mcnw35282
Member
I heard somewhere the Wigan platform at Headbolt Lane has been designed to be less substantial than the two Liverpool ones to make it easily removable should extension to Skem or Wigan be approved in the future.
-
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!
Potential Merseyrail expansion beyond Headbolt Lane and/or timetable improvements
- Thread starter mcnw35282
- 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
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
I was hoping it would be so, the 777s are known to be capable to get to Wigan and back, and there's a platform at Wigan that fits a single 777. P3 rarely sees use. (not fit doubles but I wouldn't be annoyed if they stripped out the gardens to extend it).
Not preparing Headbolt Lane for an extension would make an extension harder to approve and less likely to happen.
I thought the plan was for Merseyrail and Manchester trains to go to Skelmersdale?
That plan was scrapped when the inevitable u-turn on providing funding for “levelling up” happened. The people of Skem were told to get a bus instead.
That's their fault for voting Labour!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Correct. If/when the line extends through, that platform will be demolished and a footbridge with lifts will be installed, making it a standard two-side-platforms station like the thousands of others around the UK.
It's a bit offset because of the shape of the plot, I believe.
I believe it was more that the benefit-cost ratio was very poor because most people would reach it by car, and if they're driving Maghull North is less than 15 minutes from most homes in Skem via the M58 so they'll just drive there instead.
Upholland is of course "Skelmersdale South" and could have its facilities upgraded if Merseyrail goes to Wigan, that'd be no less use, really, than a Concourse station - Skem was never really going to have significant inbound commuting to that area, the only place in the centre that has significant non-retail jobs is the Co-op Bank site, the rest of the skilled work is in the industrial estates to the south which are nearer or as near to Upholland station.
I don't think the government had ever suggested Skem would be funded. As far as I know it was never more than a hope by the local authorities that funds might be found. The idea of the branch to Skem has been around since long before levelling up became a Johnson catchphrase.
Rainford Jct is quite awkward for buses from Skelmersdale though. You could go via Crawford village, which has the advantage of passing Upholland Station and Pimbo Garden Centre, but is quite a winding route. Or you could go direct via Nipe Lane, but that's a single track road which even cars barely manage to get down. That leaves going along the Rainford By-Pass, which is 15 minutes according to "Bing Maps" (assuming you avoid the motorway as you'd expect a service bus to do) and passes literally nothing between leaving Skelmersdale and reaching the station.
Upholland station would be the best railhead for Skem, but the main access is on Pimbo lane, which is a narrow small road with no parking and which has deliberately been isolated from the Skelmersdale road network and a nearby industrial estate. For a fraction of the cost of building Skelmersdale station, it could be possible to open out a bigger access and add car parking in the industrial estate. That would be just under 3 miles away from the Concourse and a 5 minute car journey.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
The current service already uses the M58, they're trying to connect the two fast.
Until Merseyrail run services there, it's not, that line gets 1 train each way an hour, only to either Kirkby [future Headbolt Ln] or Blackburn via Wigan, Atherton, Manchester and Todmorden.
Meanwhile Kirkby/Headbolt Lane gets access to both services, especially the more frequent Merseyrail service.
Headbolt Lane (for the same reason above) is incredibly likely to have the 319 move to it, it even has it's dedicated bus stop.
Greybeard33
Established Member
If Merseyrail is extended towards Wigan, I believe there will have to be a single track section just east of Headbolt Lane. For about 600m the existing single track runs alongside the Arrival & Departure siding of the Knowsley freight terminal. I doubt that the formation is wide enough for a third track here (the siding is gated and fenced off from the main line).
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
at least Headbolt Lane will have two permanent platforms making it a good passing place.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
What is the current state of play with regards to that particular matter, in any official statement made?
The plan for the Skem extension would have been a single line all the way from Kirkby to Skem, with a bay platform at the end of another single line at Headbolt Lane for the Merseyrail services that are terminating/starting from Headbolt Lane towards Liverpool. The Wigan side would also have been single line to Skem. Confusing to say the least, but probably the cheapest and most operationally isolated/convenient way to do it.
Nothing concrete revealed. The Skem plans being kiboshed might have made it more likely given the battery 777s can reach it and it would only take minor alterations to Headbolt Lane, though without double tracking it to Rainford it would limit the frequency.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
There's already a single line segment that ends in the current Kirkby platform (talking about Liverpool side), if the line was made continuous Headbolt Lane could easily become a passing point already, so there's probably be enough time to get to Rainford in that gap.
That’s only if they connect the two Merseyrail lines at Headbolt Lane. That wasn’t in the plan for Skem but could probably be done without too much effort.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
Isn't connecting the two lines the whole reason the Northern platform is able to be disassembled much easier than the merseyrail ones (post #183)
Greybeard33
Established Member
I think to allow for freight paths to/from Knowsley, Dale Lane to Rainford would need to be redoubled. Although it could possibly be configured as parallel single lines (Merseyrail and freight).
The plan for Skem was for a new branch line to leave the L&Y main line at a triangular junction between Rainford and Upholland. Whether this was to be configured as parallel single tracks Kirkby - Skem and Skem - Wigan, double track left hand running throughout or single track only I don’t know, but it is quite fortunate that freight access to Knowsley means the line between Rainford and Upholland cannot be severed, which improves the case for conventional double track running, whether to Skem or only to Wigan.
The arrival/departure siding is already offset from both running lines as if it were a 3rd track in the Headbolt Lane layout as built anyway, so it looks like there is quite sufficient space for 3 tracks on that section.
How many trains make use of the terminal on a daily basis? From RTT it looks like maybe two in and out. If they did want to double-track throughout, what's the feasibility of adding the necessary S&C to make the existing track bidirectional and join the siding at the other end so that it can be used as both a through track and as a reception road?
Greybeard33
Established Member
I am sure such S&C would be technically feasible. The question is how much Merseytravel would be willing/able to spend on resignalling, for an extension from Headbolt Lane to Wigan. Currently the single line from Rainford to Kirkby is token operated from the Rainford box, with a token machine at the Dale Lane ground frame that enables a freight to be locked in the freight terminal while passenger trains use the line. The double track line between Rainford and Wigan Wallgate Junction is Absolute Block.
The fencing implies that the siding half of the formation is owned or leased by the freight terminal operator, so presumably there might be some cost involved in Network Rail taking it over.
An advantage of Headbolt Lane as the Merseyrail terminus is that it preserves the segregation between Merseyrail and freight services, avoiding the risk of importing delays into the Merseyrail network.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't think I'd worry much about importing delays on Kirkby-Wigan; it's fairly sparsely used, and on a high frequency service like Merseyrail with self-contained diagrams you can get a train back on time simply by cancelling a round trip, something the two-platform Headbolt Lane makes rather easier (on the Ormskirk line you have to take such a train out at Kirkdale and put it back in later).
Going past Wigan would be unwise, but I can't see why you would do that, connections towards Manchester would be fine as long as you aligned the timetables by selecting the right 2tph services to continue past Headbolt Lane to line up with the Southports for the Manchester connection (a connection towards Southport is much less important for obvious reasons).
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
There is currently 4tph from Wigan Wallgate towards Manchester, two via Bolton, two Via Atherton,
currently at 07 (from Southport), 20 (currently from Kirkby), 39 (from Southport), 49 (starting there)
past each hour, and take basically the same amount of time, times like that make connections pretty good already.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
When was the first time that the introduction of a third rail system into Wigan Wallgate was discussed in council meetings of Wigan and has the council expressed any current views on the matter?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There is no need for third rail as the battery units would be used.
The first mention by the Wigan Corporation of extending the third rail electrification of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway from Southport to Wigan was probably made before the First World War!
This week I have been reading about the work of Henry Eoghan O’Brien, Chief Electrical Engineer of the L&YR 1903-09, later Works Manager at Horwich and assistant to both Aspinall and Hughes, who oversaw much of the initial expansion of the third rail. Post-WW1, he was simply dismissed by the board of the LMS for suggesting blanket electrification of the former L&YR, including all branches and sidings, justifying it on the grounds of it being the most densely trafficked system of lines in Great Britain and therefore likely the world, as well as from Crewe - Carlisle on the former L&NWR.
The 507s of course had Wigan as a destination on their rollerblinds from new, so clearly it was still being discussed some 70 years later.
However are some of these going to be diverted to North Western, due to the overhead electrification from Bolton not going to Wallgate?
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
yes by the maps I have the overhead only goes into Northwestern (getting it under Wallgate would/will be a massive challenge)
so I would expect possibly at least 1 via Bolton service to start going into Northwestern (or beyond).
And have the currently terminating Atherton service going to Southport
Either way the two stations are like a 5 minute slow walk from Platform to Platform, which isn't that much.
I don't think there's a dedicated thread for the electrification's theoretical routings yet.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
To develop this idea further a Skem railhead could be created by replacing the existing Upholland station with one a little nearer Liverpool and making that the termination point for Liverpool and Manchester services. There is room there for a decent sized car park and being so much nearer Skem could make the provision of connecting bus services much cheaper allowing them to operate at better frequencies than the half-hourly interval of the new 329 service. I also suspect that having such a railhead so much closer to Skem than Maghull would make it much more attractive. The problem with Maghull as a railhead is to reach it from Skem you drive along the M58: once on the motorway I suspect many people would prefer to simply continue driving all the way to Liverpool.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't see any need to move it; a new station building, car park and access could be built on spare land in Pimbo and use the existing platforms (keeping the existing entrance as well as no doubt there are people it suits). The further west you go, the further south away from Skem the railway goes, so unless you're planning a big expansion it wouldn't work. It's a shame the town wasn't mirrored south or based on Rainford, things would have been very different!
Thus spake someone who's never been stuck in traffic at Switch Island, which is notorious? Plus parking in Liverpool city centre is quite expensive. The drive isn't fraught like London, but it's not exactly nice either. It would be interesting to know how many people drive and park in Ormskirk, Maghull (North) and Kirkby now?
- Status