Gauge / clearance restrictions on the Cumbrian Coast line?

themiller · 15 Sep 2019

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-class-195-construction-introduction-updates.128808/

ScottGallagher said:
Thanks Roose
I would imagine north of Millom is the issue as some other stock I believe is only cleared to Millom like the 185/175. Lots if oddities on the cumbrian coast!

I believe that the problem lies north of Maryport. The Millom restriction that you mention is because it was rare for trains to turn back north of there. Now there’s a regular evening service that only goes to Maryport. I assume that it then stables at Workington overnight.
Mk3 coaching stock is cleared on the full route but, I understand, that there’s a restriction north of Maryport in that the section to Carlisle must be treated as a single track and that no train is allowed to pass in the opposite direction (at least a former p/way supervisor explained that to me some years ago). When you travel on a 156 to Carlisle from Maryport, you can see just how tight the clearances are e.g. under the bridge at the south end of Aspatria station. To sum up, the problem lies with the bridges that the Maryport and Carlisle Railway erected over the line.

RailUK Forums

Paul_10 · 15 Sep 2019

themiller said:
I believe that the problem lies north of Maryport. The Millom restriction that you mention is because it was rare for trains to turn back north of there. Now there’s a regular evening service that only goes to Maryport. I assume that it then stables at Workington overnight.
Mk3 coaching stock is cleared on the full route but, I understand, that there’s a restriction north of Maryport in that the section to Carlisle must be treated as a single track and that no train is allowed to pass in the opposite direction (at least a former p/way supervisor explained that to me some years ago). When you travel on a 156 to Carlisle from Maryport, you can see just how tight the clearances are e.g. under the bridge at the south end of Aspatria station. To sum up, the problem lies with the bridges that the Maryport and Carlisle Railway erected over the line.

Sounds like something will need to be looked at in the coming years as obviously you can't keep on relying on the 156s forever. Will be interesting if they will do what you been told with the coaching stock and treat that part of the line as a single line therefore 195s(or any stock) can be used but it would make timetabling more difficult

LMS 4F · 15 Sep 2019

themiller said:
I believe that the problem lies north of Maryport. The Millom restriction that you mention is because it was rare for trains to turn back north of there. Now there’s a regular evening service that only goes to Maryport. I assume that it then stables at Workington overnight.
Mk3 coaching stock is cleared on the full route but, I understand, that there’s a restriction north of Maryport in that the section to Carlisle must be treated as a single track and that no train is allowed to pass in the opposite direction (at least a former p/way supervisor explained that to me some years ago). When you travel on a 156 to Carlisle from Maryport, you can see just how tight the clearances are e.g. under the bridge at the south end of Aspatria station. To sum up, the problem lies with the bridges that the Maryport and Carlisle Railway erected over the line.

Didn't 1st generation DMUs have bars on the door windows to stop people leaning out on services on the line from Carlisle to Barrow?

ScottGallagher · 15 Sep 2019

Paul_10 said:
Sounds like something will need to be looked at in the coming years as obviously you can't keep on relying on the 156s forever. Will be interesting if they will do what you been told with the coaching stock and treat that part of the line as a single line therefore 195s(or any stock) can be used but it would make timetabling more difficult

I haven't seen it for myself and excuse my ignorance as I assume it must have been considered but is it double track through the tunnel? If so would singling it be an option to relieve the clearance problem?

Lemmy99uk · 15 Sep 2019

ScottGallagher said:
I haven't seen it for myself and excuse my ignorance as I assume it must have been considered but is it double track through the tunnel? If so would singling it be an option to relieve the clearance problem?

We are getting slightly off topic but, the railway between Workington and Carlisle is pretty close to capacity, and with more freight on the horizon singling any sections would be an own goal.

ScottGallagher · 15 Sep 2019

Lemmy99uk said:
We are getting slightly off topic but, the railway between Workington and Carlisle is pretty close to capacity, and with more freight on the horizon singling any sections would be an own goal.

Fair point apologies for going off topic

deltic08 · 15 Sep 2019

themiller said:
I believe that the problem lies north of Maryport. The Millom restriction that you mention is because it was rare for trains to turn back north of there. Now there’s a regular evening service that only goes to Maryport. I assume that it then stables at Workington overnight.
Mk3 coaching stock is cleared on the full route but, I understand, that there’s a restriction north of Maryport in that the section to Carlisle must be treated as a single track and that no train is allowed to pass in the opposite direction (at least a former p/way supervisor explained that to me some years ago). When you travel on a 156 to Carlisle from Maryport, you can see just how tight the clearances are e.g. under the bridge at the south end of Aspatria station. To sum up, the problem lies with the bridges that the Maryport and Carlisle Railway erected over the line.

I was always told that the single bore Bransty tunnel was restricted to C1 loading gauge as longer would not fit where it curves at the north end into Bransty station. This was the main thrust of the argument to keep the Settle-Carlisle open as the coast route could not be used for WCML diversions.
Before Derby lightweights were introduced in 1955, steam locos with ex LMS coaches were used without droplight window bars.
The overbridge at former Bullgill station and the tunnel at Aspatria are I believe the reasons for window bars and restrictions on the Maryport and Carlisle.
I don't think 195s would be a problem between Barrow and Millom and Carlisle and Whitehaven.

deltic08 · 15 Sep 2019

Lemmy99uk said:
We are getting slightly off topic but, the railway between Workington and Carlisle is pretty close to capacity.

Since when? One passenger train an hour is not close to capacity.

RichmondCommu · 16 Sep 2019

Lemmy99uk said:
We are getting slightly off topic but, the railway between Workington and Carlisle is pretty close to capacity, and with more freight on the horizon singling any sections would be an own goal.

Are you referring to the proposed coal mine on the Cumbrian coast?

furnessvale · 16 Sep 2019

deltic08 said:
I was always told that the single bore Bransty tunnel was restricted to C1 loading gauge as longer would not fit where it curves at the north end into Bransty station. This was the main thrust of the argument to keep the Settle-Carlisle open as the coast route could not be used for WCML diversions.
Before Derby lightweights were introduced in 1955, steam locos with ex LMS coaches were used without droplight window bars.
The overbridge at former Bullgill station and the tunnel at Aspatria are I believe the reasons for window bars and restrictions on the Maryport and Carlisle.
I don't think 195s would be a problem between Barrow and Millom and Carlisle and Whitehaven.

As a perway engineer some years ago, I personally measured the 6ft at Bullgill as 4' 8" so, yes, it is tight.

Lemmy99uk · 16 Sep 2019

deltic08 said:
Since when? One passenger train an hour is not close to capacity.

There are Q paths for freight and a long section between Wigton and Maryport (which only has a single platform).

You certainly couldn’t run a half hourly Whitehaven/Carlisle under the current arrangements.

Lemmy99uk · 16 Sep 2019

curlcurlimp said:
Are you referring to the proposed coal mine on the Cumbrian coast?

Yes, although it looks like they won’t start running for a while yet.

edwin_m · 16 Sep 2019

furnessvale said:
As a perway engineer some years ago, I personally measured the 6ft at Bullgill as 4' 8" so, yes, it is tight.

eeek! I thought those sorts of values were only seen on the original Liverpool and Manchester, which was arranged so trains with large loads could run on the inner rails of the two tracks.

randyrippley · 16 Sep 2019

LMS 4F said:
Didn't 1st generation DMUs have bars on the door windows to stop people leaning out on services on the line from Carlisle to Barrow?

they did
very frustrating on a hot day

deltic08 · 17 Sep 2019

Lemmy99uk said:
There are Q paths for freight and a long section between Wigton and Maryport (which only has a single platform).

You certainly couldn’t run a half hourly Whitehaven/Carlisle under the current arrangements.

You could in the late 1950s/early 1960s when in between the hourly Whitehaven-Carlisles, Workington-Carlisles ran for two hours in the mid mornings using the stock off the Penrith-Keswick-Workington trains presumably to get the stock back to Carlisle. Again from memory, this service was northbound only.
I don't think signalling has changed much in the last 60 years apart from Carlisle power box taking over as far as Wigton.

matchmaker · 17 Sep 2019

LMS 4F said:
Didn't 1st generation DMUs have bars on the door windows to stop people leaning out on services on the line from Carlisle to Barrow?

Yes, they did.

RichmondCommu · 17 Sep 2019

matchmaker said:
Yes, they did.

Something similar happened with EMUs on the North London line.

themiller · 17 Sep 2019

matchmaker said:
Yes, they did.

This was on one of the early trial trains in Barrow in 2012.

AM9 · 17 Sep 2019

furnessvale said:
As a perway engineer some years ago, I personally measured the 6ft at Bullgill as 4' 8" so, yes, it is tight.

It looks like that in this Google Streetview shot from the road overbridge south of Aspatria station.
See here:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.7...4!1s8RO5fh0nN4ABVr78nuapDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Lemmy99uk · 18 Sep 2019

deltic08 said:
You could in the late 1950s/early 1960s when in between the hourly Whitehaven-Carlisles, Workington-Carlisles ran for two hours in the mid mornings using the stock off the Penrith-Keswick-Workington trains presumably to get the stock back to Carlisle. Again from memory, this service was northbound only.
I don't think signalling has changed much in the last 60 years apart from Carlisle power box taking over as far as Wigton.

You couldn’t do it now because Aspatria box has closed since then, forming one long section between Wigton and the single platform at Maryport.

Meerkat · 18 Sep 2019

When is it getting resignalled?
If not soon can a block be added in as in Cornwall?

edwin_m · 18 Sep 2019

Meerkat said:
When is it getting resignalled?
If not soon can a block be added in as in Cornwall?

There are various local proposals (aspirations in Aspatria?) for more freight, which would require some extra signaling and possibly track depending on how much materialized. The biggest such proposal was construction traffic to the proposed new nuclear power station next to Sellafield, but that seems to have collapsed along with the Toshiba nuclear outfit that was going to build it.

RichmondCommu · 18 Sep 2019

edwin_m said:
There are various local proposals (aspirations in Aspatria?) for more freight, which would require some extra signaling and possibly track depending on how much materialized. The biggest such proposal was construction traffic to the proposed new nuclear power station next to Sellafield, but that seems to have collapsed along with the Toshiba nuclear outfit that was going to build it.

Toshiba's plans to build the Nuclear power plant at Sellafield have been scrapped.

headshot119 · 19 Sep 2019

Meerkat said:
When is it getting resignalled?
If not soon can a block be added in as in Cornwall?

There's currently no date to re-signal the line.

Coal traffic expected to start in 2021 from West Cumbria's Mining Whitehaven site will require some minor work to install the siding between Whitehaven and St Bees.

On a more general note there are a number of constraints on the Cumbrian Coast precluding a more even service.

20 - 25 minutes section Wigton - Maryport
Maryport only having a single platform with anything less than five minutes between opposite direction trains being tight
The single line section Parton North Junction - Parton
The "micro" single line at Bransty
The single line between Bransty and St Bees
The single line between St Bees and Sellafield
The single line between Park South and Barrow

ScottGallagher · 19 Sep 2019

headshot119 said:
There's currently no date to re-signal the line.

Coal traffic expected to start in 2021 from West Cumbria's Mining Whitehaven site will require some minor work to install the siding between Whitehaven and St Bees.

On a more general note there are a number of constraints on the Cumbrian Coast precluding a more even service.

20 - 25 minutes section Wigton - Maryport

Maryport only having a single platform with anything less than five minutes between opposite direction trains being tight

The single line section Parton North Junction - Parton

The "micro" single line at Bransty

The single line between Bransty and St Bees

The single line between St Bees and Sellafield

The single line between Park South and Barrow

Is Park South to Barrow single because of the Barrow avoiding freight line? , Parts of it seem to suggest it was once double tracked...

In regard to that pie in the sky proposal from GNWR to run a Euston to Carlisle service round the coast, even a handful of these rendered it difficult at best...

Roose · 19 Sep 2019

Park South to Barrow was indeed double-tracked in relatively recent memory.

In June the government announced a great of £7.5 million to which the Cumbria LEP added £835000 which is intended to permit Network Rail to carry out a study. This, in turn, would allow Network Rail to define improvements that would then support a future case for improvements on the ground.

So, well over eight million pounds to carry out a study and write a report with recommendations. Actual improvements on the ground achieved for this spend: none.

Is there any wonder that there is public frustration with the (in this case, nationalised) railway?

Meerkat · 19 Sep 2019

Depends if most of that money is effectively recoverable by it doing scoping/option work that the construction project would need.

mpthomson · 14 Oct 2019

LMS 4F said:
Didn't 1st generation DMUs have bars on the door windows to stop people leaning out on services on the line from Carlisle to Barrow?

Yes they did, 108s were prevalent on that route and had barred windows.

mpthomson · 14 Oct 2019

randyrippley said:
they did
very frustrating on a hot day

The windows still opened all the way down though

Gauge / clearance restrictions on the Cumbrian Coast line?

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member