Future of the Blackpool South line

[El Blanco]

Semi off/on topic:

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/we-need-two-trains-an-hour-1-8415874

Do the numbers stack up to provide the loop - if it does then should the works be tied in with the resignalling?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Semi off/on topic:

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/we-need-two-trains-an-hour-1-8415874

Do the numbers stack up to provide the loop - if it does then should the works be tied in with the resignalling?

Would it mean an increase in operational subsidy? If so, then I have my doubts. As far as I can tell the best way to improve this line would be total tram conversion.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Semi off/on topic:

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/we-need-two-trains-an-hour-1-8415874

Do the numbers stack up to provide the loop - if it does then should the works be tied in with the resignalling?

Would it mean an increase in operational subsidy? If so, then I have my doubts. As far as I can tell the best way to improve this line would be total tram conversion.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. As a single-track line with no better than an hourly service possible the economics of the route are likely to be relatively poor. Nevertheless it looks a good candidate for re-invigouration but opinions differ as to how. From the outside I get the distinct impression that many at the Blackpool end would like to see the line absorbed by the Blackpool tramway though any operation east of Kirkham would entail the use of (likely) expensive tram-trains, an as yet unknown quantity in this country. Whereas people in the Lytham area seem rather keen for the line to remain as part of the national rail network and would like to see the resumption of (some) through services to Manchester as well as much higher capacity for dealing with Pleasure Beach traffic. The lack of a clout-wielding organisation with strategic overview of regional transport in the area means it's extremely difficult to force any decision other than carrying on with the status quo. It's clear that an opportunity do something as part of the electrification of the Blackpool North route has been missed and I suspect will be a source of regret in years to come.

 

[D60]

And therein lies the heart of the matter. As a single-track line with no better than an hourly service possible the economics of the route are likely to be relatively poor. Nevertheless it looks a good candidate for re-invigouration but opinions differ as to how. From the outside I get the distinct impression that many at the Blackpool end would like to see the line absorbed by the Blackpool tramway though any operation east of Kirkham would entail the use of (likely) expensive tram-trains, an as yet unknown quantity in this country. Whereas people in the Lytham area seem rather keen for the line to remain as part of the national rail network and would like to see the resumption of (some) through services to Manchester as well as much higher capacity for dealing with Pleasure Beach traffic. The lack of a clout-wielding organisation with strategic overview of regional transport in the area means it's extremely difficult to force any decision other than carrying on with the status quo. It's clear that an opportunity do something as part of the electrification of the Blackpool North route has been missed and I suspect will be a source of regret in years to come.

Quite so... Most passengers from St Annes or Lytham are looking to travel to Preston or beyond, on the national network.. not North Pier or Fleetwood on the Blackpool tramway... And at weekends, the 4-car trains bring visitors direct from East Lancs to South Fylde and the Pleasure Beach, without change of train, or change of mode...

And yes, a decade ago, there was agitation from the Blackpool end to annex part of our railway link to the national network, in support of their bid for funding for the Blackpool tramway upgrade (after already annexing our bus operator!)

Hands off our railway !

D60 'Lytham St Annes'

 

[Cliveblackpool]

And therein lies the heart of the matter. As a single-track line with no better than an hourly service possible the economics of the route are likely to be relatively poor. Nevertheless it looks a good candidate for re-invigouration but opinions differ as to how. From the outside I get the distinct impression that many at the Blackpool end would like to see the line absorbed by the Blackpool tramway though any operation east of Kirkham would entail the use of (likely) expensive tram-trains, an as yet unknown quantity in this country. Whereas people in the Lytham area seem rather keen for the line to remain as part of the national rail network and would like to see the resumption of (some) through services to Manchester as well as much higher capacity for dealing with Pleasure Beach traffic. The lack of a clout-wielding organisation with strategic overview of regional transport in the area means it's extremely difficult to force any decision other than carrying on with the status quo. It's clear that an opportunity do something as part of the electrification of the Blackpool North route has been missed and I suspect will be a source of regret in years to come.

I live 5 minutes walk from South Station. It is far more convenient to travel from South station rather than from North station, which has poor parking, and bus links from South Shore are not great. (Walking from Promenade or Market Street) It is far easier to change at Preston. Also faster and cheaper to travel to Lytham and St Annes than the bus.
Two trains an hour would make an already popular service - probably tripling the numbers traveling.
All that is required is a dynamic passing loop between Lytham and St Annes.
I am sure that would be a lot better and far far cheaper, and faster than converting parts of it to a tramway.
Having to change at Preston, than again at Kirkham or Lytham would be a right ball ache. - Carry luggage twice between trains/ trams.
There is a pressure group to run trams to Lytham using part of the South line, the section between South Station and Squires Gate being abandoned.
Disjointed Councils - Blackpool Unitary Authority, and Lancashire Fylde Council (One of the smallest)
South station has a huge asset atm, a large municipal car park. More parking could be put in at Squires Gate.
Sadly the massive Pontins site has been lost to housing development.

 

[Elecman]

Is the Scottish Hydraulic points system still an approved method of providing a non fully signalled dynamic loop?

 

[D60]

I live 5 minutes walk from South Station. It is far more convenient to travel from South station rather than from North station, which has poor parking, and bus links from South Shore are not great. (Walking from Promenade or Market Street) It is far easier to change at Preston. Also faster and cheaper to travel to Lytham and St Annes than the bus.
Two trains an hour would make an already popular service - probably tripling the numbers traveling.
All that is required is a dynamic passing loop between Lytham and St Annes.
I am sure that would be a lot better and far far cheaper, and faster than converting parts of it to a tramway.
Having to change at Preston, than again at Kirkham or Lytham would be a right ball ache. - Carry luggage twice between trains/ trams.
There is a pressure group to run trams to Lytham using part of the South line, the section between South Station and Squires Gate being abandoned.
Disjointed Councils - Blackpool Unitary Authority, and Lancashire Fylde Council (One of the smallest)
South station has a huge asset atm, a large municipal car park. More parking could be put in at Squires Gate.
Sadly the massive Pontins site has been lost to housing development.

It's usually suggested that to increase the service to half-hourly would require a passing loop at Ansdell...
Yes a longer dynamic loop would assist with the resilience of the service in case of delays...
However... On the Lytham side of Ansdell... in the area of Skew Bridge/Witch Wood, the track has been slewed to the centre of the formation and raised, to assist with drainage in a persistently wet location... And part of the width of the formation at Ansdell Footbridge sold off for a narrow strip of housing...
And on the St Annes side, a narrow strip was sold to Royal Lytham Golf Course to make an internal roadway...
(These would presumably be obstacles to a double track tramway as well!)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sadly the massive Pontins site has been lost to housing development.

Would you not think that the new housing will be an improvement of what was once there on that particular site?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's usually suggested that to increase the service to half-hourly would require a passing loop at Ansdell...
Yes a longer dynamic loop would assist with the resilience of the service in case of delays...
However... On the Lytham side of Ansdell... in the area of Skew Bridge/Witch Wood, the track has been slewed to the centre of the formation and raised, to assist with drainage in a persistently wet location... And part of the width of the formation at Ansdell Footbridge sold off for a narrow strip of housing...
And on the St Annes side, a narrow strip was sold to Royal Lytham Golf Course to make an internal roadway...
(These would presumably be obstacles to a double track tramway as well!)

How far away is the existing line from the rear area of Clifton Hospital (the one near to King Edward VII school)?

 

[D60]

How far away is the existing line from the rear area of Clifton Hospital (the one near to King Edward VII school)?

For the section of the line through Lytham, Ansdell and St Annes, the existing track occupies the Down side of the formation, apart from the section at Skew Bridge/Witch Wood where it was slewed to the middle and raised in the mid-/late-80s...
So from Ansdell to St Annes, the track occupies the same position in relation to the boundary fence on the Down/seaward side as it always has, including the section alongside the rear of Clifton Hospital...
From Ansdell to St Annes the railway has as its seaward neighbour :- Arundel Road, a public footway to the rear of Clifton Hospital, the continuation of the public footway alongside several blocks of post- and pre-war housing, a short section of St Andrews Rd Sth, the backs of traditional Edwardian/Victorian housing...
On the landward side, alongside the golf course, the boundary fence is now pretty much on top of the formation of the former Up track (lifted circa 1984/5 after being disused since the late-70s)...
(The whole 13-mile branch was relaid with cwr/steel sleepers circa 1997, apart from a section about a mile either side of St Annes station, which has cwr/concrete sleepers dating from the late-1960s)...
Despite the encroachments onto the former double-width trackbed either side of Ansdell station, I believe there is still space for a passing loop at Ansdell (though not a longer dynamic loop... and disabled access to Ansdell station would have to be reconfigured, presumably with a lift from Woodlands Road bridge..)...
(Worried that this diversion down the South Fylde Line might be deviating too far from the subject of the thread..!!)..

 

[amywok]

Would Lytham station form a suitable location for a passing loop?:

Current line is on the former down alignment so a loop could be put in along the former up platform. Platform would need renovation but is substantially complete. The road bridge would give cross - platform access if needed.

Increasing frequencies to half hourly as the current hourly service leaves occasional/ leisure passengers anxious about impact of cancellations. Through services to other destinations such as Manchester would also drive passenger volumes. Direct services to the pleasure beach from additional stations would also drive growth.

Doubling frequency would allow the service to escape its poor local image and become much more attractive to leisure and commuter passengers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[D60]

Would Lytham station form a suitable location for a passing loop?:

Current line is on the former down alignment so a loop could be put in along the former up platform. Platform would need renovation but is substantially complete. The road bridge would give cross - platform access if needed.

Increasing frequencies to half hourly as the current hourly service leaves occasional/ leisure passengers anxious about impact of cancellations. Through services to other destinations such as Manchester would also drive passenger volumes. Direct services to the pleasure beach from additional stations would also drive growth.

Doubling frequency would allow the service to escape its poor local image and become much more attractive to leisure and commuter passengers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ansdell is usually cited for being at the mid-point of the line... but yes, Lytham may actually be more workable...
And yes, everything you say about the resilience of the current service, the impact of delays, the local public perception of the current level of service and its usefulness as an hourly service and the desirability of an increase to half-hourly, and the value of through direct services and connectivity both for outward commuter traffic and for inbound visitor traffic.. are all accurate...

(Edit... On further reflection, a service would have to complete the route from loop to terminus and back within 30mins, which I'm not convinced is reliably achievable with a loop at Lytham... Indeed, it seems that to maintain the hourly schedule, the branch train is timetabled to leave Kirkham station and often waits at the junction ahead of the train arriving off the branch, showing how tight the schedule is... And delayed trains are known to have to omit stops, or run non-stop, or stop short at St Annes to regain the schedule... Tricky...)

 

[Whistler40145]

If the South Fylde Line had a passing loop at Lytham St. Anne's or St Annes, you could have a service like the Windermere branch, e.g. Colne to Blackpool South, returns to Kirkham or Preston, back to Blackpool South and returning to Colne with another unit performing the opposite diagram.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Personally I am in favour of extending the tramway to Lytham - clearly the demand is there with the two main bus routes from Blackpool offering at least 7 buses an hour, plus two other hourly routes to St Annes only. Blackpool South is bleak and inconvenient, and there is no prospect of the line being restored back to Central - it looks as if redevelopment is finally going ahead after 50 years. Passenger use at all the stations on the branch is flat or falling. Equally I do not think there is any justification for extending the tramway on to Kirkham and requiring expensive tram-trains.

I would truncate heavy-rail at St Annes, with the tramway sharing the formation to Lytham, but with an independent single track. There may need to be some short sections of street running for the tramway where the double-track formation has been encroached. I would also like to see electrification of heavy-rail to St Annes with a low-cost 'Paisley Canal' scheme, enabling through trains to operate to Preston and beyond. A half-hourly service could also operate to St Annes without the need for a passing loop.

The disadvantage is for punters travelling to Blackpool Pleasure Beach, requiring a change to tram at St Annes, or at Blackpool North, using the soon to be constructed extension. I do not see this as a major issue with an easy tram-train interchange and through ticketing.

 

[D60]

Personally I am in favour of extending the tramway to Lytham - clearly the demand is there with the two main bus routes from Blackpool offering at least 7 buses an hour, plus two other hourly routes to St Annes only. Blackpool South is bleak and inconvenient, and there is no prospect of the line being restored back to Central - it looks as if redevelopment is finally going ahead after 50 years. Passenger use at all the stations on the branch is flat or falling. Equally I do not think there is any justification for extending the tramway on to Kirkham and requiring expensive tram-trains.

I would truncate heavy-rail at St Annes, with the tramway sharing the formation to Lytham, but with an independent single track. There may need to be some short sections of street running for the tramway where the double-track formation has been encroached. I would also like to see electrification of heavy-rail to St Annes with a low-cost 'Paisley Canal' scheme, enabling through trains to operate to Preston and beyond. A half-hourly service could also operate to St Annes without the need for a passing loop.

The disadvantage is for punters travelling to Blackpool Pleasure Beach, requiring a change to tram at St Annes, or at Blackpool North, using the soon to be constructed extension. I do not see this as a major issue with an easy tram-train interchange and through ticketing.

The linked article from the Blackpool Gazette that prompted this diversion down the South Fylde Line indicates that passenger demand has risen/is rising, albeit not at the national rate (stifled demand)...
Any suggestions for conversion to tramway status tend to come from the Blackpool end... Lytham and St Annes look to improved services and links to the national network both for work opportunities and for visitor traffic, not to the Blackpool tramway...

 

[edwin_m]

The linked article from the Blackpool Gazette that prompted this diversion down the South Fylde Line indicates that passenger demand has risen/is rising, albeit not at the national rate (stifled demand)...
Any suggestions for conversion to tramway status tend to come from the Blackpool end... Lytham and St Annes look to improved services and links to the national network both for work opportunities and for visitor traffic, not to the Blackpool tramway...

Would not the scheme described by Sir Felix maintain these national network links, as well as providing tramway service, potentially, through from St Annes to Fleetwood?

 

[furnessvale]

Personally I am in favour of extending the tramway to Lytham - clearly the demand is there with the two main bus routes from Blackpool offering at least 7 buses an hour, plus two other hourly routes to St Annes only. Blackpool South is bleak and inconvenient, and there is no prospect of the line being restored back to Central - it looks as if redevelopment is finally going ahead after 50 years. Passenger use at all the stations on the branch is flat or falling. Equally I do not think there is any justification for extending the tramway on to Kirkham and requiring expensive tram-trains.

I would truncate heavy-rail at St Annes, with the tramway sharing the formation to Lytham, but with an independent single track. There may need to be some short sections of street running for the tramway where the double-track formation has been encroached. I would also like to see electrification of heavy-rail to St Annes with a low-cost 'Paisley Canal' scheme, enabling through trains to operate to Preston and beyond. A half-hourly service could also operate to St Annes without the need for a passing loop.

The disadvantage is for punters travelling to Blackpool Pleasure Beach, requiring a change to tram at St Annes, or at Blackpool North, using the soon to be constructed extension. I do not see this as a major issue with an easy tram-train interchange and through ticketing.

I think the recently revised clearance standards will have killed any Paisley Canal type schemes stone dead.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Total tram conversion could end up giving people a better service to the rest of Lancashire than preserving the heavy rail service either all or part of the way along the branch. Tram frequencies could plausibly be on the verge of turn-up-and-go (i.e. 4tph) all the way to Kirkham. If the current Blackpool South service is redirected to the North station there would be good connections at both Kirham and Blackpool North onto the tram network and vice-versa. While losing the through service might be inconvenient for some, the likelihood of the 1tph becoming 2tph or more is slight and overall journey times could go down even with a change. Frankly, with the number of bridges over the branch line I think 25kV AC electrification would be so expensive that the business case would never stack up. 750V DC clearance should be easier to achieve without bridge works, and as trams are allowed to run on streets the option is available to delete bridges and cross on the flat instead.

 

[D60]

Would not the scheme described by Sir Felix maintain these national network links, as well as providing tramway service, potentially, through from St Annes to Fleetwood?

On the face of it (at a remote distance, on an internet forum), yes...
However, the practical reality is that 2 sections of the former dual railway trackbed either side of Ansdell station have been sold off...
And more importantly, the economic value of the rail link through Lytham, St Annes, and to the South Shore of Blackpool lies in its direct connection to the national network via Kirkham and Preston...
Seriously... Not to Fleetwood via the Blackpool tramway....

(Historical note... Dr Beeching's recommendation was to retain the link to Blackpool Central via Lytham and St Annes, and to close the line to Blackpool North... But Blackpool Council had its own ambitions for the land occupied by the railway approaches to Central... Under an alternative realisation of history, this thread would be discussing the electrification of Manchester to Blackpool via Lytham and St Annes..)..

 

[deltic08]

Personally I am in favour of extending the tramway to Lytham - clearly the demand is there with the two main bus routes from Blackpool offering at least 7 buses an hour, plus two other hourly routes to St Annes only. Blackpool South is bleak and inconvenient, and there is no prospect of the line being restored back to Central - it looks as if redevelopment is finally going ahead after 50 years. Passenger use at all the stations on the branch is flat or falling. Equally I do not think there is any justification for extending the tramway on to Kirkham and requiring expensive tram-trains.

Just typical. When the most logical action would be to extend to the former Central station site with a couple of tracks, some idiot goes and covers the site with buildings after 50 years. It could only happen in this country.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Just typical. When the most logical action would be to extend to the former Central station site with a couple of tracks, some idiot goes and covers the site with buildings after 50 years. It could only happen in this country.

Why though? Blackpool already has a central station, which is about to get back its direct connection to the tram network. The Blackpool South line will never be the main line again and extending a marginal branch line over land that could be used for other purposes isn't going to be a good use of anyone's money.

 

[deltic08]

Why though? Blackpool already has a central station, which is about to get back its direct connection to the tram network. The Blackpool South line will never be the main line again and extending a marginal branch line over land that could be used for other purposes isn't going to be a good use of anyone's money.

Are you a fortune teller? You don't know. Exactly the same was said of the Waverley route and now look at the growth on that line with two trains an hour. Electrifying the other line puts this one at a disadvantage straight away.

What happens if there is an upturn in UK holidays after Brexit. There won't be room for expansion at North station post electrification and only six platforms.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Are you a fortune teller? You don't know. Exactly the same was said of the Waverley route and now look at the growth on that line with two trains an hour. Electrifying the other line puts this one at a disadvantage straight away.

What happens if there is an upturn in UK holidays after Brexit. There won't be room for expansion at North station post electrification and only six platforms.

The Waverley route is the only rail link into a large region of Scotland and connects it to a major employment area. The Blackpool South line already exists, is actually a secondary line (as the mainline still exists and goes to the North station) and does not create the same level of high-value job access due to structural problems in the English economy.

If there is an upturn in holidays to Blackpool as a result of Brexit then people will be arriving by car and bus, not by train. If they were, then they would be heading for to Blackpool North anyway. Blackpool had the railway infrastructure to handle massive loads of workers from the industrial regions on the few holiday days that they got per year; today's holidays are more spread out and people will always have far more choice. There was a massive uptick in British holiday bookings to Mexico this year because people want sun and they're increasingly able to afford it wherever it is on this earth.

 

[D60]

The Waverley route is the only rail link into a large region of Scotland and connects it to a major employment area. The Blackpool South line already exists, is actually a secondary line (as the mainline still exists and goes to the North station) and does not create the same level of high-value job access due to structural problems in the English economy.

If there is an upturn in holidays to Blackpool as a result of Brexit then people will be arriving by car and bus, not by train. If they were, then they would be heading for to Blackpool North anyway. Blackpool had the railway infrastructure to handle massive loads of workers from the industrial regions on the few holiday days that they got per year; today's holidays are more spread out and people will always have far more choice. There was a massive uptick in British holiday bookings to Mexico this year because people want sun and they're increasingly able to afford it wherever it is on this earth.

So our diversion down the South Fylde Line trundles on.. reluctantly on my part.. but what I'm more reluctant to see is individuals down-playing the economic value of our direct rail link to the national network, and promoting conversion to tramway status...
From my experience and perspective (that of my front window overlooking St Annes station), I can confirm that the overwhelming majority of passengers travelling from St Annes are waiting to board services in the direction of Preston and beyond, not anywhere in the direction of Blackpool...
Similarly, arrivals at tea-time, with several dozens disembarking from arrivals from the Preston direction, very little from Blackpool...
And at weekends, 4-car trains bring visitors to Lytham, St Annes, and the economically disadvantaged South Shore of Blackpool, direct from East Lancs and elsewhere, including direct to the major attraction of Blackpool Pleasure Beach.. returning home later packed with (we assume!) happy daytrippers...
What is required to improve the utility and usefulness and economic value of this service to residents and visitors alike, is an increase to half-hourly and a year-round Sunday service (there was no Sunday service whatsoever throughout the '70s and well into the '80s)... (Bringing us back to the calls from St Annes councillor Tony Ford as referenced in article linked to in the Gazette which prompted this diversion..)..
*Not*.. truncation, disconnection, or annexation by the Blackpool tramway.. thanks...

 

[edwin_m]

Blackpool had the railway infrastructure to handle massive loads of workers from the industrial regions on the few holiday days that they got per year; today's holidays are more spread out and people will always have far more choice.

Just to clarify, each of the mill towns had its own "Wakes Weeks" when the factories and schools shut down for two weeks and special trains were organised from that town to Blackpool. Some of the schools were still doing this (with the long summer holiday reduced accordingly) when I started my education in 1970. So although each individual family had to take their holiday on a prescribed date, as the different towns shut down in different weeks the facilities of Blackpool including the railway were actually used quite efficiently.

But I do agree this is never going to happen again, due to reasons such as the demise of heavy industry, increased individual freedom and the fact many households have people in different jobs often in different towns.

 

[amywok]

Total tram conversion could end up giving people a better service to the rest of Lancashire than preserving the heavy rail service either all or part of the way along the branch. Tram frequencies could plausibly be on the verge of turn-up-and-go (i.e. 4tph) all the way to Kirkham. If the current Blackpool South service is redirected to the North station there would be good connections at both Kirham and Blackpool North onto the tram network and vice-versa. While losing the through service might be inconvenient for some, the likelihood of the 1tph becoming 2tph or more is slight and overall journey times could go down even with a change. Frankly, with the number of bridges over the branch line I think 25kV AC electrification would be so expensive that the business case would never stack up. 750V DC clearance should be easier to achieve without bridge works, and as trams are allowed to run on streets the option is available to delete bridges and cross on the flat instead.

The prospect of eastwards passengers having a forced change at Kirkham to access Preston and the main line isn't a good one! Traffic flows from st Annes and Lytham are mainly to and from Preston and connections, so putting an extra obstacle via a change at Kirkham (unless massively upgraded - a bleak interchange location) would drive down traffic flows. Significant passenger volumes already choose to by-pass the poorly perceived South Fylde service and drive and park at Kirkham or Preston. These would inevitably increase. The option of combined tramway/heavy rail from St Annes to Lytham coupled with increased frequencies st Annes- Preston and beyond could be a real winner!

 

[Chrisyd]

Just to clarify, each of the mill towns had its own "Wakes Weeks" when the factories and schools shut down for two weeks and special trains were organised from that town to Blackpool. Some of the schools were still doing this (with the long summer holiday reduced accordingly) when I started my education in 1970. So although each individual family had to take their holiday on a prescribed date, as the different towns shut down in different weeks the facilities of Blackpool including the railway were actually used quite efficiently.

But I do agree this is never going to happen again, due to reasons such as the demise of heavy industry, increased individual freedom and the fact many households have people in different jobs often in different towns.

The final "Wakes Weeks" for schools in Bolton were not until 1995!

 

[NotATrainspott]

So our diversion down the South Fylde Line trundles on.. reluctantly on my part.. but what I'm more reluctant to see is individuals down-playing the economic value of our direct rail link to the national network, and promoting conversion to tramway status...
From my experience and perspective (that of my front window overlooking St Annes station), I can confirm that the overwhelming majority of passengers travelling from St Annes are waiting to board services in the direction of Preston and beyond, not anywhere in the direction of Blackpool...
Similarly, arrivals at tea-time, with several dozens disembarking from arrivals from the Preston direction, very little from Blackpool...
And at weekends, 4-car trains bring visitors to Lytham, St Annes, and the economically disadvantaged South Shore of Blackpool, direct from East Lancs and elsewhere, including direct to the major attraction of Blackpool Pleasure Beach.. returning home later packed with (we assume!) happy daytrippers...
What is required to improve the utility and usefulness and economic value of this service to residents and visitors alike, is an increase to half-hourly and a year-round Sunday service (there was no Sunday service whatsoever throughout the '70s and well into the '80s)... (Bringing us back to the calls from St Annes councillor Tony Ford as referenced in article linked to in the Gazette which prompted this diversion..)..
*Not*.. truncation, disconnection, or annexation by the Blackpool tramway.. thanks...

The prospect of eastwards passengers having a forced change at Kirkham to access Preston and the main line isn't a good one! Traffic flows from st Annes and Lytham are mainly to and from Preston and connections, so putting an extra obstacle via a change at Kirkham (unless massively upgraded - a bleak interchange location) would drive down traffic flows. Significant passenger volumes already choose to by-pass the poorly perceived South Fylde service and drive and park at Kirkham or Preston. These would inevitably increase. The option of combined tramway/heavy rail from St Annes to Lytham coupled with increased frequencies st Annes- Preston and beyond could be a real winner!

Heavy rail isn't the be-all and end-all of transport planning and investment and in many cases, light rail conversion benefits far more people than it disadvantages. The best example would be the Oldham Loop conversion, where the new Metrolink service may be slightly slower but it is fundamentally more useful for the people along the line. Having massively reduced running costs makes it possible to run a high frequency service not just at peak times, but throughout the day and week. That high frequency service then makes the line actually useful for everyday travel outside of the peaks, leading to more fare revenue which then makes the line worthy of even more investment. By catering to everyday travel, even those who found the previous service arrangement useful can benefit due to the cross-subsidisation of fares. These passengers would never be able to justify heavy rail improvements with their fare revenue alone, meaning that the service will always be terrible for them.

Just to clarify, each of the mill towns had its own "Wakes Weeks" when the factories and schools shut down for two weeks and special trains were organised from that town to Blackpool. Some of the schools were still doing this (with the long summer holiday reduced accordingly) when I started my education in 1970. So although each individual family had to take their holiday on a prescribed date, as the different towns shut down in different weeks the facilities of Blackpool including the railway were actually used quite efficiently.

But I do agree this is never going to happen again, due to reasons such as the demise of heavy industry, increased individual freedom and the fact many households have people in different jobs often in different towns.

Yes, it wasn't as extreme as having everyone turn up on one day, but it did mean that disproportionate amounts of railway infrastructure were needed to handle all of the traffic. With the end of those sorts of holidays there can never be a justification for the capacity to be re-instated.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, it wasn't as extreme as having everyone turn up on one day, but it did mean that disproportionate amounts of railway infrastructure were needed to handle all of the traffic. With the end of those sorts of holidays there can never be a justification for the capacity to be re-instated.

As opposed to the motorway and car park capacity for the same traffic which somehow IS justifiable!

I remember Paul Channon (then Minister of Transport), when told that tourism could save the Long Drag saying, "railways should not be in the business of tourism". (or words to that effect)

 

[edwin_m]

As opposed to the motorway and car park capacity for the same traffic which somehow IS justifiable!

But the car park will provide for far fewer people than the station formerly handled, so in a sense it matches the much lower demand.