Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by cool2005, 12 Nov 2017.
I would have though that this line is well down the list of those requiring electrification.
Lets hope the remedial work gives the enhanced clearances for electrification..."just in case....one day"
I bet it doesn't though
I don't think I particularly advocated that but pointed out it would be better if the current line ran closer to the original Central Station and that the closure of Central seemed to be more at the behest of the Council rather than BR, but of course it was different times then with a Railway on the decline, maybe that could be something to consider in the future as an alternative to a Tramlink.
I never knew that there were once direct trains and now direct trams from Birmingham to Altrincham and Bury.
When did these ran, and when did the Midland Metro been extended that far north?
That line is brilliant
Living near Blackpool South, that would not be good for business, or visitors, especially to Pleasure Beach. The promenade tramway is not good in Winter, rammed in peak season, and slow! All South line needs is a passing loop, an extra train to Manchester? Far cheaper than closing part of it, and converting part to a tramway.
From what I hear of the current admission charges to Blackpool Pleasure Beach that are advertised, the company running that should be asked to contribute some finance towards any upgrading/enlargement of the railway station facilities there.
In think the Pleasure Beach literally turned their backs on the station when they closed the entrances round that side of the park meaning a long trek all the way round to get to the entrance. The pleasure beach station is now almost as far walking from the main entrance as South station anyway so I can't see funding forthcoming.
Wont it make more sense to go to North and then hop on a Tram to Pleasure Beach when the link is completed
There was a FoI request put in on August https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/south_fylde_railway_line which asked some of the questions and points being raised in this post.
The reply from DFT https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/426203/response/1037892/attach/html/3/attachment.pdf.html would have been at home during PMQ.
"Looking ahead, you might be interested to know that Lancashire County Council has
identified the Blackpool South line as a key weakness in the Fylde Coast public transport
network. The Council secured funding to investigate the best way of enhancing the role of
the South Fylde Line in providing a southern gateway to Blackpool and to establish what
the most viable and cost-effective way of linking the South Fylde Line and the Blackpool
Tramway might be. They also looked what benefits such a link might deliver."
We've heard that one for years.
"In regard to your point on a passing loop, Network Rail explored a number of options for
maintaining rail access to Blackpool during the closure, which included a passing loop as
you have suggested. Unfortunately, due to the time required to undertake the design and
delivery of the passing loop, this option could not be completed ahead of the November
closure. However, Blackpool South will be open during 8 weeks of the closure to help to
minimise disruption to passengers travelling to Blackpool."
Meh! I think that is utter tripe. Doing a project like re-opening the Borders railway does take a great deal of planning, but to plan for a loop when at the same time planning as already been done to introduce signalling on the South Fylde line just seems to me like they are missing a bit of joined up writing. But then again, I'm not in the industry, so I don't know how they plan for such things.
Going back to the tram situation. Agree with the post above that replacing heavy rail with trams to either St Annes / Lytham would has too great an impact on people and businesses. According to the stats, more than 50% of the usage on the South Fylde line starts at BPS, BPB and SQU so there would be a great deal of outcry from the locals if they lost their direct service to Preston. I would imagine that the nimby's at Royal Lytham would object to electric masts going up next to their beloved golf course. Blackpool Transport and Stagecoach provide a decent bus service from Blackpool to Lytham so it asks the question of whether extending the tram to Lytham would be viable.
Given the attitude of the Pleasure Beach owners described in these pages, if I hop on a tram at North, I will be going in the opposite direction!
The bridges already completed on the South branch are all noticably steeper which I assume is due to them being higher. They also have high coping stones like what you see on an electrified line. They look wire ready to me. You certainly feel the difference on a push bike.
Skew Bridge (between Lytham and Ansdell) was a much bigger job than the others so I hope they took into account the raised track at this point meant to mitigate flooding issues.
A much bigger issue for me is why they decided to put the new S&T kit where the second track should be.
Hasn't it been the case for a while that ALL new bridges, regardless of location, are built with sufficient clearance for OHLE?
Cutting back to Lytham would allow a half hourly service without needing to upgrade what was left of the branch. Combined with reasonable connection times at Lytham this could be sold as an improvement. Redesigning Lytham with an island platform for same platform transfers between train and tram would also help. NR will sign over half of the branch if that is what the council wants because it loses money.
Yes but the bridges under discussion are not new, merely undergoing (apparently fairly heavy) maintenance.
surely this is about as likely as a new tunnel being built under central Blackpool to build a new line to link the Blackpool North and Blackpool South stations!
It would make the Colne-Blackpool-Ormskirk-Blackpool-Colne service concatenation more robust by reducing the overall proportion of single line working.. IIRC earlier studies about a loop on the line found that Ansdell would have been the best place but that the alignment had been compromised by post rationalisation development with Lytham as a second choice. Lytham had/has two facing platform faces so a cross platform tram/train interchange might have to include some extensive rebuilding and some clever design solution to enable either a ground level passenger crossing that did not cross the heavy rail track or a lift/bridge/staircase arrangement. Extending the trams north through the car park to the Tower would also be worth investigating especially after the North Station link opens. Through inter mode ticketing, TfL style would be essential.
If the tram was terminated a5 Ansdell you could still use the existing platform both sides with the tram stopping befor3 th3 disabled ramp and the train at th3 existin* platform face or just donan Ormskirk/ Kirby arrangements dividing the tracks at a suitable point alon* th3 0latform with stop blocks
In the Northern Sparks Final Report referenced and downloadable in the pinned electrification resources thread, it was listed as Tier 2 (not tier 3) with a weighted score of 45/100 - so I don't 100% agree with your assessment
Beeching proposed retaining Central and closing North, with the line via Poulton continuing to Fleetwood which in many ways would have been better than what actually happened. Only Layton would have lost out.
As others have said the appeal of selling the Central site overcame common sense unfortunately. Ironically I seem to remember that in the end the site lay vacant for years until the Hounds Hill Centre was eventually built.
Have you ever travelled on the Manchester Metrolink on the section of the line from Derker to Rochdale? Plenty of countryside to view en route.
Blackpool central is where coral island is now, you can actually see where the tracks have been filled in across the road in the car park
I've long considered the northern bit of the Oldham loop quite beautifully scenic, and the huge tram windows are excellent for viewing it, just like the Pacers before them.