The formerly named Lostock Lane railway station.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Now that electrification of the line from that junction to the Wigan area has been approved, will the former platforms on that part of the junction be reinstated as part of a rail upgrade, leaving the current Lostock station as a former 4-platform junction station once again ?

 

[Starmill]

I have so often wondered this about Lostock. Onboard a train from Wigan you can so closely see the Platforms at Lostock but not get to them.

Instead of adding platforms I did wonder if maybe a new station at the opposite end of the car park (constructed from slightly more, errr, durable material than the platforms as they are at present!) with a new ticket office to go with it replacing the crappy little cabin present there currently.

Placed just the other side of Lostock Jn itself, both the trains towards Wigan and Preston could start to call there. it strikes me as under-served at present.

 

[Moonshot]

I have so often wondered this about Lostock. Onboard a train from Wigan you can so closely see the Platforms at Lostock but not get to them.

Instead of adding platforms I did wonder if maybe a new station at the opposite end of the car park (constructed from slightly more, errr, durable material than the platforms as they are at present!) with a new ticket office to go with it replacing the crappy little cabin present there currently.

Placed just the other side of Lostock Jn itself, both the trains towards Wigan and Preston could start to call there. it strikes me as under-served at present.

Much better idea than a 4 platform station .....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Much better idea than a 4 platform station .....

The reason why I suggested the former 4-platform layout was that any stopping train on the Wigan line (not currently made for obvious reasons) would not add to the existing number of stops made on the Manchester to Preston line.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I will try and bring it up if the opportunity arises ...

However it is an electrification-only project so other parties would need to provide some funding.

Engineering-ly, the platforms would be very close to the junction, creating a problem with speeds and signal overlaps; certainly any proposed flashing aspect sequence on the down Bolton would be rendered a bit useless. Either the new platforms would be a long way round the corner or you would move the junction.

Putting the platforms south of the junction is an expensive answer.

 

[thealexweb]

I tried lobbying for this last year. See letter from TfGM.

 

[OxtedL]

I tried lobbying for this last year. See letter from TfGM.

I don't suppose you could summarise the pertinent parts of the letter, for those of us who can't currently download it?

 

[thealexweb]

I don't suppose you could summarise the pertinent parts of the letter, for those of us who can't currently download it?

Here you go

Part of the proposals in the bid to the Transport Innovation Fund in 2008, included the construction of additional platforms at Lostock rail station on the Wigan line. However, as you know, the referendum later that year resulted in a rejection of the overall package of public transport schemes included in the bid.

We agree that there would be a benefit if trains to and from Wigan were able to stop at Lostock station.

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) feel that rather than moving the platforms to the Bolton side of the junction the preferred option would be to build additional platforms on the Wigan line. The reason for this is that the railway line begins to curve (as shown in your constituent’s photographs) and consequently, if the platforms were moved, the stepping distances between the platforms and trains would become greater.

Although TfGM has no proposals to progress new platforms in the near future they are still on the list of desirable schemes should funding ever become available.

As your constituent says, the existing platforms are of a temporary / wooden construction and at some stage in the future may need to be rebuilt; when this arises TfGM will discuss with the rail industry the best option for passengers.

 

[Elecman]

i also think that trains stopping on the up Wigan platform would also infringe the signalling overlap of the down Preston line

 

[Howardh]

Wasn't there once platforms on both lines - in the 1800's?? If we could have platforms on the Wigan line again, it will look a bit like Cheadle Hulme, possibly with a load of entrances/exits for each platform but with just the one ticket office, badly placed for the other three platforms.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Wasn't there once platforms on both lines - in the 1800's?? If we could have platforms on the Wigan line again, it will look a bit like Cheadle Hulme, possibly with a load of entrances/exits for each platform but with just the one ticket office, badly placed for the other three platforms.

There were four platforms for four tracks on the Bolton side of the junction when I were a lad. And that was not in the 1800s )

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I will try and bring it up if the opportunity arises ...

I like that answer

However it is an electrification-only project so other parties would need to provide some funding.

Engineering-ly, the platforms would be very close to the junction, creating a problem with speeds and signal overlaps; certainly any proposed flashing aspect sequence on the down Bolton would be rendered a bit useless. Either the new platforms would be a long way round the corner or you would move the junction.

That puzzles me because the existing platforms are presumably the same distance from the junction. Why would this be a particular problem with any new platforms if, presumably, the existing platforms work OK?

 

[Darren R]

Interesting one this. On the face of it, having the Wigan lines pass immediately behind the platforms but not have their own is totally illogical. However, as in so many other cases on the rail network, I think this is an accident of history - although relatively recent history in this instance.

Prior to closure in 1966, Lostock Junction station had platforms on both the Chorley and Wigan lines, situated in the V of the junction. The present station opened in 1988 as Lostock Parkway (incidentally, when did the 'Parkway' bit disappear?) In common with most station (re-)openings at that time, it was done as cheaply as possible. However, at that time Lostock Junction signal box was still in operation, located next to the junction on the 'Up' side (towards Bolton), and the Up Relief started just to the east of the Signal Box. This meant that the platforms could not be built to the east of the junction, thereby serving both routes. Since the station re-opening was of the 'suck-it-and-see' variety (that is to say it wasn't known how successful the station was going to be), the decision was taken to just open platforms on the Preston line, since the Bolton to Wigan line only had an hourly service and it was thought that the Preston/Blackpool service would be more likely to bring in the punters.

Just two years later the Signal Box was closed and demolished, and the Up Relief removed (along with the Down Relief further east.) In a classic example of the joined-up planning that we do so well in this country, if the station re-opening had been delayed by two years, it could have been built on the Bolton side of the junction and served both routes. Whether GMPTE knew this was going to be the case and chose to go-ahead anyway, or whether BR just didn't tell them, (or indeed whether it was a conscious and deliberate decision) I couldn't say. Given that the remodelling was part of an on-going process to bring the area under the control of Manchester Piccadilly Signalling Centre, I'm assuming that BR's plans were well-advanced when plans for the station were made.

Since 2004/5, use of the station has increased by 127% to 268,000, so it seems likely that patronage would increase still further by addition of services to Wigan and/or Southport (and of course a concomitant increase in services to Bolton and Manchester.)

However, as others have said, I believe there are issues with the signalling overlaps on the Wigan lines which would require attention before platforms could be opened. Moving the station further east beyond the junction is an expensive option, and would be a major constraint on capacity on a busy stretch of two-track railway. Since this is the case, opening platforms on the Wigan line would make perfect sense though. It would allow for an increase in service at the station without stopping trains blocking the Bolton - Preston main line. According to Wiki (take that as you will!), Network Rail's North West Route Utilisation Strategy included provision of the two extra platforms, but that was before electrification to Wigan North Western was announced - and of course it was dependent on funding being found from somewhere!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

That puzzles me because the existing platforms are presumably the same distance from the junction. Why would this be a particular problem with any new platforms if, presumably, the existing platforms work OK?

The protecting Up direction signals are MP644 on the Euxton line and MP648 on the Crow Nest line - both of these are would be "north" of the Bolton end of the platform (644 is nearly 1km north), meaning that whichever line got a stopping train first blocks the junction (despite being nowhere near it).

If you move these signals to remove this problem (e.g so that a stopping train stops at a signal as well) they will need to have compliant overlaps, which in the case of the Up Bolton would be ~200m. The Bolton end of this platform would end up north of Rumworth Road bridge; you could provide a reduced overlap and time it off, but this is nearly as bad an operational constraint.

 

[edwin_m]

A stopping train from Wigan would presumably also prevent any conflicting move towards Preston while it was approaching, stopping and departing from a platform close to the junction.

Is the Down signal protecting the junction close to the junction or 200m-ish east of it to provide an overlap? If the latter then the Down platform would be preferred east of the signal otherwise a Down stopping train would also block the junction - the signal could be moved up to the junction but extending the overlap through the junction would be a big change to the interlocking.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The protecting Up direction signals are MP644 on the Euxton line and MP648 on the Crow Nest line - both of these are would be "north" of the Bolton end of the platform (644 is nearly 1km north), meaning that whichever line got a stopping train first blocks the junction (despite being nowhere near it).

If you move these signals to remove this problem (e.g so that a stopping train stops at a signal as well) they will need to have compliant overlaps, which in the case of the Up Bolton would be ~200m. The Bolton end of this platform would end up north of Rumworth Road bridge; you could provide a reduced overlap and time it off, but this is nearly as bad an operational constraint.

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I'm somewhat out of my depth here: I have no idea what 'compliant overlap', 'reduced overlap' and 'operational constraint' mean, so haven't really been able to understand your 2nd paragraph. As an outsider with no rail technical knowledge, it seems to me that putting signals at the east end of the platforms ought to be sufficient to ensure that a train in any platform doesn't block other any other line; I'm guessing your post means there is some reason why that isn't the case, but I lack the knowledge to get beyond that. But thanks for the response anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I'm somewhat out of my depth here: I have no idea what 'compliant overlap', 'reduced overlap' and 'operational constraint' mean, so haven't really been able to understand your 2nd paragraph. As an outsider with no rail technical knowledge, it seems to me that putting signals at the east end of the platforms ought to be sufficient to ensure that a train in any platform doesn't block other any other line; I'm guessing your post means there is some reason why that isn't the case, but I lack the knowledge to get beyond that. But thanks for the response anyway.

I agree! I think I have an idea what an overlap is, but what does 'timing it off' refer to? And what sort of operational constraint?
Many thanks

Putting the platforms south of the junction is an expensive answer.

Do you mean in terms of signalling? Or because of the curve? To me, it looks like two new platforms wherever you put them, but if you put them the Bolton side of the junction you can remove the wooden ones without needing to spend any more money on them.

 

[Emyr]

If the signals were relocated and a new station built further west, possibly with a station complex in between the lines, how far west of the junction would the platforms be for ideal signaling, and how far apart are the lines at that point?

I can see that middlebrook meanders into the land between the lines but that's probably a minor issue for the civil engineers...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I may be wrong on this, but is the land onwards from Lostock station that is in the Bolton direction subject to flooding, as there is quite a downwards slope from the land above.

 

[thealexweb]

I may be wrong on this, but is the land onwards from Lostock station that is in the Bolton direction subject to flooding, as there is quite a downwards slope from the land above.

Platform 2 side is prone to flooding. Platform 1 side has a river running alongside it.

 

[Darren R]

An overlap is a short section of track circuit beyond the signal to provide a safety margin should a train overrun the signal for any reason. It means that the track circuit is still occupied and the signal to the rear cannot change from red to a less restrictive aspect allowing any following train to enter a section that isn't actually clear. There are guidelines about minimum distances for overlaps, but it is not always possible for these minimum overlaps to be provided (such as at junctions, larger stations and for other reasons as a result of the layout.)

Where these short overlaps do occur, other safety features are built into the signalling. One such is the approach berth, where a section of track circuit in advance of the signal measures the speed of the train. The signal remains at red (even though the route is set) until the train is moving at an appropriately low speed, at which point the signal clears to a less restrictive aspect.

In other locations the route is locked (i.e. the signaller cannot change the route to allow further train movements that potentially conflict) until the track circuit times-out. That is to say, after the train comes to a complete halt, the route (including overlaps and any points in that overlap) remains locked for a set time after the track circuit detects the train has stopped. This often happens at stations where the layout means there is little or no overlap beyond signals without it having to include adjacent routes and platforms, and it can take two minutes after the train stops before it times out, at which point the overlap drops out and the signaller can set a route which otherwise conflicts.

Specifically in relation to Lostock station and the proposed platforms on the Wigan lines, what all this means is that if these platforms are behind the current platforms, any train to Wigan that is stopped at the station will still be occupying the track circuit section that includes the points at the junction. Any following train heading for Preston will therefore be held at a red signal until the Wigan train has departed and clears the track circuit section allowing the route to be set for the following train. Potentially, if in the opposite direction the points are still set to allow a train from Wigan to Bolton (even though this train has passed) the points might still be locked too - so if a train from Preston is approaching the route cannot be set for the passage of this train either, until the Wigan-bound train has departed and the track circuit clears. Obviously such delays on such a busy route are an unacceptable operational constraint. To avoid this the new platforms would have to be situated much further west towards Wigan, at a sufficient distance to ensure that any train stopped at the station is not occupying the junction track circuit no matter how long that train is.

Similarly, in the opposite direction, a train stopped at the station is locking the route. Currently the signal controlling passage of Wigan - Bolton trains is some distance back from the junction, but not far enough to allow an extra signal to be provided at the end of the new platform at the junction without the present signals needing re-siting further back towards Wigan to allow for appropriate stopping distance for the new signal.

However there isn't really any point in putting in a new signal at the junction to allow a train from Wigan into the station because there would be no overlap without the junction remaining locked until it timed out, so passage of a train to Preston in front of the one from Wigan couldn't happen anyway. Additionally an approach berth would be required at the signal to the rear of the new platforms if the route was not clear across the junction, resulting in a low-speed approach of the train from Wigan and it taking even longer before conflicting movements at the junction.

All of the above could be circumvented by building a new station on the Bolton side of the junction of course, but this is not only a more expensive option, but with additional trains to/from Wigan stopping there, this becomes a constraint on capacity on a busy two-track corridor soon to become busier with impending electrification - although this might aid matters with the improved acceleration of EMUs.

I hope that makes sense. A little long-winded, but it does go someway towards explaining why platform lengthening or new stations is often rather more complex than people might expect!

 

[Starmill]

That's a highly comprehensive account, thank you.

However...
there must be something that could be done!

How have solutions been found elsewhere? Earlestown, Shipley, Perth, Meadowhall (although it has 3 tracks for a short time) and Helsby (but hardly any trains use one of the branches there I suppose) are places that spring to mind as being a bit similar.

 

[edwin_m]

These stations where there when the signalling was designed, so suitable measures were built in at the time. To do the same at Lostock would involve making changes to existing signalling, which is almost always more difficult.

Filton Abbey Wood as originally built lay between the signals protecting Filton Junction and the junction itself, so any train towards Parkway calling there would lock out any routes from the Cardiff direction while it did so. The changes to the track layout and signalling with the introduction of the third platform removed this problem.