Darwen-Bolton Query

[M60lad]

Is there anything stopping the line from Darwen-Bolton being doubled, instead of it being single line from Darwen-Bromley X, also is there a reason why its single lined for such a long stretch

 

[Lampshade]

The bridge over the M65 is single line, as is Sough Tunnel, which can't really be doubled due to a landslip.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Getting rid of the 10mph open level crossing at Turton would solve a hell of a lot of problems without the need for and expense of miles of pointless redoubling between the two. Get rid of Turton and you're down to 10mins~ between DWN and BMC - very nice indeed, and rather cheaply done too.

 

[Darren R]

The bridge over the M65 is single line, as is Sough Tunnel, which can't really be doubled due to a landslip.

The M65 bridge is single track (shamefully) but Sough Tunnel is double track. There has been a lot of work done to remove huge chunks out of the cutting north of the tunnel on both sides to improve the stability. The formation is wide enough for double track (after a bit of re-jigging), as is the tunnel.

MattE2010
Getting rid of the 10mph open level crossing at Turton would solve a hell of a lot of problems without the need for and expense of miles of pointless redoubling between the two. Get rid of Turton and you're down to 10mins~ between DWN and BMC - very nice indeed, and rather cheaply done too.

I think that myself every time on the approach to that crossing! I frequently wonder how much it would cost to install proper barriers there to eliminate the 5mph limit northbound. NetworkRail are very good at doing minor works that are cheap and quick, enabling a couple of minutes here and there to be shaved off the timings, improving reliability. I always wonder why it hasn't happened here. (The residents in those fancy new houses alongside probably wonder the same thing! Although of course there might be very good technical reasons why not.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In that stretch, is there an ungated crossing similar to that at Burneside where access is gained to plots of land to be used for detached housing on the other side of the track ? I must confess that matters have conspired to prevent my wife and I from making our monthly rail visits to Clitheroe for quite some time.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

In that stretch, is there an ungated crossing similar to that at Burneside where access is gained to plots of land to be used for detached housing on the other side of the track ? I must confess that matters have conspired to prevent my wife and I from making our monthly rail visits to Clitheroe for quite some time.

Yes, that's Turton, which myself and Darren R were referring to.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, that's Turton, which myself and Darren R were referring to.

Thanks Matt, I was unsure which district this site was situated in. Would you say that such a modern development next to a rail line, using that type of access, would be one that would not often occur...or are there other examples in the North-West ?

Incidentally, was there not a recent campaign, with parish councillors involved, to have both Spring Vale station and Turton & Edgworth station both included in the area future transport plans ?

 

[Darren R]

Thanks Matt, I was unsure which district this site was situated in. Would you say that such a modern development next to a rail line, using that type of access, would be one that would not often occur...or are there other examples in the North-West ?

Incidentally, was there not a recent campaign, with parish councillors involved, to have both Spring Vale station and Turton & Edgworth station both included in the area future transport plans ?

Yes I thought it a little bit odd that expensive new homes went up alongside such an inconvenient and noisy piece of infrastructure. I also notice that although the site of the demolished factory on the other side of the crossing was clearly marked out into individual plots for new homes several years ago, nothing more has happened since!

On the subject of station re-opening, by chance I came across this article (http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/10568524.MP_backs__brilliant__idea_to_reopen_Lower_Darwen_station/ a few days ago in the Lancashire Telegraph.

Selected highlights:

MP backs 'brilliant' idea to reopen Lower Darwen station
A COMMUNITY has expressed its hopes that a once popular railway station could be put back on the rail map should a massive regeneration bid be successful.

At a ward meeting residents from Lower Darwen said they would like to see their station re-opened so that the area can be better served by public transport.

The district’s station was closed and subsequently demolished in 1958, ahead of the 1963 Beeching report.

Resident, Alan Rogerson, who has lived in the area for several decades, put out a call to find other people who had been thinking about starting a pressure group around the issue.

Aidan Turner-Bishop, organiser of Better Transport Lancashire, said: “We would like to see as many stations opened as can safely fit on the line. This, plus the establishment of a regular service through East Lancashire will help to get as many people off the roads as possible, however we understand current budgetary constraints may put plans like this on hold.”

MP for Darwen and Rossendale Jake Berry said: “It would be fantastic to reopen Lower Darwen, however we must be realistic that this would very much be a long term goal.”

It's just not a realistic proposal though, for several reasons. There is possibly an argument to be had for a new station slightly further north than the site of Lower Darwen station. (Near where Lower Darwen engine shed used to be for anyone old enough to remember that!) It serves more population and would be very close to Ewood Park. But it's still in the middle of a single track section which just isn't practical.

 

[Darren R]

This has already been mentioned elsewhere, but I thought I'd resurrect this thread since it's pertinent. From the Lancashire Telegraph yesterday (13/09):

Blackburn to Manchester link set to get massive improvements
THE vital rail link between Blackburn, Clitheroe and Manchester looks set to be revolutionised ending a massive campaign which has gone on for years.

The millions of pounds needed to finance the long-awaited upgrade will be confirmed next week.

Campaigners were euphoric over the move which will see services increase from hourly to every 30 minutes.

The cash for the crucial scheme was included in the agreements signed as part of the Preston City Deal in Downing Street yesterday (WED).[11/09]

This means that a meeting next week can give the green light for the £20 million project to improve the Clitheroe to Manchester line, via Blackburn and Bolton.

It will ensure the track will be double for its full length between Blackburn and Bolton, with the single-line Sough Tunnel south of Darwen upgraded.

Signalling and bridges will also be improved as part of the scheme.

The good news was confirmed to the Lancashire Telegraph last night by Edwin Booth, chairman of the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership, of which TFL [Transport For Lancashire] is a sub-committee.

The only hurdle now to be passed is the special GRIP study into the scheme’s viability, scheduled for completion in time for the improvements to start in May 2015.

The scheme already has the backing of national track authority Network Rail and transport minister Simon Burns. Blackburn with Darwen borough had earmarked £2 million for its contribution to the final scheme. The rest will be a joint-contribution from Lancashire County Council and the Department for Transport in London.

Link to the full story:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10674191.Blackburn_to_Manchester_link_set_to_get_massive_improvements/?ref=mr (But most of what I've not included is quotes from various people agreeing that this is "good news"! )

Re-doubling throughout from Bolton to Blackburn except through Sough Tunnel? Is that actually what is on the cards - that's a big job and rather more than is actually necessary to be able to run a reliable, half-hourly service. I'd have thought extending the loop northwards from Bromley Cross towards the site of Turton & Edgworth station, and an extension of the Darwen loops in both directions from South Tunnel to the M65 bridge would suffice.

The remaining single track section from Hall I'Th'Wood to Bolton would be especially problematic to re-double. The track along most of this section has been slewed to reduce the curvature, especially through Bradshawgate Tunnel and along the Tonge Viaduct - not easily accessible areas to do the necessary!

Nonethless, as a huge number of people are quoted as saying in the Telegraph article, this is indeed "good news"!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Indeed, good news but about 50% of what they do will be needless. I know economics doesn't generally follow such rules, but I'd rather they just upgraded Turton, perhaps installed a loop at Entwistle or similar and put the rest of the funding into another (not necessarily even rail), more deserving project.

 

[WatcherZero]

Last I heard the local authorities wernt pleased with Network Rails plan to just add loops and so Lancashire LEP are funding the redoubling themselves.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What are the main differences that could be said to affect a full reinstatement of both the Sough tunnel and those contained in the currently planned works to upgrade the Holme tunnel on the Copy Pit line where profile deformation has occurred ?

 

[Darren R]

What are the main differences that could be said to affect a full reinstatement of both the Sough tunnel and those contained in the currently planned works to upgrade the Holme tunnel on the Copy Pit line where profile deformation has occurred ?

I'm not actually aware of any Holme Tunnel-type problems with Sough Tunnel. There is no speed limit in force through the tunnel; the only potential problem I can think of is that the drainage is poor towards the southern end (the tunnel runs beneath Cranberry Moss - it's very wet up there!)

Originally Posted by WatcherZero
Last I heard the local authorities wernt pleased with Network Rails plan to just add loops and so Lancashire LEP are funding the redoubling themselves.

I wonder if there is any chance that sense will prevail. As MattE2010 says, re-doubling throughout just isn't necessary and makes the job bigger, taking longer and causing more disruption in the process. There was a thread recently about councils getting involved in running the railways in the proposed new Transport fer Oop't North. I seem to recall I was the only one arguing against the plan because of my concerns over the ability of councils to be sensible - this strikes me as public bodies spending more money than needed; money which could be utilised elsewhere on the region's network. It might only be a few million off the project (only! ) but that's a new station somewhere else or a refurbished station or two.