Wigan to Bolton electrification officially given go ahead

[Ianno87]

Probably less than 6 years. I'm not sure exactly when it was kicked into the long grass but probably around the time of the Hendy review which I think was early 2016. The original announcement that it was happpening at all was December 2013.

I think it would have been when all electrification schemes were paused in summer 2017 when GWEP (in money terms) blew up. So a ~4 year "pause". Although no formal statement was ever made specifically mentioning Bolton-Wigan, it was just "implied" paused at the same time.

 

[mr_jrt]

Not knowing the area at all, would there have been any value in going straight to 8 car platforms rather than six? In my neck of the woods 4 car units and multiples (8/12) seems to be the standard length. Up north is the standard unit length 3-car?

 

[Efini92]

...presumably then they don't/won't sign Atherton either....?

It’s not electrified

 

[Watershed]

Not knowing the area at all, would there have been any value in going straight to 8 car platforms rather than six? In my neck of the woods 4 car units and multiples (8/12) seems to be the standard length. Up north is the standard unit length 3-car?

Manchester Oxford Road and Deansgate can only accommodate 6 coaches and would be extraordinarily expensive to extend. You don't really want to be using SDO (and blocking junctions behind) either. So those are the limiting factors really.

 

[stuu]

Not knowing the area at all, would there have been any value in going straight to 8 car platforms rather than six? In my neck of the woods 4 car units and multiples (8/12) seems to be the standard length. Up north is the standard unit length 3-car?

They are 23/24m cars though, so 6x23 is about the same as 7x20m. And capacity will be slightly more because of the two fewer car ends

 

[Efini92]

Manchester Oxford Road and Deansgate can only accommodate 6 coaches and would be extraordinarily expensive to extend. You don't really want to be using SDO (and blocking junctions behind) either. So those are the limiting factors really.

There was some talk of lengthening the platforms at Oxford rd at the expense at platform 5. However nothing seems to have materialised.

 

[The Planner]

I noticed there was a strange TPR approaching Crow Nest from Atherton - 8min needed behind a train that calls at the last two stations even if the next train makes the same calls. I don't understand the reasons for this - is it something an extra signal (plus a distant) would resolve?

The sections are huge. If two trains were following each other. The first train would have to get to Atherton before the signal after crow nest could clear for the second train.

Indeed the sections are long, first one from MP810 (just over ½ mile from Crow Nest) to MP816 which is the other side of Hag Fold. Then the next section ends just prior to Walkden at MP820. Then MP864 on the other side of Walkden to MP564 which is at the entrance to Pendlebury Tunnel in the Up direction. The blocks are effectively Crow Nest to Atherton, Atherton to Walkden, Walkden to Pendlebury, Pendlebury to Windsor Bridge North. It would need a lot of work to fix.

 

[urbophile]

Wonder who thought this line was more worthy of wiring than Leeds - Church Fenton?

Or CLC Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester?

 

[Efini92]

Indeed the sections are long, first one from MP810 (just over ½ mile from Crow Nest) to MP816 which is the other side of Hag Fold. Then the next section ends just prior to Walkden at MP820. Then MP864 on the other side of Walkden to MP564 which is at the entrance to Pendlebury Tunnel in the Up direction. The blocks are effectively Crow Nest to Atherton, Atherton to Walkden, Walkden to Pendlebury, Pendlebury to Windsor Bridge North. It would need a lot of work to fix.

It’s a shame when it was resignalled they didn’t go for 3 aspect signalling. But I suppose given the level of services at the time there was no need.

 

[175001]

How remarkable. It can be claimed it really was "paused" for 9 years rather than cancelled!

Agreed. It's been churned out as a "new" project of which Greater Manchester/Lancashire should be grateful for..

On par with claiming a new ward is a "new hospital"

 

[The Planner]

It’s a shame when it was resignalled they didn’t go for 3 aspect signalling. But I suppose given the level of services at the time there was no need.

Is the correct answer. Also agree that any 2 aspect in a new scheme needs putting in the bin.

 

[snowball]

There was some talk of lengthening the platforms at Oxford rd at the expense at platform 5. However nothing seems to have materialised.

It was part of the same scheme as the two extra through platforms at Piccadilly, which was the subject of a TWAO application, went through a public inquiry and has been sitting on the Transport Secretary's desk for several years, regarded as too expensive.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Most of the line is in the Bolton West constituency - formerly highly marginal but now a safe Tory seat. Pure coincidence of course.

 

[quantinghome]

Wonder who thought this line was more worthy of wiring than Leeds - Church Fenton?

It's not. It's just easier to do and isn't tied up with HS2 / NPR decisions. In the absence of a full rolling programme of electrification the aim is clearly to keep the electrification teams ticking over with smaller schemes while the trickier stuff gets planned.

 

[Ianno87]

Most of the line is in the Bolton West constituency - formerly highly marginal but now a safe Tory seat. Pure coincidence of course.

Only one station - Westhoughton.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Wonder who thought this line was more worthy of wiring than Leeds - Church Fenton?

From what I understand there are still decisions to be made on that route regarding infrastructure improvements (eg four tracking). Would you rather nothing simple gets approved until that route gets to the point where a decision can be made?

 

[Ianno87]

From what I understand there are still decisions to be made on that route regarding infrastructure improvements (eg four tracking). Would you rather nothing simple gets approved until that route gets to the point where a decision can be made?

I'm guessing Bolton-Wigan falls into the low cost with relatively high benefits box (e.g. access to Springs Branch); an "Infill" if you will, with little dependency on other decisions.

 

[Efini92]

Is the correct answer. Also agree that any 2 aspect in a new scheme needs putting in the bin.

Agreed. Also the current obsession with putting distant signals after the first 4 aspect when transitioning from 3-4.

It was part of the same scheme as the two extra through platforms at Piccadilly, which was the subject of a TWAO application, went through a public inquiry and has been sitting on the Transport Secretary's desk for several years, regarded as too expensive.

To be fair it is too expensive, what would 2 extra platforms achieve? Castlefield corridor would still be double tracked. Finding another way for the freight would be a start.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wonder who thought this line was more worthy of wiring than Leeds - Church Fenton?

Leeds-York-Church Fenton doesn't do very much for the overall network, it just moves the class 802 bi-mode switch point 5 miles nearer Leeds.
Lostock-Wigan does at least close a wiring gap and convert more end-to-end services to electric working.
It was probably the cheapest scheme on the table, and with the least complicated planning implications for other services.
Network Rail had a "no regrets" list, I don't know if this line was on it.
It had also been announced previously (but so had MML, TP, electric spine, Bristol/Oxford etc).
From other announcements I rather thought a few short freight links would be first in the queue (eg at Acton, connecting the GW network to everything else).

 

[CdBrux]

Lostock-Wigan does at least close a wiring gap and convert more end-to-end services to electric working.
It was probably the cheapest scheme on the table, and with the least complicated planning implications for other services.

Is there not also rolling stock that will be certainly available (323's), so any displaced diesels can cascade elsewhere (or out) without having to buy any new electric stock?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Leeds-Church Fenton doesn't do very much for the overall network, it just moves the class 802 bi-mode switch point 5 miles nearer Leeds.

I think you're confusing the currently in progress project with the remaining gap to bridge to reach Leeds, which is what the question was regarding.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have been in touch with @LDECRexile - he is going to dust off his camera.

 

[Trackman]

Better late than never.
They should have done this the first time around, I'm sure it would have saved money with all the kit and people in the area.

 

[59CosG95]

I have been in touch with @LDECRexile - he is going to dust off his camera.

Excellent news!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And every time I come back to the UK for holidays (I still am trying to refuse to say vacation!!!) I will take a ride around and get photos and publish on here too.

 

[Starmill]

That's how it was in May 2018. Half hourly Wigan North Western via Bolton to Stalybridge/Alderley Edge.

If they go back to that, and with Stalybridge getting wires (when?) it can be a purely EMU service.

Any chance of additional 331 orders seeing as they've mentioned "6-carriages"? Unless they will be 323s.

2tph Southport - Rochdale via Atherton 4DMU
2tph Wigan North Western - South Manchester via Westhoughton 6EMU
1tph Kirkby - Wigan Wallgate 2DMU

... would produce significantly more efficient unit utilisation and increase capacity. It would still be a less frequent service than the one from 2019, but it would provide slightly more capacity. The 769s could then work another route where they're more able to exploit their electro-diesel capability, e.g. Manchester - Buxton.

 

[Watershed]

The 769s could then work another route where they're more able to exploit their electro-diesel capability, e.g. Manchester - Buxton.

Being even more lethargic than 150s in diesel model, I'm not sure they would be very well suited to the steeply graded Buxton line.

 

[snowball]

To be fair it is too expensive, what would 2 extra platforms achieve? Castlefield corridor would still be double tracked.

Presumably a train stationary in a platform contributes more to delaying the trains behind it than does a train moving along a track. Especially if the platform is at a major station where a lot of journeys start or finish. One track feeding two platforms alternately seems an efficient arrangement to me.

 

[plugwash]

Manchester Oxford Road and Deansgate can only accommodate 6 coaches and would be extraordinarily expensive to extend. You don't really want to be using SDO (and blocking junctions behind) either. So those are the limiting factors really.

I'm sure TPE used to run 8 car trains to scotland sometimes when they had the 350s, did those run through oxford road without stopping? or were they shorter cars that could squeeze in.

 

[Starmill]

Being even more lethargic than 150s in diesel model, I'm not sure they would be very well suited to the steeply graded Buxton line.

I picked Buxton because it was reported at the time of their first development that they had based power data off the most demanding 150 work, which was the Buxton line. Of course nationally there will be many possibilities in 2024.

I'm sure TPE used to run 8 car trains to scotland sometimes when they had the 350s, did those run through oxford road without stopping? or were they shorter cars that could squeeze in.

They did stop at Manchester Oxford Road. They fit in one platform, and you had to use the front four coaches at the others.