Future of the Settle to Carlisle, Bentham and Ribble Valley lines

[Zomboid]

1) What’s the point if the trains stop at a station every few minutes? Would clapped-out 158’s be able to reach such speeds between calls? And even then, as recently stated, unless you can save enough time to reach the path ahead at Skipton, you can’t benefit from the saving on an end-to-end journey anyway.
2) Presumably higher speeds, require a higher maintenance regime that would cost more money and increase subsidy on a line with questionable financial viability at best.

I believe the Salisbury - Exeter line is similar in character with stations every 5-15 minutes and operated by (basically) 158s, and that has (I think) an 85mph line speed. It does serve bigger population centres, though.

 

[brad465]

Since we're in speculation corner, why stop at 75? It's an expensively built main line alignment which, if you're doing an upgrade of that nature, could probably take 90 or 100 pretty easily.

85mph is the upper limit before a notable maintenance requirement threshold, so I don't see why this wouldn't be difficult to achieve if combined with re-signalling and a new fleet that can accelerate faster (that Northern are pursuing anyway).

 

[zwk500]

85mph is the upper limit before a notable maintenance requirement threshold, so I don't see why this wouldn't be difficult to achieve if combined with re-signalling and a new fleet that can accelerate faster (that Northern are pursuing anyway).

Any speed increase would need re-signalling, and that's where any proposal to meaningfully change linespeeds will fall down until a form of ETCS is available that doesn't require continuous at-track detection.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Since we're in speculation corner, why stop at 75? It's an expensively built main line alignment which, if you're doing an upgrade of that nature, could probably take 90 or 100 pretty easily.

I believe the LMS had a nominal line speed of 90 mph on the S&C. This was later modified by BR to 80 mph in the 1970s (with specific PSRs here and there, of course). Certainly, I'm pretty sure that compound 4-4-0s (ie steam) could do Appleby to Carlisle non-stop in 30 mins, ie averaging 60 mph, albeit downhill 99% of the way.

Since then, the bar has been significantly raised regarding signalling and other standards and either @ChiefPlanner or someone some years ago wrote that studies have made it clear that upgrading the line speed cannot be justified on cost grounds.

As @Iskra writes above, it certainly has little point if you are stopping at every shack. For limited stop schedules (if any TOC should believe they are worthwhile running such timetabled trains), 75 mph would be a decent compromise target.

But I don't think the S&C could ever come close to getting 100 mph clearance in the modern world.

 

[The Planner]

I believe the LMS had a nominal line speed of 90 mph on the S&C. This was later modified by BR to 80 mph in the 1970s (with specific PSRs here and there, of course). Certainly, I'm pretty sure that compound 4-4-0s (ie steam) could do Appleby to Carlisle non-stop in 30 mins, ie averaging 60 mph, albeit downhill 99% of the way.

Since then, the bar has been significantly raised regarding signalling and other standards and either @ChiefPlanner or someone some years ago wrote that studies have made it clear that upgrading the line speed cannot be justified on cost grounds.

As @Iskra writes above, it certainly has little point if you are stopping at every shack. For limited stop schedules (if any TOC should believe they are worthwhile running such timetabled trains), 75 mph would be a decent compromise target.

But I don't think the S&C could ever come close to getting 100 mph clearance in the modern world.

Its never been considered putting it above 75 in any recent studies.

 

[InkyScrolls]

75 mph is more than sufficient for the S&C.

 

[Starmill]

The majority of trains on the line serve the full set of stations. I see little evidence that this pattern is putting off longer distance passengers.

There are next to no long-haul passengers buying tickets on this line though, by comparison with the main lines.

The evidence lies in the (very) large number of people making journeys on other routes, or more importantly by other modes that don't involve trains. So of course you've not seen it given you haven't looked in the relevant places. Presumably deliberately too, as you openly admit on the forum that you only have an agenda for more trains at any cost.

I'm not even arguing there's a good justification for express trains - there's probably not if they can't run directly to somewhere more of a demand centre than Carlisle, which is a very small city with minimal attraction. But that's the point - some people like to argue the S&C is important for long-haul journeys but it is currently set up to serve them very poorly. Improving this is something that nearly all the current users of the line are strongly against, including you, so there is no evidence to support the possibility of better long-haul journey times.

It's a negative feedback loop. Extra trains would cost rolling stock and crews sorely needed on busier lines. Arguing for more crews to be trained and units leased for a speculative additional train between Leeds and Carlisle that's faster would receive an eye roll and an immediate shut down from the Treasury. And why not, from their point of view, the industry already wastes vast resources?

For what it's worth I think there's pretty much no chance of through services to Glasgow again. If there were these would be in a very different context today without direct CrossCountry services beyond one a day each way any more, but they're not on the cards as no appropriate rolling stock exists, and even if it did training the crew would be extortionate and the platform availability at Glasgow Central and Leeds would result in poor times. Probably better to stick with the all stations services, which are overwhelmingly used on short journeys at weekends by coach parties, walkers, train enthusiasts and staff with free passes. Resources are strictly limited, so it's better to accept that, and pick one market segment only and try to do that job as best as possible.

 

[zwk500]

I believe the LMS had a nominal line speed of 90 mph on the S&C. This was later modified by BR to 80 mph in the 1970s (with specific PSRs here and there, of course). Certainly, I'm pretty sure that compound 4-4-0s (ie steam) could do Appleby to Carlisle non-stop in 30 mins, ie averaging 60 mph, albeit downhill 99% of the way.

Since then, the bar has been significantly raised regarding signalling and other standards and either @ChiefPlanner or someone some years ago wrote that studies have made it clear that upgrading the line speed cannot be justified on cost grounds.

As @Iskra writes above, it certainly has little point if you are stopping at every shack. For limited stop schedules (if any TOC should believe they are worthwhile running such timetabled trains), 75 mph would be a decent compromise target.

I would agree, on the proviso it's an average speed of 75-80mph for passenger stock, so linespeed in the 80-90mph range most of the time. This isn't untenable on engineering grounds, and if 75mph freight was ever envisaged for the route, 75/90 differential speeds would be perfectly viable.

For reference, the dimishing return of higher speed on journey time looks like so:

(Chart showing journey times from Skipton to Carlisle at average journey speeds from 30mph to 125mph).

As ever, it's about not going slowly, rather than going fast!

But I don't think the S&C could ever come close to getting 100 mph clearance in the modern world.

Depends what you mean by close but yes I don't think 100mph on the S&C is likely.

 

[deltic08]

I believe the LMS had a nominal line speed of 90 mph on the S&C. This was later modified by BR to 80 mph in the 1970s (with specific PSRs here and there, of course). Certainly, I'm pretty sure that compound 4-4-0s (ie steam) could do Appleby to Carlisle non-stop in 30 mins, ie averaging 60 mph, albeit downhill 99% of the way.

Since then, the bar has been significantly raised regarding signalling and other standards and either @ChiefPlanner or someone some years ago wrote that studies have made it clear that upgrading the line speed cannot be justified on cost grounds.

As @Iskra writes above, it certainly has little point if you are stopping at every shack. For limited stop schedules (if any TOC should believe they are worthwhile running such timetabled trains), 75 mph would be a decent compromise target.

But I don't think the S&C could ever come close to getting 100 mph clearance in the modern world.

i timed many double headed class 50 diverted Anglo-Scottish trains over the S&C in the 1970s. Many exceeded 90mph especially downhill from Ais Gill to Appleby and the ride was o.k. It was the state of the wooden sleepers causing out of guage track that reduced long restricted sections to 40, 30 and 20mph in the 1980s. Spot sleeper replacement every fifth sleeper allowed a line speed of 60mph once the line was saved from closure and the line has stayed at that ever since.
Signalling has not altered much since steam days except for addition of intermediate block colour light signals to allow use of the line for 42 coal trains daily where there were long blocks where signal boxes has been closed.

 

[yorksrob]

That doesn't mean everything should stop everywhere, regardless of usage. It's wasteful of fuel and other passengers' time.

Yes, once the intermediate stations are provided with a stable regular service.

There are next to no long-haul passengers buying tickets on this line though, by comparison with the main lines.

The evidence lies in the (very) large number of people making journeys on other routes, or more importantly by other modes that don't involve trains. So of course you've not seen it given you haven't looked in the relevant places. Presumably deliberately too, as you openly admit on the forum that you only have an agenda for more trains at any cost.

I'm not even arguing there's a good justification for express trains - there's probably not if they can't run directly to somewhere more of a demand centre than Carlisle, which is a very small city with minimal attraction. But that's the point - some people like to argue the S&C is important for long-haul journeys but it is currently set up to serve them very poorly. Improving this is something that nearly all the current users of the line are strongly against, including you, so there is no evidence to support the possibility of better long-haul journey times.

It's a negative feedback loop. Extra trains would cost rolling stock and crews sorely needed on busier lines. Arguing for more crews to be trained and units leased for a speculative additional train between Leeds and Carlisle that's faster would receive an eye roll and an immediate shut down from the Treasury. And why not, from their point of view, the industry already wastes vast resources?

For what it's worth I think there's pretty much no chance of through services to Glasgow again. If there were these would be in a very different context today without direct CrossCountry services beyond one a day each way any more, but they're not on the cards as no appropriate rolling stock exists, and even if it did training the crew would be extortionate and the platform availability at Glasgow Central and Leeds would result in poor times. Probably better to stick with the all stations services, which are overwhelmingly used on short journeys at weekends by coach parties, walkers, train enthusiasts and staff with free passes. Resources are strictly limited, so it's better to accept that, and pick one market segment only and try to do that job as best as possible.

You certainly get many people travelling end to end - maybe they are all going to Carlisle or Leeds for a day out.

And yes, many the route will lose out to people travelling on the main routes - if you were travelling from Edinburgh to Birmingham or Doncaster to Edinburgh, why wouldn't you ! But plenty travelling between West Yorkshire and Scotland use the route.

Oh, and I agree that the route, like the rest of the railway will be losing out to other modes, particularly where like LNER it pushes faux airline pricing policies. I expect that one of the reasons why the S&C is still relatively popular for through journeys is that you can still get cost effective walk on travel that way (there's another one of my agendas for you !).

 

[Zomboid]

For reference, the dimishing return of higher speed on journey time looks like so:

(Chart showing journey times from Skipton to Carlisle at average journey speeds from 30mph to 125mph).

Using the 0824 from Carlisle this morning, that takes 125 minutes to reach Skipton. So an average of about 45mph, and still on the steepish bit. I don't know what would be achieved by increasing the line speed to 75 (or 85, if that's the last increment before a step change in maintenance requirements), but if combined with faster accelerating trains when the 158s are replaced there looks to be some scope to get a meaningful improvement.

 

[daodao]

Journeys from Leeds to Glasgow almost invariably involve at least 1 change of train, and take approximately the same time (4 to 5 hours) whether routed via York/Edinburgh or Carlisle, but appear to be significantly cheaper via Settle. A direct train using one of the vacant fast slots between Leeds and Skipton, and calling just at Keighley, Skipton, Carlisle and Motherwell, could probably achieve an end-to-end journey time of well under 4 hours using a hybrid diesel/electric class 800 type train, even with the 60 mph speed limit over the Settle and Carlisle line itself.

 

[zwk500]

Journeys from Leeds to Glasgow almost invariably involve at least 1 change of train, and take approximately the same time (4 to 5 hours) whether routed via York/Edinburgh or Carlisle, but appear to be significantly cheaper via Settle. A direct train using one of the vacant fast slots between Leeds and Skipton, and calling just at Keighley, Skipton, Carlisle and Motherwell, could probably achieve an end-to-end journey time of well under 4 hours using a hybrid diesel/electric class 800 type train, even with the 60 mph speed limit over the Settle and Carlisle line itself.

The class 80x's are among the most expensive train types to operate, so fares via Settle wouldn't stay cheap if this did run.

How big is the market for travel from Leeds to Glasgow? ORR figures suggest it's not a lot - only 8,000 journeys from Glasgow to Leeds on the 2021-22 Data, whereas Manchester Vic/Picc combined got 30,000 journeys from Glasgow in the same period.

 

[Iskra]

How big is the market for travel from Leeds to Glasgow? ORR figures suggest it's not a lot - only 8,000 journeys from Glasgow to Leeds on the 2021-22 Data, whereas Manchester Vic/Picc combined got 30,000 journeys from Glasgow in the same period.

That nicely illustrates the power of a decent train service. Two similar sized places, one has a decent train service to Glasgow, the other doesn’t. If there was a reasonable Glasgow-Leeds direct service, you’d see a number closer to 30,000 than 8,000. From my observations of my semi-regular usage of the line, there are already people using the route for connections to Scotland, despite it being slow and relatively unknown. With relatively modest service improvements only (no infrastructure), this is a route that could work a lot better and deliver more return on investment.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps the S&C service should be extended up the WCML to Glasgow.

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps the S&C service should be extended up the WCML to Glasgow.

Oh, dear god, no! Carlisle is perfectly set up to be a hub. The key is timing the Leeds trains sensibly to connect, so that you don't waste capacity and resource sending a 2- or 4-car DMU on one of the country's most in-demand lines.

 

[Zomboid]

That nicely illustrates the power of a decent train service. Two similar sized places, one has a decent train service to Glasgow, the other doesn’t. If there was a reasonable Glasgow-Leeds direct service, you’d see a number closer to 30,000 than 8,000. From my observations of my semi-regular usage of the line, there are already people using the route for connections to Scotland, despite it being slow and relatively unknown. With relatively modest service improvements only (no infrastructure), this is a route that could work a lot better and deliver more return on investment.

It's probably easier to justify a service which can serve Bolton/ Wigan, Preston and Lancaster as well as Carlisle and stations in Scotland than one which can only serve Leeds and Carlisle in terms of significant traffic generation locations. Whether the Manchester to Glasgow service would justify it's existence without those calling points could be questionable.

 

[Iskra]

It's probably easier to justify a service which can serve Bolton/ Wigan, Preston and Lancaster as well as Carlisle and stations in Scotland than one which can only serve Leeds and Carlisle in terms of significant traffic generation locations. Whether the Manchester to Glasgow service would justify it's existence without those calling points could be questionable.

Similarly, it's not just Leeds that is served but Shipley (for Bradford), Bingley, Keighley, Skipton and Settle too. The WCML North is no different to the S&C in that there is a massive population gap on it either side of Carlisle. Of course, if you liked you could always extend it back to somewhere like Sheffield and Nottingham...

 

[Zomboid]

Similarly, it's not just Leeds that is served but Shipley (for Bradford), Bingley, Keighley, Skipton and Settle too. The WCML North is no different to the S&C in that there is a massive population gap on it either side of Carlisle. Of course, if you liked you could always extend it back to somewhere like Sheffield and Nottingham...

I suppose you could say that Bolton/ Wigan are part of the Manchester conurbation whilst Shipley and Keighley are probably part of the Leeds/ Bradford conurbation. Outside that there's more of note on the WCML than on the S&C. Penrith > Appleby, Oxenholme > Settle. I don't see any analogues for Preston and Lancaster on the S&C, whilst the WCML doesn't have any of the local stations that makes the S&C popular with hikers.

 

[anothertyke]

I suppose you could say that Bolton/ Wigan are part of the Manchester conurbation whilst Shipley and Keighley are probably part of the Leeds/ Bradford conurbation. Outside that there's more of note on the WCML than on the S&C. Penrith > Appleby, Oxenholme > Settle. I don't see any analogues for Preston and Lancaster on the S&C, whilst the WCML doesn't have any of the local stations that makes the S&C popular with hikers.

Although it pains me to say it, I don't think Manchester and Leeds city regions are fully equivalent. There will be significant flow from Glasgow to Manchester airport. The WCML is there anyway at high standard for the Mcr trains to piggyback on.

I wonder whether business links between Yorkshire and Strathclyde have declined over time. I can recall the days when there were three return plane trips a day from Leeds/Bradford to Glasgow, all gone now. But I suppose that's true of all domestic air other than the trunks.

I must have travelled on the S and C dozens of times. You definitely see people with suitcases and hear discussions with the staff about changing at Carlisle. But 4 to 5 hours is an awkward journey length for business travel.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh, dear god, no! Carlisle is perfectly set up to be a hub. The key is timing the Leeds trains sensibly to connect, so that you don't waste capacity and resource sending a 2- or 4-car DMU on one of the country's most in-demand lines.

To be fair, some of the TPE's are only five carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, some of the TPE's are only five carriages.

Which is itself a major problem (they are very often "sold out") - we don't want to be adding more such trains wasting paths!

 

[70014IronDuke]

Its never been considered putting it above 75 in any recent studies.

Ah, my apologies - it was probably your good self who made the post I was thinking of.

Indeed, I wouldn't think any line speed above 75 mph would be considered on today's railway - I only mentioned the higher speeds in response to someone believing a 100 mph railway could be easily reached, or some such comment.

 

[Zomboid]

I only mentioned the higher speeds in response to someone believing a 100 mph railway could be easily reached, or some such comment.

Not "easily", just that the alignment is probably suitable for 90 or 100, if not more.
Once you've got that it's at least possible to throw money at the track and signals to permit higher speeds, as opposed to routes like the Cambrian to Pwllheli where no matter what you do or how many stations you skip, you're not hitting "high" speeds without building a new alignment.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Not "easily", just that the alignment is probably suitable for 90 or 100, if not more.

I'm sure others know the route better than me (I've not been over it for 50 years), but I don't think it is so suitable, not with modern standards applicable. The Skipton to Settle section has some sharpish bends (Bell Busk?) and Settle Junction, which I think has been 60 mph for aeons. There was 70 psr, IIRC, for a curve at Crosby Garrett in BR days when the line speed was still 80 mph.
But maybe someone with modern knowledge may clarify.

 

[Iskra]

Which is itself a major problem (they are very often "sold out") - we don't want to be adding more such trains wasting paths!

If the trains are sold out, then we should be looking to add more.

Is the WCML North full? Doesn't seem it with a quick glance at what is going through Lockerbie currently. 9 trains in both directions between 1400 and 1459 on a two track railway, plus 2 Q paths being wasted

 

[zwk500]

If the trains are sold out, then we should be looking to add more.

Preferably we should be looking to make the trains longer before adding more services.

Is the WCML North full? Doesn't seem it with a quick glance at what is going through Lockerbie currently. 9 trains in both directions between 1400 and 1459 on a two track railway, plus 2 Q paths being wasted

Look at a graph and you'll see that yes, it's very busy. The graph is important because the capacity impact is about faster trains catching up and very limited space to get passenger trains out of the way.

Incentivising freight to switch to electric traction south of Wigan would help ease the capacity crunch but extending an S&C DMU beyond Carlisle is still an extremely profligate action for extremely minimal value when you would do far better spending the money to make the connection at Carlisle well-timed and cast-iron guaranteed.

 

[Iskra]

Preferably we should be looking to make the trains longer before adding more services.

Look at a graph and you'll see that yes, it's very busy. The graph is important because the capacity impact is about faster trains catching up and very limited space to get passenger trains out of the way.

Incentivising freight to switch to electric traction south of Wigan would help ease the capacity crunch but extending an S&C DMU beyond Carlisle is still an extremely profligate action for extremely minimal value when you would do far better spending the money to make the connection at Carlisle well-timed and cast-iron guaranteed.

Can Glasgow Central, Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Airport all accommodate a 10 carriage train along with their current services?

That capacity could be managed and mitigated by adjusting calling points.

A connection is not enough. Connections add further to journey times, which are already off-putting enough for passengers using the S&C for longer journeys due to calling at every station and the low line speed.

 

[Starmill]

A connection is not enough. Connections add further to journey times, which are already off-putting enough for passengers using the S&C for longer journeys due to calling at every station and the low line speed.

Indeed. Hence why the route has minimal value to any long-haul passengers. And why that's not going to be changing for the foreseeable future.

Reinstating the direct CrossCountry services between Glasgow and Leeds would offer better journey times anyway if that were the objective.

Can Glasgow Central, Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Airport all accommodate a 10 carriage train along with their current services?

No. Although I'm not sure what difference it would make if they could, there's no rolling stock for this.

 

[Zomboid]

Will the rebuild at Oxford Road allow for doubling up the TPE trains? Obviously to take advantage of that it would need more trains to be built, but that's probably an easier problem to solve...