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

[daodao]

I may have mentioned this before but I think the most sensible way that you may get additional Leeds to Carlisle services in is my building some kind of connection from the Bentham line to the WCML to go north using bi-mode trains, most likely by reversing At Carnforth and using the chord that’s been suggested that would allow trains to call at Carnforth on their way between Windermere and Manchester.

This would probably provide a journey time quicker than the current route but would open up new journey opportunities to Oxenholme and Penrith. Of course the main issue with this is that Settle Jn to Carnforth is a single block section which really reduces flexibility in train planning..

I have previously suggested this in post 60, calling at Carnforth and with reversal in the goods loops south of Carnforth to avoid new construction. The timetable would be similar to that which I proposed in post 1094. It would probably not save any time over running direct via the S&C line itself, but would make greater use of electric traction and provide direct connections from the West Riding to Oxenholme and Penrith. For operational flexibility, an intermediate block post would be desirable between Settle Junction and Carnforth.

 

[Ken H]

I have previously suggested this in post 60, calling at Carnforth and with reversal in the goods loops south of Carnforth to avoid new construction. The timetable would be similar to that which I proposed in post 1094. It would probably not save any time over running direct via the S&C line itself, but would make greater use of electric traction and provide direct connections from the West Riding to Oxenholme and Penrith. For operational flexibility, an intermediate block post would be desirable between Settle Junction and Carnforth.

Or run a Wennington-Oxenholme bus. Extend the Kendal - Kirkby Lonsdale bus to Wennington

 

[quantinghome]

That would catch up the 0641 Bradford Forster Square > Lancaster (as at May 2025). That is itself is followed by a class 6 freight from Hellifield to Ribblehead. It may be possible to get out of Leeds at about 0620ish and into Shipley ahead of the early LNER from Bradford departing. But I've only looked at Leeds to Ribblehead and that's exactly the problem with this, we've already lost half an hour. At least you have half a chance of getting into a platform at Leeds for a departure around 0620, good luck to @daodao to find one for any of their empty stocks or departures with passengers...

A 0650 departure from Leeds would catch the 0641 BFS at Skipton. Use the station as a passing point: Platforms 3 and 4 would allow cross-platform interchange, then the Leeds-Glasgow service sets off first.

 

[zwk500]

A 0650 departure from Leeds would catch the 0641 BFS at Skipton. Use the station as a passing point: Platforms 3 and 4 would allow cross-platform interchange, then the Leeds-Glasgow service sets off first.

And then the Bradford- Lancaster train has to hang around at Skipton until the Leeds train has cleared the section ahead. Skipton-Gargrave is about 8 minutes, maybe less if the Leeds train can skip it. Add in the headway for the Bradford train arriving in Skipton ahead of the Leeds train and it's a >10min wait for the Bradford-Lancaster. I'm going to take a wild stab that turning up at Carnforth 7-8 minutes later isn't completely without impact on the WCML.

 

[Starmill]

A 0650 departure from Leeds would catch the 0641 BFS at Skipton. Use the station as a passing point: Platforms 3 and 4 would allow cross-platform interchange, then the Leeds-Glasgow service sets off first.

You could do that by getting it into Skipton a little earlier to allow the new train past. Three minutes isn't enough for this. The Lancaster service can't lose even half a minute after Carnforth or it'll hold up an Avanti. It would have to lose some stops from Shipley to Skipton. Even then you may not quite make back enough time to be looped at Skipton.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==

I'm going to take a wild stab that turning up at Carnforth 7-8 minutes later isn't completely without impact on the WCML.

Indeed. This would entirely ruin the usefulness of this service as the connection to the London-bound service at Lancaster is right on the minimum. Also it would clash with the next train arriving at Carnforth from the Barrow direction.

 

[Zomboid]

Assuming the Bradford conflict can be resolved, What's the 0650 unit going to do for the rest of the day? It'd be hard pressed to get more than one round trip in so with a 1100-1200 departure from Glasgow it'll be back in Leeds somewhere around 1400-1500.

It could probably fit in another trip to Glasgow, but that would create an unbalanced diagram, so to balance that we might as well add another diagram, so 2 units are based in Yorkshire overnight and 2 in Glasgow.

Just incrementing the times from the earlier suggestion (so no chance it'll actually work, but this is crayonland) that would give Leeds departures at 0650, 0850, 1050, 1250, 1550 and 1750, with Glasgow departures at 0625, 0825, 1125, 1320, 1520 and 1755. Which would be a service that might actually be useable.

 

[InkyScrolls]

And then the Bradford- Lancaster train has to hang around at Skipton until the Leeds train has cleared the section ahead. Skipton-Gargrave is about 8 minutes, maybe less if the Leeds train can skip it. Add in the headway for the Bradford train arriving in Skipton ahead of the Leeds train and it's a >10min wait for the Bradford-Lancaster. I'm going to take a wild stab that turning up at Carnforth 7-8 minutes later isn't completely without impact on the WCML.

6 mins allowance for successive trains towards GGV if the first doesn't stop, 8 if it does.

 

[Brubulus]

A well timed connection doesn't matter too much. Don't run through trains to Glasgow, just ensure trains connect well at Carlisle. Yes this will be a case of the tail of Carlisle connections wagging the dog of Airedale and Whatfedale. I'd like to see a clockface hourly fast path to Skipton, then alternating between Carlisle and Lancaster. Skip some of the lesser used stations on each service, or at least implement the ScotRail request stop system, increase speeds to 85mph, and eventually (unless it massively increases maintenance cost) run 185s so there's a high quality service with good connections to Glasgow every 2 hours. Much more useful that 1 or 2 tpd to Glasgow direct.

 

[Zomboid]

so there's a high quality service with good connections to Glasgow every 2 hours

Would a connection to Glasgow be available at Lancaster in the hours that the train runs there? I think that on the WCML there's typically two Avantis per hour (via Trent Valley and via Birmingham) and one TPE, though some of them go to Edinburgh, so with any luck Leeds to Scotland at least would be hourly with a decent connection.

It'd need to work southbound as well though...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would a connection to Glasgow be available at Lancaster in the hours that the train runs there? I think that on the WCML there's typically two Avantis per hour (via Trent Valley and via Birmingham) and one TPE, though some of them go to Edinburgh, so with any luck Leeds to Scotland at least would be hourly with a decent connection.

It'd need to work southbound as well though...

In any given hour at Lancaster there are (roughly) two Glasgows and an Edinburgh when the full service is in place (which I think it will be from the timetable change). What they are depends on which hour it is, though - the Manchester and via Birmingham services alternate between the two destinations, plus there's the fast from Euston which always goes to Glasgow. This is indeed probably the best bet. Or even change at Preston onto the more frequent Leeds from there.

Those same three trains also serve Carlisle if you prefer to go that way (and you've got the slow service via Kilmarnock from there too).

The S&C is best off as an all-stations route aimed primarily at tourists and locals. If you start running fasts you damage that primary market, and you don't need to because there are other connections.

 

[Zomboid]

I think part of the issue is that an all stations after Skipton service (be that to Lancaster or Carlisle) doesn't feel like a very premium thing to have as part of this hypothetical Leeds to Glasgow journey. If there's a market there then the service needs to look like an intercity offering to get people on board. A manky 150 isn't going to encourage repeat custom (I've no idea what northern actually use for the Lancaster runs, being decidedly southern, but even a 158 stopping at halts like Giggleswick doesn't necessarily present that image).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think part of the issue is that an all stations after Skipton service (be that to Lancaster or Carlisle) doesn't feel like a very premium thing to have as part of this hypothetical Leeds to Glasgow journey. If there's a market there then the service needs to look like an intercity offering to get people on board. A manky 150 isn't going to encourage repeat custom (I've no idea what northern actually use for the Lancaster runs, being decidedly southern, but even a 158 stopping at halts like Giggleswick doesn't necessarily present that image).

Usually S&C services are 158s. It can vary what type, i.e. whether they are ironing board seated or the ones with the excessively thick cushions on the original frames which mean you can't get your legs under the table and there's no legroom. I'd agree neither is particularly premium.

However, I don't think a premium InterCity service is what the S&C is really about, nor the Bentham.

You'd probably get the highest quality journey by travelling Leeds to Preston on a 195 and changing there. Which is probably what people do most of the time anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Usually S&C services are 158s. It can vary what type, i.e. whether they are ironing board seated or the ones with the excessively thick cushions on the original frames which mean you can't get your legs under the table and there's no legroom. I'd agree neither is particularly premium.

However, I don't think a premium InterCity service is what the S&C is really about, nor the Bentham.

You'd probably get the highest quality journey by travelling Leeds to Preston on a 195 and changing there. Which is probably what people do most of the time anyway.

It's usually quicker to change at Edinburgh instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's usually quicker to change at Edinburgh instead.

Or that. I forgot about XC, though admittedly it is purgatory.

The point is that the S&C and Bentham are local railways for local people (and tourists*) - they don't really have a long distance role - this is provided for elsewhere.

If you were going to tweak with the S&C timetable, the way to do it would be to look at the various leisure use-cases and plan around those. (It is probably too infrequent for clock face to be of value** - everyone is going to look at a timetable for a route like that).

* I don't think enough is done about marketing to tourists - if for instance you dedicated some 170s to it and fitted a first class section you could sell it at an uplift as a panoramic train - the windows are big enough and almost as good as the Swiss equivalents.

** The Conwy Valley is very close to clockface three-hourly, but I'd really question the benefits of that compared to planning specific timed trains for specific use cases on that sort of route.

 

[quantinghome]

And then the Bradford- Lancaster train has to hang around at Skipton until the Leeds train has cleared the section ahead. Skipton-Gargrave is about 8 minutes, maybe less if the Leeds train can skip it. Add in the headway for the Bradford train arriving in Skipton ahead of the Leeds train and it's a >10min wait for the Bradford-Lancaster. I'm going to take a wild stab that turning up at Carnforth 7-8 minutes later isn't completely without impact on the WCML.

Yeah, hadn't considered the long headways.

 

[Zomboid]

I don't think enough is done about marketing to tourists - if for instance you dedicated some 170s to it and fitted a first class section you could sell it at an uplift as a panoramic train - the windows are big enough and almost as good as the Swiss equivalents.

It's wider then these routes, but I don't think we make enough of this kind of thing. A tired sprinter with dirty windows really doesn't make the best of some of the scenic routes that we have around the country.

I'd imagine that between TfW, ScotRail and Northern there are enough lines that could be marketed as "scenic" that some kind of DMU/ BEMU could be designed and sold in big enough numbers to be worthwhile with really big windows and small pillars (I'm thinking of the American Panorama Dome cars here) to properly take advantage of the scenery. Maybe even with a weekend first style chargeable premium to travel in the panorama car between (for example) Settle and Carlisle during daylight hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd imagine that between TfW, ScotRail and Northern there are enough lines that could be marketed as "scenic" that some kind of DMU/ BEMU could be designed and sold in big enough numbers to be worthwhile with really big windows and small pillars (I'm thinking of the American Panorama Dome cars here) to properly take advantage of the scenery. Maybe even with a weekend first style chargeable premium to travel in the panorama car between (for example) Settle and Carlisle during daylight hours.

The Class 170 is already the ideal platform for that - no need for new-build. The windows are massive, the seats (in the low density layout) fully aligned, the pillars narrow and the bodyside slope means you can see out and up too. Yet Northern like to waste them (and fuel stirring up transmission fluid at 40mph) on the 'Arrigut stoppers. Sense would be to use 195s for Harrogate (more fuel efficient, and might allow a speed-up due to the high performance), 170s on the S&C (perhaps formed into 4 car units so there isn't the walk through issue, using the 2s elsewhere) and 158s elsewhere on the network to free those 195s up.

 

[Zomboid]

Even better then. What are you waiting for, northern? Just keep the windows clean...

 

[lyndhurst25]

The latest edition of the journal of Friends of the Settle Carlisle Line, now renamed “Friends on Track”, contains an article on something called the Allport Report, which it commissioned to look at potential improvements to services on the line. I don’t have my copy with me at the moment, but I seem to remember that the gist of it was: that with modest line speed increases, that could be achieved without spending a fortune, there could be alternating fast and stopping trains, and that the fast trains could be extended to Glasgow to offer quicker Leeds to Glasgow journey times than currently available. I will have to dig my copy out when I get home.

 

[InkyScrolls]

The latest edition of the journal of Friends of the Settle Carlisle Line, now renamed “Friends on Track”, contains an article on something called the Allport Report, which it commissioned to look at potential improvements to services on the line. I don’t have my copy with me at the moment, but I seem to remember that the gist of it was: that with modest line speed increases, that could be achieved without spending a fortune, there could be alternating fast and stopping trains, and that the fast trains could be extended to Glasgow to offer quicker Leeds to Glasgow journey times than currently available. I will have to dig my copy out when I get home.

It's already possible - but that doesn't mean it's a good idea!

 

[Grumpy]

Have differential speed limits ever been considered for this line?
We seem to have lightweight 158's sharing the same speed limits as 2000+ton freight trains with 25 ton axle loads

 

[zwk500]

Have differential speed limits ever been considered for this line?
We seem to have lightweight 158's sharing the same speed limits as 2000+ton freight trains with 25 ton axle loads

Does the signalling permit higher speeds for passenger? It's AB with a fair amount of sempahore IIRC.

 

[Halish Railway]

Does the signalling permit higher speeds for passenger? It's AB with a fair amount of sempahore IIRC.

I seem to remember that when there was a small resignalling scheme on the route, the positioning of the distance signals was done so to allow sufficient braking distance from higher speeds (75mph seems most likely), but I’ll happily be proven wrong on that.

It’s highly unlikely that the 75mph threshold for a higher category of track maintenance will be crossed given the geographic isolation of the route and relative lack of use. I can think of many other routes with a 60mph or lower top speed where increasing the linespeeds is more urgent.

My preference would still be to have additional Leeds to Carlisle and maybe Glasgow trains running via the WCML with some sort of connection at Carnforth and improvements to the Bentham line (more intermediate signal blocks and higher linespeeds). A once per two hours stopping service over the Settle and Carlisle is sufficient in my opinion.

 

[D6130]

Does the signalling permit higher speeds for passenger? It's AB with a fair amount of sempahore IIRC.

Deleted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2025 ==

Does the signalling permit higher speeds for passenger? It's AB with a fair amount of sempahore IIRC.

The 1997 signalling alterations - which mainly involved the provision of new colour light distant signals with increased braking distances plus the installation of AWS (Automatic Warning System) - allowed for an increased line speed of 75 mph. However, permanent way maintenance budget constraints ensured that it never happened.