Blackburn to Manchester Upgrade

edwin_m · 20 Sep 2013

tbtc said:
I think that any new line (or additional demand for stock caused by redoubling, like in this example) should be on the basis that any extra stock comes from the bottom of the "pile" (i.e. 142s). Same goes for Newcastle to Ashington (etc).

If a unit such as a 150 becomes available, it might be put on the new service if that was considered most "deserving" due to factors such as journey length, operational convenience, number of passengers and commercial benefit from using a better unit. A Pacer would then continue to operate somewhere else instead of being replaced by the 150. Either way the net result is that one more Pacer stays in service than otherwise, and the net change to the economics of the franchise is an increase of one Pacer's worth of cost (or the actual number of units needed for the service in each case).

Of course given Northern's out-of-a-hat unit diagramming policy this is largely academic anyway...

RailUK Forums

Lankyline · 20 Sep 2013

Some more detail on the city deal from the lancashire LEP, seems that not all the line will be doubled plus not quite the £20m that was previously quoted in the Lancs Telegraph, but still no detail of what parts are to be doubled etc

In Blackburn with Darwen:

£12.4m towards the estimated £13.8m total cost of a scheme to improve the standard and frequency of trains operating between Blackburn and Manchester by doubling parts of the track between Bolton and Blackburn.

Interesting point on Blackpool tram connection, don't know if anyone else has seen this ?

In Blackpool:

£16.4m towards the estimated £18.2m total cost of improving access to the national rail network from Blackpool, Fleetwood and Cleveleys, by extending the new tramway from the Promenade at North Pier to Blackpool North railway station.

Xenophon PCDGS · 20 Sep 2013

tbtc said:
What would you realistically run on it?

The same type of rolling stock that runs the Manchester Victoria to Clitheroe services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lankyline said:
Interesting point on Blackpool tram connection, don't know if anyone else has seen this ?

In Blackpool:

£16.4m towards the estimated £18.2m total cost of improving access to the national rail network from Blackpool, Fleetwood and Cleveleys, by extending the new tramway from the Promenade at North Pier to Blackpool North railway station.

It has been posted on the Blackpool Tramway master thread on the Other Transport forum.

tbtc · 20 Sep 2013

tbtc said:
What would you realistically run on it?

We could use the electrification of lines around Manchester to withdraw some Pacers

We could use the electrification of lines around Manchester to take Pacers off some longer services that they currently run on, replace them with better stock and put the spare Pacers on new/additional services to Blackburn

We could use the electrification of lines around Manchester to put some spare Pacers on new/additional services to Blackburn (whilst other lines continue to have Pacers on longer distance services)

...which would you prefer?

Paul Sidorczuk said:
The same type of rolling stock that runs the Manchester Victoria to Clitheroe services

Putting 150s on this new Blackburn service means (a) not withdrawing Pacers and (b) continuing to run Pacers on routes like Scunthorpe - Sheffield - Lincoln or from Manchester to Chester or Manchester Airport to Southport (instead of upgrading them to 150/156 operation).

30907 · 20 Sep 2013

Lankyline said:
Some more detail on the city deal from the lancashire LEP, seems that not all the line will be doubled plus not quite the £20m that was previously quoted in the Lancs Telegraph, but still no detail of what parts are to be doubled etc

In Blackburn with Darwen:

£12.4m towards the estimated £13.8m total cost of a scheme to improve the standard and frequency of trains operating between Blackburn and Manchester by doubling parts of the track between Bolton and Blackburn.

In other words, (a variant on) the sensible solution advocated by most on this thread

lancastrian · 20 Sep 2013

MattE2010 said:
Absolutely pointless to redouble all of it. Get rid of Turton and you could have half hourly on what's there already for a lot less than £20m! If they are hell bent on spending that much money on rail around East Lancs, build a crossing loop at Burnley Central and reinstate one of the east facing bays at Rose Grove and do an hourly shuttle in addition to the existing service (hopefully connecting decently enough with the Toddy Curve trains ex-BBN. EDIT - or from Manchester via Rochfail).

Interesting comments, especially the one about Turton. As far as I am aware the stations still open between Bolton & Blackburn are: Hall i' th' Wood: Bromley Cross; Entwistle & Darwen. There is no station at Turton, although I personally think there should be. I am assuming that you really mean Entwistle.

Even with Entwistle closed you still would have a service that has no spare capacity, with just the two passing loops at Hall i' th' Wood to Bromley Cross dynamic loop and the loop at Darwen. This current situation means that a discussed station at Ewood for the Blackburn Rovers Football Ground.

I doubt that the whole line can be re-doubled without great expense. Sough Tunnel would need a lot of work needed to have the track re-doubled, plus at King William, the rail over road bridge was renewed as a single track bridge.

What is needed is the line from Blackburn to Darwen redoubled, with a new station for Ewood Park. Then a dynamic loop from Entwistle to Turton, with a second platform at Entwistle and a new station at Turton. This town has had a great increase in population within less than a mile from the old station site.

Your second comment about the Rose Grove to Colne line, you are partially right, what this line needs is what SELRAP is campaigning for. Redoubling, reopening Colne to Skipton, plus electrify the whole of the Preston to Skipton line would be very beneficial.

Sits back and awaits comments.

MidnightFlyer · 20 Sep 2013

lancastrian said:
Interesting comments, especially the one about Turton. As far as I am aware the stations still open between Bolton & Blackburn are: Hall i' th' Wood: Bromley Cross; Entwistle & Darwen. There is no station at Turton, although I personally think there should be. I am assuming that you really mean Entwistle.
...

Nope, I meant Turton - I'm aware there's no station but the 10mph open level crossing there is a real stumbling block. Upgrade it to barriered and you could shave a minute off Entwistle-Bromley Cross and crucially occupy the single track for less time too.

lancastrian · 20 Sep 2013

MattE2010 said:
Nope, I meant Turton - I'm aware there's no station but the 10mph open level crossing there is a real stumbling block. Upgrade it to barriered and you could shave a minute off Entwistle-Bromley Cross and crucially occupy the single track for less time too.

OK, I accept that, but I have seen trains held up waiting at the loops for services coming the other way. More double track is needed and I agree there should be upgrades for the few level crossings that exist on this line.

Xenophon PCDGS · 20 Sep 2013

lancastrian said:
Interesting comments, especially the one about Turton. As far as I am aware the stations still open between Bolton & Blackburn are: Hall i' th' Wood: Bromley Cross; Entwistle & Darwen. There is no station at Turton, although I personally think there should be.

The former Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway station called Turton and Edgworth that was situated on this line and closed in 1964 was actually geographically situated within the boundaries of the settlement of Chapeltown.

lancastrian · 20 Sep 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
The former Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway station called Turton and Edgworth that was situated on this line and closed in 1964 was actually geographically situated within the boundaries of the settlement of Chapeltown.

The station, used to be at the end of Station Road, Chapeltown. In fact right by the afore mentioned level crossing, so if the station was reopened then the speed over the level crossing would no longer be a problem.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Sep 2013

tbtc said:
Putting 150s on this new Blackburn service means (a) not withdrawing Pacers and (b) continuing to run Pacers on routes like Scunthorpe - Sheffield - Lincoln or from Manchester to Chester or Manchester Airport to Southport (instead of upgrading them to 150/156 operation).

Can I therefore ask if, when the bid monies application was submitted, any specific motive power type to run this new service was stated in the supporting documentation that was submitted.

I think it is rather depressing, in this year of 2013, that the lowest common denominator available in motive power is put forward to run a new rail service that will be expected to convince both express bus service users and car users to forsake their existing current chosen mode of travel in order to travel on such arcane monstrosities that seem to be the answer to all "Northern-land" rail transport needs.

tbtc · 21 Sep 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Can I therefore ask if, when the bid monies application was submitted, any specific motive power type to run this new service was stated in the supporting documentation that was submitted.

I think it is rather depressing, in this year of 2013, that the lowest common denominator available in motive power is put forward to run a new rail service that will be expected to convince both express bus service users and car users to forsake their existing current chosen mode of travel in order to travel on such arcane monstrosities that seem to be the answer to all "Northern-land" rail transport needs.

Again, I'll ask what the alternative is?

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Sep 2013

tbtc said:
Again, I'll ask what the alternative is?

I have already made a posting that gives my views on the matter by stating the type of units that run the Manchester Victoria to Clitheroe service.

Were Northern Rail given some extra class 150 units from other areas in recent times as part of certain fleet upgradings ?

tbtc · 21 Sep 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I have already made a posting that gives my views on the matter by stating the type of units that run the Manchester Victoria to Clitheroe service.

Were Northern Rail given some extra class 150 units from other areas in recent times as part of certain fleet upgradings ?

Yes, so you'd be happy keeping Pacers on routes like Scunthorpe - Sheffield - Lincoln or Southport to Manchester Airport so that any spare 150s go to a new service to Blackburn?

The Planner · 21 Sep 2013

lancastrian said:
OK, I accept that, but I have seen trains held up waiting at the loops for services coming the other way. More double track is needed and I agree there should be upgrades for the few level crossings that exist on this line.

That doesn't necessarily eradicate the problem, it would just move it. Even complete double tracking wouldn't solve everything as trains could still get held at either end.

Xenophon PCDGS · 21 Sep 2013

tbtc said:
Yes, so you'd be happy keeping Pacers on routes like Scunthorpe - Sheffield - Lincoln or Southport to Manchester Airport so that any spare 150s go to a new service to Blackburn?

We are discussing the Blackburn to Manchester area services on this particular thread, are we not. Whatsoever that a TOC chooses run on a service that serves Scunthorpe-Sheffield-Lincoln seems somewhat geographically far removed from that particular area of East Lancashire and is one for that TOC to choose.

With regard to the Southport to Manchester Airport service, that particular service appears now to be run by a double and conjoined offering of "Newton Heath's finest" of the Class 142 variety that this region that seems to be the main accredited railway equivalent of the "Elephants Graveyard".

Joseph_Locke · 21 Sep 2013

Darren R said:
Sorry Paul, but MattE2010 is spot-on with this. The various councils along the line have been pushing for years to have the whole line re-doubled, and have taken great exception several times at being knocked-back. It is absolutely unneccessary. The NetworkRail plan to lengthen the Darwen Loop from a point just north of South Tunnel to the M65 bridge is quite sufficient for a robust half-hourly timetable. Extending the loop northwards from Bromley Cross to just beyond the site of Turton & Edgworth station adds extra capacity too - enough to be able to run 3tph in each direction in fact. Everything else is just overkill, and is effectively money wasted that could otherwise be spent on improvements elsewhere. It's not a bottomless pit of resources. NR's plan was going to cost around £8.5 million. This has now gone up to as much as £20 million.

I can certainly confirm that there is no live study for re-doubling the whole line, but the study into the lengthening of the bit through Darwen is due to conclude in the next three or four months. As to where between £8.5m and £20m the answer will fall I am not at liberty to say.

Darren R · 22 Sep 2013

Joseph_Locke said:
I can certainly confirm that there is no live study for re-doubling the whole line, but the study into the lengthening of the bit through Darwen is due to conclude in the next three or four months. As to where between £8.5m and £20m the answer will fall I am not at liberty to say.

So Common Sense is prevailing after all!

Originally Posted by lancastrian
Interesting comments, especially the one about Turton. As far as I am aware the stations still open between Bolton & Blackburn are: Hall i' th' Wood: Bromley Cross; Entwistle & Darwen. There is no station at Turton, although I personally think there should be. I am assuming that you really mean Entwistle.

No - I meant Turton & Edgworth as well! Extending the loop northwards from Bromley Cross to just north of the site of the former station was what I had in mind. This is more than enough 'future-proofing' for the line, allowing for a future re-opening of the station if and when. And more than enough for a service level of at least 3tph.

As for rolling stock - well, even if Newton Heath's finest were rostered, for me the choice would be: a Pacer...... or another bus! :lol:

Xenophon PCDGS · 22 Sep 2013

Darren R said:
As for rolling stock - well, even if Newton Heath's finest were rostered, for me the choice would be: a Pacer...... or another bus!

How near does the 537 bus service from Edgworth to Bolton approach to the area of the former railway station of Turton and Edgworth ?

Dunc108 · 22 Sep 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
We are discussing the Blackburn to Manchester area services on this particular thread, are we not. Whatsoever that a TOC chooses run on a service that serves Scunthorpe-Sheffield-Lincoln seems somewhat geographically far removed from that particular area of East Lancashire and is one for that TOC to choose.

With regard to the Southport to Manchester Airport service, that particular service appears now to be run by a double and conjoined offering of "Newton Heath's finest" of the Class 142 variety that this region that seems to be the main accredited railway equivalent of the "Elephants Graveyard".

Yes and some Southport - Airport's have often sprung some of the dire ex-Merseyrail 142s in the mix. I've personally travelled on a such unit between Salford Crescent & Manchester Piccadilly! :lol:

Darren R · 23 Sep 2013

I've just been doing a little bit of internet-based digging on this. What (little) I can find is somewhat different from what the Lancashire Telegraph reported last week.

On the Transport for Lancashire part of the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership website, the published list of "Candidate Major Schemes for Prioritisation" says this:

Clitheroe to Manchester Rail Corridor Capacity Enhancement
A scheme to improve the standard and frequency of rail services operating between Blackburn and Manchester delivered through selective double tracking between Bolton and Blackburn. The Blackburn to Manchester route is the busiest serving Manchester without a core two trains per hour service and demand between Blackburn and Manchester is similar in magnitude to the combined Manchester demand for Bradford and Halifax.
c£10-£13 million

(Link to the site: http://www.lancashirelep.co.uk/about/?siteid=6441&pageid=42890&e=e)

Looks like the Telegraph has got a bit carried away - or knows otherwise! Looks like we will just have to wait for the official announcement.

Joseph_Locke · 23 Sep 2013

Darren R said:
I've just been doing a little bit of internet-based digging on this. What (little) I can find is somewhat different from what the Lancashire Telegraph reported last week.

On the Transport for Lancashire part of the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership website, the published list of "Candidate Major Schemes for Prioritisation" says this:

(Link to the site: http://www.lancashirelep.co.uk/about/?siteid=6441&pageid=42890&e=e)

Looks like the Telegraph has got a bit carried away - or knows otherwise! Looks like we will just have to wait for the official announcement.

That's option a) the Telegraph has got a bit carried away, trust me

Darren R · 23 Sep 2013

Joseph_Locke said:
That's option a) the Telegraph has got a bit carried away, trust me

I was being diplomatic!

Xenophon PCDGS · 23 Sep 2013

MattE2010 said:
Get rid of Turton and you could have half hourly on what's there already for a lot less than £20m!

Sorry to revert back to this early posting on the thread but I wonder if you mean by "Get rid of Turton" is to have a CPO served on the building plots on the other side of the railway line and then to stop off the existing crossing

MidnightFlyer · 24 Sep 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Sorry to revert back to this early posting on the thread but I wonder if you mean by "Get rid of Turton" is to have a CPO served on the building plots on the other side of the railway line and then to stop off the existing crossing

No, I meant upgrade the level crossing to modern (barriered) standards so as to eliminate the speed restriction over it

Joseph_Locke · 24 Sep 2013

MattE2010 said:
No, I meant upgrade the level crossing to modern (barriered) standards so as to eliminate the speed restriction over it

Turton is getting barriers as we speak - it will then be an "AOCL+B", which is not the same as an ABCL and leaves all the speed restrictions in place.

If any money is left over from the current proposals I understand that conversion of Turton to MCB-OD is possible.

Xenophon PCDGS · 24 Sep 2013

Joseph_Locke said:
That's option a) the Telegraph has got a bit carried away, trust me

Nothing like a possible upgrade to a local railway line to encourage reporters on local newspapers to portray the possible best scenario that could be effected.

Signal Head · 24 Sep 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Nothing like a possible upgrade to a local railway line to encourage reporters on local newspapers to portray the possible best scenario that could be effected.

Which also provides an opportunity to moan later, when the job doesn't turn out how they initially reported it!

furryfeet · 24 Sep 2013

Joseph_Locke said:
Turton is getting barriers as we speak - it will then be an "AOCL+B", which is not the same as an ABCL and leaves all the speed restrictions in place.

If any money is left over from the current proposals I understand that conversion of Turton to MCB-OD is possible.

So does the current work on the Chapeltown crossing include provision for double track at this location at a later date ?

Darren R · 24 Sep 2013

Joseph_Locke said:
Turton is getting barriers as we speak - it will then be an "AOCL+B", which is not the same as an ABCL and leaves all the speed restrictions in place.

If any money is left over from the current proposals I understand that conversion of Turton to MCB-OD is possible.

Sorry but I get very confused about the different types of level crossing. AOCL and ABCL both refer to crossings that are locally monitored - but there is no monitoring at Turton except by the driver. Is that what locally monitored actually means - I thought it meant monitored by an adjacent gate box. Similarly I thought an MCB is a manual crossing controlled by an adjacent box - and there isn't one!

Erm - could someone put an end to my befuddlement!

Blackburn to Manchester Upgrade

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member