Allerton is the main depot for the electric fleet on the west side - Springs Branch will be a servicing point, in the same way as Blackpool is.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Lostock- Wigan electrification
- Thread starter GRALISTAIR
- 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
Perhaps Springs Branch has been incorrectly portrayed in publicity, as Blackburn was prior to its opening. A difference between Springs Branch and Blackpool/Blackburn, etc, however, is the fact that at Springs Branch there is a building, which I'm not aware is being demolished. Will that not have a significance?
They have had to put width restrictions on the bridge to stop heavier vehicles. The bridge is weak. And traffic via regent road, junction road west, lostock junction lane and GlenGarth drive and the road to chew moor are all residential. And not really suitable. The only way in would be a new access off Beaumont road. And because of the height drop, no one is paying for that...... park and ride would make more sense at horwich parkway. Just off A6, A673 and m61.
Northern aren't taking on the existing building, hence the current construction of various bits of plant and shelter.
The good thing about the emu stabling point at Springs Branch is that it gives an extra push for the argument of wiring the Westhoughton gap. If 769s fail to ever take off that will only force the matter further into the spotlight. Springs Branch was to be the unofficial home of said units so it will be interesting what will stable there now. It's not particularly useful being cut off from Manchester electrically except via Golbourne or Euxton Jc.
Jamesrob637
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 5,239
So as I mentioned in another thread it's only 7.5 miles from the point of electrification near Lostock until Wigan. That could surely be completed in 10-11 months with the experience we've learned from, ahem, the Bolton line?
RTT gives Lostock Junction to Wigan North Western as 6 miles 53 chains. The distance requiring to be electrified would, of course, be less than that, since
1) the wiring already extends a certain distance down the Wigan line from Lostock Junction (I can't remember quite how far);
2} platforms 1, 2, and 3 at North Western are already electrified.
Electrification of Lostock Junction to Wigan North Western seems to me to be so worthwhile I'm surprised it's under question at all.
It's a no brainer at only 6 miles, but the SoS/Daft don't have a brain when it comes to infill electrification.
59CosG95
Established Member
The question is - how do you go about electrifying Wigan Wallgate? Track lowering, Wallgate bridge-raising, total reconstruction of Wigan's railways - none of these options are cheap or easy.
Just electrify into North Western and use Platform 1-3 there. Simple.
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
You don't. Trains terminating at Wigan can terminate at North Western. Trains running through to Southport/Kirkby will have to be diesel / battery for the foreseeable anyway.
Or potentially insert a neutral section where the line goes under Wallgate - in the same manner as has been used on the Paisley Canal line. It's unlikely to happen though as this however opens up operational challenges - Paisley Canal is now gauge restricted unless the power is switched off, plus on the up out of Wallgate station it's a steep little climb and the last thing any driver would need is the pan going through a lengthy neutral section.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I don't think that's likely as a train starting from the platform would immediately be into the neutral section. Too much risk of getting stranded.
Which services would use this section, to make it worthwhile?
The 2tph which currently terminate at NW would need to head to electric counter-points. Lostock platforms would be good too. Is that enough? Plus diversions?
Or could there be an additional faster service each hour which comes from Manchester and does Bolton, Wigan, Preston and then onwards somewhere? A nice olive branch for the Bolton/Wigan Scotland pattern high-jinks!
The 2tph which currently terminate at NW would need to head to electric counter-points. Lostock platforms would be good too. Is that enough? Plus diversions?
Or could there be an additional faster service each hour which comes from Manchester and does Bolton, Wigan, Preston and then onwards somewhere? A nice olive branch for the Bolton/Wigan Scotland pattern high-jinks!
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I agree - short term into North Western (warning crayonista mode on!) the long term solution is to completely rebuild Walgate/NW etc electrify through to Southport and reinstate the curves in the Burscough area.
From what I've read, the Stalybridge/Alderley Edge service will be running through to Southport instead of Wigan NW, while the Leeds and Blackburn via Rochdale services will be the ones terminating at North Western. So what benefit will be offered by wiring from Lostock Jn, except as a diversionary route? Far better to stick with the current service pattern.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,585
Following that train of thought (sorry) will inevitably mean infill electrification won't happen and what is left in a lot of the north are a deal of more modest piecemeal schemes.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
It doesn't work like that.
You need to pass the GRIP (project management) process within Network Rail and that stalled early in the process (2017) when the project was suspended.
That means it has to pass a new design process which includes value engineering (finding the minimum cost).
Money has to be found and the spend approved by the DfT (in principle) and ORR (in detail).
The work then has to be tendered and contracted. We're talking about £20 million (£1m per single track km).
Do you really think NR has 6 miles of electrification kit just lying around waiting to be installed?
If there is a list of potential electrification projects in NR it is very unlikely to include Lostock-Wigan or Oxenholme-Windermere, now the contractors have been stood down and the business case has collapsed.
The world has moved on.
Victoria-Stalybridge has a better chance, because it is probably essential for the TP upgrade scheme (which is funded for CP6).
There is also evidence that NR is working on the TP project.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,585
It is a whole process that may not be designed to delay but it is predicated on the status quo remaining unchanged as the norm. Things do move on and what has moved on for the "pro" side is the political imperative to reduce (or at least seem to reduce) diesel burn in built up areas. Projects that take three years to build take three decades to approve.
Greybeard33
Established Member
As discussed in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-dec-2019-timetable-bid.184384/, from December the Leeds and Blackburn services will be terminating in Wigan Wallgate not North Western. The only services between North Western and Manchester will be the Barrow and Windermere ones, routed via Golborne.
You can "pause" a scheme at a GRIP stage - it doesn't require starting over again and the work done doesn't disappear.
What you do have to do is check any assumptions made at the last GRIP stage for the purposes of design are still valid.
That is only a recent change. With the gaps filled the Wigan NW to Stalybridge and the Alderley Edge trains would both have been EMUs. Of course with NR dragging its feet and the Southport lot demanding reconnection to Piccadilly the services have now been swapped, no reason why they cannot change again though.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
This is going to sound like devil's advocation, but the Manchester-Blackpool scheme delivered the highest cost per km of all the electrification schemes, higher even than the GW scheme (there's a comparison table somewhere).
Probably due to poor ground conditions in the Lancs coalfield, with the repeated failure to install OHLE bases.
Lostock-Wigan is also over old coalfield ground.
So I wouldn't have thought they would use the original electrification design.
On the other hand BR didn't seem to have any trouble with the Golborne-Wigan stretch of the WCML in 1974, also over coalfield ground.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
That is true sir - but and it is a big but- they did not use piling in those days which can crack a seam etc. They knew from the outset they would dig a foundation, pour concrete round a polystyrene block former. Wait for concrete to cure, come back and burn out the PS. Possessions were easier also.
Springs Branch
Established Member
Neither was there the same extent of problems around 5 years ago when electrifying the sections Earlestown to St Helens Jn and Garswood to Springs Branch Jn. These lines also pass through the old Lancashire coalfield and presumably used the same modern techniques for mast foundations.
Let's hope the particular Manchester - Euxton Jn experience doesn't become a convenient excuse that "it's too expensive to electrify any railways in old mining areas".
For anyone not familar with the relationship between modern-day rail routes and old coal mining areas, here's a map recently posted by "Barrie" on the Wigan World website. (Admittedly, this map seem to suggest the Lostock Jn - Wigan line does not pass through the former coalfield, which it certainly does)
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Manchester-Newton le Willows-Liverpool was mostly traditional concrete foundations which didn't seem to give much trouble, but the Chat Moss section was mostly piled (very deep ones, with enormous "gravity pads" in places).
Huyton-Springs Branch was similar, but they did have trouble around Bryn and Garswood and used piles there (still a couple left at lineside).
These sections were a bit late (a few months) but nothing like the major rework they had to do on the Bolton route.
There was also a multiplicity of contractors on the Bolton route, after Balfour Beatty refused the main contract after starting work on the foundations.
Bolton also had the Farnworth tunnel problems and embankment collapses nearby, plus the major remodelling at Blackpool.
It's not clear if those costs went against the electrification project.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
The main issue with Chat Moss is the line is built on a floating raft of sticks through the Moss (bog), they were extremely worried that the piles would pierce the raft and cause it to sink so they had to be set back from the raft and deep enough to reach solid ground. Where they couldnt go deep enough to reach solid ground gravity pads were required otherwise the supports would likely end up tilting over overtime.
Its kind of the inverse of the coalfields issue where going too deep the piles might find their way into shallow mine workings and the only good ground is near the surface, but presents similar difficulties.
The WCML from what I understand while it goes through coalfields it was built early enough that the planning process and land acquisition was easier so it was designed to mostly thread its way though between the mine workings rather than go directly over them.
The government does produce a series of maps of known and suspected mineworkings in former coalfield areas where you can see directly how they impact on the lines.
Edit:
Looks like they've now compiled them all in to one online map rather than them being separate documents which makes it much easier. You get access to different map filters at different scales.
http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html
Its kind of the inverse of the coalfields issue where going too deep the piles might find their way into shallow mine workings and the only good ground is near the surface, but presents similar difficulties.
The WCML from what I understand while it goes through coalfields it was built early enough that the planning process and land acquisition was easier so it was designed to mostly thread its way though between the mine workings rather than go directly over them.
The government does produce a series of maps of known and suspected mineworkings in former coalfield areas where you can see directly how they impact on the lines.
Edit:
Looks like they've now compiled them all in to one online map rather than them being separate documents which makes it much easier. You get access to different map filters at different scales.
http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html
Last edited:
I was under the impression that Chat Moss "on brushwood rafts" was nearly 200 years ago, since then the whole area has been fully drained, dried, and converted to farmland. Meanwhile the Manchester-Crewe line used to have far worse subsidence issues around Sandbach when first electrified in the 1960s, with a longstanding speed limit, yet was electrified and maintained without difficulty. I understand where it is on a high embankment now actually was once a shallow cutting. That now seems fully stable too.
There have always been similar problems east of Taunton, around Curry Rivel, crossing the Somerset Levels wetlands, but that seems more of a permanent way issue that the early 20th Century line was not built adequately to take this into account.
Last edited:
The Moss has had a number of alterations over the years, including removal of trees because some of the habitats over there were at risk of becoming damaged due to the drainage.
The Sandbach section had to be redone in the early 2000s as it was heavily restricted to 60mph and some of the OHLE was in a state to put it bluntly. When I first went over doing 90 after it’s renewal I’ll be honest, I was a bit apprehensive because some of the curves did not appear to be 90 quality, however NR did a great job over there. But if you take a good look at the structures over there, you’ll see it isn’t your average OHLE and will likely always need more maintenance than typical.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
That map is very revealing, especially if you live on some of the new housing developments around St Helens, apparently built on top of old mine workings!
The upcoming electrification of the Cardiff Valley lines could be interesting.
Looks like they will avoid the most complex upper valley coal areas using bi-modes though.
Cardiff-Swansea, had it gone ahead, might well have been troublesome too, with its very long mining history approaching Swansea.
The upcoming electrification of the Cardiff Valley lines could be interesting.
Looks like they will avoid the most complex upper valley coal areas using bi-modes though.
Cardiff-Swansea, had it gone ahead, might well have been troublesome too, with its very long mining history approaching Swansea.
- Status