was showing as waiting to develop so its shot up the list compared to other projects but that was two years ago.

 

[snowball]

That must have been a very long time ago.

It's there on old maps up to the early 1970s. I didn't know about it before.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

£78M for 13 (track) miles is conveniently £6m/stm, (£3.76M/stkm) which may be a rounded estimate not a calculated cost.

17 bridges to fix is a lot for 6.19 route miles but the cost includes for quite a lot more that a basic BR 1980's electrification. I expect NR/GBR will deliver on time and under budget as a showpiece.

Very good news.

WAO

Ludicrous cost even more expensive than GWR surprised this has been authorised so is it politically motivated?

This line could be shut for 3 months and blitzed to get cost effective delivery but if they are prepared to deliver at this stkm rate bodes well for other schemes.

 

[Ianno87]

Ludicrous cost even more expensive than GWR surprised this has been authorised so is it politically motivated?

This line could be shut for 3 months and blitzed to get cost effective delivery but if they are prepared to deliver at this stkm rate bodes well for other schemes.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion upthread about the likely ground conditions in the area.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion upthread about the likely ground conditions in the area.

That wouldn't drive the costs up to 6m/stkm - this doesn't need a NG connection nor does it have a Famworth Tunnel but hey ho they've authorised it so its progress and as I say maybe it shows that govt is prepared to go beyond the 1.5m/stkm that RIAs set as benchmark for complex schemes so we will see movement on the likes of MML.

 

[Gathursty]

Will there be an electrification stub at Crows Nest Junction towards Daisy Hill for a couple of metres?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Announcing a transport scheme in the Shadow Foreign Secretary's constituency during the middle of a foreign policy crisis....
I am sure its purely co-incidental.

ah ha the penny drops

 

[Ianno87]

Will there be an electrification stub at Crows Nest Junction towards Daisy Hill for a couple of metres?

Almost certainly a run-off towards Daisy Hill to guard against de-wirements caused by a driver taking a wrong route.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Will there be an electrification stub at Crows Nest Junction towards Daisy Hill for a couple of metres?

Almost certainly a run-off towards Daisy Hill to guard against de-wirements caused by a driver taking a wrong route.

Absolutely agreed - also helps the business case when that bit gets done too.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion upthread about the likely ground conditions in the area.

Indeed. Expect more auger bit and pile and concrete back pour - and/or huge gravity pads rather than straight piling.

 

[Gathursty]

Almost certainly a run-off towards Daisy Hill to guard against de-wirements caused by a driver taking a wrong route.

Thanks. Just trying to think of why the electrification costs are so high for the line. Only other thing I can think of is maybe the Borsdane Wood embankment might need sorting out for the piling.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks. Just trying to think of why the electrification costs are so high for the line. Only other thing I can think of is maybe the Borsdane Wood embankment might need sorting out for the piling.

Part will be as I say in the post above yours - wont all be piles- I guarantee quite a few will need to be auger drilled, concrete poured or even piled and back pour - and there will definitely be need for some mother-of-all-gravity pads.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Almost certainly a run-off towards Daisy Hill to guard against de-wirements caused by a driver taking a wrong route.

signallers set the wrong route in the first place though