Considerations around further electrification in the North

[MML]

Could the service be operated half hourly Manchester to Windermere by TPE 800s.
Electric on the mainline, diesel on the branch ?
Only expense would be procuring the stock. No NR expense and no unsightly OHLE in the National Park.
Northern can then concentrate strengthening other routes.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No unsightly OHLE in the National Park.

Switzerland manages OLE in places with far nicer scenery than the glorified tourist dump that is The Lake District.

 

[JonathanH]

Could the service be operated half hourly Manchester to Windermere by TPE 800s.
Electric on the mainline, diesel on the branch ?
Only expense would be procuring the stock. No NR expense and no unsightly OHLE in the National Park.
Northern can then concentrate strengthening other routes.

If your suggestion is that some more 802s are procured, you might as well come up with some of the other alternatives in this thread.

 

[py_megapixel]

If your suggestion is that some more 802s are procured, you might as well come up with some of the other alternatives in this thread.

Such as some bimode 331s.

 

[Neptune]

Could the service be operated half hourly Manchester to Windermere by TPE 800s.
Electric on the mainline, diesel on the branch ?
Only expense would be procuring the stock. No NR expense and no unsightly OHLE in the National Park.
Northern can then concentrate strengthening other routes.

The trouble with that is TPE handed the service over to Northern in the 2016 franchise changes. Can’t see them taking it back.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Such as some bimode 331s.

You think CAF could manage that ?

 

[py_megapixel]

You think CAF could manage that ?

Well, why couldn't they? It's only a few carriages that need building.

 

[Bletchleyite]

[*] there is the caveat that the National Park Authority were unhappy with plans for OHLE, claiming that it would spoil the appearance of the national park.

Use fancy, decorative wooden or cast-iron masts, then, rather than the ugly standard framework ones. Doubt it'd add that much to the cost.

You'd think they'd be more bothered about mucky diesel fumes in the Park.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can get somewhat nice looking electrification, reducing diesel emissions is more important than slightly affecting the beauty of the environment in my opinion.

In any case I don't find OHLE all that ugly, unless you did the whole thing with heavyweight latticework portals which would be a bit of a waste of money.

 

[YorksLad12]

14 will nicely take a 170 (I’ve taken many in there). It’s irrelevant now as they’re not doing it.

The refuge area off 17 is still for use and included in the regular H&S tours (what if you can’t reach the southern entrance and you’re on 17a and need to evacuate).

Fair enough, and fair enough. My eyes need testing on the former (it doesn't *look* long enough)!

 

[tbtc]

Why do people get so excited about the Windermere branch its ridiculous, we are talking about 4 trains a day each way operated to Manchester and who knows in any review of the number of trains through Castlefield they might get cut back anyway.

Agreed - there's quite a fixation on here about rural backwaters, and often the solution is some over-complicated/expensive plan (e.g. bespoke trains for a service with a relatively small PVR, non-standard infrastructure)

The Leeds to Nottingham’s, when they run are a joke, when I’m waiting at Barnsley, there is a groan when a 2 car 195 turns up, because you know you arent getting a seat, in the current timetable, with stoppers only, one diagram is a single 158, one is a 150, the other is a 2-car 195, the space is there to extend P17 at Leeds aswell

It's absolute nonsense - Leeds - Nottingham should be a fairly high profile service but it's now got fewer seats than the long established two coach 158s (and even fewer than the period of 170s running on it) - incredibly short sighted stuff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - there's quite a fixation on here about rural backwaters, and often the solution is some over-complicated/expensive plan (e.g. bespoke trains for a service with a relatively small PVR, non-standard infrastructure)

To be fair, there's a potential recast in there - it would make sense, once the wires were up, to operate all Windermere services through to Manchester with the Barrow DMUs instead being the connection (perhaps on a simplified hourly clockface pattern with all services going round the Coast and no more Barrow terminating services).

 

[YorksLad12]

It's absolute nonsense - Leeds - Nottingham should be a fairly high profile service but it's now got fewer seats than the long established two coach 158s (and even fewer than the period of 170s running on it) - incredibly short sighted stuff.

And there's only two journeys per day at the moment (according to RTT).

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, it is a cheap, simple project* which would eliminate hundreds of miles of diesel working and free up much needed DMUs. It is, therefore, almost certain the that the DfT will find a trivial reason to refuse to fund it

[*] there is the caveat that the National Park Authority were unhappy with plans for OHLE, claiming that it would spoil the appearance of the national park.

I thought that had turned out to be a presumption by DfT that the National Park themselves denied?

 

[py_megapixel]

I thought that had turned out to be a presumption by DfT that the National Park themselves denied?

That was the excuse the DfT used... whether it was a presumption or not I don't know

 

[swt_passenger]

That was the excuse the DfT used... whether it was a presumption or not I don't know

Theres a quote in post #30 of this thread attributed to the LEP & NPA:

Windermere line electrification progress

Amid all the Brexit chaos in Parliament yesterday, there was a debate on electrifying the Lakes Line. Tim Farron, MP for Westmorland & Lonsdale (the constituency through which the Lakes Line runs) has given it his support. https://twitter.com/Rail_Elec/status/1169280312599298053?s=19 We're in...

www.railforums.co.uk

... but unfortunately the link is dead.

 

[Elecman]

As a single line the structures will simple And not anything that would be out of place, the only problem area is the Level,Crossing at Staveley as there is a low bridge not that far away and DNO Very easy lines just the other side .
afaik the National Park objection was a Grayling untruth to justify his descision to cancel electrification

 

[Jozhua]

Well you get my point. Whatever the solution is, the problem needs to be solved. It's unacceptable that there is so much DMU working under the wires on Northern at the moment.

Yep. The solution is rolling electrification through a program of sustained investment over a period of 10-15 years, which also addresses the pinch points and bottlenecks to increase the efficiency of the railway as cheaply as possible with labour that gains relevant skills and experience without it being lost at the end of a short term contract.

Or you could do DafT under Tories, spout hot air and fund feesibility studies.

But to avoid diesel under the wires on XC you need to electrify hundreds of miles down the south west of the country and/or order dozens of new trains.

To avoid diesel under the wires for Windermere you need to electrify 15 miles of single track and adjust the diagrams a bit.

Can you see my point?

Totally agree.

Not really because the amount of Diesel under the wires is irrelevent in the grand scheme of things, as is the Windermere branch when compared to electrification of more major routes, yes you can use the argument well it wont cost much to do it it terms of electrification costs but then you could alternatively put that money, time and resources towards some other scheme.

Yeah, but the benefit is, you are not only "electrifying" the branch, but all the wires otherwise diesel trains run under. And I'd say comparatively it's pretty good, especially for the simplicity and size of the scheme.

This part contradicts what you said a few posts ago about a better focus being eliminating diesel under the wires on XC, but anyway...


The Windermere line is a branch of the West Coast Mainline, one of the most major routes, and a route where slow diesels taking up paths is a bad thing.

To be honest if it was me I'd probably scrap the extensions to Manchester, and retime all services to connect with TPE into Manchester instead. But that's out of the scope of this thread.

However it's insane to me that the branches weren't done with the rest of the line in the 1960s...

If they could increase frequency to every 30/minutes that would probably work. I doubt it would discourage tourists from the airport as most of them come from countries where things actually work and you tend to make connections.

I have read in a few places that even the DafT think the best solution for the Windermere branch is stringing up the wires. I will try and find a reference/quote.

So, they eventually came to that conclusion five years after the rest of the world?

Honestly even the dumbest ideas on here have nothing on the DafT. At least the stupid ones are making some effort to solve problems, and there is some consideration on feesibility. "Digital signalling" to fix the Castlefield Corridor is incredible LMAO.

Yes, it is a cheap, simple project* which would eliminate hundreds of miles of diesel working and free up much needed DMUs. It is, therefore, almost certain the that the DfT will find a trivial reason to refuse to fund it

Yes.

You can get somewhat nice looking electrification, reducing diesel emissions is more important than slightly affecting the beauty of the environment in my opinion.

Railforums needs a like feature.

Switzerland manages OLE in places with far nicer scenery than the glorified tourist dump that is The Lake District.

Yep. It's a really terrible excuse.

What about all the other infrastructure? I mean national grid too!

afaik the National Park objection was a Grayling untruth to justify his descision to cancel electrification

Makes sense, you got a link to it, I need to witness the stupidity for myself!

 

[Spartacus]

Agreed - there's quite a fixation on here about rural backwaters, and often the solution is some over-complicated/expensive plan (e.g. bespoke trains for a service with a relatively small PVR, non-standard infrastructure)

I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested a push-pull 47 on one end of some stock and an electric loco on the other end before now!

It's absolute nonsense - Leeds - Nottingham should be a fairly high profile service but it's now got fewer seats than the long established two coach 158s (and even fewer than the period of 170s running on it) - incredibly short sighted stuff.

One big problem which people don't generally see with this is that the capacity constraint isn't just at the Leeds end. In the normal timetable the Northern service usually has to share a platform with an EMR one, usually platform 4, and this can only take a pair of 2 car services, limiting not only the Northern Nottingham - Leeds but also the EMR Newark Castle - Matlock trains. Both have been known to strengthen to 3 cars, or occasionally more, but it causes delays.

 

[Neptune]

It's absolute nonsense - Leeds - Nottingham should be a fairly high profile service but it's now got fewer seats than the long established two coach 158s (and even fewer than the period of 170s running on it) - incredibly short sighted stuff.

It is a major problem and one which isn’t going to go away. There are no plans to strengthen the Nottingham (or Lincoln) service at present.

170’s have never worked the service. They were sent to Notts in driver training runs but via the Dearne Valley from Holbeck to Sheffield as they aren’t cleared for the Barnsley route.

And there's only two journeys per day at the moment (according to RTT).

There’s only 2 full Leeds - Nottingham services at peak times at present but an hourly Sheffield - Nottingham service. These interlink with the Dearne stoppers so no 195’s at the moment but the odd 150.

 

[py_megapixel]

Could the service be operated half hourly Manchester to Windermere by TPE 800s.
Electric on the mainline, diesel on the branch ?

I don't think Windermere really warrants taking up two paths on the WCML. Maybe 1tph to Oxenholme connecting with the Scottish service, and 1tph to Manchester?

unsightly OHLE in the National Park.

We've already established that isn't really a problem, because firstly the National Parks don't care, and secondly OHLE which isn't unsightly is available.

 

[py_megapixel]

Could it be done with a "guaranteed connection" of sorts? i.e. Windermere connects with TPE, and it's guaranteed that the TPE service won't leave until 5 minutes after the Windermere arrives?

Being a single track branch with only one unit diagrammed, I can't imagine it actually ever holding up the TPE service, but it gives passengers some peace of mind

 

[glbotu]

Could it be done with a "guaranteed connection" of sorts? i.e. Windermere connects with TPE, and it's guaranteed that the TPE service won't leave until 5 minutes after the Windermere arrives?

Being a single track branch with only one unit diagrammed, I can't imagine it actually ever holding up the TPE service, but it gives passengers some peace of mind

The way you'd do a "guaranteed connection" is as follows and is fairly standard practice pretty much anywhere.
1. The branch line train arrives (in this case from Windermere) - probably 5 mins in advance of the mainline train.
2. The main line train arrives.
3. The main line train leaves.
4. The branch line train leaves, about 5 mins after the main line train.

As you can see, the branch line train is pretty much subservient to what happens on the main line. The point is that your main line train is going further and has way more ability to knock-on delays. Now, if you're being really clever, you can have both a northbound and southbound mainline train sandwiched by your branch line train, that way, no matter which way you want to go, you have a connection.

 

[py_megapixel]

The way you'd do a "guaranteed connection" is as follows and is fairly standard practice pretty much anywhere.
1. The branch line train arrives (in this case from Windermere) - probably 5 mins in advance of the mainline train.
2. The main line train arrives.
3. The main line train leaves.
4. The branch line train leaves, about 5 mins after the main line train.

As you can see, the branch line train is pretty much subservient to what happens on the main line. The point is that your main line train is going further and has way more ability to knock-on delays. Now, if you're being really clever, you can have both a northbound and southbound mainline train sandwiched by your branch line train, that way, no matter which way you want to go, you have a connection.

That is exactly what I was suggesting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is exactly what I was suggesting.

And that, interestingly, is what the Cornish branches seem to pretty much do. Simpler when it's all one TOC of course!

 

[Greybeard33]

Agreed - there's quite a fixation on here about rural backwaters, and often the solution is some over-complicated/expensive plan (e.g. bespoke trains for a service with a relatively small PVR, non-standard infrastructure)

Quite. Alternatively, given the post-Covid economic reality, close the Windermere branch and make Oxenholme a bus interchange. Most visitors to the Lake District do not stay within walking distance of a station, so they might as well change modes at Oxenholme rather than Windermere or Kendal. Like visitors to the North Lakes change at Penrith.

Railway investment should be concentrated on busy main lines, where the railway can carry large numbers of passengers long distances quickly. Not spent on hourly 3/4-carriage trains trundling slowly along a 10 mile branch, parallel to a main road that carries far more people.

 

[py_megapixel]

Quite. Alternatively, given the post-Covid economic reality, close the Windermere branch and make Oxenholme a bus interchange.

That would almost certainly be politically unacceptable and also leaves the Lakes entirely at the mercy of private bus operators, which can't be a good thing.

 

[MML]

That would almost certainly be politically unacceptable and also leaves the Lakes entirely at the mercy of private bus operators, which can't be a good thing.

But it does make a valid point.
The expense of OHLE when a diesel shuttle offers a comparable if not improved service frequency. Though lots of buses can't be any more environmentally friendly.
Electrification of branch lines shouldn't be the priority when resources are finite.

 

[Greybeard33]

That would almost certainly be politically unacceptable and also leaves the Lakes entirely at the mercy of private bus operators, which can't be a good thing.

In the "new normal", the boundaries of political acceptability are likely to change - hard choices will have to be made between spending (e.g. on continuing rail subsidies) and tax rises. And the private bus operators are now dependent on public subsidy. This provides the opportunity for politicians to specify a properly integrated public transport system - "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

 

[py_megapixel]

This provides the opportunity for politicians to specify a properly integrated public transport system

I'd love that to happen, but I'm not optimistic.