But that's not what the people in power want. It's all about funnelling people into the biggest city possible. If a railway is built, it'll go via the Ormskirk line, but you'll have to interchange at say Maghull North to get to Ormskirk.
-
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!
Skelmersdale station proposals & suggestions
- Thread starter Corriman
- 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
That would be Manchester then. Via Wigan.
Manchester is an important destination on this line but there are also other busy centres, the dense population of Lancashire being distributed over many sizable towns and settlements forming a network, which this railway should aim to serve.
Remember this line was originally the "Liverpool and Bury Railway"
WAO
Remember this line was originally the "Liverpool and Bury Railway"
WAO
childwallblues
Established Member
I had heard that too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The problem, fundamentally, is that it's a traffic source, not a traffic sink, and the proposed station site isn't really near where anyone lives (nor even that close to the Concourse - it's about 500m across a small park type area which likely wouldn't feel safe at night). Milton Keynes Central was only really justified because it's a big regional destination. Add to that the presence of the M58 for a clear run to Maghull North (which will itself have reduced the business case)...
From many of the comments it seems that extending Merseyrail to Wigan and providing Skem with a decent bus service to link, with integrated ticketing, the housing estates to a Merseyrail station is probably almost better, and cheaper, than the proposal which has been turned down.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes. But can we actually do it? What is needed is effectively a permanent RRB in the railway timetable and ticketing system. The RailLinks of the early 2000s weren't quite that.
It's perfectly possible to do it, see the Isle of Wight ferry connections. The question is the political will.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There's a thread on how that's going
But yes, in principle.
Yep. Really, West Lancashire (all of it, possibly even including Wigan which slightly falsely sits in Greater Manchester, but certainly Ormskirk, Skem and surrounds) needs to be in the Liverpool City Region and the Merseytravel area. If it was, I would be astonished if there was not already such a service.
I do think the Lancashire unitary proposals miss a trick in not doing this (plus the "Bay Authority" proposal which has also been ignored despite having great strengths).
I wonder if someone who knows both places will confirm, there seems to be some similarity between Skelmersdale and Thamesmead. Both large 1960s new town developments with no rail connection (apart from Upholland and Abbey Wood, respectively, on the fringes), I understand there is a campaign, if not actual plans, to extend the DLR to Thamesmead. If that hasn't materialised, in the south-east, what hope does Skem have in the not-even-red-wall northwest?
But ideally what Skem needs is a DLR-type link between Ormskirk and Upholland, serving all the areas of the new town that the recently dismissed proposals would have missed.
But ideally what Skem needs is a DLR-type link between Ormskirk and Upholland, serving all the areas of the new town that the recently dismissed proposals would have missed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Much as when I was a kid I came up with all sorts of infeasible ideas for reinstating Ormskirk-Skem I think demand on this corridor is such that bus is absolutely fine. It's also fairly useful in that it operates as a through Southport-Ormskirk-Skem-Wigan service, and it probably doesn't really need rail integration any more than any other similar regional bus route.
Skem is like Milton Keynes in having uncongested high* speed urban roads, and so bus is going to be the best way to provide urban public transport. It is a shame it doesn't have a Runcorn style busway, but the roads aren't busy so you could cover most of it with 3 circular routes - maybe run a cloverleaf pattern so everywhere has a direct service to everywhere (albeit slowly). I don't know what it actually does have other than the through Southport/Wigan service, but if it has anything it'll almost certainly be something like that.
Edit: it's mostly regional bus services with some short journeys within Skem only. Notably the only service to Liverpool is via Ormskirk, half hourly, so you could connect to rail there and save a bit of time (or stick with bus and save money) but it's not ideal. Last bus from Liverpool is 1800 which is useless - not even late enough for retail work, and must be contributory to unemployment as a result.
* Mostly 40mph unlike MK, though the style of the roads is similar.
Last edited:
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Would the rail freight facility at Knowsley be a problem for extending Merseyrail to Wigan? There are probably one or two other bits of Merseyrail that also see freight on occasion, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
If the proposal that was rejected doesn't pass muster, then a crayon-y route linking with the Ormskirk line definitely won't.
If the proposal that was rejected doesn't pass muster, then a crayon-y route linking with the Ormskirk line definitely won't.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A battery extension to Preston which would involve the WCML is also under consideration, I doubt the freight would cause as many challenges as that!
Skem to Ormskirk is definitely in the "not happening" bracket. Demand isn't high enough and bus provides for it perfectly well (3 buses per hour I think, 2 Liverpools and a Southport).
Not to mention that there is a housing estate on the old trackbed at Westhead.
The other difference relative to MK is that the Southern (now) city has a spine railway with no less than three stations serving its dispersed suburbs. The abortive Skelmersdale Station would not have been much use to Digmoor, Ashurst or Old Skelmersdale districts, IMHO.
WAO
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It wouldn't really have been any use to any of the residential areas, unlike Wolverton and Bletchley. Most are away from the Concourse. People would probably have driven there, but then they can drive to Maghull North. The one mode that not having a station actually in Skem affects is cycling, but if Merseyrail was extended to Wigan then Rainford could do that, or a replacement station and P&R at Pimbo.
Only small areas of Digmoor and Tanhouse are really near enough to walk to it, but many wouldn't due to the isolated and unsafe-feeling walkways. (For some reason Skem's walkways feel a lot less safe than MK's, even though MK has some areas which are similarly "rough" to much of Skem).
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I've never been to Milton Keynes (I've changed from a rail replacement bus to a train at MK Central station, and driven around the edge once or twice) but I worked in Skem for a while when living in Ormskirk. The main difference between the two so far as I can tell (other than size and topography) is that Milton Keynes does have a sort of 'town centre', whereas Skelmersdale has The Concourse and that's about it. Well, that and the main line railway conveniently nearby in the case of MK.
Skem is sort of isolated, with a mostly Liverpudlian-rooted population but not considered part of Merseyside. Not being part of Greater Manchester which does include nearby Wigan means that there's no TfGM support either. A classic "falling between two stools" situation. Not that PTE funding is a magic bullet, of course.
I agree that Skelmersdale isn't a great place for walking any sort of distance, even cycling is tough for the less experienced user (or at least was back in the 2000s) not just because of the hills, but due to fear of anti-social behaviour or other crime. The place had a sense of foreboding in many areas, probably at least in part due to this isolation and the economic deprivation that comes along with it. The "rough areas" in MK are the exception, in Skem they seem to be the rule.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it was that much different in terms of the centre. CMK is on a different layout and much bigger, but both are essentially a shopping centre and a bit of other business (e.g. in Skem the Co-op Bank offices). MK has been more successful in terms of the office space also there by being in the South East and being much bigger.
New Towns generally have that style of centre - basically an out of town shopping centre in the middle that acts as a town/city centre.
MKC was not part of the original plan - they were going to rename Wolverton and Bletchley to "MK North" and "MK South" and leave it at that. The need for MKC was more about the amount of inbound travel, which is surprisingly high. Commuters could always have driven (and most do drive, though there's some cycling and walking) to one of the other two.
Of course if Skem had been built a bit further south (encompassing Rainford, say) and centred on the railway, I don't doubt Merseyrail would already have been extended to a new "Skelmersdale Central". But back then it was genuinely believed people would live wholly within the town and only go out occasionally. But I think to an extent MK made a mistake here as well - the shopping centre is up a huge hill from the station, which is therefore not used for many local journeys at all. The centre should really probably have straddled the railway. But views were the same - people will live and work within the town. Many do, of course, but not everyone.
Telford probably got it closer to right.
4 bph - 2 Liverpools and 2 Southport (375 and 385).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Ah, cheers, I'd missed that the latter was under two different numbers.
As mentioned above I've "studied" Ormskirk to Skem in quite some depth as a bit of a childhood "dream", but it isn't a feasible one and wouldn't even be somewhere like Switzerland (though I don't doubt they'd build the scheme under consideration here, i.e. to Kirkby).
I must admit, though, even absent integrated transport I'm surprised a faster bus service via the M58 isn't viable. There's already a half hourly 55 Old Roan to Liverpool (half hourly right up to the last service at 2319) which could easily be extended to Skem by adding a couple of buses to the 4 that currently appear to be used. Off peak it's 43 minutes to Old Roan, you could probably do Skem within the hour, which would actually be reasonably competitive with a change at Maghull North (25 minutes in) plus a bus from Skem plus wait time, and would still be a single seat ride (and £2 under the bus fare proposals). Peak time it'd be much slower though.
Via Ormskirk on the 311 it's an hour and a half, which is just too off-putting. I get that that basically provides a service "for free" in a manner of the likes of Liverpool-Norwich, i.e. joining up the existing Liverpool-Ormskirk and Ormskirk-Skem services (the latter used to be a "Little White Buses"* operation in addition to the "big buses" on the Southport-Wigan, and the 311 was just Liverpool-Ormskirk, fairly pointlessly duplicating the railway for a fair bit of the run but also serving places away from it e.g. Lydiate and the southern end of Town Green/Holt Green, plus being useful for Lancashire bus-only passholders), but it's just way too slow to in any way compete with the car, even given expensive parking in Liverpool, or driving to Maghull North.
* Classic post-dereg minibus operation - a bit about it on this specific route here. Later they were taken over by pre-Arriva (Drawlane) North Western and many routes were withdrawn, but this one stuck.
Little White Buses launch attack | 15th March 1990 | The Commercial Motor Archive
'Little White Buses launch attack' first printed in the 15th March 1990 issue of Commercial Motor
archive.commercialmotor.com
Last edited:
Danklands Light Railway?
I saw that on Google, but surely going around it would be trivially easy.
Agreed, there are open fields immediately to the north of the housing on the old trackbed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That's a classic integrated transport fail. Reduce the part of the route that serves places off the railway and retain the part of it that competes with the railway. Mind you that's how things go here - Liverpool-Southport via the "coast road" for instance does not require ANY bus service - the railway serves all of it in a classic "beads on a string" fashion really well. The one exception I can see there is possible justification for adding an Ainsdale South station (probably called Woodvale) or moving the existing one to be more central. Via Maghull on the A5147 may serve a purpose but it's largely through very rural communities and so doesn't justify much.
(To be fair the railway doesn't serve the newer part of Maghull very well, but in a sensible world it'd be a 4bph shuttle to the station from the Town Square* to meet trains with through ticketing, requiring just one bus, not a direct bus to Liverpool that basically just parallels Merseyrail all the way in and would require at least three for a less frequent service).
* A quite grand-sounding phrase for a run down 1970s shopping development centred on a car park with a bus stop next to it.
Last edited:
The best option is Closure = It has no disabled access and the platforms are in cutting approached by steep stairs from the south and a steep ramp from the north. There no car parking and the road bridge is on a sharp bend with double yellow lines through the village.
On the basis that a picture is worth a thousand words - here are three thousand:
Equally challenging exit on the west bound platform at Uphollanf by Mwmbwls, on Flickr
Newly laid flat bottom rail concrete sleeper track Upholland by Mwmbwls, on Flickr
The parking area at Upholland Station - all of it by Mwmbwls, on FlickrBletchleyite
Veteran Member
It has two proper through platforms, it just has an extra platform "built out" across one trackbed added at the Wigan end. The idea is that on extension a footbridge with lifts is added and that whole section of platform is removed. I've not seen it but it wouldn't surprise me if it was built as a removable structure like modular staging (as some of the south WCML extensions were) rather than the more usual concrete facing with infill and tarmac on top. It's a long way from the building which is near enough centred on the main two.
That's the reason for the curious layout. If it was designed as a permanent terminus it wouldn't be like it is.
Building a line from Ormskirk isn't happening; the bus provides that journey fairly well, and allows for useful through service to Wigan and Southport.
However, it probably would make some sense, if Merseyrail is extended to Wigan, to close Upholland and replace it with a properly accessible "Skelmersdale Parkway" located in the Pimbo industrial area with a large car park. Maghull North aside, if you consider that only a few hundred homes would be within reasonable walking distance of the Glenburn site (which itself is too far and across a park from the Concourse and other retail and offices roudn there for people to choose to walk it), this would not really be much less useful than the central proposal and loads cheaper.
Actually, if you look at a map and aerial view, it appears that you could do this without moving the platforms. There's wasteland on which to put the car park, and you could run a new bridge with lifts across from there. The existing stepped entrance (only stepped on one side, the other is a ramp, though no doubt too steep to be compliant) could then be retained as well for the use of the (few) locals, or removed if they narrow the platform too much for modern specifications.
Or alternatively at a higher cost it could be moved west, then it might also be useful for inbound commuting to the warehouses and be closer to the main road access.
Last edited:
Yes, the new station could be said to have through platforms but not through roads, as a walkway will exist beyond the buffer stops of this true terminal station. This is quite understandable as a footbridge and lifts is avoided at this time.
I do not understand why the Wigan platform then needs to be built out across the Up formation (at greater expense) and complicating expansion. I realise there is the Suez siding but that is away from the trackbed and Liverpool platform further West.
If the 777's are as good as promised there is a case for going to Wigan soon, if charging and footbridge issues could be solved.
Good news all the same.
Agree with you about Upholland (and would do much the same for Rainford Jn). Pity you don't have Rosie Cooper MP's ear!
WAO
I do not understand why the Wigan platform then needs to be built out across the Up formation (at greater expense) and complicating expansion. I realise there is the Suez siding but that is away from the trackbed and Liverpool platform further West.
If the 777's are as good as promised there is a case for going to Wigan soon, if charging and footbridge issues could be solved.
Good news all the same.
Agree with you about Upholland (and would do much the same for Rainford Jn). Pity you don't have Rosie Cooper MP's ear!
WAO
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, I do find that odd. It's only a single line towards Rainford, but why not have it nearer the building?
Greybeard33
Established Member
If the single line to Wigan were slewed across to the old Up side of the formation, it would be necessary to acquire more non-railway land on which to build the temporary Wigan platform. This would presumably increase the initial cost of the station project.
Also I think the Wigan end of the platform would become uncomfortably close to Headbolt Lane (the road) where it curves in close to the formation.
If Merseyrail is extended east, the platform will no longer be needed and can simply be demolished to enable the line to be redoubled.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yet it seems to show a double width platform there - is that really necessary? The second Merseyrail platform looks much narrower.
(Based on the flythrough, embedded here: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/12/watch-flythrough-of-new-merseyrail-station-at-kirkby.html)
(Based on the flythrough, embedded here: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/12/watch-flythrough-of-new-merseyrail-station-at-kirkby.html)
I don't buy the can't "acquire more non railway land" tale. Land is relatively cheap here (look at the car park size) and could be CPO'd. Also, the existing railway boundary is reasonably generous on the North side. I agree that moving the main road would be difficult, though hardly necessary.
I suspect Group Standards/ORR and the consequent gilding of a wayside station on a minor line to Waterloo/Liverpool Street standards.
Surely the aim should have been a 2 platform, possibly with bay, through station, ready for dualling to Skelmersdale/Wigan with little alteration.
A pity the specification writers weren't required to wait for an hour or so on Lancashire platforms in the County's weather - perhaps they would then have included some modern canopies. But then overdone caution wins over user amenity.
However I welcome the plan's inclusion of a substation on the NW side of the station!
WAO
I suspect Group Standards/ORR and the consequent gilding of a wayside station on a minor line to Waterloo/Liverpool Street standards.
Surely the aim should have been a 2 platform, possibly with bay, through station, ready for dualling to Skelmersdale/Wigan with little alteration.
A pity the specification writers weren't required to wait for an hour or so on Lancashire platforms in the County's weather - perhaps they would then have included some modern canopies. But then overdone caution wins over user amenity.
However I welcome the plan's inclusion of a substation on the NW side of the station!
WAO
- Status