Should the closed stations between Preston and Lancaster be reopened? ?

[infobleep]

No one will touch Preston to Lancaster until Preston gets resignaled, and even then Im not convinced any new infrastructure would get built.

Will they touch the resignalling of Preston any time soon?

 

[zwk500]

If even 5% of students plus staff used it for their normal commute, that's something like 800 people per day. Or 1600 entrances/exits at Bailrigg times 250 working days per year, which gives you a very respectful station usage of 400K/year. Yes I know, it'll be lower in the Uni holidays but on the other hand I haven't counted anything for weekend use, visitors, day trippers, etc. Consider also that many of the visitors will be coming from a long way away (students' friends and family visiting, academic visitors from other places, student open days, etc.) so there's the potential for a highish average fare income per passenger.

Expecting 5% of students to use the train 250 times a year is quite a lot. And visitors of students would go to the city centre, not the uni. The only far-away income would be on conference days.

Ahhhh... That sounds like the kind of perfect arrangement that I understand is quite normal for some countries on the continent, but somehow we almost never seem to be able to pull it off in the UK. We can dream... Seriously, it would be ideal, although I'd worry that anglo-Scottish services come from far enough away that getting significantly delayed is a very regular occurrence, and do you want those delays transferred to the (hypothetical) stopping commuter service.

Depends which end you decide to line up the connections for and all that.

Yeah, Southbound I would imagine you're talking, maybe some work on platform 5 - no major problems. Northbound is harder. You'd probably need to turn Platform 3 into an island platform, building another track through the taxi rank. That's serious building work.

South end generally of Lancaster station and the goods loops between preston and Lancaster.

Agreed. That's partly why my suggestion was for a Preston-Morecambe service, with some other stops between Bailrigg and Preston (as a minimum, Preston Blackpool Road and Broughton Parkway). In principle, I'd prefer such a service to carry on further South, but that's a whole separate discussion. One minor advantage of doing it that way is you no longer have Morecambe services terminating at Lancaster, which makes rebuilding easier - less need for the terminating bays. Also you remove a conflicting move where the inbound service from Morecambe crosses the WCML tracks twice en route to Lancaster.

The Morecambe would probably be my choice as well, especially as it makes a Battery EMU the perfect choice.

 

[The Planner]

Will they touch the resignalling of Preston any time soon?

CP8 I suspect, its in the pot with Warrington and Carlisle.

 

[Bald Rick]

Consider also that many of the visitors will be coming from a long way away (students' friends and family visiting, academic visitors from other places, student open days, etc.)

The only increase in revenue would be those that mode shift to the train specifically because of the station. As I often say anecdote is the worst form of evidence, but I have had several friends take their children to see the university in the last couple of years, and without exception they all took the train from London.

Ahhhh... That sounds like the kind of perfect arrangement that I understand is quite normal for some countries on the continent,

The same countries that have long dwell times at their stations. If we did that here it means longer journey times and less capacity.

 

[30907]

Despite the changes in student housing, there is a sufficient market to justify 12bph between the Uni and Heysham via Morecambe. The question is, how much of that would actually switch to a half-hourly rail shuttle Morecambe-Castle-Oubeck (which might be realistically acheivable at relatively low cost)? My suspicion is that much of the traffic on these routes.

There are also 2bph heading south - to Preston and Blackpool - which suggests that the market is much smaller.

The basic problem is that rail doesn't do well for short-distance (2-5 miles) travel unless there is a significant local advantage (such as a major traffic generator by the station).

 

[eldomtom2]

On the contrary, the statement 'it would be nice, but it's not realistic' displays a clear grasp of what can be done to improve upon the status quo, because the next phrase is 'to make a difference, you want to do <x>'.

On the contrary, rarely is your next phrase uttered, especially when we move into questions like "how can we reduce air travel?". The general attitude is firmly that the modal share of rail can't really be changed much, or that if it is the downsides are too heavy. There is also of course the question of whether or not it actually is not realistic...

It may be frustrating at times to be told to manage expectations, but given some of the hints @Bald Rick has dropped over the years about the meaningful change they've delivered for the railway, it would be grossly unfair to accuse them of considering the status quo unshakeable.

There are degrees of changing the status quo. And anyone can drop hints.
And of course, there is always the risk of groups becoming unwilling to listen to outside ideas...

 

[rapmastaj]

A new station at Bailrigg would be very well used. Firstly by staff and students of Lancaster University, of which 6500 students live on campus. But also by residents of the recently approved Bailrigg Garden Village which will be immediately adjacent to the station site and will contain 3500 new homes. As is typical of the English approach, the motorway junction is being upgraded for this development while a new rail station was deemed unnecessary (too expensive) - in the Netherlands the outcome would have been the reverse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say yes to Bailrigg and Garstang/Catteral (not necessarily on the same site as before, and loops would be needed) but no to the others. Though I might change my mind on Galgate as it's expanding massively.

Yes, there's a bus service, but north Lancaster is fairly middle class and middle class people won't generally use buses. Plus students are as likely to be going south rather than north. You'd get custom if you stuck a tram along the A6 and/or the Bowerham Road, but a couple of extra stations on loops a la Euxton Balshaw Lane would be a lot less costly. Only question would be what served them - the Northern Cumbria services would be the obvious ones but that's only hourly.

With Bailrigg Garden Village and associated developments, Lancaster is going to start looking rather Oxford-esque - that is, along very limited corridors which means public transport can work very well.

 

[JamieL]

I think it is very unfortunate that, in the UK, rail seems almost irrelevant to any thoughts of local improvement. A classic example is the Clyde Naval Base. It is the second largest employer in Western Scotland and the vast, vast majority of employees come from the line of settlements that extend along the North Clyde Line into Glasgow. Every day fleets of buses and cars drive adjacent to the railway line clogging up the A814. The connected West Highland Line runs just 50 metres from the base parameter. Yet the railway is unable to contribute to any of that commuter traffic. It is too complex to build a new railway station and/or resolve the capacity issues. Alas it almost comes to the point where you have to ask if it would be better just to rip up the track and have a cycle path - it would certainly deliver more benefit to the residents of the Clyde than the railway does at times. Of course, for the residents of Fort William and Oban it has a huge value - but why not cater to locals as well? Same, same for the WCML.

 

[zwk500]

I'd say yes to Bailrigg and Garstang/Catteral (not necessarily on the same site as before, and loops would be needed) but no to the others. Though I might change my mind on Galgate as it's expanding massively.

Bailrigg has a good chance at some point with the housing expansion planned. Garstang would need to double in size for a station to be justified. However Loops would be a bad idea, because it'll slow down the passenger service and muck up the freight holding points.
Either fully 4-track (but that requires taking out houses in the villages between) or have freight loops away from stations and recess the stopper at Lancaster and Preston.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess one (minor) advantage of building the stations on loops is that it amounts to passive provision for later 4-tracking: You wouldn't need to rebuild the stations if you decide later on that growing service levels warrant 4-tracking the route throughout.

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s a picture on page 54 of June’s Modern Railways which neatly shows why building a station at Bailrigg is not straightforward.

 

[weepingwillowb]

With all the house-building going on alongside the A6 between Broughton and Lancaster - in Broughton, Barton, Catterall, Hollins Lane, Forton, Galgate - there could be the potential for a park and ride station somewhere, perhaps in the Bilsborough area, or possibly Garstang way, but road access between any station and Garstang would have to be improved, pushing costs up.

The problem with one at Bailrigg is that there'd have to be a shuttle bus up to the university. See how few students are prepared to travel on Stagecoach's 40 service to Preston, which stops by the A6 entrance, as compared to those on the 41 and other services which go to the underpass, because very few students are prepared to walk up the hill from the A6.

I can't remember seeing any student board a Preston-bound bus at the university underpass to travel further south than Galgate.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem with one at Bailrigg is that there'd have to be a shuttle bus up to the university. See how few students are prepared to travel on Stagecoach's 40 service to Preston, which stops by the A6 entrance, as compared to those on the 41 and other services which go to the underpass, because very few students are prepared to walk up the hill from the A6.

I don't see a need for a shuttle bus. From the railway line by the underpass, it's 560m to the closest point of the main University (by the Chaplaincy centre) or 720 m to the centre at Alex Square - perfectly normal walking distances to a station - especially because it's actually a very pleasant walk.

I don't think your example with the bus is really comparable: Why on Earth would you board a bus that makes you walk those 720m when you know there'll be another bus along in a few minutes that will take you all the way? But if it's a train that can easily take you to destinations miles more quickly than the bus will, or to destinations that are not reasonably possible on the bus, then walking up the hill from the station becomes a more attractive proposition.

(Mutter mutter if the UK had a proper integrated ticketing system and you really wanted to cater for people who don't want to walk, all you'd have to do is make rail tickets to/from Bailrigg valid on the bus between the University gates and the Underpass Mutter mutter)

I can't remember seeing any student board a Preston-bound bus at the university underpass to travel further south than Galgate.

And that's hardly surprising because there's only one bus an hour from the underpass and it takes you well over an hour to get to Preston. If you wanted to commute to/from Preston you could drive it in a fraction of the time. Practically no-one's going to want to live in Preston and commute by bus. But on the other hand if there was a regular train that took 20-25 minutes, then it would be well worth it for some people, even with the walk up the hill.

 

[GingerSte]

* Broughton - if suitably placed and with access to the M25, would make an excellent parkway station for Preston, as well as serving a reasonably sized community.
* Brock - probably too rural
* Hollins Lane - definitely too rural
* Galgate - would work reasonably well for Galgate village and a parkway for the area to the South, although might be semi-redundant if you have a station at Bailrigg too.
* Bailrigg (University Campus) - yes, definitely

And I would add to that list:
Possibly Garstang, which is easily big enough to justify a station, but the problem is the rail line doesn't quite go near enough to the town.
Blackpool Road Preston to provide rail access to a very densely populated residential area.

The other thing that is missing from this discussion is that Lancaster-Preston is a decent and well used commuter route that is currently very badly served: Lots of long-distance trains that are not designed for commuters and add up to lots of services but at wildly irregular intervals. If you built new stations along the route and had them served by something like a half-hourly Preston-Morecambe, then I'm pretty sure that would be well used, attracting both Morecambe/Lancaster-Preston commuters and people using the new stations. I'd also have the Windermere and Barrow trains, and possibly the Manchester-Scotland ones also stop at Bailrigg.

Unfortunately the elephant in the room is that none of this will be possible without 4-tracking the route because of the issue of delaying the trains to Scotland, which would make it a very expensive project.
On the other hand, as far as I'm aware there aren't that many barriers (other than financial) to doing that. For most of the route there is enough space around the tracks that you could 4-track without really needing to demolish much. The only real problem is going to be the Galgate area.

I would tend to agree with DynamicSpirit's bulleted list, including thinking that Brock and Hollins Lane are too rural. I'd disagree with putting Blackpool Road Preston on the WCML, but consider a Blackpool Road Station on the line to Blackpool (which is only 900 metres to the west at this point). Maybe a station on the WCML a bit further north in Preston (eg Fulwood or Lightfoot Green) instead.

My UK home is in Broughton and backs onto the WCML at the bottom of the garden. All my life I have dreamed of a station at Broughton but even with the new housing in Sandygate Lane area I can’t see where you would put the station nor any financial justification.

There is a water tower and associated building in Broughton. Just looking on Google Earth, there is temporary fencing around it. Is this still in use? If not, and if this building could be demolished, it would be a prime spot for a station, especially since it already has a footbridge over the railway. This footbridge would lower the cost compared to a new one, even if it needed a bit of TLC.

I would also add a station at Scotforth, on the southern outskirts of Lancaster. It looks to me like there's enough housing round there to give a service some use.

To put it in context, 4 tracking (I refuse to use the term “quad tracking”, dammit I just did) from somewhere around Broughton to somewhere around Bailrigg, and building say three stations, is going to cost a minimum of a billion pounds.

Believe that's Oxheys Goods loops. Would need a bit of work to upgrade it for passenger service, the turnout speeds are horrendous. It's also not 4-tracking, as it's just a loop, so passenger trains if being overtaken would need to dwell for a minimum of 6 minutes, and would likely be delaying the train behind while trotting into the loop. Oh, and you'd need to make sure freight wasn't using the loop at the same time as the passenger, which if it's a half-hourly service may be a problem.
4-tracking through to Lancaster involves 10 or so bridge rebuilds, substantial land take, and demolition. Similarly if you tried to extend southwards you'd have to take houses down in Galgate. That's a lot of money for a student hopper. The reasonable limit of a dynamic loop (Galgate Salford Road to Cinder/Uggle Lane overbridge) is about 3.5km or 2 miles, which would allow margins to be reduced slightly and turnout speeds of 60mph or so, but still it's a hell of a lot of money for extraordinarily marginal benefit.

Building Bailrigg on the 2-track and timing the stopper to recess at Lancaster would be by far the more sensible option.

Bailrigg has a good chance at some point with the housing expansion planned. Garstang would need to double in size for a station to be justified. However Loops would be a bad idea, because it'll slow down the passenger service and muck up the freight holding points.
Either fully 4-track (but that requires taking out houses in the villages between) or have freight loops away from stations and recess the stopper at Lancaster and Preston.

I agree that 4-tracking the whole lot is going to be prohibitively expensive. I also agree that a loop for each station, or no loop at all, will potentially cause massive disruption to the existing services. If this is going to happen, it's going to have to be (what NR are currently calling) a Minimum Viable Product.

So in that vein I would suggest 4-tracking from Scotforth, just south of Ashford Road to Galgate, just north of the bridge over Salford Road. This loop would contain stations at Scotforth, Bailrigg (for Lancaster Uni), and Galgate.

By my count, that reduces the bridge count to five:

• Overbridge at Leach House Lane
• Overbridge at Five Ashes Lane
• Overbridge at Burrow Road
• Underbridge at Stream (approx 300m north of Burrow Road)
• Overbridge at Uggle Lane

(Note: I may have missed some bridges there. If I have, then tough!)

Between those three stations, you're not going to need to have trains waiting too much at stations to allow faster trains to pass.

There's also an argument about how close these stations are together. Including Lancaster station, these are all evenly spaced at about 2km (give or take). Bearing in mind that this line is electrified, I don't think that's ridiculous.

Then there's the issue of minimising the cost of the stations themselves. The three stations mentioned above are all near road bridges, so footbridges over the railway wouldn't be needed. I wouldn't even want to put in big car parks for these stations, if I could help it. I think they're all walkable from their respective catchment areas. I will suggest a pedestrian crossing for Lancaster Uni, but this would be traffic signals rather than a bridge.

Short of putting in a Stourbridge Town - type shuttle or a spur to its' own terminus, I think Garstang is too far away from the line to be useful to passengers. I would therefore omit that from the scheme if I were doing it.

Further south, I would suggest a second loop to taken in stations at Broughton (either near that water tower, or to the south of the village) and possibly Fullwood / Lightfoot Green. This has the following bridges:

• Overbridge next to Water tower at Broughton
• Pipe bridge over railway at Broughton
• Overbridge for Unnamed road just south of Broughton
• Underbridge at Blundel Brook
• Pipe Bridge just north of M55
• Overbridge for M55
• Overbridge for Lightfoot Lane
• Underbridge at Sharoe Brook

This is a lot of bridges, but it looks to me (again, looking at Google Earth) like all of these are already wide enough for 4-tracks anyway. I have to admit I'm not sure on this, so my suggestion for a second loop would be contingent on there being no work required to these 8 bridges. If the second loop couldn't be done easily/cheaply, then my suggestion for those stations is contingent on them not causing too much interference with existing services.

 

[Bald Rick]

So in that vein I would suggest 4-tracking from Scotforth, just south of Ashford Road to Galgate, just north of the bridge over Salford Road. This loop would contain stations at Scotforth, Bailrigg (for Lancaster Uni), and Galgate.

Just the £200m for the northern loops, then!

 

[GingerSte]

Just the £200m then!

That's 80% less than the £1B quoted earlier. I'll take that as a decent cost saving!

So three stations on the Camp Hill Line in Birmingham are currently costing £61M (source: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/camp-hill-line-delays-everything-27216542.amp ) Taking the same cost for these, plus 5 No. bridges at £10M each leaves £89M for earthworks, track and signalling in your price. Does that sound cheap/expensive/about right?

 

[Bald Rick]

This is a lot of bridges, but it looks to me (again, looking at Google Earth) like all of these are already wide enough for 4-tracks anyway.

They are not, just look at street view.

That's 80% less than the £1B quoted earlier. I'll take that as a decent cost saving!

So three stations on the Camp Hill Line in Birmingham are currently costing £61M (source: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/camp-hill-line-delays-everything-27216542.amp ) Taking the same cost for these, plus 5 No. bridges at £10M each leaves £89M for earthworks, track and signalling in your price. Does that sound cheap/expensive/about right?

About right for the stations, cheap for the rest.

4 tracking the WCML 15-20 years ago was £20m / km in open country with no stations. Construction inflation has effectively doubled that now.

So if you go with £40m/km + £20m per station, that’s a good rule of thumb to start.

Note that other projects have costed much more, particularly in an urban environment, which this is flirting with. The issue here is going to be how you build it whilst still keeping Tesco’s shelves filled in Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see any point in the Scotforth idea. People won't use an hourly train (and that's all it would be) in preference to driving a very short distance.

Bailrigg is different because it would be used for journeys to/from outside of Lancaster.

 

[Bartsimho]

I think it is very unfortunate that, in the UK, rail seems almost irrelevant to any thoughts of local improvement. A classic example is the Clyde Naval Base. It is the second largest employer in Western Scotland and the vast, vast majority of employees come from the line of settlements that extend along the North Clyde Line into Glasgow. Every day fleets of buses and cars drive adjacent to the railway line clogging up the A814. The connected West Highland Line runs just 50 metres from the base parameter. Yet the railway is unable to contribute to any of that commuter traffic. It is too complex to build a new railway station and/or resolve the capacity issues. Alas it almost comes to the point where you have to ask if it would be better just to rip up the track and have a cycle path - it would certainly deliver more benefit to the residents of the Clyde than the railway does at times. Of course, for the residents of Fort William and Oban it has a huge value - but why not cater to locals as well? Same, same for the WCML.

I think this thread demonstrates British Exceptionalism in regards to Public Transport nicely. You have an idea which might have legs being dismissed out of hand by those who are known to be in the industry while it can be contrasted with what our European Neighbours do and it shows how differently our rail industry likes to think of itself.

Currently it feels like we are in an odd era of the railways as they have gone through cycles of growth and closure while currently they are in stagnation with only projects with massive business cases get built and then they outperform said business case quickly.

I think a good chunk of this is a refusal to immediately look at how can this be made viable through external factors but only looking at worst case scenarios and then dismissing without further thought.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Further south, I would suggest a second loop to taken in stations at Broughton (either near that water tower, or to the south of the village) and possibly Fullwood / Lightfoot Green. This has the following bridges:

• Overbridge next to Water tower at Broughton
• Pipe bridge over railway at Broughton
• Overbridge for Unnamed road just south of Broughton
• Underbridge at Blundel Brook
• Pipe Bridge just north of M55
• Overbridge for M55
• Overbridge for Lightfoot Lane
• Underbridge at Sharoe Brook

So starting at the bridge that takes Woodplumpton Lane becoming Newsham Hall Lane just after the Barton Loop starts :


and heading south the first bridge by the water tower (part of what was Fylde Water Board processing station and testing laboratory) -there is a pipe bridge and then another that actually carries 2 large water pipes (water mains).





Then there is a bridge which basically connects a farm to farmers fields. It was raised in 1972-1973 for electrification. In the picture it is in the distance.




The next bridge is basically Sandygate Lane continuance near Broughton High School and carries the Guild Cycle Wheel to Preston Grasshoppers. It too was raised in 1972-1973 for electrification.





Then come M55 overbridge built in 1972 so to not interfere with electrification and then what I think is redundant bridge only used by farmers now I think. Lightfoot Lane bridge is so high it did not need raising. Due to embankment/cutting issues, I think IF, (and it is a big IF) station were to be built, it would be just before Sandygate lane bridge.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A station at Lancaster Uni would do very well, especially with a decent amount of parking as a nearby for the M6 exit at Bay Horse. The traffic congestion into Lancaster is absolutely hopeless at peak. Capacity on the WCML is also an issue, but if the loops could be utilised, this would be useful.


As for further south, a Broughton Parkway with a **** ton of parking and an exit off the M55 J1/James Towers Way roundabout would work pretty well. You'd have to build another set of loops and perhaps 11 car platforms for a couple long distance a day and longer peak commuters to stop.
That would serve Garstang and the rest of east Wyre, plus Fulwood demand pretty well - the A6 isn't horrifically busy on that section and it would relieve Preston congestion significantly. Also useful for blockades of Preston and/or Blackpool. It would also be a decent M6 park and ride from further North into Manchester, Buckshaw Parkway isn't really big enough for this in my experience.

Edit: Also forgot to mention Longridge as a traffic source for Broughton Parkway. It should really have a tram from Preston, since the adjacent bus corridor gets 11+ buses per hour, plus many more nearby. But that's getting off track.
And a Preston Blackpool Road station would be on a constrained site with heavy bus competition, so probably not. After Broughton and Cottam Parkway, I'd say Penwortham would be the next part of the Preston area for a reopened station (an electrified East Lancs line with a half hourly stopper at Lostock Hall would be more valuable there.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Your location for Broughton parkway is difficult. The cutting/embankment are ridiculously steep there and housing has also gone up.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Your location for Broughton parkway is difficult. The cutting/embankment are ridiculously steep there and housing has also gone up.

It's a difficult one. Ideally you want direct access from that M55 roundabout, but if it's not possible, off Newsham Hall Lane near the actual village centre would be an idea.
Or you could build a Thanet Parkway style station.
At least the railway boundary looks like it's wide enough for loops, and you'd only have to replace one minor bridge further up to accommodate them.

 

[Bald Rick]

the A6 isn't horrifically busy on that section

it would relieve Preston congestion significantly.

These two statements seem to have opposite arguments!

 

[Bletchleyite]

These two statements seem to have opposite arguments!

The A6 north of the motorway isn't very busy because people mostly go on the motorway. The A6 south of the motorway into Preston itself is VERY busy.

 

[Bald Rick]

The A6 north of the motorway isn't very busy because people mostly go on the motorway. The A6 south of the motorway into Preston itself is VERY busy.

It’s not been busy when I use it, and it isn’t right now, but I don‘t use it in peak times.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree that 4-tracking the whole lot is going to be prohibitively expensive. I also agree that a loop for each station, or no loop at all, will potentially cause massive disruption to the existing services. If this is going to happen, it's going to have to be (what NR are currently calling) a Minimum Viable Product.

So in that vein I would suggest 4-tracking from Scotforth, just south of Ashford Road to Galgate, just north of the bridge over Salford Road. This loop would contain stations at Scotforth, Bailrigg (for Lancaster Uni), and Galgate.

That actually seems a pretty good idea for minimising the expense to just 4-track those two sections. I like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not been busy when I use it, and it isn’t right now, but I don‘t use it in peak times.

I think in talking about a Preston P&R type situation we would be talking peak times. Even driving into Oxford (about the most anti-car city I can think of bar London) at 10:30am is not an unpleasant activity, even if parking when you get there might be somewhat pricey.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You'd get custom if you stuck a tram along the A6 and/or the Bowerham Road, but a couple of extra stations on loops a la Euxton Balshaw Lane would be a lot less costly. Only question would be what served them - the Northern Cumbria services would be the obvious ones but that's only hourly.

I'd be very disappointed if you went to all the trouble of building stations, 4-tracking to provide extra capacity, and then didn't put in some extra services to take advantage of the new capacity. I'd go as far as to say it wouldn't be worth doing if you weren't going to provide some additional trains. As noted upthread, I'd hope you'd see something like a half-hourly Morecambe-Lancaster-Preston-somewhere replacing the existing Morecambe service to serve all the new stations. And maybe also have the somewhat irregular Northern Barrow/Windermere trains also call at Bailrigg.