Furness Line

[Agent_Squash]

With a one train per hour service on a double track railway, the Furness Line is mostly outdated infrastructure providing a necessary service for some parts of Cumbria, but also connecting the towns of Barrow, Dalton and Ulverston to the West Coast. Surprisingly, there is large amounts of overcrowding on services in both directions (indeed, I was on a 3 car 185 which was standing room only at Ulverston).

That service then went on to join the service from Blackpool North to run down to Manchester Airport, after a long period of running under the wires. With the Blackpool North branch expected to be electrified by May 2018, new electric trains will be used on that branch while the Furness Line services will most likely become Class 195 services.

While new projects such as the 319 Flex may provide a solution, perhaps it may be worth increasing the service or possibly even electrification?

 

[Starmill]

I think electrification is likely to be taking a back seat for the time being, given the large number of other projects that will need work in the next control period. I wouldn't expect to see Carnforth - Barrow-in-Furness added. I have always thought that what the line could justify in terms of passenger numbers is roughly an hourly semi-fast service (this would be the one to run through to Preston and beyond where possible) and an hourly all-stations service. I understand the plan is to increase the number of trains on the line, although possibly not by this much. The current timetable is a bit of a mish-mash of history and is based mostly on the shifting rolling stock situation (loss on 185s, replacement with sprinters, finding paths suitable for Loco Hauled trains). I am confident that come 2019 the timetable will have stabilised a bit to better match capacity with demand and reduce the longer gaps.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The timetable on the line is absolutely horrendous, it desperately needs some form of clockface or standardisation. I'm not sure it could justify 2tph with one stopping and one semi-fast, but at the very least Barrow, Ulverston, Grange and Arnside deserve a hourly, well-timed and memorable service to at least Lancaster and hopefully beyond.

Doesn't the May 2018 recast include an hourly service via Wigan and Chat Moss to Manchester, or is it an awkward split with Windermere services?

 

[Starmill]

Doesn't the May 2018 recast include an hourly service via Wigan and Chat Moss to Manchester, or is it an awkward split with Windermere services?

I think it's based around 2/3 of services from Manchester Airport going to Barrow-in-Furness and 1/3 to Windermere. Where there is no direct train, there would obviously be a connection into / out of the service from Windermere.

 

[Agent_Squash]

A semi fast would probably indeed solve many issues, while reducing overcrowding on services to Manchester Airport. A lot of demand does seem to go in that direction and I know many people in the area that would use the train but it simply doesn't work for them. A clockface timetable is almost certainly needed.

2tph could probably be justified - indeed, many places in other parts of the country get far more when they are the same size. As an example, Lancing (which is relatively similar in size to Ulverston) gets 5tph (including 1tph to Victoria). Many people would probably use the railway who don't use it already if the service is there.

A good service for the line, for example may be as follows...

From Lancaster/Manchester Airport

xx15: Semi-fast service from Manchester Airport, calling at Carnforth, Arnside, Grange over Sands, Ulverston, Dalton and Barrow.

xx45: All stations from Lancaster.

From Barrow

xx00: All stations to Lancaster.

xx30: Semi fast via Dalton, Ulverston, Grange, Arnside and Carnforth to Manchester Airport.

Perhaps link up with the VT services to Euston/Birmingham as well?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... As an example, Lancing (which is relatively similar in size to Ulverston) gets 5tph (including 1tph to Victoria).

Whilst I don't disagree with the rest of your post (depending on what you mean by linking up to the VT services), this isn't the best comparison: Lancing lies less than 10 miles from its primary market (at a guess; Brighton), and on a line connecting several other vast conurbations; therefore purely by circumstance and its own geography it will have considerable service levels purely by the amount of traffic through it (see also places like Barnham on the same line, and Markinch and Brockenhurst, and conversely the likes of Hartlepool and Grimsby).

 

[Agent_Squash]

Whilst I don't disagree with the rest of your post (depending on what you mean by linking up to the VT services), this isn't the best comparison: Lancing lies less than 10 miles from its primary market (at a guess; Brighton), and on a line connecting several other vast conurbations; therefore purely by circumstance and its own geography it will have considerable service levels purely by the amount of traffic through it (see also places like Barnham on the same line, and Markinch and Brockenhurst, and conversely the likes of Hartlepool and Grimsby).

Perhaps Lancing wasn't the best example, but there are still quite a few places that regularly get 2tph at a similar size.

With regards to linking up to VT services - the ideal service would be that the all stations service would arrive at Lancaster roughly 10 minutes before the VT service and leave again soon after - and the semi would be able to have that same margin at either Lancaster or Preston. This would all be restrained by restrictions on the WCML, however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH I agree it needs to go fully clockface. I'd make the smaller stations request stops, and run longer trains on a clockface hourly frequency (with some running through to the Coast as necessary). 5x23m would be about right, with SDO or single door operation where necessary.

I do think Northern could have done with something like 6-section bi-mode FLIRTs which would have been perfect for it - lower floor for the smaller low-platform stations on the Coast too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's based around 2/3 of services from Manchester Airport going to Barrow-in-Furness and 1/3 to Windermere. Where there is no direct train, there would obviously be a connection into / out of the service from Windermere.

I'd rather see an hourly service through to both, portion-worked, splitting at Lancaster.

 

[thenorthern]

Electrification was suggested by the local MP Tim Farron but the problem is there are some very long viaducts and some long tunnels meaning it would be very hard to electrify.

 

[snowball]

Electrification was suggested by the local MP Tim Farron but the problem is there are some very long viaducts and some long tunnels meaning it would be very hard to electrify.

I don't expect to see Barrow to Carnforth wired soon because there are higher priorities. It's three times the length of the Windermere branch and double track, so would probably cost about six times as much to do. It was put in the third tier in the northern electrification task force report.

Having said that, I'm not sure the tunnels are a particular problem. There are three, all near Dalton. How difficult they would be depends on their exact cross-sectional shape and dimensions, which I don't know about. However I think they each have a single bore with two tracks through it. The best way to wire them might be to single the track through them and slew it to the middle where the headroom is greatest.

 

[adamedwards]

Could the proposed stopper go on to Leeds via Morecambe and Skipton? Creates a useful through route.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't expect to see Barrow to Carnforth wired soon because there are higher priorities. It's three times the length of the Windermere branch and double track, so would probably cost about six times as much to do. It was put in the third tier in the northern electrification task force report.

Having said that, I'm not sure the tunnels are a particular problem. There are three, all near Dalton. How difficult they would be depends on their exact cross-sectional shape and dimensions, which I don't know about. However I think they each have a single bore with two tracks through it. The best way to wire them might be to single the track through them and slew it to the middle where the headroom is greatest.

The through running would be an issue as well as there are still a small amount of trains that run from Lancaster around the coast to Carlisle, given loading gauge issues.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Realistically, would it be worth considering making the Cumbrian Coast service between Barrow and Carlisle instead of Lancaster and Carlisle? That way, stock which wouldn't normally be permitted on the Coast would be able to be used on all services, providing larger capacity and a better service for all.

Barrow already has 3 platforms, with one for Coast service usage - maybe this is a possibility that could be looked into?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Perhaps Lancing wasn't the best example, but there are still quite a few places that regularly get 2tph at a similar size.

Maybe a better comparisons would be Edinburgh-Tweedbank, Waterloo-Alton and Sittingbourne-Sheerness. None are directly comparable, but all have half-hourly services to final destinations that have rather smaller populations than Barrow.

I certainly agree that, based on population levels, the Furness line ought to be able to sustain a half-hourly clockface frequency - especially if most trains either ran through to or gave good connections onto Preston.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

A semi fast would probably indeed solve many issues, while reducing overcrowding on services to Manchester Airport. A lot of demand does seem to go in that direction and I know many people in the area that would use the train but it simply doesn't work for them. A clockface timetable is almost certainly needed.

2tph could probably be justified - indeed, many places in other parts of the country get far more when they are the same size. As an example, Lancing (which is relatively similar in size to Ulverston) gets 5tph (including 1tph to Victoria). Many people would probably use the railway who don't use it already if the service is there.

A good service for the line, for example may be as follows...

From Lancaster/Manchester Airport

xx15: Semi-fast service from Manchester Airport, calling at Carnforth, Arnside, Grange over Sands, Ulverston, Dalton and Barrow.

xx45: All stations from Lancaster.

From Barrow

xx00: All stations to Lancaster.

xx30: Semi fast via Dalton, Ulverston, Grange, Arnside and Carnforth to Manchester Airport.

Perhaps link up with the VT services to Euston/Birmingham as well?

I'm sure we'd all like more services on our favourite lines, but in my experience, the current level of service on the Furness line is about right; I've been up there several times on the £10 Northern offers over the last year and have witnessed very little in the way of overcrowding.

I agree though that a clockface timetable departing hourly would be a great benefit at little additional cost, but I think there may well be capacity issues on the WCML once you get past Carnforth so that may not be practical.

From a personal point of view, I like the suggestion of some services going on to Leeds via Skipton (but not Morecambe) but of course that would mean missing out Lancaster, the biggest city on the route.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I'm sure we'd all like more services on our favourite lines, but in my experience, the current level of service on the Furness line is about right; I've been up there several times on the £10 Northern offers over the last year and have witnessed very little in the way of overcrowding.

I agree though that a clockface timetable departing hourly would be a great benefit at little additional cost, but I think there may well be capacity issues on the WCML once you get past Carnforth so that may not be practical.

From a personal point of view, I like the suggestion of some services going on to Leeds via Skipton (but not Morecambe) but of course that would mean missing out Lancaster, the biggest city on the route.

If only I had the same luck! The last few trips I have made on the line going to/from Lancaster have been standing room only for the majority of the trip. The service is well utilised but struggles because of the lack of a decent timetable. It makes me dread travelling to/from home.

That, and the fact that many places smaller than Barrow (pointed out earlier in this thread) get 2tph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not clear why hourly would be a problem on the WCML - everything else on there is clockface.

 

[edwin_m]

Seems reasonable to me to have an overlapping service, fast trains Manchester to Barrow alternating with most-stations Lancaster to Barrow some of which would continue to Carlisle. The fasts could run in most hours except when there is a Windermere train instead, and the slower trains could perhaps run every 2hr.

 

[Mordac]

TBH I agree it needs to go fully clockface. I'd make the smaller stations request stops, and run longer trains on a clockface hourly frequency (with some running through to the Coast as necessary). 5x23m would be about right, with SDO or single door operation where necessary.

I do think Northern could have done with something like 6-section bi-mode FLIRTs which would have been perfect for it - lower floor for the smaller low-platform stations on the Coast too.

Is there any problem you don't think FLIRTs are the solution to, Neil?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there any problem you don't think FLIRTs are the solution to, Neil?

Weeellllll...

319 Flex or similar would do the job - but there's no UK Bombardier, Siemens or Alstom bi-mode, so what's your choice otherwise?

But they do have some key advantages nobody else offers;
- Low floor for low platforms
- Diesel engine module meaning much lower noise and the unit not shaking itself to bits so will no doubt last longer

That do?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only I had the same luck! The last few trips I have made on the line going to/from Lancaster have been standing room only for the majority of the trip. The service is well utilised but struggles because of the lack of a decent timetable. It makes me dread travelling to/from home.

IME the ex-TPE services are usually overcrowded, but 3-car 15x are not. This probably says something about the incredibly wasteful interior layout of the Class 185.

Seems reasonable to me to have an overlapping service, fast trains Manchester to Barrow alternating with most-stations Lancaster to Barrow some of which would continue to Carlisle. The fasts could run in most hours except when there is a Windermere train instead, and the slower trains could perhaps run every 2hr.

That'd work, but if there aren't the units for an hourly fast, they would be better off going hourly with everything the same, and just putting Silverdale, Arnside, Cark and Roose as request stops.

 

[Starmill]

There are a number of trains which don't even call at Roose already, despite calling at all of the others you mention (plus Dalton, which you didn't). Examples (on a weekday) are the 1004 from Preston and 1720 from Barrow-in-Furness. If this is historical (ex TPE services - although some of the former TPE services did and still do call here), or new (one of the ones that skips it is a Loco Hauled) I do not know. If there's not time to call at every station and one must be skipped, I would have chosen Silverdale, Cark & Cartmel or Kents Bank in preference to Roose. But that's just me!

It seems particularly silly for the 1720 not to call there as that means there is no service from Barrow-in-Furness between 1610 and 1803.

 

[thenorthern]

Before the line became only served by Northern I think with the station the management and service pattern was Carnforth TP all trains stopped, Silverdale NT some trains, Arnside TP all trains, Grange TP all trains, Kents Bank NT some trains, Cark NT some trains, Ulverston TP all trains, Dalton NT some trains, Roose NT some trains and Barrow TP all trains.

Some but not all of the Transpennie services called at the Northern managed stations. I think out of the Northern managed stations Dalton had the best service, then Silverdale and Cark, then Kents Bank and finally Roose that had the worst service.

I have never understood why Arnside has a better service than Dalton but I don't write the timetable.

I think its better now that its a single operator running the line as it was short and didn't have enough of services to justify two operators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The pattern hasn't changed massively - in essence there are still the old Northern and TPE services, you just have to identify them based on the [1] symbol instead.

I do think it needs integrating properly - though even in the days of FNW there were two types of service, the Pacer/153 stopper, and the North West Express 156.

 

[thenorthern]

The pattern hasn't changed massively - in essence there are still the old Northern and TPE services, you just have to identify them based on the [1] symbol instead.

I do think it needs integrating properly - though even in the days of FNW there were two types of service, the Pacer/153 stopper, and the North West Express 156.

Back in the days of First North Western the pacer trains were mostly replaced for the slower trains by Class 156s and the express trains were replaced by Class 175s around 2000ish time.

When Northern took over however the pacers made a return for some trains and the 175s now with Transpennie Express were replaced by 185s. The 175s of course ended up in Wales.

The odd non-clockface timetable however has been there for many years even in the days of First North Western.

 

[70014IronDuke]

... From a personal point of view, I like the suggestion of some services going on to Leeds via Skipton (but not Morecambe) but of course that would mean missing out Lancaster, the biggest city on the route.

But a few through trains to Bradford/Leeds/Wharfedaly - which are vastly bigger connurbations than Lancaseter - would be a vast connectivity improvement to both the Furness and Cumbrian Coast destinations

Looking at Carnforth, it would appear around 10,000 passengers transfer to/from the Furness and Leeds services annually - that is 28 folks per day.

Not huge numbers in absolute terms, but given the miserable service on the Leeds line, quite remarkable numbers, I think.

EDIT: I suppose some of those 10,000 could be changing to the odd Morecambe working via Hest Bank curve, rather than Lancaster - but the vast majority I assume would be changing from Furness to Leeds services and vice versa.

 

[cuccir]

The timetable for the Furness Line at the moment has become a bit of a mess over the last decade, as services have been chopped and change to fit in with limited stock and limited paths south of Preston. There are now several oddities: a daily train from Buxton; one train a week from Blackpool North; a train each day to/from Windermere; services TO Manchester all terminating at the Airport but FROM Manchester starting from Oxford Road; Sunday southbound departure times (0922 1005 1023 1210 1310 1348 1612 1815 1911), which have a 2h24 gap in the middle of the day but 38 and 18 minute gap at other times.

It's worth contrasting to this timetable from 2010. It is not perfect, but it's much better. The daytime service (09:22-17:21) has an hourly southbound departure, not clockface but between 11 and 25 past the hour. With exceptions at either end of that pattern, these alternate between Lancaster and Preston/Manchester, and between express/stopping accordingly. All Manchester services were to/from the Airport. Compared to today's timetable, we can identify the same trains but with shifts that have made the overall pattern a mess: where we has a 14:10, 15:25, 16:20 (three trains in 3h10), we now have a 14:40, 15:24 and 16:10 (three trains squeezed into 2h30, but with no extra services). We also see a cut since 2010 in the evening services.

As noted, the Manchester service should be boosted in May 2018, though this only restores the trains that were running in 2010. Still, this ought to offer an opportunity of a return to an hourly clockface alternating between express to Preston/Manchester and stopping to Lancaster. This really should be a basic aim for this line. Would be good to see a few later southbound departures too.

Things like through trains to Leeds - which would open up connections to many parts of the country - would be great, but there's a clear need to sort out the underlying service pattern first.

 

[janb]

As noted, the Manchester service should be boosted in May 2018, though this only restores the trains that were running in 2010. Still, this ought to offer an opportunity of a return to an hourly clockface alternating between express to Preston/Manchester and stopping to Lancaster. This really should be a basic aim for this line. Would be good to see a few later southbound departures too.

The May 2018 proposals have Barrow departures variously at xx.46/48/50/53 which is better in terms of clockface. Generally xx.03/13 coming back from Lancaster.

The lack of through trains to Manchester has hurt the line, hopefully their restoration will make a noticeable impact. I'm very much in the "build it, and they will come" camp when it comes to the railways and I think that will apply with the planned service improvements for the Furness line (and Bentham line).

 

[70014IronDuke]

Realistically, would it be worth considering making the Cumbrian Coast service between Barrow and Carlisle instead of Lancaster and Carlisle? That way, stock which wouldn't normally be permitted on the Coast would be able to be used on all services, providing larger capacity and a better service for all.

Barrow already has 3 platforms, with one for Coast service usage - maybe this is a possibility that could be looked into?

So the good citizens of Whitehaven, Sellafield, Millom etc should just learn to change trains everytime if they want to continue to Lancaster and Preston?

Or perhaps just get into their cars and be done with it?

I don't know how much through traffic there is, but eliminating all Cumbrian Coast to Lancaster/Preston is not going to help boost what through traffic there is, is it?