Is the S&C a basket case undeserving of regular public transport?

[yorksrob]

Your last sentence represents a mealy-mouthed way of demanding continued cross-subsudies for economically unviable parts of the network. It also embeds previous decisions, no matter how flawed, and indeed in my view makes future reopenings less likely. If you know that if you try and it doesn't work you will be lumbered forever then not trying looks a better option.

There's nothing mealy mouthed about it.

Cross-subsidy is absolutely essential to provide a useful transport network. The old pre-grouping knew this as much as anyone.

In terms of your second point, I don't know whether the Speller act is still on the statute books, however it directly addressed exactly that issue.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Sadly from a rail perspective, over the last 12 months (with full Brexit and the financial consequences of the Covid crisis) railway finances have become much more challenging and some pruning may be unavoidable. In such a climate, expensive-to-maintain lightly used (often rural) lines, not serving significant populations, are particularly vulnerable. The West Highland extension, Kyle of Lochalsh and Conwy valley lines are similarly at risk.

I expect politics will keeep those three lines open - they're all in devolved nations and so any removal of funding will become very politically charged (it will be portrayed as Westminster destroying rural infrastructure - in a heavily SNP area and an area with a big Welsh speaking population respectively).

Politics is less likely to save poorly used lines in England, and so I'd say lines like the Settle and Carlisle are more at risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I expect politics will keeep those three lines open - they're all in devolved nations and so any removal of funding will become very politically charged (it will be portrayed as Westminster destroying rural infrastructure - in a heavily SNP area and an area with a big Welsh speaking population respectively).

Politics is less likely to save poorly used lines in England, and so I'd say lines like the Settle and Carlisle are more at risk.

Attempting to close the S&C would cause lots of shouting rather like the FW sleeper (specifically, not any of the other four destinations). It's just too well known to close. Only way it realistically might is if there's another major landslip.

It's the Little North Western (Bentham Line) I'd be more concerned about, plus the "middle bit" of the Cumbrian Coast (certainly once Sellafield is finished with) i.e. Barrow to Whitehaven, if looking round those parts. Or if going over the other side, Whitby, or the Chathill stopper and associated stations. Basically stuff the whole country hasn't heard of that can go away quietly.

 

[WideRanger]

Would the business case that justifies the converted 153s on the West Highland Line work on the Settle to Carlisle?

 

[HSTEd]

Would the business case that justifies the converted 153s on the West Highland Line work on the Settle to Carlisle?

Tourism and government largesse?

Unlikely unfortunately.

 

[yorksrob]

Attempting to close the S&C would cause lots of shouting rather like the FW sleeper (specifically, not any of the other four destinations). It's just too well known to close. Only way it realistically might is if there's another major landslip.

It's the Little North Western (Bentham Line) I'd be more concerned about, plus the "middle bit" of the Cumbrian Coast (certainly once Sellafield is finished with) i.e. Barrow to Whitehaven, if looking round those parts. Or if going over the other side, Whitby, or the Chathill stopper and associated stations. Basically stuff the whole country hasn't heard of that can go away quietly.

I wonder if an outbreak of political regionalism might help to keep the Treasury at bay !

I'm not sure about the Chathill stopper (surely something else could stop there instead) but I would definitely kick up a fuss about the other three.

 

[randyrippley]

If the rail network needs to be cut back because of financial stringency, then the S&C line is particularly vulnerable as it is a long expensive-to-maintain line serving a sparse population. Through passengers from Leeds and Skipton to Carlisle could be catered for by building a north-east curve from the WCML to the little NW line near Carnforth and running a fast passenger service several times a day on this route.

That will never happen due to drainage issues with the River Kent and the Warton flood plain. Much of the land to the west of the WCML embankment becomes an inland sea most winters. Great for birds, very worrying for the village. Anything which risks making that worse is a non-starter

 

[daodao]

That will never happen due to drainage issues with the River Kent and the Warton flood plain. Much of the land to the west of the WCML embankment becomes an inland sea most winters. Great for birds, very worrying for the village. Anything which risks making that worse is a non-starter

The connection would be east of the WCML. If this is too difficult, one could reverse any through trains just south of Carnforth. I was envisaging the use of bimode IC trains (e.g. of the Hitachi 80x series) to provide 3 fast trains per day (2 on Sundays) from Leeds to Glasgow Central, calling at Keighley, Skipton, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and Motherwell. It should be possible to achieve an end-to-end journey time of 4 hours.

 

[yorksrob]

The connection would be east of the WCML. If this is too difficult, one could reverse any through trains just south of Carnforth. I was envisaging the use of bimode IC trains (e.g. of the Hitachi 80x series) to provide 3 fast trains per day (2 on Sundays) from Leeds to Glasgow Central, calling at Keighley, Skipton, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and Motherwell. It should be possible to achieve an end-to-end journey time of 4 hours.

I recall that this was the original plan for the closure of the Settle & Carlisle route.

It's worth noting that one of the issues that killed the proposal was that the train would have had to wait in Carnforth yard for an hour or so, and that was with a 1980's WCML timetable.

if you take any S&C train now, it will have a good number of through passengers, however a large proportion will be getting on and off en route. It might well be that a dedicated fast service could boost these through journies. If so, why not run them directly along the S&C, rather than as a prelude to closure.

 

[Neptune]

If I may add to this having had over 20 years of working on the route.

Passenger numbers have always been seasonal and in fact even in peak season it is really only weekends when the trains are busy.

In the winter the service could easily be scaled back to save costs as most services run pretty much empty.

Should some services extend to Glasgow?

No. There is a reasonable amount of through traffic to Scotland but is this enough to justify a through service from Leeds - Glasgow. I would say not. Just because it was a through route up to 40 years ago does not mean that it should be now. There are plenty of Glasgow services to connect into at Carlisle.

Should there be an express service?

No certainly not. Other than peak season some services barely justify running all stops never mind fast knocking a mere 20 minutes or so off.

So what could be done?

I don’t honestly know however I believe there should be no more than a 2 hourly service between start of service and final departures about 180. It is not a key route but it does have its uses. However a few busy services in peak season doesn’t justify some of the ideas on here. It doesn’t need anymore services and could afford a cut in services most of the year. A rare route that is busier on a weekend.

Should it even run from Leeds?

Maybe but would it be better to combine it with the Lancaster service and portion work between Leeds & Hellifield thereby freeing up Aire Valley paths but also guaranteeing a 4 car unit in the path it uses. Think the portion working on the West Highland.

So is it a basket case?

To be fair no I don’t think it is. It is a typical rural backwater route that just happens to connect into a major route at either end. These alone justify the route to remain open. However it is still a rural backwater and a 2 hourly stopping service is the absolute maximum frequency it requires. My excessive knowledge of working regularly over the route on services at all times of day show that the number of passengers do not justify anymore of a service and could cope with less in the December timetable.

 

[yorksrob]

If I may add to this having had over 20 years of working on the route.

Passenger numbers have always been seasonal and in fact even in peak season it is really only weekends when the trains are busy.

In the winter the service could easily be scaled back to save costs as most services run pretty much empty.

Should some services extend to Glasgow?

No. There is a reasonable amount of through traffic to Scotland but is this enough to justify a through service from Leeds - Glasgow. I would say not. Just because it was a through route up to 40 years ago does not mean that it should be now. There are plenty of Glasgow services to connect into at Carlisle.

Should there be an express service?

No certainly not. Other than peak season some services barely justify running all stops never mind fast knocking a mere 20 minutes or so off.

So what could be done?

I don’t honestly know however I believe there should be no more than a 2 hourly service between start of service and final departures about 180. It is not a key route but it does have its uses. However a few busy services in peak season doesn’t justify some of the ideas on here. It doesn’t need anymore services and could afford a cut in services most of the year. A rare route that is busier on a weekend.

Should it even run from Leeds?

Maybe but would it be better to combine it with the Lancaster service and portion work between Leeds & Hellifield thereby freeing up Aire Valley paths but also guaranteeing a 4 car unit in the path it uses. Think the portion working on the West Highland.

So is it a basket case?

To be fair no I don’t think it is. It is a typical rural backwater route that just happens to connect into a major route at either end. These alone justify the route to remain open. However it is still a rural backwater and a 2 hourly stopping service is the absolute maximum frequency it requires. My excessive knowledge of working regularly over the route on services at all times of day show that the number of passengers do not justify anymore of a service and could cope with less in the December timetable.

That said, if you've already got a minimal 2-hourly service throughout the day, how would you reduce service in December ?

 

[Lemmy99uk]

It's the Little North Western (Bentham Line) I'd be more concerned about, plus the "middle bit" of the Cumbrian Coast (certainly once Sellafield is finished with) i.e. Barrow to Whitehaven, if looking round those parts.

Well that’s okay then, because Sellafield will not be ‘finished with’ for many decades to come and the world will be a very different place by then.

 

[37424]

If I may add to this having had over 20 years of working on the route.

Passenger numbers have always been seasonal and in fact even in peak season it is really only weekends when the trains are busy.

In the winter the service could easily be scaled back to save costs as most services run pretty much empty.

Should some services extend to Glasgow?

No. There is a reasonable amount of through traffic to Scotland but is this enough to justify a through service from Leeds - Glasgow. I would say not. Just because it was a through route up to 40 years ago does not mean that it should be now. There are plenty of Glasgow services to connect into at Carlisle.

Should there be an express service?

No certainly not. Other than peak season some services barely justify running all stops never mind fast knocking a mere 20 minutes or so off.

So what could be done?

I don’t honestly know however I believe there should be no more than a 2 hourly service between start of service and final departures about 180. It is not a key route but it does have its uses. However a few busy services in peak season doesn’t justify some of the ideas on here. It doesn’t need anymore services and could afford a cut in services most of the year. A rare route that is busier on a weekend.

Should it even run from Leeds?

Maybe but would it be better to combine it with the Lancaster service and portion work between Leeds & Hellifield thereby freeing up Aire Valley paths but also guaranteeing a 4 car unit in the path it uses. Think the portion working on the West Highland.

So is it a basket case?

To be fair no I don’t think it is. It is a typical rural backwater route that just happens to connect into a major route at either end. These alone justify the route to remain open. However it is still a rural backwater and a 2 hourly stopping service is the absolute maximum frequency it requires. My excessive knowledge of working regularly over the route on services at all times of day show that the number of passengers do not justify anymore of a service and could cope with less in the December timetable.

I'm sure your right about the loadings and the last time I came back from Glasgow I only went that way because it was cheaper than going the East Coast and also I could time my arrival at Carlisle for a double 37 hauled special.

I don't see a great deal of benefit to portion working from Hellifield on on days where you need longer than 2 cars on the S&C potentially the platforms could be too short at some stations, it would also slow down what not a particularly fast journey time as it is, in fact the number of station stops is quite tedious if you just want to get from A to B not helped by recent timetables where S&C trains more than ever now seem to stop at Gargrave and Long Preston as well as Hellifield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that’s okay then, because Sellafield will not be ‘finished with’ for many decades to come and the world will be a very different place by then.

I thought it wasn't that far off now, but perhaps I misremembered. So long as Sellafield is there the line won't close, as the other option is nuclear waste on lorries, and nobody will accept that. And so long as the line is needed for said nuclear waste, operating a passenger service on it is marginal in cost terms.

Indeed, it fairly recently had its service increased from a bitty two-hourly-ish to hourly throughout.

 

[quantinghome]

It was madness to build it.

It would be madness to close it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was madness to build it.

It would be madness to close it.

I think that is fair.

 

[yorksrob]

I thought it wasn't that far off now, but perhaps I misremembered. So long as Sellafield is there the line won't close, as the other option is nuclear waste on lorries, and nobody will accept that. And so long as the line is needed for said nuclear waste, operating a passenger service on it is marginal in cost terms.

Indeed, it fairly recently had its service increased from a bitty two-hourly-ish to hourly throughout.

I think that because Sellafield processes all the fuel rods, it's likely to have a much longer lifespan than your average nuclear power station, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that because Sellafield processes all the fuel rods, it's likely to have a much longer lifespan than your average nuclear power station, for example.

True.

FWIW I suspect that the survival of the Heysham branch from Morecambe (and if you want a basket case, they don't come much more basket case than that, it makes the Marston Vale look like London Overground) has nothing to do with half-empty passenger services for near non-existent ferry foot passengers who could be accommodated very well in a single Transit minibus to Lancaster station with plenty of spare seats to put their bags on, and everything to do with nuclear traffic.

Again, if the line is needed for nuclear traffic and the station is already there, and basically a platform with little else so requiring basically no maintenance, a unit, crew and a bit of diesel to run there and back twice a day is such a small cost in the scheme of things that withdrawing it isn't worth the effort.

 

[Ianno87]

True.

FWIW I suspect that the survival of the Heysham branch from Morecambe (and if you want a basket case, they don't come much more basket case than that, it makes the Marston Vale look like London Overground) has nothing to do with half-empty passenger services for near non-existent ferry foot passengers who could be accommodated very well in a single Transit minibus to Lancaster station, and everything to do with nuclear traffic.

Again, if the line is needed for nuclear traffic and the station is already there, and basically a platform with little else so requiring basically no maintenance, a unit, crew and a bit of diesel to run there and back twice a day is such a small cost in the scheme of things that withdrawing it isn't worth the effort.

Doesn't help that the passenger service is pretty labour intensive, with operation of the ground frame at Morecambe needed, and a complicated driver operation requiring (IIRC) a Barrow driver route conducting the Skipton driver.

The economics of the passenger service would be questionable once the Nuclear traffic goes.

 

[52290]

True.

FWIW I suspect that the survival of the Heysham branch from Morecambe (and if you want a basket case, they don't come much more basket case than that, it makes the Marston Vale look like London Overground) has nothing to do with half-empty passenger services for near non-existent ferry foot passengers who could be accommodated very well in a single Transit minibus to Lancaster station with plenty of spare seats to put their bags on, and everything to do with nuclear traffic.

Again, if the line is needed for nuclear traffic and the station is already there, and basically a platform with little else so requiring basically no maintenance, a unit, crew and a bit of diesel to run there and back twice a day is such a small cost in the scheme of things that withdrawing it isn't worth the effort.

I thought that the Heysham boat train was paid for by the Isle of Man government.

 

[Ianno87]

I thought that the Heysham boat train was paid for by the Isle of Man government.

Do they pay for the train, or the entire branch infrastructure? Might be a different equation if the latter was passed onto them, if it existed for the sole purpose of the boat train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The economics of the passenger service would be questionable once the Nuclear traffic goes.

I would expect the line to close once nuclear traffic goes, and unlike the S&C most people wouldn't notice. This would have the advantage of allowing a simple single-unit "Bay Metro" of a half-hourly service to Morecambe (which is well-used, and likely to become more so if the Eden Project goes ahead). Even if you added some stations, there's no way it'd ever be able to viably compete with a bus service up the main road.

(If we were in Germany it'd be a half hourly bus service designed to connect with the train at Morecambe, of course )

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Morecambe station is pretty well sited for the proposed Eden Project (not as well sited as Promenade was, but never mind !)

 

[quantinghome]

It's the Little North Western (Bentham Line) I'd be more concerned about, plus the "middle bit" of the Cumbrian Coast (certainly once Sellafield is finished with) ...

The nuclear waste geological disposal facility would likely require rail connection and will be operational for 150 years. While the location is not yet defined West Cumbria is the most probable.

 

[Neptune]

That said, if you've already got a minimal 2-hourly service throughout the day, how would you reduce service in December ?

Make it 3 hourly between the peaks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Make it 3 hourly between the peaks.

Only worth doing that if it allows the number of diagrams to be reduced somehow. If the same number of diagrams is needed but you're just having the crews sitting around drinking tea for longer, there's very little point in doing that, as the diesel isn't the biggest cost of railway operation (in contrast to flying, where the fuel is one of the biggest concerns).

 

[Glenn1969]

This convo takes me back to the days when railways in most of the North weren't deemed worthy of investment because they required too much subsidy to be deemed suitable for growth. If the Tories had won the elections in 1992 and 1997 would some of them have been considered for closure like the S&C was in the 80s?

 

[Lemmy99uk]

I thought it wasn't that far off now, but perhaps I misremembered. So long as Sellafield is there the line won't close, as the other option is nuclear waste on lorries, and nobody will accept that. And so long as the line is needed for said nuclear waste, operating a passenger service on it is marginal in cost terms.

I think people get confused with the power station and the reprocessing plant.
The power station is being decommissioned and dismantled (which will take many years) but the main function of the site now is reprocessing of spent fuel, and there are still around 10,000 people employed.

 

[yorksrob]

Make it 3 hourly between the peaks.

I suppose it could work, so long as the overall travelling day isn't reduced.

I must admit, I normally use the route quite a bit in winter and I think the latest standard timetable is about right. They just need some spare units in the summer to strengthen it.

 

[A0]

This convo takes me back to the days when railways in most of the North weren't deemed worthy of investment because they required too much subsidy to be deemed suitable for growth. If the Tories had won the elections in 1992 and 1997 would some of them have been considered for closure like the S&C was in the 80s?

BIB - checks history books - the Tories DID win in 1992.

Interestingly the closures put through in the period 1979-97 were at BR's behest, not the government's. And the main ones were freight only lines such as Woodhead or Consett.

The only passenger lines I can think of which closed during this time (not including those turned over to Metrolink / Light Rail) were Eridge - Tunbridge Wells, Dalston Junc - Broad Street, Elmers End - Sanderstead, Clayton West branch and a couple of bits on the tube - Epping - Ongar and Aldwych.