Could the Atherton line become part of Metrolink, and would that disbenefit passengers?

[Bletchleyite]

If the Atherton line is to be kept in the National Rail network for freight and diversions, it would have to remain block signalled. Although by the time a tram-train conversion got agreed and funded it could probably be ETCS moving block.

Is there freight with access required from the Atherton line itself, or could it move to run via Bolton or Chat Moss?

Investment would also be needed in electrification or new battery trains for the Southport line, so that Southport services could run via Bolton to clear the Atherton line for tram-trains.

Or you run DMUs under the wires, there are plenty of other places that is done. Much as I'd love to see wires to Southport.

One could conceive of an enhanced middle distance service from Victoria, with the Clitheroe running non stop from Salford Crescent to Bolton and the Southports the same, but also non-stop from Bolton to Wigan Wallgate, with the local stations along the route covered by a 2tph EMU service to Wigan North Western. This reduced journey time would compensate for the loss of services onto Castlefield from Southport. Similarly the Blackpool EMUs could run faster, stopping only at Salford Crescent, Bolton then stations to Preston.

 

[HSTEd]

If the Atherton line is to be kept in the National Rail network for freight and diversions, it would have to remain block signalled.

Why would it be retained?
Realtime trains indicates something of the order of one freight train (in one direction) per day, or less, at the moment.

And what diversions would especially benefit? Is it even possible to reach the WCML from the Atherton line?

Investment would also be needed in electrification or new battery trains for the Southport line, so that Southport services could run via Bolton to clear the Atherton line for tram-trains.

Electrodiesels are in service with Northern already and even with those, ordering new ones would be a tiny portion of the total cost of the conversion.

Or as Bletchleyite suggests, run diesels to Southport.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Realtime trains indicates something of the order of one freight train (in one direction) per day, or less, at the moment.

Indeed it is, usually just the 1 freight a day

Realtime Trains | 6M16 1002 Tees N.Y. to Knowsley Freight Terminal | 20/03/2023

Real-time train running information for 6M16 1002 departure from Tees N.Y. to Knowsley Freight Terminal on 20/03/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Occasionally there are other ones which I think are for route knowledge retaining, which is irrelevant if freight and diversions don't need it

And what diversions would especially benefit? Is it even possible to reach the WCML from the Atherton line?

When Bolton/Westhoughton is blocked trains can go via Atherton
It is possible to reach the WCML through Platform 1 and 3 at Wigan North Western.
(And going straight south from Wallgate is also possible, as was done during the 3 day Hindley blockage.)

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there freight with access required from the Atherton line itself, or could it move to run via Bolton or Chat Moss?

Why would it be retained?
Realtime trains indicates something of the order of one freight train (in one direction) per day, or less, at the moment.

Indeed it is, usually just the 1 freight a day

The Knowsley binliner terminal normally turns round 2tpd. The loaded eastbounds take a roundabout route, south on the WCML from Wigan to Hartford, then on the Mid Cheshire to Stockport, then the Denton line to Ashton Moss, then back west to reach the Calder Valley line at Brewery Junction. One of the westbound empties (early morning) runs via the Chat Moss line to Golborne then WCML to Wigan. The other, afternoon, westbound is the one that uses the Atherton line.

In principle the Chat Moss route could be used instead of Atherton, if a suitable afternoon path could be found from Victoria (I think the Stockport route would take too long for the 2tpd cycle to work, and I don't think there are any daytime freight paths through Bolton). But I imagine DB Cargo has Firm Rights to the existing path.

The Liverpool City Region has made a substantial investment in putting this waste flow on the railway and I expect it would object strongly to it being disrupted for the benefit of Manchester commuters.

Or you run DMUs under the wires, there are plenty of other places that is done. Much as I'd love to see wires to Southport.

Electrodiesels are in service with Northern already and even with those, ordering new ones would be a tiny portion of the total cost of the conversion.

Or as Bletchleyite suggests, run diesels to Southport.

There is no capacity on the Bolton line to run diesels/bi-modes to Southport in addition to EMUs to Wigan North Western. And the Government is not investing £78m in electrification of Lostock to Wigan just to run diesels or clapped out 769s under the wires! By the time a tram-train project came to fruition, the decarbonisation agenda would require a zero carbon solution for the Southport line.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no capacity on the Bolton line to run diesels/bi-modes to Southport in addition to EMUs to Wigan North Western. And the Government is not investing £78m in electrification of Lostock to Wigan just to run diesels or clapped out 769s under the wires!

My understanding is there are two trains per hour from Wigan Wallgate to Manchester via Bolton already. Those could take over the two trains per hour to Southport.

The Kirkby line would either convert to a simple shuttle or become a lower-intensity extension of Merseyrail, given that the end point of Merseyrail is about to creep slightly closer to Wigan anyway.

And the government spent hundreds of millions of pounds to run worn-out Class 319s between Manchester and Liverpool!
Indeed, aren't 769s normally used on the Southport-Manchester services as is?

By the time a tram-train project came to fruition, the decarbonisation agenda would require a zero carbon solution for the Southport line.

The same decarbonisation agenda would likely make Merseyside throwing its waste into the Wilton incinerator complex politically impossible as well!
Indeed the carbon emissions from burning around 400 kilotonnes of waste in Wilton annually will vastly outmatch the emissions from burning diesel between Southport and Wigan.

At which point you might need a handful of dual-voltage battery units, but those are likely to be a negligible cost next to the cost of the conversion.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

My understanding is there are two trains per hour from Wigan Wallgate to Manchester via Bolton already. Those could take over the two trains per hour to Southport.

the 2tph between Wallgate and Manchester via Bolton are the 2tph to Southport.

The Kirkby line would either convert to a simple shuttle or become a lower-intensity extension of Merseyrail, given that the end point of Merseyrail is about to creep slightly closer to Wigan anyway.

Merseyrail appear to want to eventually reach Wigan, the 777s batteries are more than capable of it.

And the government spent hundreds of millions of pounds to run worn-out Class 319s between Manchester and Liverpool!
Indeed, aren't 769s normally used on the Southport-Manchester services as is?

Indeed they are, I'd think the 769s could end up on Atherton paths if they start going to Southport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And the government spent hundreds of millions of pounds to run worn-out Class 319s between Manchester and Liverpool!

What source did you obtain to find that unbelievable financial information.....

 

[Greybeard33]

My understanding is there are two trains per hour from Wigan Wallgate to Manchester via Bolton already. Those could take over the two trains per hour to Southport.

The Kirkby line would either convert to a simple shuttle or become a lower-intensity extension of Merseyrail, given that the end point of Merseyrail is about to creep slightly closer to Wigan anyway.

And the government spent hundreds of millions of pounds to run worn-out Class 319s between Manchester and Liverpool!
Indeed, aren't 769s normally used on the Southport-Manchester services as is?

The 2tph from Wigan Wallgate to Manchester via Bolton currently originate from Southport and are worked by a mix of 4-car Class 769 bi-modes and Class 150/156 DMUs. When the costly Wigan North Western to Bolton electrification project is completed next year there is likely to be a timetable recast that will see the 2tph via Bolton paths taken over by Class 323 EMUs, cascaded from the West Midlands. These will be able to operate in 6-car formations to increase capacity (the platforms between Wigan and Bolton are currently being extended to enable this). The 769s, which have proved unreliable and costly to operate, will likely be sent off lease, as is already happening to their cousins at GWR and TfW. The DMU services from Southport will probably have to be diverted via the Atherton line due to lack of capacity for more services between Bolton and Manchester.

If the Atherton line were later converted to light rail line of sight operation, DMUs from Southport would then have to terminate at Wigan Wallgate or run under the wires via Bolton in place of the EMUs. Either would be politically unacceptable, so the only solutions I can see would be to wire the Southport line, so that the via Bolton EMUs could be extended there, or purchase new bi-mode rolling stock (whether battery, electro-diesel, hydrogen or bionic duckweed) for Southport to Manchester via Bolton. Either of these would greatly increase the costs of the tram-train project and further weaken the business case.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

DMUs from Southport would then have to terminate at Wigan Wallgate or run under the wires via Bolton in place of the EMUs. Either would be politically unacceptable, so the only solutions I can see would be to wire the Southport line, so that the via Bolton EMUs could be extended there, or purchase new bi-mode rolling stock (whether battery, electro-diesel, hydrogen or bionic duckweed) for Southport to Manchester via Bolton.

Why would diesel running under the wires via Bolton be "politically unacceptable". It's done currently all over the country, with mostly only the Hitachi bi-modes and FLIRTS fixing that.
They do now from Southport (when 150/156) and likely still will from Clitheroe.

Also wiring the Southport line might run into the problem of Wallgate (the street) which has been discussed before and is not low enough for wires, however, even just smaller batteries and quick conversion (on the move) between EMU and battery mode might mean problematic bridges could not be a concern anymore?
Also I don't know the risks of other bridges on the route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would diesel running under the wires via Bolton be "politically unacceptable". It's done currently all over the country, with mostly only the Hitachi bi-modes and FLIRTS fixing that.

I think the bigger issue here would be that the electrification from Bolton via Westhoughton would in that case be totally unused and a bit of a waste of money, a la Hazel Grove! I must admit though I did find it odd when I heard that bit of line was being wired before Southport as it really is of very questionable utility at this stage and is likely for political reasons to lead to suboptimal routeing of services against passenger demand.

Also wiring the Southport line might run into the problem of Wallgate (the street) which has been discussed before and is not low enough for wires, however, even just smaller batteries and quick conversion (on the move) between EMU and battery mode might mean problematic bridges could not be a concern anymore?

The Wallgate bridge is a nuisance, but at some point it probably does need something doing with it. It's made harder by there being buildings on top of it (at street level you'd not even notice it) but most of them contain very low-value retail, it's not like you'd be knocking a load of houses down. It's not a nice part of town, and so replacing it could be part of a regeneration project.

Also I don't know the risks of other bridges on the route.

I don't remember either, but once you get past Parbold it's as flat as a pancake and looks like something out of the Netherlands without so many cyclists, so there's very little that's really complex like tunnels.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I think the bigger issue here would be that the electrification from Bolton via Westhoughton would in that case be totally unused and a bit of a waste of money,

no I was thinking 2tph from Northwestern + whatever Southport service is deemed necessary.

I don't remember either, but once you get past Parbold it's as flat as a pancake and looks like something out of the Netherlands without so many cyclists, so there's very little that's really complex like tunnels.

I do have very old memories of everything being really flat on the Southport line (young me was very excited seeing level crossings, which are very rare to me) but I couldn't remember if there were any problematic bridges. (I'll take a look now on https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ and report back what I find)

 

[Bletchleyite]

no I was thinking 2tph from Northwestern + whatever Southport service is deemed necessary.

I suggested that (with the EMUs picking up local stations between Salford and Bolton and between Bolton and Wigan to allow the Southports, Clitheroes and Blackpools to be sped up and for places like Moses Gate, Kearsley and Farnworth to get an increased service to make it actually useful; hourly is a bit of a joke on an urban commuter service) but the people who know such things explained that two more trains per hour couldn't be pathed via Bolton as there's too much other stuff. Though there must surely be room for 1tph more as the Preston to Manchester Victoria service ran hourly for a while and has been withdrawn without replacement.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The bridge under the WCML, I probably don't need to explain how important this one is.
Road leads to a housing estate with some business sites in it. It is the only means of access to that estate by road (There is a canal bridge for cyclists/walkers)
Overgrown bridge next to a logistics warehouse.
Bridge that is theoretically a road bridge but leads directly onto a Walking footpath, I don't see why this needs to be a road bridge at all.
Looks like there's enough space under the M6
Small bridge, could be too low and a concern, currently not a road bridge, but fits people (and maybe farm traffic?)
Appley Lane bridge, could be too low, if it becomes a Hindley situation, the diversion route is only a couple minutes.
Another public footpath bridge.
A5209 bridge, can't tell if its too low, not sure if there's a (reasonable) diversion route for HGVs
Preston-Ormskirk line passes over, unsure if this is a problematic bridge.

A59 bridge by Burscough Bridge train station
Junction over the train tracks by Meols Cop

Many bridges on approach into Southport, 3 road bridges, 2 foot bridges

Overall there's a lot of bridges that might be a concern, and loads of level crossings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a lot of the bridges you'd be able to lower the trackbed and get away with it that way. But it's not a long route and so battery might be an option, particularly if it's capable of going onto third rail for a small topup at Southport too.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

particularly if it's capable of going onto third rail for a small topup at Southport too.

Doesn't look like that'd be possible except for Platform 3. If Headbolt Lane is anything to go by, don't expect any extensions of 3rd rail allowed, so batteries would likely have to charge through fast charge technology such as Vvivarail's purchased by GWR.

 

[HSTEd]

Doesn't look like that'd be possible except for Platform 3. If Headbolt Lane is anything to go by, don't expect any extensions of 3rd rail allowed, so batteries would likely have to charge through fast charge technology such as Vvivarail's purchased by GWR.

Well that track layout could be modified to alow the third rail wye to be accessed from the diesel lines, which would provide access to two of the electrified platforms.

Then it just becomes a discussion on how many platforms Southport actually needs operationally.

Although the easiest option is for the ORR to just let us have a hundred metres of additional third rail.... but I doubt they would acquiese.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that track layout could be modified to alow the third rail wye to be accessed from the diesel lines, which would provide access to two of the electrified platforms.

Then it just becomes a discussion on how many platforms Southport actually needs operationally.

Although the easiest option is for the ORR to just let us have a hundred metres of additional third rail.... but I doubt they would acquiese.

I suspect they would allow a short shielded section only energised when a train is over it, as that's analogous to the Vivarail system. Though the latter may be better anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't remember either, but once you get past Parbold it's as flat as a pancake and looks like something out of the Netherlands without so many cyclists, so there's very little that's really complex like tunnels.

Upholland is the area of West Lancashire where a tunnel was required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Upholland is the area of West Lancashire where a tunnel was required.

Which is on the Kirkby line, not the Southport. Now Skem has been canned, the long term future of this route seems to me to be very likely to be Merseyrail operating into the bay at Wallgate on batteries.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which is on the Kirkby line, not the Southport. Now Skem has been canned, the long term future of this route seems to me to be very likely to be Merseyrail operating into the bay at Wallgate on batteries.

I was just pointing out that West Lancashire is not what all people assume it to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was just pointing out that West Lancashire is not what all people assume it to be.

It's generally flat as a pancake to the north west of a diagonal line running roughly from Liverpool city centre to Leyland, which is land that was formerly underwater.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

It's generally flat as a pancake to the north west of a diagonal line running roughly from Liverpool city centre to Leyland, which is land that was formerly underwater.

Using https://www.floodmap.net/ it shows how flat everything is as with only 5 metres of rise all of this floods. Although 5 metres of rise is not predicted, it is still a good way to see how flat it is.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Does anything say the current (frankly pretty awful) trams have to be used?

I'd say that's a little harsh. The M5000s are quick off the mark, modern, bright (but definitely not too bright) and airy feeling on-board, they look stylish and they work as a homogeneous fleet. Their reliability put the T68s to shame, and is the reason all were withdrawn when some were intended to remain alongside the M5000s permanently. They've also got the capability of being singles or doubles. I think calling them awful is very unfair.

I think that the experience will ultimately be worse than the swift train service into the centre of Manchester with full toilet facilities etc, onward travel to Leeds etc.

At least eight times you've gone on about toilets now (or to use that awful word that you and a few others like instead, "bogs,") and while I appreciate a fair few people may have IBS/Crohn IBD etc. I don't see why their conditions should be any more severe than those on the Oldham line, Cardiff Valleys, or the many, MANY commuter routes operated by 345, 376, 378, 455, 507, 508, 707, 710 or 777 stock, a fair few of which provide services of longer journey times than Atherton if not very similar.

Of course it's still a downgrade to lose a toilet, but the benefits of the tram-ification for this sort of route would largely outweigh that.

As a Wigan resident it would be a huge benefit for the line to be converted to Metrolink. In my view, the increased frequency, higher reliability, better penetration of the city centre and consistency of stops/stations used in Manchester would more than outweigh a few more stops and lack of a toilet, particularly when there are toilets at the stations at both ends of the line. I would imagine that a fair proportion of people who can’t last c. 45 minutes without having access to a toilet would not be able to risk getting the train at present due to the potential that the toilet is out of order.

That's another thing, I can't speak for Northern's 150/1s that serve the line, but the TfW 150s that serve where I live in Cardiff, including those hired from Northern themselves, and the TfW 769s of which the same class also runs Wigan services very regularly have toilets out of order anyway, especially since the crappy compliant sliding doors were fitted.

I have since spoken to a contributor on the Manchester SkyScraper City Metrolink thread, who confirms it is the tram stop at South Chadderton that was the one that had been subjected to the extreme vandalism. He thinks that the local Oldham paper had a reporter at the tram stop in question not long after the vandalism had occurred.

To be honest, Moston and Chadderton are somewhat notorious for that sort of behaviour so I wouldn't be surprised. It's not the nicest of areas in Manchester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's another thing, I can't speak for Northern's 150/1s that serve the line, but the TfW 150s that serve where I live in Cardiff, including those hired from Northern themselves, and the TfW 769s of which the same class also runs Wigan services very regularly have toilets out of order anyway, especially since the crappy compliant sliding doors were fitted.

Crappy is an unfortunate word to use when discussing toilets on trains...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Crappy is an unfortunate word to use when discussing toilets on trains...

Pun genuinely not intended, didn't even occur to me

The bridge under the WCML, I probably don't need to explain how important this one is.
View attachment 131327Road leads to a housing estate with some business sites in it. It is the only means of access to that estate by road (There is a canal bridge for cyclists/walkers)
View attachment 131329Overgrown bridge next to a logistics warehouse.
View attachment 131330Bridge that is theoretically a road bridge but leads directly onto a Walking footpath, I don't see why this needs to be a road bridge at all.
View attachment 131331Looks like there's enough space under the M6
View attachment 131332Small bridge, could be too low and a concern, currently not a road bridge, but fits people (and maybe farm traffic?)
View attachment 131334Appley Lane bridge, could be too low, if it becomes a Hindley situation, the diversion route is only a couple minutes.
View attachment 131337Another public footpath bridge.
View attachment 131338A5209 bridge, can't tell if its too low, not sure if there's a (reasonable) diversion route for HGVs
View attachment 131339Preston-Ormskirk line passes over, unsure if this is a problematic bridge.

View attachment 131340A59 bridge by Burscough Bridge train station
View attachment 131341Junction over the train tracks by Meols Cop
View attachment 131342View attachment 131343View attachment 131344View attachment 131345View attachment 131346
Many bridges on approach into Southport, 3 road bridges, 2 foot bridges

Overall there's a lot of bridges that might be a concern, and loads of level crossings.

With a lot of the bridges you'd be able to lower the trackbed and get away with it that way. But it's not a long route and so battery might be an option, particularly if it's capable of going onto third rail for a small topup at Southport too.

This is the way they're doing the Core Valley Lines anyway. The 398s will use battery mode over many unnelectrified sections of Cardiff - Merthyr/Aberdare/Treherbert, and that battery is charged while under the wires.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say that's a little harsh. The M5000s are quick off the mark, modern, bright (but definitely not too bright) and airy feeling on-board, they look stylish and they work as a homogeneous fleet. Their reliability put the T68s to shame, and is the reason all were withdrawn when some were intended to remain alongside the M5000s permanently. They've also got the capability of being singles or doubles. I think calling them awful is very unfair.

They're cheap and rattly, they're single glazed, they have insufficient, hard seats and singly they are too short, but if doubled they waste about 4m of platform length on unnecessary cabs. They do the job, but they aren't wonderful. See also Merseyrail 777s

I think out of all the UK tram operations it was Sheffield that got the quality and design of the vehicles right, certainly for longer runs like Atherton. Ideally an east-west tram train running from Wigan to Rose Hill or Hadfield would be 4-car units more like the Welsh Stadler Citylinks, with a good amount of better quality seating rather than a standee design, as these are longer runs than most of the rest of the Metrolink network.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

See also Merseyrail 777s

How am I supposed to see them if they keep being taken out of service

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

How am I supposed to see them if they keep being taken out of service

Good job he wasn’t talking to you then, Mr Comedian

They're cheap and rattly, they're single glazed, they have insufficient, hard seats and singly they are too short, but if doubled they waste about 4m of platform length on unnecessary cabs. They do the job, but they aren't wonderful. See also Merseyrail 777s

I think out of all the UK tram operations it was Sheffield that got the quality and design of the vehicles right, certainly for longer runs like Atherton. Ideally an east-west tram train running from Wigan to Rose Hill or Hadfield would be 4-car units more like the Welsh Stadler Citylinks, with a good amount of better quality seating rather than a standee design, as these are longer runs than most of the rest of the Metrolink network.

Perhaps I’m just fooled by aesthetics then; I do find the M5000s a most attractive design compared to other trams. The Sheffield trams and older Nottingham ones (those especially actually) are hideous. They’re far sleeker and more streamlined than the newer Citylinks too, although same goes for first generation Electrostar compared to second generation Electrostar.

Point taken for length. Here in Sydney, the Alstom trams on Routes 2 and 3 are five carriages long instead of two and all are semi-permanently coupled, meaning the two routes are served exclusively by ten carriage trams. Very long indeed - as they need to be for that route.

(Route 1 has shorter platforms and avoids the busiest city centre streets, so makes do with single five carriage Alstoms or CAFs, but still more capacity than Metrolink)

Atherton line is largely 2 carriage 150s, or 4 if you’re lucky, and with a generous increase in frequency hopefully this would offset capacity reduced by providing 4 car trams.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Good job he wasn’t talking to you then, Mr Comedian

Is this not a public forum?

Atherton line is largely 2 carriage 150s, or 4 if you’re lucky, and with a generous increase in frequency hopefully this would offset capacity reduced by providing 4 car trams.

It is almost entirely 4 car 150/156s on Kirkby - Blackburn, and 3 or 4 car 158s on Leeds - Wigan Wallgate, short forms are quite rare.

 

[Greybeard33]

With a lot of the bridges you'd be able to lower the trackbed and get away with it that way.

Using https://www.floodmap.net/ it shows how flat everything is as with only 5 metres of rise all of this floods. Although 5 metres of rise is not predicted, it is still a good way to see how flat it is.

Which is a very good reason for not lowering the trackbed....