Wigan to Bolton electrification: possible changes to services

[507020]

Other than for Sheffield and beyond, it is illogical for passengers from Wigan or Southport to wish to change trains at Piccadilly for destinations outside the broader Manchester conurbation (i.e. beyond Cheshire/NW Derbyshire).

In what way is it illogical for passengers from Southport (or anywhere else to the west of Manchester) to change at Piccadilly for Greater Manchester/Cheshire/Derbyshire/South Yorkshire destinations including Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield when these terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly, with no connections available at Salford Crescent, Oxford Road or anywhere else, except perhaps Stockport, but this is also unreachable without running via Castlefield.

Fortunately destinations to the south including Chester, Crewe, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, the West Midlands and London can be reached from Southport via Liverpool Lime Street, but the same can’t be said of any destinations to the north including Blackpool, Lancaster, Morecambe, Barrow, Windermere, Carlisle or Scotland without any form of connection to Preston. If Southport services ran via Atherton, then the first place where a direct connection to Preston would be available from the same station would be Salford Crescent, which is completely unacceptable.

You surely must see how that contradicts? If you’re at the wrong station, change at Salford Crescent or Bolton, but to have the journey all from one station makes it hard to get to the other? Surely you’d just change trains at Bolton or Salford Crescent, like your first paragraph.

There is no contradiction. If you are a local who understands the service pattern, you will go to the right station depending on the time. If you require a specific station, you will only go there at the right time. If you find yourself in the wrong station at the wrong time, only then resort to connections at Salford Crescent.

In effect, making connections at Salford Crescent isn’t ideal and shouldn’t be promoted as the optimal solution for Southport or as a way to decongest Castlefield, they are to be used as a last resort, not on a daily basis.

 

[daodao]

In what way is it illogical for passengers from Southport (or anywhere else to the west of Manchester) to change at Piccadilly for Greater Manchester/Cheshire/Derbyshire/South Yorkshire destinations including Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield when these terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly, with no connections available at Salford Crescent, Oxford Road or anywhere else, except perhaps Stockport, but this is also unreachable without running via Castlefield.

Fortunately destinations to the south including Chester, Crewe, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, the West Midlands and London can be reached from Southport via Liverpool Lime Street, but the same can’t be said of any destinations to the north including Blackpool, Lancaster, Morecambe, Barrow, Windermere, Carlisle or Scotland without any form of connection to Preston. If Southport services ran via Atherton, then the first place where a direct connection to Preston would be available from the same station would be Salford Crescent, which is completely unacceptable.

I was simply making the point that passengers from Southport/Wigan would only wish to travel via or change trains at Manchester Piccadilly for destinations within the southern half of Greater Manchester, East Cheshire, North Derbyshire, Sheffield and some places reached via Sheffield. For some of these destinations, including the Airport, an easy interchange would be possible at Salford Crescent. Thus the effect of not having a direct service from Southport/Wigan via the Castlefield line is limited. The benefits of a more robust and simpler service pattern on the reliability of rail services through central Manchester outweighs any disadvantage of routeing all Southport/Wigan services to/via Manchester Victoria.

Your comments about travelling north from Southport are outwith the scope of this thread. There is a frequent direct express bus service from Southport to Preston and I am not aware of any proposals to re-open the long-closed railway line between these points. Alternatively, passengers can change at Wigan between the adjacent stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your comments about travelling north from Southport are outwith the scope of this thread. There is a frequent direct express bus service from Southport to Preston and I am not aware of any proposals to re-open the long-closed railway line between these points. Alternatively, passengers can change at Wigan between the adjacent stations.

Agreed. Nobody from Southport would consider travelling to Preston or points north via Manchester, it is a silly long diversion. North Western to/from Wallgate is not a difficult change and barely any further than from the main concourse to platform 13 at Manc Picc.

 

[cle]

Frankly, Southport is such a secondary market for Manchester (it is in Merseyside, for one) and commuting is well over an hour, that is doesn't deserve the oxygen we've given it. 1tph should be fine, and to any station they are operationally given. They might be whiny, but they aren't particularly important to the GM travel strategy or actual economy/travel to work, especially now.

And as mentioned, Wigan offers great connections north and south - without that direct Preston link.

 

[tbtc]

There are lots of arguments for Southport services to go to one station, but something akin to the current pattern has operated for about 25 years (and still a split for another 10 or so years before that though peak only) and I can assure you it does not confuse people. It is primarily a local line for local people and they know what the service does, and those who aren't locals going to Southport for a day out will just use a journey planner and do what that says.

Just a few points...

1. You're the guy who keeps suggesting that other people lose direct links, just as long as it's not your local lines, right? e.g. you've suggested it'd be fine to cut the Birmingham - Leamington Spa - Wycombe - London services but insisted that we must retain the through Birmingham - Northampton - Bletchley - London services? It's fine to cut the CLC into separate Liverpool - Warrington and Warrington - Manchester services, but we can't possibly tweak services on your boyhood route to Southport?

2. You don't seem worried about the twenty five year timescale when it comes to cutting other direct services (including all bus routes into a city centre, which you seem to want chopped at the nearest rail station, even if they've run for a hundred years into the city centre)

3. The justification that "the people who use the service can understand the service" is the kind of attitude you see with operations like Arriva's bus networks (their corporate strategy seems to be along the lines of "the fact that the people who still travel with us still use our services show that they must find them convenient therefore there's no point in assessing whether the network is attractive to non-passengers and whether changes could be made to help attract others")

4. The Wigan - Manchester route is probably the messiest one in northern England, given the way that there are services between multiple stations in central Wigan to multiple stations in central Manchester

5. You can come up with fancy names like Nordwesttakt to organise/ simplify/ rationalise everyone else's services (and seem to appreciate that the "direct hourly links" is a poor use of capacity on lines like the Airport branch) but seem to prefer to keep the mess of hourly services for Southport (no demand that other stations on the Salford corridor like Blackburn see their services split between Pic and Vic though)

(that'll do for now)

In what way is it illogical for passengers from Southport (or anywhere else to the west of Manchester) to change at Piccadilly for Greater Manchester/Cheshire/Derbyshire/South Yorkshire destinations including Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield when these terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly, with no connections available at Salford Crescent, Oxford Road or anywhere else, except perhaps Stockport, but this is also unreachable without running via Castle-field

Southport people may want direct Piccadilly services (or, rather, a rather angry and possibly unrepresentative number of rather vocal people from the Southport line may demand this as their birthright), but there's clearly not capacity through Castlefield for everywhere to have a direct Piccadilly service

For example why is Southport so much more important than Blackburn/ Burnley?

Is it "illogical" that East Lancashire has no Piccadilly service, or is it fine for them to have to change, but the precious people of Southport must have one?

Do Windermere and Barrow justify direct Piccadilly services, or are you relaxed about such passengers having to change to get to Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield?

 

[Bletchleyite]

5. You can come up with fancy names like Nordwesttakt to organise/ simplify/ rationalise everyone else's services (and seem to appreciate that the "direct hourly links" is a poor use of capacity on lines like the Airport branch) but seem to prefer to keep the mess of hourly services for Southport (no demand that other stations on the Salford corridor like Blackburn see their services split between Pic and Vic though)

I can't be bothered with the rest of it as we've been over it many times already, but you miss the point here. I said that connections at Bolton/Salford Crescent with both Southports to Vic would be acceptable if the connections were planned, maintained and of high quality, i.e. no lengthy standing in the cold. That's where I was going with the Nordwesttakt idea. I can just see the connections involving long waits because they won't be planned to work.

(But with regard to Euston-Northampton-Brum there is no operational reason whatsoever to split these. If there was, then the situation may be different).

For example why is Southport so much more important than Blackburn/ Burnley?

Established travel patterns. That is, removing something is worse than never providing it.

Do Windermere and Barrow justify direct Piccadilly services, or are you relaxed about such passengers having to change to get to Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield?

Windermere is probably the most justifying of a Manchester Airport service compared with anything else in the area other than Manchester itself given its tourist nature. Barrow could easily be lopped back to Lancaster or perhaps better Preston, ideally again with a planned, timed connection into the Windermere or if easier Scotland EMU, without annoying too many people. Though another possibility for Windermere (if wired) would be a Liverpool EMU instead, again timed to connect at Preston with something else to/from Manchester in both directions.

The key to infrequent, simplified services is quality connections. Ask SBB - their entire national railway is basically based around quality connectional half hourly services. Standing at Salford Crescent for 20 minutes in January is not a connection, it's a nuisance.

 

[Ianno87]

Established travel patterns. That is, removing something is worse than never providing it.

Covid has demonstrated that, in effect, nothing is established.

Transport Planning is often choosing to prioritise new growing connections and flows over "traditional" ones, to get the collective best use out of, effectively, nationally-funded infrastructure. Southport offers very little potential for real growth, given its largley rural hinterland.

 

[507020]

I was simply making the point that passengers from Southport/Wigan would only wish to travel via or change trains at Manchester Piccadilly for destinations within the southern half of Greater Manchester, East Cheshire, North Derbyshire, Sheffield and some places reached via Sheffield. For some of these destinations, including the Airport, an easy interchange would be possible at Salford Crescent. Thus the effect of not having a direct service from Southport/Wigan via the Castlefield line is limited. The benefits of a more robust and simpler service pattern on the reliability of rail services through central Manchester outweighs any disadvantage of routeing all Southport/Wigan services to/via Manchester Victoria.

Your comments about travelling north from Southport are outwith the scope of this thread. There is a frequent direct express bus service from Southport to Preston and I am not aware of any proposals to re-open the long-closed railway line between these points. Alternatively, passengers can change at Wigan between the adjacent stations.

When services have come from the Bolton direction, it is a much better proposition to change at Bolton than at Salford Crescent due to the ambiance of the station, additional facilities and space to wait. I don’t see how 1tph from Southport is enough to completely decimate reliability through Castlefield, when it can seemingly cope with the same number of services as long as one of them does not originate from Southport.

One of the main reasons Southport will not stand for it’s provision to travel east via Manchester Piccadilly to be downgraded in any way, shape or form is because the provision to travel north to Preston by both road and rail is so poor. Both rail routes to Preston, via Crossens and via Burscough were lost, the M59 motorway, like virtually all investment for Southport failed to materialise and now they want to take away direct services to Manchester Piccadilly! Not a chance.

Southport people may want direct Piccadilly services (or, rather, a rather angry and possibly unrepresentative number of rather vocal people from the Southport line may demand this as their birthright), but there's clearly not capacity through Castlefield for everywhere to have a direct Piccadilly service

For example why is Southport so much more important than Blackburn/ Burnley?

Is it "illogical" that East Lancashire has no Piccadilly service, or is it fine for them to have to change, but the precious people of Southport must have one?

Do Windermere and Barrow justify direct Piccadilly services, or are you relaxed about such passengers having to change to get to Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield?

Southport deserves a direct service to Castlefield and Manchester Airport on the basis that it’s the 13th largest town in the north west (and that the service also passes through the larger ones of Wigan and Bolton).

I may live in Southport but I would argue that out of anywhere else, only Rochdale and Blackburn are more deserving of a Castlefield service and Burnley is almost as important. The Blackburn - Manchester Victoria via Todmorden service should be extended around the Ordsall Chord to provide Blackburn, Burnley and Rochdale with a Castlefield service and then run on to the airport. There also may be some basis for the Clitheroe service to serve Piccadilly, but Bolton still requires a service to Victoria.

It is very much illogical that East Lancashire has no direct service to Castlefield or Manchester Airport, but even more illogical that it has no direct service to Southport, Ormskirk, Liverpool, Skipton, Hellifield, Barrow, Hawes or Carlisle.

People from Rose Hill Marple, Macclesfield, Glossop, Buxton and Sheffield are more likely to want to get to Windermere or Barrow than the other way round, but how many times do you want them to have to change? Would 4 be enough?

I can't be bothered with the rest of it as we've been over it many times already, but you miss the point here. I said that connections at Bolton/Salford Crescent with both Southports to Vic would be acceptable if the connections were planned, maintained and of high quality, i.e. no lengthy standing in the cold. That's where I was going with the Nordwesttakt idea. I can just see the connections involving long waits because they won't be planned to work.

But also regardless of Nordwesttakt, changing stations at Wigan will always involve getting completely soaked crossing the road in heavy rain. Some sort of covered passageway under/over the road would be useful.

Windermere is probably the most justifying of a Manchester Airport service compared with anything else in the area other than Manchester itself given its tourist nature. Barrow could easily be lopped back to Lancaster or Preston, ideally again with a planned, timed connection into the Windermere EMU, without annoying too many people.

Rather than cutting Barrow back to Preston, I’d be more of the mind to extend the Morecambe service down to Manchester. If there is no capacity on the WCML, route it or some Barrow services via Hellifield and Bolton.

Covid has demonstrated that, in effect, nothing is established.

Transport Planning is often choosing to prioritise new growing connections and flows over "traditional" ones, to get the collective best use out of, effectively, nationally-funded infrastructure. Southport offers very little potential for real growth, given its largley rural hinterland.

Southport itself is not rural. Is there no rural hinterland around Manchester or anywhere else in the north? Any growth for Southport will be created with the provision of direct services to Preston, Ormskirk and Aintree, as long as they are suitably advertised at each end.

Road building/widening projects often see the concept of “induced demand” whereby providing new infrastructure induces people to use it. If the Burscough Curves, or 4 tracks through Castlefield are provided, then people will use them, established travel patterns or not.

 

[Purple Orange]

Southport deserves a direct service to Castlefield and Manchester Airport on the basis that it’s the 13th largest town in the north west (and that the service also passes through the larger ones of Wigan and Bolton).

If that is a genuine reason, then it makes sense that there are 12 other towns & cities in the north west that should come before it. There are of course only 9-11 paths available, depending on how tightly packed you want castlefield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rather than cutting Barrow back to Preston, I’d be more of the mind to extend the Morecambe service down to Manchester.

That's heading off on a tangent somewhat, but I'd suggest observing what people do before boarding/after alighting from it. It's very much a local train for local people and most people are making a local journey between the three stations. If we were doing anything with it I'd actually isolate it with dedicated, branded stock as "The Bay Metro" or somesuch.

But also regardless of Nordwesttakt, changing stations at Wigan will always involve getting completely soaked crossing the road in heavy rain. Some sort of covered passageway under/over the road would be useful.

You'd not change stations at Wigan to go to Castlefield. You'd change at Bolton or Salford Crescent.

A covered passageway would soon smell of wee and be full of homeless people and people wouldn't use it. Look at the Chester subways which I wish they'd just get rid of, they are horrid.

 

[507020]

If that is a genuine reason, then it makes sense that there are 12 other towns & cities in the north west that should come before it. There are of course only 9-11 paths available, depending on how tightly packed you want Castlefield.

Southport is the 13th largest town. There are 12 towns and 4 cities before it, but one of these is Manchester itself so it can be discounted. Of these, Sale, Wythenshawe and Oldham are served only by the Metrolink and St Helens cannot be served directly due to the track layout. This leaves Southport, 8 more towns and the cities of Liverpool, Preston and Salford.

Then of course, you can run a single service through several of these large towns and cities. Southport - Wigan - Bolton - Piccadilly, Blackpool - Preston - Bolton - Salford - Piccadilly - Stockport, Liverpool - Warrington - Piccadilly, Chester - Warrington - Piccadilly and Blackburn - Rochdale - Victoria - Piccadilly services could serve all of the top 17 largest places in the North West within possibility, using only 5 paths through Castlefield, with the added benefit of serving other smaller towns such as Burnley, Chorley and Newton-le-Willows. You then have numerous spare paths through Castlefield to serve other smaller settlements as well as larger ones further afield, as well as 12 platforms in the main shed at Piccadilly and 6 at Victoria to think about.

You'd not change stations at Wigan to go to Castlefield. You'd change at Bolton or Salford Crescent.

A covered passageway would soon smell of wee and be full of homeless people and people wouldn't use it. Look at the Chester subways which I wish they'd just get rid of, they are horrid.

I wouldn’t change stations at Wigan to go anywhere because I don’t think it’s a good solution. I did it yesterday though and experienced no problems. I’ve previously changed at Bolton from a service that was going to Castlefield to one that was going to Victoria, to avoid stopping at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley and at Salford Crescent to avoid changing at Wigan to go to the Calder Valley.

The buried Victorian passageway at Preston accessible via lifts doesn't smell of wee and neither does the modern elevated one that leads to the bus station at Bolton and I am yet to see a homeless person in either of them. Wigan is a comparable place to both Preston and Bolton and is not likely to experience any problems with a passageway that are not experienced there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Salford Crescent, with its innate narrow platform and the lack of proper facilities for travellers wishing to make connections, is something that must have been known to those charged with service provision. Howsoever, those will be the same people who do not avail themselves of the same lack of passenger facilities.

 

[cle]

There are real hints of similar discussions oft involving Southport’s southern neighbour here. Let’s not derail this thread for a nothing issue.

Southport is not an important place for Greater Manchester or Manchester’s travel to work area. It’s just not. This is like giving Macclesfield or Stalybridge a needy entitlement onto Liverpool’s rail infrastructure. It is peripheral, literally. And lucky to have any service to Manchester.

I get that it is the end of a line which needs that service, but it is diesel, not busy, and short-formed, so 1 or 2tph to Victoria make the most sense. And yes with hopefully good connections to Castlefield. Or walk/cycle/Met. Figure it out.

 

[Purple Orange]

There are real hints of similar discussions oft involving Southport’s southern neighbour here. Let’s not derail this thread for a nothing issue.

Southport is not an important place for Greater Manchester or Manchester’s travel to work area. It’s just not. This is like giving Macclesfield or Stalybridge a needy entitlement onto Liverpool’s rail infrastructure. It is peripheral, literally. And lucky to have any service to Manchester.

I get that it is the end of a line which needs that service, but it is diesel, not busy, and short-formed, so 1 or 2tph to Victoria make the most sense. And yes with hopefully good connections to Castlefield. Or walk/cycle/Met. Figure it out.

This. IMHO I’d restrict castlefield services to 4 via Victoria, 4 via CLC and 2 up the WCML. All others should go to Vic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Southport is not just its inner core. I tend to think of "Greater Southport" from Crossens in the north to Ainsdale in the south, with feeder bus services in the town core.

 

[Watershed]

Salford Crescent, with its innate narrow platform and the lack of proper facilities for travellers wishing to make connections, is something that must have been known to those charged with service provision. Howsoever, those will be the same people who do not avail themselves of the same lack of passenger facilities.

I fear you are labouring under a misapprehension there. Most of the people involved in developing new timetables are well aware of what different stations are like to use. If anything, it's the politicians that often make the high level decisions that are unaware of this kind of thing.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

In the late 90s the Cumbria services did indeed go that way, Golborne was basically Parliamentary.

Just because I can’t be bothered to reply to stacks of points:

To go via Wigan NW then Bolton leads to using only one platform at Wigan, and a very slow crossover speed at the north end. Better to go via Chorley or Lowton.

As for Southport, the reality is it would be better for it to be a half-hourly diesel via Walkden to Victoria and then off to Leeds. A change at Hindley for Bolton or Piccadilly (same for Salford Crescent for Piccadilly) is fair. This obsession with both stations or a direct Piccadilly doesn’t work.

It is entirely right that linking Southport as a diesel route with another diesel route (Walkden) and then another diesel route (Rochdale) to allow another (Wigan - Bolton - Piccadilly) to be pure electric is a trade we should make.

Frankly, Southport is such a secondary market for Manchester (it is in Merseyside, for one) and commuting is well over an hour, that is doesn't deserve the oxygen we've given it. 1tph should be fine, and to any station they are operationally given. They might be whiny, but they aren't particularly important to the GM travel strategy or actual economy/travel to work, especially now.

And as mentioned, Wigan offers great connections north and south - without that direct Preston link.

Quite frankly a good point well made. Not the world’s busiest route, and a half-hourly DMU via Walkden to Victoria is perfectly legitimate. We’re dealing with lots of stations with less than 400 people using them a day; a large number of them probably go to/from Southport and Wigan. The likelihood of more than 500 people a day using that route (with about 30 trains, so 16/17 on each) going to Piccadilly or Oxford Road (or “Derbyshire” or “Nottinghamshire” and such) is low, and therefore to stuff a whole region for a tiny number of people is unacceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for Southport, the reality is it would be better for it to be a half-hourly diesel via Walkden to Victoria and then off to Leeds. A change at Hindley for Bolton or Piccadilly (same for Salford Crescent for Piccadilly) is fair.

Again provided the connection is planned and good. 5 minutes in both directions, great. 29 minutes, not acceptable. Etc.

There's a reason people don't like connections in the land of low-frequency services that is Northern - they tend to be poor and go wrong a lot.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Again provided the connection is planned and good. 5 minutes in both directions, great. 29 minutes, not acceptable. Etc.

There's a reason people don't like connections in the land of low-frequency services that is Northern - they tend to be poor and go wrong a lot.

In theory if it’s done smart you’ll have a 6/323 or a 6/331 from North Western to somewhere like Hazel Grove and a 6/331 from Blackpool to Airport. Both every 30 minutes. If they’re even as much as 18 minutes apart, the connection at Crescent wouldn’t be a disaster.

 

[S&CLER]

Just because I can’t be bothered to reply to stacks of points:

To go via Wigan NW then Bolton leads to using only one platform at Wigan, and a very slow crossover speed at the north end. Better to go via Chorley or Lowton.

As for Southport, the reality is it would be better for it to be a half-hourly diesel via Walkden to Victoria and then off to Leeds. A change at Hindley for Bolton or Piccadilly (same for Salford Crescent for Piccadilly) is fair. This obsession with both stations or a direct Piccadilly doesn’t work.

It is entirely right that linking Southport as a diesel route with another diesel route (Walkden) and then another diesel route (Rochdale) to allow another (Wigan - Bolton - Piccadilly) to be pure electric is a trade we should make.


Quite frankly a good point well made. Not the world’s busiest route, and a half-hourly DMU via Walkden to Victoria is perfectly legitimate. We’re dealing with lots of stations with less than 400 people using them a day; a large number of them probably go to/from Southport and Wigan. The likelihood of more than 500 people a day using that route (with about 30 trains, so 16/17 on each) going to Piccadilly or Oxford Road (or “Derbyshire” or “Nottinghamshire” and such) is low, and therefore to stuff a whole region for a tiny number of people is unacceptable.

Wasn't a TPE Scottish service routed via Wigan and Bolton largely to keep up drivers' knowledge of a useful diversionary route? I recall being surprised to find myself on one such train one evening a few years ago when spending a week using a NW Rover. That was a 185 dmu of course.

If Southport had a half-hourly dmu through to the Calder Valley via Atherton, with decent Hindley connections for Bolton and reliable connections at Salford for Piccadilly, I would be happy with it, especially if one of the trains were accelerated between Wigan and Salford to call at Hindley only as well as running fast from Victoria to Rochdale (the Kirkby-Blackburn trains taking on the second stopping path from Wigan to Salford). But Bletchleyite is quite right that connections at Salford Crescent need to be slick, or they become an ordeal in inclement weather. The real losers would be those who had to make a double change at Salford and Piccadilly, but I wonder what proportion they represent. My own travels, all optional leisure journeys, take me occasionally to the Hope valley, Macclesfield and Buxton; a double change would rule that out if it lengthened the journey time by an hour because former connections were no longer possible. That would seem most likely in the case of connections to the hourly Hope valley stoppers, which often involve a quick dash from platform 13 to platform 1 at Piccadilly.

At Wigan, the "tidy" solution might be that all trains to the south side of Manchester, both via Bolton and via Chat Moss should depart from NW, and all those to the north side from Wallgate. At least that would be easy to remember. I admit that it would mean both trains via Bolton would go to Castlefield.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Wasn't a TPE Scottish service routed via Wigan and Bolton largely to keep up drivers' knowledge of a useful diversionary route? I recall being surprised to find myself on one such train one evening a few years ago when spending a week using a NW Rover.

If Southport had a half-hourly dmu through to the Calder Valley via Atherton, with decent Hindley connections for Bolton and reliable connections at Salford for Piccadilly, I would be happy with it, especially if one of the trains were accelerated between Wigan and Salford to call at Hindley only as well as running fast from Victoria to Rochdale (the Kirkby-Blackburn trains taking on the second stopping path from Wigan to Salford). But Bletchleyite is quite right that connections at Salford Crescent need to be slick, or they become an ordeal in inclement weather. The real losers would be those who had to make a double change at Salford and Piccadilly, but I wonder what proportion they represent. My own travels, all optional leisure journeys, take me occasionally to the Hope valley, Macclesfield and Buxton; a double change would rule that out if it lengthened the journey time by an hour because former connections were no longer possible. That would seem most likely in the case of connections to the hourly Hope valley stoppers, which often involve a quick dash from platform 13 to platform 1 at Piccadilly.

At Wigan, the "tidy" solution might be that all trains to the south side of Manchester, both via Bolton and via Chat Moss should depart from NW, and all those to the north side from Wallgate. At least that would be easy to remember.

It went via Wigan pre-Bolton electrification to allow 350s to be used. Before that it went via Chorley with 185s.

The odd services via Westhoughton were route refreshers.

 

[507020]

This. IMHO I’d restrict castlefield services to 4 via Victoria, 4 via CLC and 2 up the WCML. All others should go to Vic.

Why nothing from Chat Moss to Castlefield?

Southport is not just its inner core. I tend to think of "Greater Southport" from Crossens in the north to Ainsdale in the south, with feeder bus services in the town core.

Everything from The Plough roundabout at Crossens (the site of The Plough pub until a few years ago) to Woodvale at the start of the Formby bypass is true Southport, lying within the boundaries of the former Country Borough of Southport from 1867 - 1974.

Theoretically a “Greater Southport” would include all of Southport’s rural hinterland, extending all the way from Hightown in the south to Hesketh Bank and Tarleton in the north, perhaps extending as far east as Aughton, Ormskirk, Burscough and Rufford. Banks and Scarisbrick are certainty more aligned to Southport than anywhere else.

It’s a shame that this area doesn’t exist as a borough. It’s a very good candidate. The end of the continuous conurbation of Liverpool is at Crosby, as is the end of the Mersey estuary, so it would be a logical place for Merseyside to end.

To go via Wigan NW then Bolton leads to using only one platform at Wigan, and a very slow crossover speed at the north end. Better to go via Chorley or Lowton.

As for Southport, the reality is it would be better for it to be a half-hourly diesel via Walkden to Victoria and then off to Leeds. A change at Hindley for Bolton or Piccadilly (same for Salford Crescent for Piccadilly) is fair. This obsession with both stations or a direct Piccadilly doesn’t work.

It is entirely right that linking Southport as a diesel route with another diesel route (Walkden) and then another diesel route (Rochdale) to allow another (Wigan - Bolton - Piccadilly) to be pure electric is a trade we should make.

Going either via Lowton or via Chorley creates an argument between between Wigan and Bolton as to why one doesn’t have the direct service and the other does. Going via Westhoughton is greatly advantageous in that it serves both. If this is not the optimal route operationally, what alterations can be made to the track layout to facilitate this movement more efficiently?

Your argument for segregating the all the Diesel routes Southport - Atherton - Calder Valley from the new electric routes Wigan NW - Bolton - Stalybridge is a very good one and I am 99% convinced, but what do you do with the 769s. My guess is continue running them Southport - Stalybridge/Alderley Edge as now, until the Alderley Edge service is split under Option B+, then run 769s on Southport - Stalybridge/Oxford Road. Only once the wires from Wigan - Lostock are energised, withdraw the 769s, having served as useful proof of concept for bi-mode operation, but I am reluctant to then revert back to pure DMU operation on the Southport line.

Quite frankly a good point well made. Not the world’s busiest route, and a half-hourly DMU via Walkden to Victoria is perfectly legitimate. We’re dealing with lots of stations with less than 400 people using them a day; a large number of them probably go to/from Southport and Wigan. The likelihood of more than 500 people a day using that route (with about 30 trains, so 16/17 on each) going to Piccadilly or Oxford Road (or “Derbyshire” or “Nottinghamshire” and such) is low, and therefore to stuff a whole region for a tiny number of people is unacceptable.

But why exactly is an hourly Southport - Castlefield service blamed for “stuffing” the whole of Greater Manchester? It doesn’t interact with much other traffic west of Bolton, so other than 769 unreliability, which is only a short term issue and more of an issue when heading away from Manchester, there aren’t many sources of delay that can cause it to have an impact on Castlefield. If stations along the route (other than Bolton and Wigan Wallgate, where there are longer dwell times) are quiet, then dwell times will be relatively short. What causes all the conflict about this service? It seems everyone in Greater Manchester is desperate for it to be scrapped while everyone in Southport is desperate for it to be retained.

Wasn't a TPE Scottish service routed via Wigan and Bolton largely to keep up drivers' knowledge of a useful diversionary route? I recall being surprised to find myself on one such train one evening a few years ago when spending a week using a NW Rover. That was a 185 dmu of course.

If Southport had a half-hourly dmu through to the Calder Valley via Atherton, with decent Hindley connections for Bolton and reliable connections at Salford for Piccadilly, I would be happy with it, especially if one of the trains were accelerated between Wigan and Salford to call at Hindley only as well as running fast from Victoria to Rochdale (the Kirkby-Blackburn trains taking on the second stopping path from Wigan to Salford). But Bletchleyite is quite right that connections at Salford Crescent need to be slick, or they become an ordeal in inclement weather. The real losers would be those who had to make a double change at Salford and Piccadilly, but I wonder what proportion they represent. My own travels, all optional leisure journeys, take me occasionally to the Hope valley, Macclesfield and Buxton; a double change would rule that out if it lengthened the journey time by an hour because former connections were no longer possible. That would seem most likely in the case of connections to the hourly Hope valley stoppers, which often involve a quick dash from platform 13 to platform 1 at Piccadilly.

At Wigan, the "tidy" solution might be that all trains to the south side of Manchester, both via Bolton and via Chat Moss should depart from NW, and all those to the north side from Wallgate. At least that would be easy to remember. I admit that it would mean both trains via Bolton would go to Castlefield.

It’s interesting that 185 DMUs have run through Westhoughton. You would usually expect to find those on the Hope Valley. I do hope the result of the electrification is faster services from Southport to Manchester, even if a half hourly service to Victoria via Atherton removes all of the possible connections available at Bolton, Deansgate, Piccadilly and Stockport.

It would be very tidy if all services from the unelectrified Wallgate ran to Victoria and all services from NW ran to Piccadilly, but then what do you do with the Stalybridge electric service if there are no wires to Guide Bridge? Should this run to Lime Street I wonder? On the Calder Valley, Wigan/Southport, Chester and Blackpool North services should run via Halifax and Bradford Interchange, with the one that terminates at Victoria running via Mirfield and Dewsbury, otherwise it’s useless to extend services to Leeds.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Why nothing from Chat Moss to Castlefield?

Everything from The Plough roundabout at Crossens (the site of The Plough pub until a few years ago) to Woodvale at the start of the Formby bypass is true Southport, lying within the boundaries of the former Country Borough of Southport from 1867 - 1974.

Theoretically a “Greater Southport” would include all of Southport’s rural hinterland, extending all the way from Hightown in the south to Hesketh Bank and Tarleton in the north, perhaps extending as far east as Aughton, Ormskirk, Burscough and Rufford. Banks and Scarisbrick are certainty more aligned to Southport than anywhere else.

It’s a shame that this area doesn’t exist as a borough. It’s a very good candidate. The end of the continuous conurbation of Liverpool is at Crosby, as is the end of the Mersey estuary, so it would be a logical place for Merseyside to end.

Going either via Lowton or via Chorley creates an argument between between Wigan and Bolton as to why one doesn’t have the direct service and the other does. Going via Westhoughton is greatly advantageous in that it serves both. If this is not the optimal route operationally, what alterations can be made to the track layout to facilitate this movement more efficiently?

Your argument for segregating the all the Diesel routes Southport - Atherton - Calder Valley from the new electric routes Wigan NW - Bolton - Stalybridge is a very good one and I am 99% convinced, but what do you do with the 769s. My guess is continue running them Southport - Stalybridge/Alderley Edge as now, until the Alderley Edge service is split under Option B+, then run 769s on Southport - Stalybridge/Oxford Road. Only once the wires from Wigan - Lostock are energised, withdraw the 769s, having served as useful proof of concept for bi-mode operation, but I am reluctant to then revert back to pure DMU operation on the Southport line.

But why exactly is an hourly Southport - Castlefield service blamed for “stuffing” the whole of Greater Manchester? It doesn’t interact with much other traffic west of Bolton, so other than 769 unreliability, which is only a short term issue and more of an issue when heading away from Manchester, there aren’t many sources of delay that can cause it to have an impact on Castlefield. If stations along the route (other than Bolton and Wigan Wallgate, where there are longer dwell times) are quiet, then dwell times will be relatively short. What causes all the conflict about this service? It seems everyone in Greater Manchester is desperate for it to be scrapped while everyone in Southport is desperate for it to be retained.

It’s interesting that 185 DMUs have run through Westhoughton. You would usually expect to find those on the Hope Valley. I do hope the result of the electrification is faster services from Southport to Manchester, even if a half hourly service to Victoria via Atherton removes all of the possible connections available at Bolton, Deansgate, Piccadilly and Stockport.

It would be very tidy if all services from the unelectrified Wallgate ran to Victoria and all services from NW ran to Piccadilly, but then what do you do with the Stalybridge electric service if there are no wires to Guide Bridge? Should this run to Lime Street I wonder? On the Calder Valley, Wigan/Southport, Chester and Blackpool North services should run via Halifax and Bradford Interchange, with the one that terminates at Victoria running via Mirfield and Dewsbury, otherwise it’s useless to extend services to Leeds.

769s are easy. Theoretically you’ve got Barrow to Preston, Windermere to Preston, or even something like York to Leeds or York / Selby to Bradford Interchange. All will have an amount of electric wires that would make using them helpful in one way. The same could be said in for something like Buxton to Piccadilly.

Why nothing from Chat Moss to Castlefield?

Everything from The Plough roundabout at Crossens (the site of The Plough pub until a few years ago) to Woodvale at the start of the Formby bypass is true Southport, lying within the boundaries of the former Country Borough of Southport from 1867 - 1974.

Theoretically a “Greater Southport” would include all of Southport’s rural hinterland, extending all the way from Hightown in the south to Hesketh Bank and Tarleton in the north, perhaps extending as far east as Aughton, Ormskirk, Burscough and Rufford. Banks and Scarisbrick are certainty more aligned to Southport than anywhere else.

It’s a shame that this area doesn’t exist as a borough. It’s a very good candidate. The end of the continuous conurbation of Liverpool is at Crosby, as is the end of the Mersey estuary, so it would be a logical place for Merseyside to end.

Going either via Lowton or via Chorley creates an argument between between Wigan and Bolton as to why one doesn’t have the direct service and the other does. Going via Westhoughton is greatly advantageous in that it serves both. If this is not the optimal route operationally, what alterations can be made to the track layout to facilitate this movement more efficiently?

Your argument for segregating the all the Diesel routes Southport - Atherton - Calder Valley from the new electric routes Wigan NW - Bolton - Stalybridge is a very good one and I am 99% convinced, but what do you do with the 769s. My guess is continue running them Southport - Stalybridge/Alderley Edge as now, until the Alderley Edge service is split under Option B+, then run 769s on Southport - Stalybridge/Oxford Road. Only once the wires from Wigan - Lostock are energised, withdraw the 769s, having served as useful proof of concept for bi-mode operation, but I am reluctant to then revert back to pure DMU operation on the Southport line.

But why exactly is an hourly Southport - Castlefield service blamed for “stuffing” the whole of Greater Manchester? It doesn’t interact with much other traffic west of Bolton, so other than 769 unreliability, which is only a short term issue and more of an issue when heading away from Manchester, there aren’t many sources of delay that can cause it to have an impact on Castlefield. If stations along the route (other than Bolton and Wigan Wallgate, where there are longer dwell times) are quiet, then dwell times will be relatively short. What causes all the conflict about this service? It seems everyone in Greater Manchester is desperate for it to be scrapped while everyone in Southport is desperate for it to be retained.

It’s interesting that 185 DMUs have run through Westhoughton. You would usually expect to find those on the Hope Valley. I do hope the result of the electrification is faster services from Southport to Manchester, even if a half hourly service to Victoria via Atherton removes all of the possible connections available at Bolton, Deansgate, Piccadilly and Stockport.

It would be very tidy if all services from the unelectrified Wallgate ran to Victoria and all services from NW ran to Piccadilly, but then what do you do with the Stalybridge electric service if there are no wires to Guide Bridge? Should this run to Lime Street I wonder? On the Calder Valley, Wigan/Southport, Chester and Blackpool North services should run via Halifax and Bradford Interchange, with the one that terminates at Victoria running via Mirfield and Dewsbury, otherwise it’s useless to extend services to Leeds.

And as for an hourly service ‘stuffing’ Castlefield: in future the best way of making this work arguably is 12tph with the option of a freight overlay outside of peak times to prevent fragilities.

To give an example, I submitted to the task force that a 6/150 or similar should be used on a Stalybridge - Airport via Victoria and Piccadilly to act as a big ‘people mover’.

Also, that the Buxtons (DMUs) should go to Warrington Central, and the Nottingham / Cleethorpes to Liverpool via Central should be flighted in behind / in front as you can create a nicely-padded 15-minutely crossing move at Castlefield and Slade Lane, which is highly beneficial to the wider network.

So if you take as an example a 12tph frequency, already you’ve accounted for 6tph. That left 2tph from Liverpool via Eccles, using something like 6/323 if possible as a people mover, 2tph from Blackpool, using 6/331 via Chorley, and then your Scotland and Cumbria stuff. The anomaly was the Scotland / Cumbria, so if they could go to Victoria and reliably terminate it would allow a 6/323 from Wigan via Westhoughton.

The obvious benefits are same-platform connections for fast Liverpool and Chester stuff at Newton le Willows; good connections at Bolton for Cumbria / Scotland traffic; a proper use of Ordsall Chord with a big people mover of 150s; and other stuff. If you wanted to be brave at peak time you could add in 2tph to Airport, modelled 1tph from Wigan NW via Walkden using a 4/150 calling at limited stops (adding to that “NW for Piccadilly, Wallgate for Victoria” mentality), and a peak extra from Blackpool via Wigan NW and Eccles including a passenger stop there for MediaCity.

It would also allow the Cumbria services to divert to Liverpool via St Helens in a fast path at peak times, to open up another 6/323 or 6/331 semi-fast path via Chorley at peak for Piccadilly and Airport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With the mention of the Buxton line above, is there not a tunnel on that line that precludes certain units being allowed to be used?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

With the mention of the Buxton line above, is there not a tunnel on that line that precludes certain units being allowed to be used?

I thought 769s were cleared for it...

 

[Purple Orange]

Why nothing from Chat Moss to Castlefield?

I'd like to see a simplified network through Manchester. So perhaps the Chat Moss and Bolton line services all run through Victoria. But this could only be post HS2 and NPR.

In practice I would expect there to be 12 paths, of which I would allocate 4 to Victoria (2 Stalybridge and 2 Huddersfield stoppers), 4 to the CLC (Liverpool stoppers) then 2 to Sheffield-Liverpool semi fasts and 2 to Blackpool.

 

[Gricer99]

No one has mentioned freight yet. At the moment Hindley normally gets one freight train per weekday. Is this likely to increase post electrification?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Build it and they will come possibly?

 

[317 forever]

Galloways should be mandatory. Everywhere.

Thankfully we did not have one elected at Batley & Spen in July.

 

[Ianno87]

Now that the Option B+ service pattern has been proposed, what is this likely to mean post-electrification (assuming it is to North Western only, not Wallgate)

On the route via Hindley, Option B+ gives:

Via Atherton
-1tph Wigan-Atherton-Victoria-Leeds
-1tph Kirkby-Atherton-Victoria-Leeds
-1tph Wigan-Atherton-Victoria (peak only)

Via Bolton
-1tph Southport-Bolton-Victoria-Stalybridge
-1tph Southport-Bolton-Oxford Road


Option 1 would be to retain the service pattern as above, using Class 769s on all services via Bolton, changing power mode at Hindley. The wires Hindley-North Western would be unused except for stock positioning moves to/from Springs branch.

Option 2 would be to truncate one or both Southport services at Wigan (to be pure EMUs), with Atherton route services extended in their place. Given that access to Castlefield is now apparently sacrosanct, that would suggest:
-Retaining the Southport-Oxford Road services (as 769s)
-Truncating the Southport-Stalybridge service to be Wigan NW-Stalybridge (could be pure EMU)
-Extending the Wigan-Atherton-Leeds service back to Southport. (As DMU)
(So Southport keeps 1tph to each of Victoria and Piccadilly, albeit 1tph each way via Bolton/Atherton rather than 2tph via Bolton)