Settle & Carlisle Line - Past, Present & Future

[70014IronDuke]

"North Of Leeds" happens to be handy ...

BY 1965 - the only "fast" train was the stalwart "Thames Clyde" - St Pancras 1015 calling at Leicester / Trent / Chesterfield / Sheffield / Leeds (231 p.m - 241 p.m) - thence Skipton , Hellifield , Settle , Appleby West and Carlisle at 4.54 pm

Even with those stops, the TC did Leeds - Carlisle in 2 hr 13 minutes. Not bad at all, really. I assume it was timed for a Cl 45 by 1965.
But surely there was a 10.30-ish Leeds - Glasgow Class 1? This formed the 16.00-ish return which left Carlisle at 18.50, as you mention. In LMS days this carried a couple of Pullmans, I believe - converted later to dining and buffet cars. (Extraordinary indeed, even at that! Maybe they got a lot of regular diners from Glasgow to Dumfries or some such?)

AH - Correction - you have mentioned the Leeds-Glasgow (at 12.45 in Carlisle) - sorry, I missed that first read through.

- the overall service was very thin , - an 0734 am Appleby to Carlisle , a Leeds to Carlisle "express" into the Border city at 1245 p.m. A Hellifield to Carlisle local 1208 p.m. - arrival 2.28 p.m - thence the Thames Clyde and a local from Bradford to Carlisle , arriving at 7.19 p.m. The first southbound train in daylight was an 08.05 local to Hellifield , then 2 expresses - and nothing till the 4.37 p.m to Bradford all stations , an 6.05 p.m local to Appleby and a final semi-fast at 6.50 p.m (from Glasgow) to Leeds (9.13 p.m) , which amazingly had both dining and buffet cars.

There is little doubt that today the line gets a service frequency better than ever in history, even if 90% of trains are more or less all stops, and limited to just Leeds - Carlisle.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Interesting info. re speed restrictions although I had been referring to Settle to Carlisle. It would be interesting to have similar information for between WW1 and WW2 or when the Midland was trying to compete, at least in the comfort of the journey, for Scottish traffic.
In steam days before A3s appeared the passenger trains did seem pedestrian. A Blaxk 5 on the very late up Waverley seemingly blowing steam from every orrifice passing slowly through Hellifield is a particular memory - perhaps a substitute for a failed engine. And maybe stuck behind a 4F on a Morecambe to West Yorkshire passenger train.

By the time I used the line, all regular passenger was DMU or diagrammed for Cl 45s. My impression is that by c 1960, all express passengers would have been 6P Jubilees or 7P/7MT Scots or Brits - and later A3s. So the Cl 5 would have been substituting for a failure, as you say.

 

[70014IronDuke]

When did steam locos get speedos? ....

My feeling is they began fitting them in the 50s, but I'm not claiming any expertise. I think at least some Brits had them from new.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

My feeling is they began fitting them in the 50s, but I'm not claiming any expertise. I think at least some Brits had them from new.

Remarkably slow , if not scandalously so - some French locomotives had them pre - war (as well as Flaman speed recorders) , very little consideration was made on cab design before the advent of the BR Standard programme , with the honourable exception of the wartime and beyond Bulleid Pacifics.

Even the Southern electric fleet of Bulleid - the 4 SUB;s had no speedos from build (I believe) - enginemen / motorman had to use the MK1 eyeball !

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There is little doubt that today the line gets a service frequency better than ever in history, even if 90% of trains are more or less all stops, and limited to just Leeds - Carlisle.

Pretty much so I think , and the service is contractualised for the franchise period , so cannot really make any serious changes without full consultation. Obviously some room for tweaks and maybe a gentle addition to the service pattern.

As there is not much (any ?) through freight potential now that coal has shrunk , if not gone. We have discussed passenger diversions before - and it looks to me as turning the route into an "express"service does not really fly , a case of building modestly on to what is there would seem appropriate.

No one is going to run "demonstration freights" or empty express services to keep the line "busy" are they - might as well burn the money in a grate , or spend it on the Lottery (or worse)

After all , the Midland Railway would have not built it , if they could have reversed the Parliamentary authority , and dare I say it , a non nationalised LMS would have run it right down before BR did.

 

[trainmananthon]

I think missing out Appleby was a bit harsh !

The only reason it stopped at Settle was to let the trolley off!

Not that it mattered too much anyway...the 1619 all stations was only 10 minutes behind it at Carlisle!

 

[yorksrob]

The only reason it stopped at Settle was to let the trolley off!

Not that it mattered too much anyway...the 1619 all stations was only 10 minutes behind it at Carlisle!

Oh, not too bad then

 

[chorleyjeff]

I was referring to 1957/8.
Summer Saturdays had some relief trains but not many. No Brits/Clans that I recall. Corkerhill, Kingmoor, Holbeck and even the occasional Kentish Town 5XP and Scots. The line seemed to us kids as a freight train line.

 

[Condor7]

Lets not forget Carlisle is not a big place. It has the same population as Keighley at around 70,000. There will not be people planning to commute between the 2. What is the point of trying to capture a market that isnt there. Go for what is more likely to attract punters to this line.

Carlisle has a population of 108,000.

 

[yoyothehobo]

It is quoted as the city "75,000" and the wider city "108,000". I dont think that extra 33,000 people would make any difference to the economics of the route.

 

[Carlisle]

No one is going to run "demonstration freights" or empty express services to keep the line "busy" are they.

No they’re not, however had sufficient will been there, wouldn’t it have been viable for virgin to have fitted some up to date, fast & reliable non labour intensive fully automatic couplings to locos and 390s meaning diversions could still have been a workable proposition today.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Yes.
But Virgin want the cheapest option regardless of whether the diversions are by train or bus.
Fitting super duper couplings to390s and diesel locos to be used only occasionally may well be much more expensive than the alternatives.

 

[Class 170101]

There is another option of course.

East Coast generally run one per hour between Kings Cross and Edinburgh via Carlisle, some with a change of train at Newcastle, some direct.

Virgin could do Euston to Preston with Class 390s or with Voyagers. The Voyagers run through the Class 390s terminate at Preston with a change of train at Preston to Voyager.
Crewe to Chester and Holyhead shuttles would be required to release Voyagers for this.

Similar north of Carlisle for operating via the GSW.

 

[30907]

There is another option of course.

East Coast generally run one per hour between Kings Cross and Edinburgh via Carlisle, some with a change of train at Newcastle, some direct.

Virgin could do Euston to Preston with Class 390s or with Voyagers. The Voyagers run through the Class 390s terminate at Preston with a change of train at Preston to Voyager.
Crewe to Chester and Holyhead shuttles would be required to release Voyagers for this.

Similar north of Carlisle for operating via the GSW.

Virgin has only about enough Voyagers to run 1tph (double unit) Preston-Hellifield-Carlisle plus Crewe-N Wales, so you would have to have passengers changing trains at each end. Not a bad idea IMO, but might be an "interesting" exercise of both stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Virgin has only about enough Voyagers to run 1tph (double unit) Preston-Hellifield-Carlisle plus Crewe-N Wales, so you would have to have passengers changing trains at each end. Not a bad idea IMO, but might be an "interesting" exercise of both stations.

They have done it before, but it wasn't 1tph, it was just a few train pairs, probably coinciding with the Scottish trains that would be Voyager anyway.

 

[InOban]

Surely if NR take an engineering possession of a line they have to pay all the costs to the TOC, including loss of revenue. There is no incentive to Virgin to make any effort to work around the possession.

 

[Ken H]

maybe if someone had a few HST's they could have a rail replacement rail service preston-carlisle. compete with the bus boys.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The only reason it stopped at Settle was to let the trolley off!

Not that it mattered too much anyway...the 1619 all stations was only 10 minutes behind it at Carlisle!

It was 32 minutes behind it by the time the non-stop got to Settle though. Surprsing they didn't stop the late runner at Appleby, but maybe they were worried about passengers boarding by mistake for Garsdale, etc.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It is quoted as the city "75,000" and the wider city "108,000". I dont think that extra 33,000 people would make any difference to the economics of the route.

Well, 33,000 is about 45% more than 75,000. I'd suggest that's a significant difference.

But the point is, surely, Carlisle is not 'just Carlisle'. It's catchment area for the railways includes north-west Cumbria, Dumfries and other stations on the G&SW, plus the not inconsiderable population of Glasgow and Clydeside. OK, the former will have limited potential, but the latter is a serious population and serious travel generators, such as businesses, universities, conference centres etc

As it stands now, the S&C service provides mainly for two commuter and local community areas that happen to be joined up. Through passengers are just a bonus, and not really catered for. Even the two up Sunday services that continue to Sheffield/Nottingham are stoppers over the S&C (the one 'semi-fast' train is just Carlisle - Leeds).

Through passenger usage in the past was clealy limited, but rail travel numbers have shot up since 2000, and we've only had one half-hearted attempt at a limited-stop Leeds-Glasgow through service in the mid-2000s (does anyone know how these loaded?) before that was nixed. So I'd suggest it's very difficult to know what the potential is today, either with a line speed of 60 mph, far less with one of 75 mph (which I'd imagine is the only possible enhancement that might be considered under current conditions) for, say, a basic three return Leeds-Carlisle or Leeds-Glasgow semi-fast services.

 

[trainmananthon]

It was 32 minutes behind it by the time the non-stop got to Settle though. Surprsing they didn't stop the late runner at Appleby, but maybe they were worried about passengers boarding by mistake for Garsdale, etc.

One thing you’ve got to take into account tho is crew hours. If they are running towards the end of their hours, which this service does, they’re gonna want to get it back to Skipton (the crew base for that service) as quick as possible.

Normally the crew on this service operate Skipton - Carlisle (2H86), Carlisle - Leeds (2H93) then I believe finally Leeds - Skipton (2H96) before finishing.

 

[The Planner]

Surely if NR take an engineering possession of a line they have to pay all the costs to the TOC, including loss of revenue. There is no incentive to Virgin to make any effort to work around the possession.

Its called Schedule 4 and covers bus costs too.

 

[Chester1]

Virgin has only about enough Voyagers to run 1tph (double unit) Preston-Hellifield-Carlisle plus Crewe-N Wales, so you would have to have passengers changing trains at each end. Not a bad idea IMO, but might be an "interesting" exercise of both stations.

Virgin cut Chester/North Wales services to run Euston-Birmingham International blockade busters using treble Voyagers, which took nearly two and a half hours each way and required 18 out of 20 Voyagers. It would be acceptable to use a Pendolino for London-Crewe (waiting at platform 12 between journeys), use 1 Voyager to shuttle between Crewe and Chester and not serve Chester-Holyhead. With 1 kept in reserve that would mean 18 Voyagers could be used for Preston-Glasgow via the S&C.

Surely if NR take an engineering possession of a line they have to pay all the costs to the TOC, including loss of revenue. There is no incentive to Virgin to make any effort to work around the possession.

The DfT could have made a weekly service via the S&C a compulsory part of WCP bids and specify it is for route learning for diversions. I don't understand why so many people love the S&C but Preston-Glasgow services should not be replaced with coaches when there is a diversionary route.

 

[Roose]

There's usually a diversionary route available when a line is closed but the operator will have to assess whether it is a viable one and whether it will be acceptable to their customers.

Taking Carlisle to Preston, for example, normally a journey of around seventy minutes, would a journey over the Midland taking perhaps one hundred and seventy-five minutes be acceptable?

For the operator, such a diversion would tie up a train for so long that only a significantly reduced frequency service would be possible.

Back to the passengers again - few of whom would react "Oh, good! A rail replacement bus today" - how would the prospect of a near three-hour CAR-PRE rail journey appeal, albeit possibly on the same train?

I can understand the enthusiasm for the Leeds-Carlisle route which has wonderful scenery and impressive engineering, particularly through the Yorkshire and Westmorland Dales, but the line was conceived in frustration and built reluctantly in the end. All these years later, people seem desperate to invent uses for it.

Would a handful of semi-fast services from Leeds to Glasgow say, possibly in part at the expense of one or more existing timings, be worthwhile when most users at either end already have an acceptable through route? Would it be a worthwhile use of capacity north of Carlisle which will come under further pressure with the start of HS2 services over the WCML? If a potentially viable service which would create a new market, why no talk of an Open Access Operator, perhaps in partnership with one of the S&C organisations?

 

[Dr Hoo]

The trouble with the S&C as a diversionary route is that it can only shoulder a small proportion of the load. It is a lot longer and a lot slower than the WCML direct so you ‘run out of trains to divert’ quite quickly. This is very different to (say) running via Northampton or Kidsrove-Alsager. It is also not commercially reasonable to maintain route knowledge in normal operation by re-routeing the odd first or last train. There are very few crews from any passenger or freight operator who could be hired in as conductors for the whole diversion. The route has limited spare capacity given that there are a number of single line pinch points, no realistic overtaking facilities at any point and a mix of normal passenger and freight services with very different characteristics to (ideally) non-stop diversions.
With typically three passenger trains per hour via Shap, including Transpennine, only some passengers are still going to get a through train and even if others change to avoid coaches via the M6 there are still hassles with luggage, loss of seat reservations, waiting for next train for up to an hour and so forth.
The way that Schedule 4 works is to model ‘extended journey time’ and ‘cancellations’ (trains not serving particular Monitoring Points). Even with a modest number of trains diverted the shortfall on the normal timetable is still massive and doesn’t really ‘save’ very much, even before you factor the very real costs in terms of route knowledge, locomotives for drags, additional shifts at Preston and Carlisle, still having to run coaches for Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith and what have you.
‘Nice idea, BUT...’

 

[Bletchleyite]

The trouble with the S&C as a diversionary route is that it can only shoulder a small proportion of the load. It is a lot longer and a lot slower than the WCML direct so you ‘run out of trains to divert’ quite quickly.

Of course this speaks in favour of the GWR bi-mode order - you are less likely to run out of DMUs if your whole fleet is DMUs. You'd probably be able to resource it, if Pendolinos were actually 800s, by lopping the Euston-Brum-Scotland back to Preston, I reckon.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The trouble with the S&C as a diversionary route is that it can only shoulder a small proportion of the load. It is a lot longer and a lot slower than the WCML direct so you ‘run out of trains to divert’ quite quickly. This is very different to (say) running via Northampton or Kidsrove-Alsager. It is also not commercially reasonable to maintain route knowledge in normal operation by re-routeing the odd first or last train. There are very few crews from any passenger or freight operator who could be hired in as conductors for the whole diversion. The route has limited spare capacity given that there are a number of single line pinch points, no realistic overtaking facilities at any point and a mix of normal passenger and freight services with very different characteristics to (ideally) non-stop diversions.
With typically three passenger trains per hour via Shap, including Transpennine, only some passengers are still going to get a through train and even if others change to avoid coaches via the M6 there are still hassles with luggage, loss of seat reservations, waiting for next train for up to an hour and so forth.
The way that Schedule 4 works is to model ‘extended journey time’ and ‘cancellations’ (trains not serving particular Monitoring Points). Even with a modest number of trains diverted the shortfall on the normal timetable is still massive and doesn’t really ‘save’ very much, even before you factor the very real costs in terms of route knowledge, locomotives for drags, additional shifts at Preston and Carlisle, still having to run coaches for Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith and what have you.
‘Nice idea, BUT...’

I think your comments here , and Roose above , sum it up quite nicely. (and as I said before , there is now an agreement worked out a few years ago , - the 7 Day Railway protocol - that there is always a through Anglo-Scottish route kept open strategically - which with careful planning and good forward advice , ought to cater for most journeys)

 

[xotGD]

If operators promoted diversions over the S&C they would get extra passengers booking for a scenic day out.

In contrast, advertise a rail replacement bus and lose passengers to other routes and other modes of transport.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If operators promoted diversions over the S&C they would get extra passengers booking for a scenic day out.

In contrast, advertise a rail replacement bus and lose passengers to other routes and other modes of transport.

As EMT clearly get a handful of extra passengers when they divert via Corby - Manton etc* , but really hardly worth the effort. Though a few quid extra is welcome , there is (as said before) , a huge cost base to cover in considering such diversions - and they would be relatively uncommon.

*The limited service that runs this way now , are about the emptiest trains you can imagine. A handful of passengers.

 

[johnnychips]

It's 88 miles by road from Preston to Carlisle in a coach, which shouldn't take more than two hours. Even given time for embarking and changing, better than three hours on a train. The S and C has many merits, but a diversionary route isn't one of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As EMT clearly get a handful of extra passengers when they divert via Corby - Manton etc* , but really hardly worth the effort. Though a few quid extra is welcome , there is (as said before) , a huge cost base to cover in considering such diversions - and they would be relatively uncommon.

*The limited service that runs this way now , are about the emptiest trains you can imagine. A handful of passengers.

EMT via Manton clearly would only appeal to track bashers (it's not especially scenic), whereas the scenic S&C appeals to a far wider set of people.