Preferred site for Skelmersdale's first railway station revealed

[Philip]

But town planning has a lot to do with it, especially where Skelmersdale is concerned. Rail services can help and they'll benefit Skem a lot but it's no silver bullet. If it was then Crewe would be one of the most vibrant places in the North.

Skem is getting 2tph to Liverpool via Merseyrail and 1tph to Wigan, which will probably be extended to Manchester. That's not half bad for a town the size of Skem which is used to having no rail services at all. At Wigan, there'll be interchange options for WCML services and at Manchester for changes eastwards. Merseyrail will give convenient access to Liverpool and much of its metropolitan area, of which Skelmersdale is very much a part. Sure, it'd be nice if it was 2tph and that is a long term aspiration; but then again, 4tph to Liverpool is also a long term aspiration. And as much as I don't want to be cynical, it does seem you have a bee in your bonnet about the higher frequency to Liverpool than Manchester from a small town which is much closer to the former than the latter. Perhaps the likes of Bolton, Buy and Rochdale, all much larger towns than Skelmersdale, need direct links to Liverpool on a frequency that is at least on parity with Manchester.

To be fair I've made a point in another thread that Liverpool (as well as Sheffield) seems to be getting a raw deal in the whole rail north scheme compared to Manchester and Leeds. But Manchester and Leeds are apparently where it's all at nowadays in these parts.

I've said numerous times in this thread that I'm not dismissing the importance of good links to Liverpool, but at the same time I think this town is far enough out of Liverpool and close enough to Manchester that it'd be foolish not to develop similarly good links to the latter, if the opportunity presents itself with this new rail link. I don't really buy all this being 'culturally close to a city' stuff, better to look at potential ways to develop new growth and multiple rail links will help in this area.

 

[frodshamfella]

Will this link to Skelmersdale be the first new section of line for Merseyrail ? I presume it will be 3rd rail ?

 

[Gareth]

Fair enough Merseyrail itself demonstrates the benefits of consistent timetabling[1] and good connections, FWIW.

[1] Not as consistent as it was; the Southport line does have some off-pattern services that have crept in over the years, which is disappointing. Ormskirk and Kirkby seem to remain 100% pure clockface throughout - if you show up at the "Sunday" times you'll have a train at any time during the service period. That has massive value. As soon as you have one single service that's off pattern unless it's a peak extra in addition to the pattern, you lose the value totally. "Starts 6am finishes 11pm at time X and time Y" is easy for any casual user to remember.

Yes, 100% agree. Sandhills to Central should be clockface 12tph, 5 minute frequency. The Wirral Line between Hamilton Square and Hooton can also be inconsistent. It should be every 15 minutes to/from Chester, with the two Ellesmere Port services slotted in between. When Chester goes down to 2tph in the evening, then clockface 4tph with the Ellesmere Port trains. I'd ideally like 6tph all day on that stretch at a clockface interval giving a 10 minute frequency for those stations.

On another forum, I remember seeing a potential future map that someone had done showing how they'd expand Merseyrail (done plenty of these myself in my time). It included incorporating most or all of the 'City Line'. Fine enough so far. But it was an explosion of lines of all the colours of the rainbow. It made Merseyrail look as intensive as the New York subway, even getting on for Tokyo. The thing is, he'd given practically every terminal destination a direct service to virtually every other on the opposite end of the map. So, for example, there were West Kirby services going to Hunts Cross; some going to St Helens & Wigan and some going round the loop as they do now. There may even have been some going across Birkenhead and down towards Chester. These all had to be represented with a different colour and so the map was very busy. Imagine the complexity of it. How archaic the services at the intermediate stations would be. You may still have 4tph from West Kirby but I doubt they'd be clockface. Maybe just one of these 4tph would go to, say, Aigburth, so it may be quicker to change anyway but then the interchange station may not always be the same for each service that goes there. Today, you'd get one of the 4tph to Moorfields and then get on one of the 4tph to Hunts Cross. Far more simpler and efficient.

 

[frodshamfella]

Yes, 100% agree. Sandhills to Central should be clockface 12tph, 5 minute frequency. The Wirral Line between Hamilton Square and Hooton can also be inconsistent. It should be every 15 minutes to/from Chester, with the two Ellesmere Port services slotted in between. When Chester goes down to 2tph in the evening, then clockface 4tph with the Ellesmere Port trains. I'd ideally like 6tph all day on that stretch at a clockface interval giving a 10 minute frequency for those stations.

On another forum, I remember seeing a potential future map that someone had done showing how they'd expand Merseyrail (done plenty of these myself in my time). It included incorporating most or all of the 'City Line'. Fine enough so far. But it was an explosion of lines of all the colours of the rainbow. It made Merseyrail look as intensive as the New York subway, even getting on for Tokyo. The thing is, he'd given practically every terminal destination a direct service to virtually every other on the opposite end of the map. So, for example, there were West Kirby services going to Hunts Cross; some going to St Helens & Wigan and some going round the loop as they do now. There may even have been some going across Birkenhead and down towards Chester. These all had to be represented with a different colour and so the map was very busy. Imagine the complexity of it. How archaic the services at the intermediate stations would be. You may still have 4tph from West Kirby but I doubt they'd be clockface. Maybe just one of these 4tph would go to, say, Aigburth, so it may be quicker to change anyway but then the interchange station may not always be the same for each service that goes there. Today, you'd get one of the 4tph to Moorfields and then get on one of the 4tph to Hunts Cross. Far more simpler and efficient.

I hope we will see further extensions to the Merseyrail to follow on from the Skelmersdale link, I know they have proposals.

 

[muddythefish]

Going back to the 1960s, there was an early morning Hellifield to Liverpool train that gave business people in Blackburn and east Lancashire a connection to Merseyside. I don't know if this was a regular all day service but presumably there was a train in the opposite direction in the evening. I expect it would have travelled to Lostock and then down the curve at Farington connecting into the Preston - Ormskirk line. I remember seeing a Brush Type 4 coming off that curve in the late 1960s with a long freight presumably from the Liverpool area and heading towards Blackburn and the Settle and Carlisle line. The curve was lifted in the 1970s I believe.

East Lancashire would benefit now from a direct Liverpool connection.

 

[Gareth]

To be fair I've made a point in another thread that Liverpool (as well as Sheffield) seems to be getting a raw deal in the whole rail north scheme compared to Manchester and Leeds. But Manchester and Leeds are apparently where it's all at nowadays in these parts.

I've said numerous times in this thread that I'm not dismissing the importance of good links to Liverpool, but at the same time I think this town is far enough out of Liverpool and close enough to Manchester that it'd be foolish not to develop similarly good links to the latter, if the opportunity presents itself with this new rail link. I don't really buy all this being 'culturally close to a city' stuff, better to look at potential ways to develop new growth and multiple rail links will help in this area.

It's closer to Liverpool. It has more of a relationship with Liverpool. It's surely not that controversial a statement. Do you think Bootle needs direct links to Manchester? Birkenhead? Formby? It's the "similarly good links" which gives it away. You want 2tph to Manchester but this is presumably so long as the slated Merseyrail service is not increased. If Skem gets 4tph on Merseyrail, then would you still be happy with 2tph to Manchester?

Maybe the frequency is due to not just perceived demand but also the practicalities. There's a book called Goalkeepers Are Different. Someday, I'm going to write one called Merseyrail Is Different. Being an isolated system with trains calling at all stations, you can extend to Skem, be it 2tph or 4tph, with little to no difference to the existing services. You're just extending some or all of the existing clockface paths. 1tph to Manchester means using the existing path to Kirkby that already exists. Up it to 2tph and you've got to make sure it doesn't interfere with the existing services between Wigan & Manchester and take into account where it may abstract passengers from existing services, ensuring they remain viable and quite probably have to recast the timetable of the line, which then knocks onto other lines which these services run onto.

If it could justify 2tph and it could be practically delivered, I'd have no objection, irrespective of the Merseyrail frequency. If it can't, then 1tph is better than a kick in the groin and we should be happy about it, whatever the Merseyrail frequency might be.

 

[Philip]

It's closer to Liverpool. It has more of a relationship with Liverpool. It's surely not that controversial a statement. Do you think Bootle needs direct links to Manchester? Birkenhead? Formby? It's the "similarly good links" which gives it away. You want 2tph to Manchester but this is presumably so long as the slated Merseyrail service is not increased. If Skem gets 4tph on Merseyrail, then would you still be happy with 2tph to Manchester?

Maybe the frequency is due to not just perceived demand but also the practicalities. There's a book called Goalkeepers Are Different. Someday, I'm going to write one called Merseyrail Is Different. Being an isolated system with trains calling at all stations, you can extend to Skem, be it 2tph or 4tph, with little to no difference to the existing services. You're just extending some or all of the existing clockface paths. 1tph to Manchester means using the existing path to Kirkby that already exists. Up it to 2tph and you've got to make sure it doesn't interfere with the existing services between Wigan & Manchester and take into account where it may abstract passengers from existing services, ensuring they remain viable and quite probably have to recast the timetable of the line, which then knocks onto other lines which these services run onto.

If it could justify 2tph and it could be practically delivered, I'd have no objection, irrespective of the Merseyrail frequency. If it can't, then 1tph is better than a kick in the groin and we should be happy about it, whatever the Merseyrail frequency might be.

I agree that the practicalities need to be there, I'm not saying other services should make way to allow it.

But how do Bootle and Formby by come into it? Completely different cases, I mentioned a couple of more comparable cases earlier in the thread...St Helens and Runcorn. These are towns really within their own right and are of a similar distance from Liverpool as Skem is. Both have good rail links to Liverpool but also good direct links to other nearby conurbations. Skelmersdale should have something similar.

 

[Gareth]

Formby's not much closer to central Liverpool than Skelmersdale is. It is different though in that it's half the size and yet further from Manchester than Skem is. But then, are you sure St Helens and Runcorn are any more comparable? They're both larger than Skem; St Helens significantly so. St Helens Junction and Runcorn East are both rather peripheral to the towns they're named after and both are intermediate stops not terminal destinations. By most measures, both have way better rail links to Liverpool than to Manchester. Skem's 1tph to Manchester is at least as good as Runcorn's 1tph from Runcorn East.

 

[PR1Berske]

It doesn't make it correct though or justify a less efficient use of the railway. It's simply not practical to give everywhere a direct connection to everywhere else.

I also think the aversion to changing is overplayed and is probably a generational thing so far as it's a thing at all.

Oh absolutely, I think somewhere between my anecdotal evidence and your opinion lies the truth !

 

[Skie]

For all the talk of coming up with a regular Manchester service, it's far easier to extend the existing regular Merseyrail service to Skem than it is to create an entirely new service into Manchester. A Wigan service makes sense. I'm sure a direct service would come along eventually if the passenger figures bear it out.

 

[Camden]

To be fair I've made a point in another thread that Liverpool (as well as Sheffield) seems to be getting a raw deal in the whole rail north scheme compared to Manchester and Leeds. But Manchester and Leeds are apparently where it's all at nowadays in these parts.

Chicken and egg? How about we show the same sort of enthusiasm for these projects in and around Liverpool as for those in/for Manchester, lending support so that Liverpool is also where is it's all at too (again)?

I don't know if people generally have the memories of a goldfish or just prefer not to recall, but until the likes of George Osborne starting weaving their magic, and thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of people, Liverpool was fairly recently posting the fastest economic growth in the country. Not a lot of people know that. Possibly because whenever anyone mentions the place up pops someone like you waxing lyrical about how much more important Manchester is!!

As I understand it the link is being funded by the local council in partnership with Liverpool's transport body, not Manchester's, so I think this topic of connecting it to Manchester has been explored enough already for this thread.

 

[PR1Berske]

This might be crystal balling on my part but I assume that services from Liverpool to Wigan Wallgate via "Skem" would use Wallgate's bay platform?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This might be crystal balling on my part but I assume that services from Liverpool to Wigan Wallgate via "Skem" would use Wallgate's bay platform?

The present proposal is, I believe, to have Merseyrail run to Skem, and the existing 1tph diesel service from Skem to Wigan. This service presently continues to Manchester Victoria, and unless Skem-Wigan can be got down to 10 minutes (doubt it) would probably continue to run through to Manchester, as otherwise it would have about 25 minutes in the hour layover in the bay at Wigan.

If it is decided to split it and run more trains through to Southport / run EMUs to North Western, I imagine it'll use the bay, yes.

 

[PR1Berske]

The present proposal is, I believe, to have Merseyrail run to Skem, and the existing 1tph diesel service from Skem to Wigan. This service presently continues to Manchester Victoria, and unless Skem-Wigan can be got down to 10 minutes (doubt it) would probably continue to run through to Manchester, as otherwise it would have about 25 minutes in the hour layover in the bay at Wigan.

If it is decided to split it and run more trains through to Southport / run EMUs to North Western, I imagine it'll use the bay, yes.

Many thanks Neil.

 

[daodao]

Going back to the 1960s, there was an early morning Hellifield to Liverpool train that gave business people in Blackburn and east Lancashire a connection to Merseyside. I don't know if this was a regular all day service but presumably there was a train in the opposite direction in the evening. I expect it would have travelled to Lostock and then down the curve at Farington connecting into the Preston - Ormskirk line. I remember seeing a Brush Type 4 coming off that curve in the late 1960s with a long freight presumably from the Liverpool area and heading towards Blackburn and the Settle and Carlisle line. The curve was lifted in the 1970s I believe.

East Lancashire would benefit now from a direct Liverpool connection.

Fast through trains between Liverpool Exchange/Manchester Victoria, Blackburn and Hellfield were developed by the Midland Railway to connect with their Scotch expresses. There were 4-5 through trains per day in 1910, but I presume this service was run down following formation of the LMS, which promoted the LNW route to Scotland. The Hellifield-Blackburn route was closed for regular passenger trains by the end of 1962 (although it has now been re-opened as far as Clitheroe). Motorway construction in Lancashire has effectively displaced much potential development of surviving rail routes in the county, although the Copy Pit line now has the best passenger service it has ever had. For example, Skelmersdale is well served by the M58.

 

[frodshamfella]

Would it be correct to think that Rainford would benefit from receiving two trains an hour with this plan ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it be correct to think that Rainford would benefit from receiving two trains an hour with this plan ?

Yes, I would imagine it will - the spur will be after Rainford. Cue a house price increase!

 

[frodshamfella]

Yes, I would imagine it will - the spur will be after Rainford. Cue a house price increase!

Yes I think your right there !

 

[tsangpogorge]

The mere mention of Manchester seems to be rather contentious with certain posters, is it just the age old Liverpool-Manchester rivalry causing this aversion or is there a genuine or otherwise perception that Liverpool gets treated like the ugly step child by the powers of the land?

 

[urbophile]

The mere mention of Manchester seems to be rather contentious with certain posters, is it just the age old Liverpool-Manchester rivalry causing this aversion or is there a genuine or otherwise perception that Liverpool gets treated like the ugly step child by the powers of the land?

Yes and yes! Having said that, the plans seem to keep the right balance, by providing much better access to Liverpool and improving that to Manchester.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I think Liverpool has always been overlooked by the (southern) powers that be because it is not prepared to play the establishment game. It is a distinctive city with its own character and strengths, whereas Manchester (at least to these biased scouse eyes) gets noticed because it plays by London's rules and appears in so many ways like a lesser version of London. London without the interesting bits, rather like a bigger Croydon. (with more rain).

 

[frodshamfella]

Yes and yes! Having said that, the plans seem to keep the right balance, by providing much better access to Liverpool and improving that to Manchester.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I think Liverpool has always been overlooked by the (southern) powers that be because it is not prepared to play the establishment game. It is a distinctive city with its own character and strengths, whereas Manchester (at least to these biased scouse eyes) gets noticed because it plays by London's rules and appears in so many ways like a lesser version of London. London without the interesting bits, rather like a bigger Croydon. (with more rain).

Its does seem to me the Liverpool does seem to get left out infrastructure wise. Merseyrail is a great system, but apart from electrification to E Port and Chester some time ago, and the building of Liverpool South Parkway, it hasn't seen the improvements to it on par with the Metrolink.

I live in Cheshire where rail transport is generally poor, Id like to see Merseyrail expand further my way, then maybe I'd get a better service !

 

[bramling]

Its does seem to me the Liverpool does seem to get left out infrastructure wise. Merseyrail is a great system, but apart from electrification to E Port and Chester some time ago, and the building of Liverpool South Parkway, it hasn't seen the improvements to it on par with the Metrolink.

Surely that's because Liverpool already had massive investment in the 1970s in the form of the Loop and Link tunnels, plus already had a suburban electrified railway system?

By contrast, in 1990 what did Manchester have? A life-expired electrified line to Bury and a couple of 25kV lines, with the rest being relatively infrequent DMU services, some of which were still worked by 1st-generation units. Their underground system, PiccVic, had been shelved by this time.

Looking at that comparison, it's no surprise Manchester needed more investment just to catch up with the quality of provision Liverpool had.

A lot of other cities would be very pleased to have the Merseyrail network, which despite the fact it has stagnated since the 1990s, is still (arguably) rather superior to a tram system.

 

[urbophile]

Of course. But since then Manchester's system has expanded significantly, while Merseyrail just ticks over. The scrapping of the Merseytram scheme evoked promises from local politicians that the money set aside for it could be spent on improvements to Merseyrail, with the implication that schemes like the Edge Hill - Bootle branch, or the link through the Wapping tunnel to the City line, could be pursued. Apart from the very welcome refurbishment of the city centre stations, we have seen nothing.

 

[frodshamfella]

Surely that's because Liverpool already had massive investment in the 1970s in the form of the Loop and Link tunnels, plus already had a suburban electrified railway system?

By contrast, in 1990 what did Manchester have? A life-expired electrified line to Bury and a couple of 25kV lines, with the rest being relatively infrequent DMU services, some of which were still worked by 1st-generation units. Their underground system, PiccVic, had been shelved by this time.

Looking at that comparison, it's no surprise Manchester needed more investment just to catch up with the quality of provision Liverpool had.

A lot of other cities would be very pleased to have the Merseyrail network, which despite the fact it has stagnated since the 1990s, is still (arguably) rather superior to a tram system.

But aren't you talking about electrification of existing lines in the 70s ? I don't know the history but....surely the underground under Liverpool is the only new stuff ? As I said I think Merseyrail is very good, but there has been little expansion for years.

 

[Gareth]

The mere mention of Manchester seems to be rather contentious with certain posters...

I don't know anyone on here who fits that profile. Liverpool, however, unsettles quite a few people - an affliction as irrational as fear of house spiders. There's quite a few Liverpool-based contributors on here now but not so many years ago when there weren't so many, this place was a tough gig. It's the same on any UK-based forum I've been on where there's been little Liverpool representation. Funnily enough, this doesn't tend to happen on international forums.

 

[L+Y]

Going back to the 1960s, there was an early morning Hellifield to Liverpool train that gave business people in Blackburn and east Lancashire a connection to Merseyside. I don't know if this was a regular all day service but presumably there was a train in the opposite direction in the evening. I expect it would have travelled to Lostock and then down the curve at Farington connecting into the Preston - Ormskirk line. I remember seeing a Brush Type 4 coming off that curve in the late 1960s with a long freight presumably from the Liverpool area and heading towards Blackburn and the Settle and Carlisle line. The curve was lifted in the 1970s I believe.

East Lancashire would benefit now from a direct Liverpool connection.

Quite interesting that you report seeing a freight coming off the Ormskirk line, as I believe by the late 1960s almost nothing came that way besides a Saturday morning prefab track train from Aintree, and the Ormskirk goods yard trip working which ceased in early 1969.

The line from Moss Lane Junction to Lostock Hall Engine Shed junction closed in April 1972, though I'm not sure how heavily used it was after the closure of Lostock Hall station in 1969. Most trains seem to have been diverted into the NU side of Preston station at that point, but I've seen a picture of a DMU with an Ormskirk destination blind at Preston East Lancs in a slide dated 1971: so who knows!

 

[WatcherZero]

Of course. But since then Manchester's system has expanded significantly, while Merseyrail just ticks over. The scrapping of the Merseytram scheme evoked promises from local politicians that the money set aside for it could be spent on improvements to Merseyrail, with the implication that schemes like the Edge Hill - Bootle branch, or the link through the Wapping tunnel to the City line, could be pursued. Apart from the very welcome refurbishment of the city centre stations, we have seen nothing.

A lot of it can come down to what you decide to do with the money you get. Greater Manchester prioritised tram at the expense of heavy rail or road schemes. Merseyside prioritised road schemes to industrial estates and subsidising tunnel toll rises being below inflation.

 

[Chester1]

Yes and yes! Having said that, the plans seem to keep the right balance, by providing much better access to Liverpool and improving that to Manchester.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I think Liverpool has always been overlooked by the (southern) powers that be because it is not prepared to play the establishment game. It is a distinctive city with its own character and strengths, whereas Manchester (at least to these biased scouse eyes) gets noticed because it plays by London's rules and appears in so many ways like a lesser version of London. London without the interesting bits, rather like a bigger Croydon. (with more rain).

As a Wirral lad who now lives in Greater Manchester id definately agree with much of your assessment. Liverpool is held back by its attitudes, it is heavily nostalgic about its past. Try telling the average scouser that job losses at the docks were caused by automation not the Tories! Seaforth container port now handles more tonnage than the Port of Liverpool ever did but with less than 1% of the employees per ton. The Tories definately damaged Liverpool but thats the sort of distinction on an issue by issue basis that Manchester makes but Liverpool seems unable to. 30 years on there is still no real vision for a post industrial Liverpool that can pay its own way.

 

[Gareth]

Liverpool's 'attitudes' aren't here or there. Even setting aside of how sweeping and clichéd your statements are, they could even be 100% accurate and still not relevant. Liverpool's predicament and destiny, like every other town and city in the land, is solely in the hands of the unitary state based in and around Whitehall. It's one of the most centralised states in the world and quite an anomaly given its quite large population. Liverpool could somehow have the best and brightest local politicians and civil servants in world but it'd make little difference. We have no authentic municipal government in this country. It was eaten away constantly in the post-war period and pretty much destroyed entirely by the 70s. But hey, our streetlighting or waste disposal regime would no doubt be the best in the world.

 

[frodshamfella]

If there is to be two trains per hour to Skelmersdale, will there be some services terminating at Kirkby still? Would this mean another platform at Kirkby ?