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

[yorksrob]

You are making an assumption that the track access charge is covering the cost of providing this track, which I believe is by no means the case. The trains also have to be leased, and maintained of course, and someone has to manage all of this, and up and up go the costs, way, way above your £710.

Trains don't have to be leased.

It's only Johnny Majors privatisation fiasco that says we have to !

 

[adrock1976]

I did have a go at creating a clock face timetable last year, which I had posted in a thread in this section pf the forum.

The base service I had was as follows:

1) All trains departing Leeds northbound at xx48, with odd hours to Carlisle, even hours to Lancaster/Morecambe (I'm happy for Leeds - Morecambe to be curtailed at Lancaster), calling at Shipley, Bingley, Keighley, Skipton, then all stations.

2) The xx18 left vacant, which can be used for relief trains on short workings as far as Skipton if need be.

3) Alternate Clitheroe trains extended every second hour to Hellifield (with Leeds/London facing bay platform having track reinstated) so as to connect into and out of the Carlisle trains. Also, Preston can be accessed with a reasonable connection at Blackburn too.

4) July and August (or however long the summer timetable is in operation for) would have additional First Class and dining trains (based on when there were HST workings in 2021) running Skipton - Carlisle every 4 hours, calling Hellifield, Settle, Kirkby Stephen, and Appleby, and Blackpool North - Carlisle every 4 hours calling Preston, Blackburn, Clitheroe, Hellifield, Settle, Kirkby Stephen, and Appleby. This would provide a frequency of every 2 hours between Hellifield and Carlisle for the First Class and dining trains which would be overlaid on top of the base timetable.

See the attached file for further details.

 

[paul1609]

[/QUOTE]

I suspect via Bamber Bridge and Clitheroe, if that's what you mean. It's the two track section north of Preston that's tight in pathing terms.

I expect that an additional 25% of mileage between Preston and Carlisle on non electrified rural byways is not going to be attractive to future WCML freight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I expect that an additional 25% of mileage between Preston and Carlisle on non electrified rural byways is not going to be attractive to future WCML freight.

It may not like it, but passenger will be having the paths due to HS2.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I did have a go at creating a clock face timetable last year, which I had posted in a thread in this section pf the forum.

The base service I had was as follows:

1) All trains departing Leeds northbound at xx48, with odd hours to Carlisle, even hours to Lancaster/Morecambe (I'm happy for Leeds - Morecambe to be curtailed at Lancaster), calling at Shipley, Bingley, Keighley, Skipton, then all stations.

2) The xx18 left vacant, which can be used for relief trains on short workings as far as Skipton if need be.

3) Alternate Clitheroe trains extended every second hour to Hellifield (with Leeds/London facing bay platform having track reinstated) so as to connect into and out of the Carlisle trains. Also, Preston can be accessed with a reasonable connection at Blackburn too.

4) July and August (or however long the summer timetable is in operation for) would have additional First Class and dining trains (based on when there were HST workings in 2021) running Skipton - Carlisle every 4 hours, calling Hellifield, Settle, Kirkby Stephen, and Appleby, and Blackpool North - Carlisle every 4 hours calling Preston, Blackburn, Clitheroe, Hellifield, Settle, Kirkby Stephen, and Appleby. This would provide a frequency of every 2 hours between Hellifield and Carlisle for the First Class and dining trains which would be overlaid on top of the base timetable.

See the attached file for further details.

Very interesting; my primary question would be 'But what about the paths on the WCML for services to/from Lancaster?'

 

[adrock1976]

Very interesting; my primary question would be 'But what about the paths on the WCML for services to/from Lancaster?'

I did keep the times broadly similar on the Carnforth - Lancaster section, being as the Leeds - Lancaster/Morecambe calls all stations and did not clash with the Barrow trains (based on May 2021 timetable on the Real Time Trains website).

 

[The Planner]

I expect that an additional 25% of mileage between Preston and Carlisle on non electrified rural byways is not going to be attractive to future WCML freight.

Considering it will be Class 6 freight traffic which isn't as time constrained as Class 4 Intermodal etc, the issue isn't as substantial.

 

[zwk500]

WCML - turn right after Wigan.

Any HS2 plans are probably looking at the last option?

Turning right at Farington Junction, between Bamber Bridge and Preston, will be the option. Depending on point of origin, some traffic may look at the Aire Valley route, but sending any more traffic across Whitehall and Leeds West Jns won't be easy. The Darwen line won't have paths available unless it's redoubled, and they won't be spending money on forcing more freight through central Manchester.

 

[paul1609]

It may not like it, but passenger will be having the paths due to HS2.

I'd suggest that the climate emergency and non carbon agenda is likely to rule out lengthy Diversions to save ex HS2 passengers 10 mins.

 

[zwk500]

I'd suggest that the climate emergency and non carbon agenda is likely to rule out lengthy Diversions to save ex HS2 passengers 10 mins.

Not sure how you've quoted me saying that, think it was @Bletchleyite you meant!

But I'll respond anyway: For a train doing 200+ miles (e.g. Crewe to Mossend), the S&C isn't really a lengthy diversion and in the non-carbon agenda getting passengers onto electric trains not airplanes will be more important than 10% additional mileage on railfreight, one of the most energy effiicient forms of travel.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Modified timetable:-

• LDS departures to LAN/CAR hourly, on odd/even hours respectively
• First to LAN at 0519, last at 1919; first to CAR at 0619, last at 2019
• LAN departures at xx46 on odd hours; first at 0546 formed from ECS SKI d. 0436 > LAN a. 0536; last at 2146 (terminates at SKI)
• CAR departures at xx56 on odd hours; first at 0556, last at 2156 (which terminates at SKI)
• Additional services:-
  • Nominal 0419 from LDS to CAR starts from SKI at 0457
  • Extra KSW d. 0737 > APP > LGW > CAR a. 0830 to cater to commuters better than the 0457 ex-SKI or 0619 ex-LDS; formed from ECS CAR d. 0640 > KSW a. 0730

This caters better to commuter traffic heading into/out of Carlisle and Lancaster and provides Settle with its ~0730 departure southbound. The main con is the two lengthy ECS movements; however until (if ever) a depot is opens in Lancaster there is no other way of having early morning services eastbound along the FoBL.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the Lancaster - Morecambe section, I would either have one of 2 options:

1) Shuttle service with an improved 30 minute frequency (either dropping to 60 minutes for the run to Heysham ferry, or a portion that uncouples/couples at Morecambe if the signalling allows it)

2) Convert to tram train operation, with a new alignment south of Hest Bank so as not to get in the way of HS2 trains, and running along the road to the university (unsure if the proposed station at the university has gone cold or not). Would the single track nature Hest Bank - Morecambe scupper tram train conversion?

 

[InkyScrolls]

Regarding the Lancaster - Morecambe section, I would either have one of 2 options:

1) Shuttle service with an improved 30 minute frequency (either dropping to 60 minutes for the run to Heysham ferry, or a portion that uncouples/couples at Morecambe if the signalling allows it)

2) Convert to tram train operation, with a new alignment south of Hest Bank so as not to get in the way of HS2 trains, and running along the road to the university (unsure if the proposed station at the university has gone cold or not). Would the single track nature Hest Bank - Morecambe scupper tram train conversion?

Was there a plan for a station at the uni? I was there for three years and a station would've been very convenient (the excellent bus service notwithstanding).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding the Lancaster - Morecambe section, I would either have one of 2 options:

1) Shuttle service with an improved 30 minute frequency (either dropping to 60 minutes for the run to Heysham ferry, or a portion that uncouples/couples at Morecambe if the signalling allows it)

This is what I'd favour. It's affordable and easy to implement, and with some good branding alongside the Eden Project development it should do well. The line is effectively marginal cost as it can't go away due to the nuclear power station needing it.

2) Convert to tram train operation, with a new alignment south of Hest Bank so as not to get in the way of HS2 trains, and running along the road to the university (unsure if the proposed station at the university has gone cold or not). Would the single track nature Hest Bank - Morecambe scupper tram train conversion?

Bare would lose out, but if I was going to replace the branch with light rail I'd reinstate the old line along the "cycle path" as it serves far more useful places than the one via Bare (and consider running it to an expanded M6 P&R for the Eden Project traffic). But it'd need to stay there anyway due to the nuclear traffic so this would be a very large cost. There isn't really anywhere to run a second north-south alignment - Lancaster is a very high density (if small) city.

A tram up the A6 would be lovely, though. Lancaster itself is very much like a less posh and far hillier Oxford/Cambridge (or not dissimilar to Durham other than being less posh), and has far too much car usage due to poor public transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2022 ==

Was there a plan for a station at the uni? I was there for three years and a station would've been very convenient (the excellent bus service notwithstanding).

I think the issue with this is:
1. You'd need to build loops to serve it else it'd eat paths
2. It could realistically only get 1tph of the Northern Barrow/Windermere service
3. The bus is more frequent, and a longer distance train is only really *that* useful at the start and end of term

 

[billio]

To me the worst thing is that very little attempt is made at marketing lines which could be made less of a basket case by good marketing at very little cost. For instance decent First Class on the S&C would be money for old rope; plenty of tourists would pay it and some of the coach tours might default to it. And you could viably sell a tarted-up 156 as a panoramic coach if you lined the seats up to the windows - they're massive and quite high.

I'd genuinely love to see a Best Impressions "full on" attempt at the S&C, the West Highland or the Conwy Valley.

I would agree with you. When the 158's are getting full, the narrow leg room and high backs can make it a rather unpleasant experience and the view for many is poor. A more open first class section with a good view would be quite popular, even in the winter. Also, some Skipton - Leeds commuters might welcome a first class experience.

 

[RT4038]

Trains don't have to be leased.

It's only Johnny Majors privatisation fiasco that says we have to !

They don't come free from the manufacturer, so have to be paid for somehow. That cost is part of the calculation - exactly how much that is, or should be, can be argued about, but it is still there.

 

[zwk500]

The line is effectively marginal cost as it can't go away due to the nuclear power station needing it.

You keep saying this but it's actually not quite true. If passenger services were withdrawn its highly likely that the level of freight service remaining would are the track category dropped a rung or two. So the actual cost of the Heysham service is not just the diesel, but the additional maintenance for passenger standard signalling and the higher speed.

 

[yorksrob]

They don't come free from the manufacturer, so have to be paid for somehow. That cost is part of the calculation - exactly how much that is, or should be, can be argued about, but it is still there.

And bought outright, the cost is about a third the cost of leasing a train over its lifetime.

 

[RT4038]

And bought outright, the cost is about a third the cost of leasing a train over its lifetime.

So you keep saying, but it sounds dubious to me that apples are being compared to apples. In some circumstances yes, and in others not. There are so many variables surrounding the calculations, inter alia, how long is the train's lifetime and that the total maintenance cost over the lifetime (and who is paying), the security of the lease and the whole issue of the size of Government borrowing and its effect on the credit rating (and thereby the cost of borrowing) to the country. Whatever, we are where we are, and eight trains less would likely be eight leasing costs less. Whether any cheaper Government funds would be forthcoming to buy replacement trains on a different basis, competing against other Government spending priorities, on railway services making large losses, is a moot point.

 

[yorksrob]

So you keep saying, but it sounds dubious to me that apples are being compared to apples. In some circumstances yes, and in others not. There are so many variables surrounding the calculations, inter alia, how long is the train's lifetime and that the total maintenance cost over the lifetime (and who is paying), the security of the lease and the whole issue of the size of Government borrowing and its effect on the credit rating (and thereby the cost of borrowing) to the country. Whatever, we are where we are, and eight trains less would likely be eight leasing costs less. Whether any cheaper Government funds would be forthcoming to buy replacement trains on a different basis, competing against other Government spending priorities, on railway services making large losses, is a moot point.

Well, government managed to do this up until the 1990's, so it is all down to political choice.

 

[The Planner]

You keep saying this but it's actually not quite true. If passenger services were withdrawn its highly likely that the level of freight service remaining would are the track category dropped a rung or two. So the actual cost of the Heysham service is not just the diesel, but the additional maintenance for passenger standard signalling and the higher speed.

To be fair, that is real peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I would be amazed if it isn't Cat 5 anyway, 6 is the lowest and needs line speeds of 20mph or less, based on the yearly tonnage it gets. The Heysham branch itself has no signals.

 

[zwk500]

To be fair, that is real peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I would be amazed if it isn't Cat 5 anyway, 6 is the lowest and needs line speeds of 20mph or less, based on the yearly tonnage it gets. The Heysham branch itself has no signals.

On a line with as low usage as this, peanuts probably carry their weight! But fair point the line is already about as cheap as it is going to be to operate.

 

[RT4038]

Well, government managed to do this up until the 1990's, so it is all down to political choice.

Apples must be compared to apples. I know that you want to blame it on political ideology, but for a reasoned debate it has to be looked at in a wider spectrum - if leasing companies were quoting on the same basis ( lease for 50 years, no cancellation clauses, no maintenance/refurbishment or any other liability whatsoever - i.e. Govt. taking entire risk for everything that might happen) then the costs would be different than if agreements are signed which transfers costs and risk (in whole or part) to the leasing company.

What is not reasonable is to compare the costs of a lease deal which covers these risks, and maintenance/refurbishment liabilities, with a straightforward loan and the Govt. taking all these risks and costs. Whether the extra lease costs [effectively 'insurance premium'] are worth the risks is a decision like any other insurance policy that may be bought.

I would suspect that we have got a lot more new trains through leasing than would have been forthcoming by direct Government funding/borrowing.

 

[yorksrob]

Apples must be compared to apples. I know that you want to blame it on political ideology, but for a reasoned debate it has to be looked at in a wider spectrum - if leasing companies were quoting on the same basis ( lease for 50 years, no cancellation clauses, no maintenance/refurbishment or any other liability whatsoever - i.e. Govt. taking entire risk for everything that might happen) then the costs would be different than if agreements are signed which transfers costs and risk (in whole or part) to the leasing company.

What is not reasonable is to compare the costs of a lease deal which covers these risks, and maintenance/refurbishment liabilities, with a straightforward loan and the Govt. taking all these risks and costs. Whether the extra lease costs [effectively 'insurance premium'] are worth the risks is a decision like any other insurance policy that may be bought.

I would suspect that we have got a lot more new trains through leasing than would have been forthcoming by direct Government funding/borrowing.

You can suspect all you like, but I suspect that if you compared the ten years before to the ten years after privatisation, there wouldn't be nearly as great a difference as you think.

 

[InkyScrolls]

You keep saying this but it's actually not quite true. If passenger services were withdrawn its highly likely that the level of freight service remaining would are the track category dropped a rung or two. So the actual cost of the Heysham service is not just the diesel, but the additional maintenance for passenger standard signalling and the higher speed.

The implication being that it operates at regular passenger speed. But the line (all the way from Morecambe Jct.) to Heysham is a perfect example of a run-down, decrepit line kept open only out of necessity. It is rough-riding, poorly maintained, and has limited signage (there are no speed boards beyond Bare Lane Jct., despite the speed limit changing several times between there and Morecambe/Heysham, for example). If it reverted to freight-only running virtually nothing would change.

 

[quantinghome]

The short to medium term strategy for both these lines should assume that there will be no infrastructure upgrades, and therefore focus should be on maximising revenue with what we've got. To that end the following should be considered (most of which have already been suggested upthread):

1. Increase the potential of both line to serve Yorkshire-Cumbria passengers. There should be a viable public transport option to get from West Yorkshire to the Lake District. To that end, run a connecting coach service from Appleby or Langwathby along the A66 to Keswick, maybe beyond. Provide through-ticketing.
2. In a similar vein, ensure there is a well-timed connection at Carnforth to allow good access to the South Lakes.
3. First class panoramic coaches, properly marketed. Although it would need to be considered whether the railtours have already sewn up this market.
4. Trial a limited stop service from Leeds to Glasgow, say 3 services a day. Use bi-mode stock.
5. Market the socks off it.

 

[InkyScrolls]

The short to medium term strategy for both these lines should assume that there will be no infrastructure upgrades, and therefore focus should be on maximising revenue with what we've got. To that end the following should be considered (most of which have already been suggested upthread):

1. Increase the potential of both line to serve Yorkshire-Cumbria passengers. There should be a viable public transport option to get from West Yorkshire to the Lake District. To that end, run a connecting coach service from Appleby or Langwathby along the A66 to Keswick, maybe beyond. Provide through-ticketing.
2. In a similar vein, ensure there is a well-timed connection at Carnforth to allow good access to the South Lakes.
3. First class panoramic coaches, properly marketed. Although it would need to be considered whether the railtours have already sewn up this market.
4. Trial a limited stop service from Leeds to Glasgow, say 3 services a day. Use bi-mode stock.
5. Market the socks off it.

1. Something along the lines of the 'Little White Bus' which runs from Garsdale to Hawes would be ideal (though this does not have through-ticketing that I'm aware of)
2. The connection times are already fairly good, especially in the mornings
3. I doubt the money would be there for such coaching stock, unfortunately - in theory loco-hauled Mk3s could fit the bill though
4. The main issue with this is the minimal pathing available north of Carlisle; to time this to fit in with the already very congested Airedale Line would be (almost, not quite!) impossible

 

[Sm5]

Its a shame to me the RCS service stopped.

i found it very good.
A pacer connection from Blackburn with a 142 would have been even better.

The connurbation of Liverpool, Preston and Manchester is sizable, yet without a car its not an easy day out to the S&C by train Indeed its not an easy day out by car either.

I do think that a trick is being missed here… there must be a reason that the majority of railtours on the S&C originate via the WCML, with WCML pick up points…, and its not just due to 86259… indeed how many S&C railtours access via Leeds ?… back in the early 1980’s they almost all did wasnt this because Clitheroe to Hellifield was not permitted for passenger use ?

 

[zwk500]

I do think that a trick is being missed here… there must be a reason that the majority of railtours on the S&C originate via the WCML, with WCML pick up points…

There is: That's where the Charter companies are based! LSL are at Crewe, WCRC are at Carnforth. Mind you, WCRC do plenty of tours from the east side of the country as well as MML pickups.
But a charter market is not one that will be served by humdrum ordinary timetables in the same way.

 

[Neptune]

The short to medium term strategy for both these lines should assume that there will be no infrastructure upgrades, and therefore focus should be on maximising revenue with what we've got. To that end the following should be considered (most of which have already been suggested upthread):

1. Increase the potential of both line to serve Yorkshire-Cumbria passengers. There should be a viable public transport option to get from West Yorkshire to the Lake District. To that end, run a connecting coach service from Appleby or Langwathby along the A66 to Keswick, maybe beyond. Provide through-ticketing.
2. In a similar vein, ensure there is a well-timed connection at Carnforth to allow good access to the South Lakes.
3. First class panoramic coaches, properly marketed. Although it would need to be considered whether the railtours have already sewn up this market.
4. Trial a limited stop service from Leeds to Glasgow, say 3 services a day. Use bi-mode stock.
5. Market the socks off it.

1. There are good bus connections to/from the more rural parts of the line on Saturdays.
2. Answered above but seems that the connections already exist from that answer.
3. I think this is something which enthusiasts really over emphasise the importance of without thinking of any implications whatsoever. The S&C is a rural inter regional route with some nice scenery. However, the main market for non essential travel is almost certainly the outdoor pursuits market which use Horton-in-Ribblesdale, Ribblehead, Dent and Garsdale stations mainly at all times of the year. With 4 car trains diagrammed this summer to operate the peak services and running at high capacity do we really want to lose that by creating a first class panoramic coach (not quite sure where there are tall things to look at adjacent to the train, the views from the train are more about distance rather than close up and high) with the obvious high loss of seats. These coaches will only be aimed at coach parties. What use will these coaches be at low peak season? Sat in a siding waiting for a coach load of pensioners come Easter? Best leave the charter market to the charter companies.
4. I really don’t get this obsession with through trains to Glasgow. Carlisle is an excellent station to change trains at, under cover with decent facilities and not too big to make it a cumbersome experience. Also who’s going to fund the additional stock/crew required?
5. FoSCL and the Development Fund and various others already do this. It is probably the best marketed line in Northern England if not the entire country.