Blackpool South Railway Closures for Golf Event.

[yorksrob]

Isn't making through passengers get on and off the train rather a backward way of increasing the number of services - particularly for such a short route ! Surely once you've gone to the expense of re-extending the platform and "dropping" a concrete block on the track, you may as well build a loop.

If you don't want the expense of building the second platform straight away, you could do as has been done on the Falmouth branch, and have the loop rejoin the main track just before the current section of platform remaining in use at one of the stations, but halfway down the whole platform (the down train could wait in the loop before the up train passes, then call after the up train has passed). Then if this becomes inadequate, the other half of the platform could be brought back into use, and the up train would wait in the newly resurfaced platform section whilst the down train passes it in the loop.

I don't think that a relatively small infrastructure improvement is unreasonable for what is a relatively densley populated area. The intensive bus service obviously has it's use, but passenger usage of this line is most probably heavily surpressed by the nature of the service.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

It's a shame really.

Someone would probably run a 153 down the branch then use a crane to drop some heavy concrete blocks and light the obstruction up like a Christmas Tree but we don't use that kind of thinking because the obstruction has to be a separation of rails. God knows how we would create Ormskirk and Kirkby today?

Ormskirk wants decreating!! And run a through service to Preston!

Don't they have in Scotland more than 1 train on a single track, and use radios to keep a safe separation?
The other logical way would be stop signals 100 - 400m before the platform, and a pilotman to see the train into the station. But if it ain't in the rule book.

 

[Tomnick]

It's a shame really.

Someone would probably run a 153 down the branch then use a crane to drop some heavy concrete blocks and light the obstruction up like a Christmas Tree but we don't use that kind of thinking because the obstruction has to be a separation of rails. God knows how we would create Ormskirk and Kirkby today?

Ormskirk and Kirkby are rather different, and entirely possible to recreate. At both, you have two independent single lines, operated as such. Here, you have one single line section that you want to safely split into two whilst presumably allowing the 'trapped' unit to be released and swapped every couple of days. You have two problems - how do you prevent the 'trapped' unit straying onto the 'open' end of the single line and vice versa, or - if you do somehow have the means to place and remove an obstruction every day - how do you protect that without using the standard possession protection distances?

Don't they have in Scotland more than 1 train on a single track, and use radios to keep a safe separation?

Yes - on long single lines with numerous sections and plenty of passing loops! The same goes for other lines signalled by the various systems (RETB, NSTR, EKT and TCB). This is different - this is one single line section, signalled under the very simple One Train Working regs.

The other logical way would be stop signals 100 - 400m before the platform, and a pilotman to see the train into the station. But if it ain't in the rule book.

Entirely possible, but no doubt very complicated and expensive. As soon as you split the single line section, and provide the means for a unit to be 'shut in' beyond Ansell & Fairhaven, you then need an alternative method of operating the Kirkham - Ansell section, plus of course someone to work the new signalling at the latter. If you mean a temporary solution, with stop boards and handsignalmen instead of fixed signals - possible, I suppose, but you've still got to deal with the fact that you're effectively working to the point of obstruction, so will need to work the single line by Pilotman - the timings look very tight, and the resultant faffing about at either end will no doubt make the plan unworkable.

 

[WestCoast]

Playing devils advocate, why should we - the taxpayer - pay several million pounds to build additional infrastructure for a line that in my experience is really busy only 20 or so days a year? Particularly if the justification is to take passengers off a parallel public tranport operator that requires no taxpayer funding (other than payments for all the pensioners on free passes).

I'd question the 20 days figure, but that's aside from the main issue here. It's an interesting point you raise and one I am sure that some in wider community will be thinking about rail spending in general. It's the general notion that "a bus can do the job cheaper" and that's has been an ongoing theme in urban transit in the UK since the closure of the original tramways all those years ago.

One of the reasons the buses are so numerous is because of a substantial number of households without a car (above the national average I reckon). Many motorists don't consider the buses to be a viable option, that's understandable as they are rather slow compared to the train or car. Bus users don't see the train as viable because of the low frequency and poorly located terminus of the train.

Providing better rail infrastructure would almost certainly increase patronage, which would bring in more revenue for the railway and potentially provide a boost to the local economy. In the long-term as oil prices increase further, buses should chiefly operate as feeders to heavy rail or light rail networks mirroring the situation in European countries with high public transport use nationally.

If this country is to encourage geographical wealth distribution and maintain and increase its competitiveness in Europe, then good rail infrastructure in the provinces is a must. It's the old adage about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and that could apply to many things. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me, but given the situation in this specific case I'd say a simple passing loop would yield benefits in the future.

 

[John55]

Poulton Le Fylde has 3 tph, with many more coaches!
Imagine how many people would use the BPS line with a decent service!
1 pacer per hour certainly is severely limiting traffic.
Up to the 80's BPS had a hourly service to Manchester, as well as Colne.
By stopping the Manchester service they saved having to replace the second track.
I keep finding articles about using tram trains for this line, but I fail to see the advantages. (B council, Sintropher etc)

I think you will find it is busier for far in excess of 20 days. Many locals use the line.
Buses are slow, Stagecoach run a cheap service to Manchester, (No 68 quick change Preston!)
Just what you need after a hard days work!
Roads are becoming busier, and locally traffic on the Prom, which buses use inc No 68, is now getting very congested.
With the Town Centre Gateway scheme and a Sainsburys supermarket planned near North Station...

In my 1983 timetable Blackpool South has an irregular service to Kirkham with occasional peak trains extending to Preston only. There were 14 arrivals Monday - Friday compared to todays 18.

I think you must be thinking of the 1960s before Central shut and the services generally moved to North.

I think the problem with the 2 lines to Blackpool is there are 5 trains per hour and any shift of service to the South line produces two lines with poor services rather than one. This might be resolved post electrification.