Should/will Windermere be wired as part of the 2026-2036 WCML rewire?

[yorksrob]

Battery bi modes are cheaper to maintain than DMU's and much lower fuel costs.

Don't forget the cost of maintaining the OHLE once installed which will be much higher than any slight increase in maintenance costs from having to maintain the batteries.

Don't forget that most battery trains are no heavier than the diesel alternatives.

Traffic levels are low in terms of TPH and also passenger capacity per hour.

Don't forget that the line is single track, so for an hourly service each way, you get two trains an hour on the infrastructure. That's not much different from many electrified routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==

How many bridges need rebuilding that is not cheap

From the overhead bridges I can remember, most seem to be arched bridges for double track, so plenty of room in the middle for single track OLE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget that the line is single track, so for an hourly service each way, you get two trains an hour on the infrastructure. That's not much different from many electrified routes.

To be honest the north-south bias shows quite clearly when you see that they did St Albans Abbey but not Windermere despite Windermere having far more traffic potential (e.g. for through services from Euston for tourists, particularly in the 80s when far more of that went on) but being otherwise similar. (St Albans Abbey carries tiny loadings - a 153 would be plenty, indeed despite the wires I think Class 150s did show up from time to time in Silverlink days, but a 4-car EMU is used because it's easier).

 

[Mgameing123]

No, simply provide units battery for the off wire Windermere branch. It is time to look seriously at the cost of OLE and possibilities of using battery technology.

Pretty sure adding more types of vehicles in the mix isn't a good idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==

Obviously depends on what Northern's new unit order is when it eventually emerges, but if it involves batteries it might genuinely not be necessary. It's not like freight or charters go down there, as there are no paths but the passenger ones unless you want to go in the middle of the night.

I think Windermere being wired should go ahead. It's a rather short rail line so they aswell do it considering it will get rid of the need of diesel or battery units on that part of the network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty sure adding more types of vehicles in the mix isn't a good idea.

Northern are in the not too distant future going to be doing a big new order, probably in tranches, to replace the Class 15x, so it isn't a big thing to have some or all of them with battery capability. Indeed if they go for "all the same" they would be reducing the number of classes down significantly, replacing 150, 155, 156 and 158 with a single class, though possibly in two lengths as per the 195 and 331.

 

[Mgameing123]

apart from the ones which run to Manchester Airport...

that says more about the UK's lack of logic or vision than it does about the wisdom of wiring branches.

It wasn't long ago when a major mainline like the Great Western was ran by diesel trains and they didn't even electrify Bristol or Oxford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==

Northern are in the not too distant future going to be doing a big new order, probably in tranches, to replace the Class 15x, so it isn't a big thing to have some or all of them with battery capability. Indeed if they go for "all the same" they would be reducing the number of classes down significantly, replacing 150, 155, 156 and 158 with a single class, though possibly in two lengths as per the 195 and 331.

Fair enough but I don't see the point for a short branch line like the Windermere line to not have Overhead Wires. The line to Sønderborg, Denmark has less trains than the Windermere line yet that has overhead wires.

 

[cactustwirly]

Northern are in the not too distant future going to be doing a big new order, probably in tranches, to replace the Class 15x, so it isn't a big thing to have some or all of them with battery capability. Indeed if they go for "all the same" they would be reducing the number of classes down significantly, replacing 150, 155, 156 and 158 with a single class, though possibly in two lengths as per the 195 and 331.

It hasn't been confirmed and in the current climate I doubt batteries would be approved because of the cost in doing so

 

[Bletchleyite]

It hasn't been confirmed

It'll almost certainly happen at some point - the 150s are rotting to bits - though I suppose the Welsh 158s to replace them might tide them over a bit longer.

and in the current climate I doubt batteries would be approved because of the cost in doing so

Cheaper than diesel engines and all the gubbins and extra maintenance cost.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Yes, absolutely. Get it wired. Quick win.

Release a load of diesels for elsewhere.

Ah, but wiring it would come out of the Capital budget, and trains come out of the Operating budget - leasing trains from ROSCOs is wonderful like that.

 

[Class 317]

It'll almost certainly happen at some point - the 150s are rotting to bits - though I suppose the Welsh 158s to replace them might tide them over a bit longer.



Cheaper than diesel engines and all the gubbins and extra maintenance cost.

Battery bi modes will slash Northerns operating costs as they are cheaper to maintain and have cheaper fuel costs than the sprinters they will replace

 

[yorksrob]

To be honest the north-south bias shows quite clearly when you see that they did St Albans Abbey but not Windermere despite Windermere having far more traffic potential (e.g. for through services from Euston for tourists, particularly in the 80s when far more of that went on) but being otherwise similar. (St Albans Abbey carries tiny loadings - a 153 would be plenty, indeed despite the wires I think Class 150s did show up from time to time in Silverlink days, but a 4-car EMU is used because it's easier).

Agree 100%

Ah, but wiring it would come out of the Capital budget, and trains come out of the Operating budget - leasing trains from ROSCOs is wonderful like that.

But surely capital investment is good, compared to nasty, evil subsidy ! (Unless one's subsidising one's banking cronies in the City of course).

 

[Class 317]

It wasn't long ago when a major mainline like the Great Western was ran by diesel trains and they didn't even electrify Bristol or Oxford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==


Fair enough but I don't see the point for a short branch line like the Windermere line to not have Overhead Wires. The line to Sønderborg, Denmark has less trains than the Windermere line yet that has overhead wires.

Just because similar lines in the past were electrified does not mean they would have be now to that the option of using battery trains exists.

 

[yorksrob]

Just because similar lines in the past were electrified does not mean they would have be now to that the option of using battery trains exists.

The existence of battery trains should not be used as a catch-all excuse for not bothering with electrification.

 

[Indigo Soup]

But surely capital investment is good, compared to nasty, evil subsidy ! (Unless one's subsidising one's banking cronies in the City of course).

One doesn't even have to be that cynical. £1 million is a smaller number than £10 million. Even if the £1 million is per year, and the £10 million is a one-off.

Just because similar lines in the past were electrified does not mean they would have be now to that the option of using battery trains exists.

Imagine having this conversation in 1960 or so. Just because similar lines in the past were electrified does not mean they have to be now that the option of using diesel trains exists.

The existence of battery trains should not be used as a catch-all excuse for not bothering with electrification.

At this point I'm expecting some fool to argue that we should be ripping down the overhead wires in favour of battery trains. Or robotic minibuses, or personal helicopters, or something equally daft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The existence of battery trains should not be used as a catch-all excuse for not bothering with electrification.

I'd agree with this, and Headbolt Lane is a particularly ludicrous example of a case where they should just have put the third rail down, with protective fibreglass troughing around it as used on bits of the Merseyrail network if they were in a particularly paranoid mood. However I could certainly see the benefits (subject to needing an extra platform or Dovey Junction style split at Oxenholme) of switching to a pattern of hourly Manchester Airport-Lancaster splitting/joining for both Barrow and Windermere, which has a long enough run under the wires to charge for the shorter, lower-speed off-wires run.

 

[zwk500]

The C part of that is very low, so even if the B part is low done as part of a major project it's likely to be surprisingly high, I reckon.

Remember that the rewire project will be scoped purely to renew the existing (some small opportunities may be allowed), but wiring to Windermere would be a 'new' project and therefore not able to 'hide' in the larger budget.

It wasn't long ago when a major mainline like the Great Western was ran by diesel trains and they didn't even electrify Bristol or Oxford.

It was meant to be wired to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea of course. So it was worthwhile at some point (and is steadily restarting).

The existence of battery trains should not be used as a catch-all excuse for not bothering with electrification.

No but the existence of battery trains should absolutely be considered when deciding which lines to electrify. I expect going forward nearly all EMUs will be fitted with a traction battery of some capacity, varying from an emergency 'get into a platform' capacity to full-blown service range, and therefore that arguments about microfleets will be less relevant in the context of a BEMU with 2 subclasses.

For Windermere it really could go either way (similar to Morecambe IMO). The benefits of electrification are realisable, but so are the benefits of using BEMUs instead of electrifying. To answer the thread question though, the re-wire project won't be scoped to include it.

 

[Class 317]

The existence of battery trains should not be used as a catch-all excuse for not bothering with electrification.

Neither should battery trains be discounted as not being electrification as they are a means of electrifying routes.

Over the next decade they will transform many routes to electric operations at a far lower cost capital cost and far faster than installing OHLE.

Operating costs will be lower than diesel but with very similar operating costs to straight EMU'S.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember that the rewire project will be scoped purely to renew the existing (some small opportunities may be allowed), but wiring to Windermere would be a 'new' project and therefore not able to 'hide' in the larger budget.

I'm not suggesting it should hide, but if tagging it onto that project means the cost of doing it is lower, then it's downright silly to allocate it the full cost (despite it being cheaper, for example, to procure the wire for it alongside that for the major renewals) or to fail to do it at the same time.

This argument was used for years to keep rebuilding the Conwy Valley line every 6 months or so with lengthy closures and massive costs. Then someone realised it was nonsense and arranged for improvement work in the form of a load of boulders dumped next to the line, similar to a sea wall. Ever since this was done the sections with the boulders have not washed away (the latest washouts were just at the end of that section, I think at a farmer's level crossing) and closures have been minimal - the line has generally shut for a day or two for the flooding to subside but without major damage, and even the latest incident only took a week or two.

I get why costs have to be properly allocated, but not where this is done to the disadvantage of both those funding and using the railway.

 

[Class 317]

The existence of battery trains should not be used as a catch-all excuse for not bothering with electrification.

Neither should it been seen as a bad thing because you could install OHLE instead.

The reality is there will be cases where OHLE makes most sense, Cases where battery makes most sense and most schemes going forward are likely to include eliminates of both with main routes having OHLE and branches operated by battery.

It's definitely not a case of one good and one bad but both being good together!

 

[Mgameing123]

Neither should it been seen as a bad thing because you could install OHLE instead.

The reality is there will be cases where OHLE makes most sense, Cases where battery makes most sense and most schemes going forward are likely to include eliminates of both with main routes having OHLE and branches operated by battery.

It's definitely not a case of one good and one bad but both being good together!

Well when a short branch line with through trains is connected to an entire network of overhead electrified lines then it makes most sense to use overhead wires.

 

[Class 317]

Well when a short branch line with through trains is connected to an entire network of overhead electrified lines then it makes most sense to use overhead wires.

Or it makes sense to use batteries eliminating the capital cost of the overheads given that there are already overheads available to charge at one end of the route.

 

[HSTEd]

To be honest the north-south bias shows quite clearly when you see that they did St Albans Abbey but not Windermere despite Windermere having far more traffic potential (e.g. for through services from Euston for tourists, particularly in the 80s when far more of that went on) but being otherwise similar. (St Albans Abbey carries tiny loadings - a 153 would be plenty, indeed despite the wires I think Class 150s did show up from time to time in Silverlink days, but a 4-car EMU is used because it's easier).

Can't electrification of the Abbey Line be put down to NSE making a major push in the late 1980s to eliminate diesel operation on its entire system?

Until the recession of the 1990s wasn't electrification being considered even to Exeter?
Most of the remaining diesel operation in the entirety of the NSE area was rapidly being eliminated at the time the Abbey Line was done.

The Chiltern route was about the only major holdout.

By contrast, the opportunity for Windermere electrification was in the mid 1970s, when the backlash from the huge overkill of the South WCML projects was in full force.

 

[Russel]

We will have to see what the new Northern order includes, if it includes battery/bio mode units then great, if not, then electrification does need serious consideration.

 

[Class 317]

We will have to see what the new Northern order includes, if it includes battery/bio mode units then great, if not, then electrification does need serious consideration.

It would be absolutely bonkers if Battery bi modes were not included.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

We will have to see what the new Northern order includes, if it includes battery/bio mode units then great, if not, then electrification does need serious consideration.

It's designed to replace the 15x and no part of the order involves pure DMUs, so there will absolutely be bi-mode or battery/OHLE units.

 

[Trainbike46]

At this point I'm expecting some fool to argue that we should be ripping down the overhead wires in favour of battery trains. Or robotic minibuses, or personal helicopters, or something equally daft.

I've seen this argument made; it was shot down quickly on the grounds that every sensible battery project makes use of existing electrification for charging purposes, and imagine the amounts of infrastructure work that would be required to move all charging to overnight at the depot! also think of how much batteries you would need to cover a full day of services...

 

[Class15]

Well when a short branch line with through trains is connected to an entire network of overhead electrified lines then it makes most sense to use overhead wires.

Agreed, it makes everything easier when ‘diesel islands’ are eliminated. It would be pretty much first on my priority list.

 

[yorksrob]

At this point I'm expecting some fool to argue that we should be ripping down the overhead wires in favour of battery trains. Or robotic minibuses, or personal helicopters, or something equally daft.

It wouldn't be the first time (cough - GNER in the noughties - cough).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==

I'd agree with this, and Headbolt Lane is a particularly ludicrous example of a case where they should just have put the third rail down, with protective fibreglass troughing around it as used on bits of the Merseyrail network if they were in a particularly paranoid mood. However I could certainly see the benefits (subject to needing an extra platform or Dovey Junction style split at Oxenholme) of switching to a pattern of hourly Manchester Airport-Lancaster splitting/joining for both Barrow and Windermere, which has a long enough run under the wires to charge for the shorter, lower-speed off-wires run.

Indeed. Windermere doesn't even have the excuse of the anti-third rail brigade blocking it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==

Remember that the rewire project will be scoped purely to renew the existing (some small opportunities may be allowed), but wiring to Windermere would be a 'new' project and therefore not able to 'hide' in the larger budget.

It was meant to be wired to Oxford, Bristol and Swansea of course. So it was worthwhile at some point (and is steadily restarting).

No but the existence of battery trains should absolutely be considered when deciding which lines to electrify. I expect going forward nearly all EMUs will be fitted with a traction battery of some capacity, varying from an emergency 'get into a platform' capacity to full-blown service range, and therefore that arguments about microfleets will be less relevant in the context of a BEMU with 2 subclasses.

For Windermere it really could go either way (similar to Morecambe IMO). The benefits of electrification are realisable, but so are the benefits of using BEMUs instead of electrifying. To answer the thread question though, the re-wire project won't be scoped to include it.

The difference is that Windermere's long distance route is already mainly electrified, whereas Morecambe's isn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==

Neither should battery trains be discounted as not being electrification as they are a means of electrifying routes.

Over the next decade they will transform many routes to electric operations at a far lower cost capital cost and far faster than installing OHLE.

Operating costs will be lower than diesel but with very similar operating costs to straight EMU'S.

There are plenty of long and windy routes where battery trains may make more sense - not electrified stubs of existing electrified routes.

 

[AndrewE]

There are plenty of long and windy routes where battery trains may make more sense - not electrified stubs of existing electrified routes.

... especially those with a city at one end where power per unit weight or per passenger (i.e. demand on the OLE) and passenger capacity is at a premium.

 

[Kite159]

It's the sort of line that if it was in Scotland would have been wired up by now, even to a lower spec style OHLE similar to the type used on Paisley Canal. Similar to the Morecambe branch line (keeping the Heysham branch as diesel considering that won't be worth the investment).

Rather than putting eggs in the basket called "Battery Trains are great" and having heavier trains causing added wear & tear to the existing track because they need to carry batteries to run the last few miles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd take closing Heysham to passengers in return for wiring and a clockface half hourly service from Lancaster to Morecambe. The nuclear trains could still use diesel. The ferry times are changed so often due to weather that a dedicated coach service to Lancaster via the Bay Gateway would offer a better, more flexible service.

Furthermore, it might allow enough charging opportunity for the Bentham to use a battery/OHLE bimode.

Wire to Barrow too and that would get rid of all the diesel islands round there. The Cumbrian Coast, unlikely to be suitable for batteries or electrification, could be operated by East alongside the Newcastle to Carlisle and S&C using their diesel fleet (outbasing a unit or three at Barrow overnight for the first morning northbound runs).