Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
A few years ago a thread was started (Settle & Carlisle Line - Past, Present & Future) regarding the Settle - Carlisle line and the direction it should be taking in the future. A few suggestions included a more regular and more frequent timetable, later and earlier trains, the introducing of semifast and express services, through trains to Glasgow, etc.
Since then the service has marginally improved, with the related Bentham Line in particular having a far better service than three years ago. (As a side note, I feel that the official 'Bentham Line' name is mediocre at best and does nothing to promote the line as a destination in its own right; I personally much prefer the unofficial but accurate 'Forest of Bowland Line'.)
With the past three years, and upcoming changes with the arrival of BR 2.0 next year in mind, where do we see these lines heading? What is likely to happen, what could happen, and what would be ideal?
For myself I would like to see:
- The introduction of a 'clockface' timetable, with an hourly departure from Leeds, alternating to Carlisle and Lancaster
- The Morecambe portion of the latter being dropped and run as a separate service as it frequently leads to significant delays to eastbound FoBL trains
- All trains calling at all stations, but. . .
- . . .Demote some of them to requests (e.g. Long Preston, Clapham, Wennington, Ribblehead, Dent and Armathwaite)
What would the most honourable members of this forum have be done regarding the future (short- and long-term) of the S&C and FoB lines?
N.B. I am a conductor for Northern who works the line, so if you have any questions requiring anecdotal answers I'm happy to oblige where I can.
A few years ago a thread was started (Settle & Carlisle Line - Past, Present & Future) regarding the Settle - Carlisle line and the direction it should be taking in the future. A few suggestions included a more regular and more frequent timetable, later and earlier trains, the introducing of semifast and express services, through trains to Glasgow, etc.
Since then the service has marginally improved, with the related Bentham Line in particular having a far better service than three years ago. (As a side note, I feel that the official 'Bentham Line' name is mediocre at best and does nothing to promote the line as a destination in its own right; I personally much prefer the unofficial but accurate 'Forest of Bowland Line'.)
With the past three years, and upcoming changes with the arrival of BR 2.0 next year in mind, where do we see these lines heading? What is likely to happen, what could happen, and what would be ideal?
For myself I would like to see:
- The introduction of a 'clockface' timetable, with an hourly departure from Leeds, alternating to Carlisle and Lancaster
- The Morecambe portion of the latter being dropped and run as a separate service as it frequently leads to significant delays to eastbound FoBL trains
- All trains calling at all stations, but. . .
- . . .Demote some of them to requests (e.g. Long Preston, Clapham, Wennington, Ribblehead, Dent and Armathwaite)
What would the most honourable members of this forum have be done regarding the future (short- and long-term) of the S&C and FoB lines?
N.B. I am a conductor for Northern who works the line, so if you have any questions requiring anecdotal answers I'm happy to oblige where I can.
Precisely. Northern is bottom of the WCML pecking order and if any trains are delayed (almost always the case) they will receive priority. It is rare indeed (in my experience) to leave Lancaster on time if there's a Morecambe section involved, as a return trip from Leeds to Morecambe involves crossing the WCML at least four times, three of them due to the Morecambe part.
Bentham Line' name is mediocre at best and does nothing to promote the line as a destination in its own right; I personally much prefer the unofficial but accurate 'Forest of Bowland Line
This is obviously a good idea and would help the services fit between the Airedale and Wharfedale electric services, but how about in the alternate hours to Leeds - Carlisle services, introducing a Manchester Victoria - Hawes service as an extension of the Clitheroe, reopening the branch to serve what is by far the largest settlement in the vicinity of the line, giving an hourly service between Hellifield and Garsdale and connections to west side destinations instead of just Yorkshire.
Definitely not Ribblehead on request but the others perhaps yes. All trains should stop at Ribblehead and passengers should be encouraged to alight and spend an hour or 2 there. The alternating hourly Leeds and Manchester service would allow passengers to spend an hour at Ribblehead and an hour at Settle etc.
Precisely. Northern is bottom of the WCML pecking order and if any trains are delayed (almost always the case) they will receive priority. It is rare indeed (in my experience) to leave Lancaster on time if there's a Morecambe section involved, as a return trip from Leeds to Morecambe involves crossing the WCML at least four times, three of them due to the Morecambe part.
How about reversing the order of stops and running directly Carnforth - Bare Lane - Morecambe - Bare Lane - Lancaster - Bare Lane - Morecambe - Bare Lane - Carnforth? The WCML could do with a 3rd track on the west side between Lancaster and Oxenholme to be used by all Windermere, Barrow and Morecambe services, or northbound WCML services with the centre track bi-directional. This would also enable a greatly appreciated stop at Hest Bank which would be very popular, especially on a direct service from Bare Lane to Carnforth without reversing.
The skipton - Lancaster line only skirts the forest of bowland. Call it the Wenning line. It follows the river Wenning between Clapham and past Wennington.
I bet the preston signallers are pleased the leeds - lancaster trains are now 90 mph 158's rather than 75mph 150 or pacers.
A few years ago a thread was started (Settle & Carlisle Line - Past, Present & Future) regarding the Settle - Carlisle line and the direction it should be taking in the future. A few suggestions included a more regular and more frequent timetable, later and earlier trains, the introducing of semifast and express services, through trains to Glasgow, etc.
Since then the service has marginally improved, with the related Bentham Line in particular having a far better service than three years ago. (As a side note, I feel that the official 'Bentham Line' name is mediocre at best and does nothing to promote the line as a destination in its own right; I personally much prefer the unofficial but accurate 'Forest of Bowland Line'.)
With the past three years, and upcoming changes with the arrival of BR 2.0 next year in mind, where do we see these lines heading? What is likely to happen, what could happen, and what would be ideal?
For myself I would like to see:
- The introduction of a 'clockface' timetable, with an hourly departure from Leeds, alternating to Carlisle and Lancaster
This sounds fine on paper, but surely
a) it means a downgrade for the Leeds - Carlisle service, which is sort-of 2 trains per 3 hours most of the day
b) Wouldn't it be difficult to path, especially on the Bowland Forest line?
- The Morecambe portion of the latter being dropped and run as a separate service as it frequently leads to significant delays to eastbound FoBL trains
I'm sure you're right regarding delays - but I suppose it comes down to costs, needing a dedicated crew to work the shuttle and also some loss of connectivity.
- All trains calling at all stations, but. . .
- . . .Demote some of them to requests (e.g. Long Preston, Clapham, Wennington, Ribblehead, Dent and Armathwaite)
How much would this save in terms of schedules that would work realistically ? Perhaps 5 minutes? Might be worth it.
Rather than a mighty reshash of the schedules, sure the most crying needs are:
1) Another up morning 'late commuter' service into Leeds serving Horton, Settle, Helli-grave, ideally at 08.30 off Settle. (Because the current next train after the 07.30 is not until 10.00 - a horrible gap and disincentive over the most important section of the line regarding passenger usage.)
This could be an 06.50-ish off Carlisle, or an 08.15 turnaround off Ribblehead.
2) similarly, in the down, a second not-so-late commuter service into Carlisle 08.15ish off Appleby, arriving in Carlisle about 09.05.
But, the above also means a steep increase in costs - two sets of crews and stock - and then you have to employ the crew for the rest of the shift and the stock for the rest of the day. Whether the farebox increase could pay for these additions, I guess is very doubtful.
As an aside, I quite often look at how both these lines are working on RTT, and must say that, overall, the standard of services seems excellent* - especially on the S&C - although I noticed a few cancellations one day in late July.
* But yes, there do seem to be not infrequent 5 - 10 minute delays on the Bowland Forest line. This supports your experience regarding the Morecambe services.
Precisely. Northern is bottom of the WCML pecking order and if any trains are delayed (almost always the case) they will receive priority. It is rare indeed (in my experience) to leave Lancaster on time if there's a Morecambe section involved, as a return trip from Leeds to Morecambe involves crossing the WCML at least four times, three of them due to the Morecambe part.
Separating it would also allow a clockface half hourly timetable on the Morecambe, or as close to it as the WCML allows, give or take a couple of hour gaps for the Heysham run.
As for "Bentham line" it doesn't sound nice, the word "bent" isn't exactly positive. I like "Forest of Bowland Line" as suggested even if not strictly accurate (though according to an OS map it does briefly enter that area). Another that might work is "South Dales Line", as it's located just to the south of the Dales.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The skipton - Lancaster line only skirts the forest of bowland. Call it the Wenning line. It follows the river Wenning between Clapham and past Wennington.
I bet the preston signallers are pleased the leeds - lancaster trains are now 90 mph 158's rather than 75mph 150 or pacers.
"Wenning" doesn't sound particularly nice either. It is more important that it sounds nice than that it is strictly accurate, as it's a marketing name.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How about reversing the order of stops and running directly Carnforth - Bare Lane - Morecambe - Bare Lane - Lancaster - Bare Lane - Morecambe - Bare Lane - Carnforth? The WCML could do with a 3rd track on the west side between Lancaster and Oxenholme to be used by all Windermere, Barrow and Morecambe services, or northbound WCML services with the centre track bi-directional. This would also enable a greatly appreciated stop at Hest Bank which would be very popular, especially on a direct service from Bare Lane to Carnforth without reversing.
That would reduce the Lancaster-Morecambe service which is primarily a local train for local people - most are not travelling through to Yorkshire or even connecting anywhere, but if they are Manchester and London will be the main ones.
The line does at least pass through Bentham, but last time I checked skirts around the top of the Forest of Bowland.
This is obviously a good idea and would help the services fit between the Airedale and Wharfedale electric services, but how about in the alternate hours to Leeds - Carlisle services, introducing a Manchester Victoria - Hawes service as an extension of the Clitheroe, reopening the branch to serve what is by far the largest settlement in the vicinity of the line, giving an hourly service between Hellifield and Garsdale and connections to west side destinations instead of just Yorkshire.
Definitely not Ribblehead on request but the others perhaps yes. All trains should stop at Ribblehead and passengers should be encouraged to alight and spend an hour or 2 there. The alternating hourly Leeds and Manchester service would allow passengers to spend an hour at Ribblehead and an hour at Settle etc.
How about reversing the order of stops and running directly Carnforth - Bare Lane - Morecambe - Bare Lane - Lancaster - Bare Lane - Morecambe - Bare Lane - Carnforth? The WCML could do with a 3rd track on the west side between Lancaster and Oxenholme to be used by all Windermere, Barrow and Morecambe services, or northbound WCML services with the centre track bi-directional. This would also enable a greatly appreciated stop at Hest Bank which would be very popular, especially on a direct service from Bare Lane to Carnforth without reversing.
The Bowland Forest Line does pass through the Forest, though only marginally, but I don't see that as an issue - there is already 'alight here for the Forest of Bowland' marketing at Giggleswick, Clapham, Bentham and Wennington, for example.
Alas reopening of the Hawes branch looks like a very distant possibility indeed; having failed in the Restore Your Railway fund I would say that that project is as good as dead. Which is a real shame, because as you say, it's the only sizeable settlement for some miles!
I suggest request status for Ribblehead because, outside the peak services, it tends to receive few to zero passengers - the first and last departures in both directions certainly (almost) never pick anyone up. Of the stations I mentioned (Long Preston, Clapham, Wennington, Ribblehead, Dent and Armathwaite) it is the most used, however. As for the benefit of making such stations requests, though the overall time saving would be minimal (approx. five minutes on average) it would allow the possibility of making up time were a train to be delayed, which is especially important for services heading west along the Bowland Forest Line (due to pathing on the WCML).
There did use to be a service which ran via Morecambe North Curve, calling at Morecambe and Bare Lane (twice) en route to Leeds, but this was removed at the May 2020 timetable change (I believe). It had been retained only for route knowledge purposes, which is now covered by drivers and conductors watching a brief cabview video of the section between Carnforth and Bare Lane Jct.; there's no real operational benefit to travelling via Morecambe, and it only serves to add an extra fifteen to twenty minutes to the journey time between far larger settlements (Lancaster and Leeds).
The skipton - Lancaster line only skirts the forest of bowland. Call it the Wenning line. It follows the river Wenning between Clapham and past Wennington.
I bet the preston signallers are pleased the leeds - lancaster trains are now 90 mph 158's rather than 75mph 150 or pacers.
This sounds fine on paper, but surely
a) it means a downgrade for the Leeds - Carlisle service, which is sort-of 2 trains per 3 hours most of the day
b) Wouldn't it be difficult to path, especially on the Bowland Forest line?
I'm sure you're right regarding delays - but I suppose it comes down to costs, needing a dedicated crew to work the shuttle and also some loss of connectivity.
How much would this save in terms of schedules that would work realistically ? Perhaps 5 minutes? Might be worth it.
Rather than a mighty reshash of the schedules, sure the most crying needs are:
1) Another up morning 'late commuter' service into Leeds serving Horton, Settle, Helli-grave, ideally at 08.30 off Settle. (Because the current next train after the 07.30 is not until 10.00 - a horrible gap and disincentive over the most important section of the line regarding passenger usage.)
This could be an 06.50-ish off Carlisle, or an 08.15 turnaround off Ribblehead.
2) similarly, in the down, a second not-so-late commuter service into Carlisle 08.15ish off Appleby, arriving in Carlisle about 09.05.
But, the above also means a steep increase in costs - two sets of crews and stock - and then you have to employ the crew for the rest of the shift and the stock for the rest of the day. Whether the farebox increase could pay for these additions, I guess is very doubtful.
As an aside, I quite often look at how both these lines are working on RTT, and must say that, overall, the standard of services seems excellent* - especially on the S&C - although I noticed a few cancellations one day in late July.
* But yes, there do seem to be not infrequent 5 - 10 minute delays on the Bowland Forest line. This supports your experience regarding the Morecambe services.
Not a downgrade if timed well; if you were to run a bi-hourly service you would still have eight trains per day following approximately the same timings; there would also be scope to add a ninth daily return.
Again, not necessarily difficult to path on the WCML. There is a regular path available at xx59 CNF to LAN, and at xx46 LAN to CNF, which could be used without issue.
As for a dedicated crew - there already is, for the most part; Morecambe receives a rough half-hourly service on weekdays which is crewed by either Skipton (for the services which run through from Leeds, of which there are five), Barrow or Wigan Wallgate drivers and conductors, with I believe Wigan taking the majority of the workings, shuttling back and forth for most of the day.
As you say, the current long gaps in services (particularly at Long Preston on Saturdays, when there is a six-hour gap in up services!) needs to be remedied; to my mind this is best served with a clockface timetable (in an ideal world hourly, but realistically bi-hourly), as that would improve passenger familiarity whilst also removing the awkward gaps.
Again, as for crews, it's surprising what can be done just by 'jigging things around a bit' - the recent two additions to the Bowland Forest Line, added at the December 2021 timetable change, were achieved without any additional crews, merely by altering other diagrams in the early morning and late evening.
Separating it would also allow a clockface half hourly timetable on the Morecambe, or as close to it as the WCML allows, give or take a couple of hour gaps for the Heysham run.
As for "Bentham line" it doesn't sound nice, the word "bent" isn't exactly positive. I like "Forest of Bowland Line" as suggested even if not strictly accurate (though according to an OS map it does briefly enter that area). Another that might work is "South Dales Line", as it's located just to the south of the Dales.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
"Wenning" doesn't sound particularly nice either. It is more important that it sounds nice than that it is strictly accurate, as it's a marketing name.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would reduce the Lancaster-Morecambe service which is primarily a local train for local people - most are not travelling through to Yorkshire or even connecting anywhere, but if they are Manchester and London will be the main ones.
'Bentham' is pronounced 'benth-um', contrary to how the original TrainFX announced read it out as! The 'South Dales Line' is a decent alternative, though as mentioned above Northern have started placing marketing material on the stations already drawing attention to the line's proximity to the Forest, so I don't believe the name would be out of keeping.
In my experience, having worked the Morecambe line many, many times, I've found that the vast majority of passengers are travelling only as far as Lancaster. Those that are going beyond tend, in the main, to be heading south, to Preston or Blackpool. After that the largest chunk are travelling to stations on the Furness or Cumbrian Coast lines, with the remainder going either to Scotland or, finally, to stations along the Bowland Forest or Airedale lines. As you say, better just to separate it and improve service frequency all round.
That's just my twopennyworth based on the foregoing comments. I would also like to see regular services from Blackburn to Hellifield, though as these would require turning at Settle Jct. it makes timing rather awkward (though not impossible); the pathing isn't really available for these to continue to Manchester, unfortunately.
Request stops don't always save time, especially if you end up having to put a chunk of performance time in at a location to allow for them. Fine if its a station where not a lot happens or you are terminating, but I wouldn't want to do it at Carlisle with the interactions at Petteril Bridge etc..
Request stops don't always save time, especially if you end up having to put a chunk of performance time in at a location to allow for them. Fine if its a station where not a lot happens or you are terminating, but I wouldn't want to do it at Carlisle with the interactions at Petteril Bridge etc..
Perhaps the middle ground would be 'performance requests' - e.g., if the train is running 2+ minutes late the station is treated as a request; otherwise the train stops as normal.
Perhaps the middle ground would be 'performance requests' - e.g., if the train is running 2+ minutes late the station is treated as a request; otherwise the train stops as normal.
I'd turn the Leeds to Morecambe into a Leeds to Preston/Manchester Airport service, thus no longer having to reverse at Lancaster, retime the Barrow service to arrive in Lancaster in front or behind the Leeds unit, couple both sets together and run as combined service to Manchester Airport, giving both Barrow and Morecambe an hourly service
You'd market the stations only as requests, and make sure that if anyone wanted to get off they told the conductor. In other words they're requests in every way, except that the train may call additionally if it's running on time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd turn the Leeds to Morecambe into a Leeds to Preston/Manchester Airport service, thus no longer having to reverse at Lancaster, retime the Barrow service to arrive in Lancaster in front or behind the Leeds unit, couple both sets together and run as combined service to Manchester Airport, giving both Barrow and Morecambe an hourly service
The issue with that (and I have looked into it!) is the lack of paths available both along the WCML and at Preston/Manchester themselves. There's also the operational headache associated with coupling two units with passengers on board; I've done it a few times due to unit failures and it takes at least five minutes, and usually longer.
You'd market the stations only as requests, and make sure that if anyone wanted to get off they told the conductor. In other words they're requests in every way, except that the train may call additionally if it's running on time.
I think that introducing request stops would be an unnecessary additional operational complication for the guard and passengers. On the Cumbrian coast, the guard has to go along asking every passenger where they're going, presumably for those who aren't aware of request stop procedures.
Ribblehead can get very large numbers of leisure passengers at some times as well.
Definitely not Ribblehead on request but the others perhaps yes. All trains should stop at Ribblehead and passengers should be encouraged to alight and spend an hour or 2 there.
1. the present Bentham timetable makes good use of the regular WCML path, and the run to Morecambe fits nicely in the layover. And TBH I am not sure the occasional +10 arrival into Leeds (if you miss your path at Skipton) is a huge issue.
2. I agree that, in theory, you should have an interval service, but it does cause problems - the "morning peak" towards Carlisle at 0749/0919/1049 meets the demand pretty well, now that walkers' groups (I belong to one) have adjusted; 0719/0919/1119 would almost certainly result in the 0919 (which is only a 3-car, the other 2 being 4 in summer) overloading, so you would need to adjust the diagrams.
In the reverse direction, you would I think want to retain a 1745 from Lancaster rather than 1645, so I think you might have to abandon the strict interval there anyway...
3. On request stops, AIUI the schedule would be calculated for a 0-second stop, so not a huge saving. You could improve things by upping the line limit to 75mph, but wouldn't that have maintenance implications?
Request stops work when you have a run of quiet stations where you reckon you might get a passenger at maybe 1 out of 3 or similar. They don't work for single stations nor ones where you mostly will get the odd one. So they probably wouldn't work for the S&C/Bentham in the way they do on the Conwy Valley or even more so the Cambrian Coast.
I think that introducing request stops would be an unnecessary additional operational complication for the guard and passengers. On the Cumbrian coast, the guard has to go along asking every passenger where they're going, presumably for those who aren't aware of request stop procedures.
Ribblehead can get very large numbers of leisure passengers at some times as well.
When I visited Ribblehead I was the only passenger who alighted there but there were many people who had driven to the Ribblehead car park boasting of going under the viaduct, to which I replied that it’s designed for you to go over it! Quite a large potential for modal shift at Ribblehead.
No, but if I did I would insist that all food and ales are delivered exclusively by rail and not by road, which would necessitate the running of a dedicated train.
3. On request stops, AIUI the schedule would be calculated for a 0-second stop, so not a huge saving. You could improve things by upping the line limit to 75mph, but wouldn't that have maintenance implications?
I thought Network Rail were intending to increase the line speed to to 90mph with a view to CrossCountry providing a Leeds - Glasgow beating connections via Manchester, Preston, Lancaster, Newcastle or Edinburgh. Any increase has maintenance implications but also favourable journey time implications for passengers.
The Midland is actually the newest route to Scotland and so should have the straightest and fastest alignment, beating the WCML and ECML if it was suitably upgraded with electrification.
Request stops work when you have a run of quiet stations where you reckon you might get a passenger at maybe 1 out of 3 or similar. They don't work for single stations nor ones where you mostly will get the odd one. So they probably wouldn't work for the S&C/Bentham in the way they do on the Conwy Valley or even more so the Cambrian Coast.
1. the present Bentham timetable makes good use of the regular WCML path, and the run to Morecambe fits nicely in the layover. And TBH I am not sure the occasional +10 arrival into Leeds (if you miss your path at Skipton) is a huge issue.
2. I agree that, in theory, you should have an interval service, but it does cause problems - the "morning peak" towards Carlisle at 0749/0919/1049 meets the demand pretty well, now that walkers' groups (I belong to one) have adjusted; 0719/0919/1119 would almost certainly result in the 0919 (which is only a 3-car, the other 2 being 4 in summer) overloading, so you would need to adjust the diagrams.
In the reverse direction, you would I think want to retain a 1745 from Lancaster rather than 1645, so I think you might have to abandon the strict interval there anyway...
3. On request stops, AIUI the schedule would be calculated for a 0-second stop, so not a huge saving. You could improve things by upping the line limit to 75mph, but wouldn't that have maintenance implications?
On your first point, I think the not uncommon passengers heading south from Scotland who don't realise how many platforms Leeds has would disagree that ten minutes late is acceptable!
Perhaps a largely two-hourly service is preferable, with one-and-a-half hour gaps at the peaks?
Alas raising the linespeed seems naught but a pipedream; I've asked the relevant authorities within Northern if there is any intention of doing so in the future but have yet to receive a reply.
My thinking is that you maintain 1tp2h to Carlisle/Morecambe from Leeds, supplemented with 1tp2h from Skipton to Carlisle/Lancaster if patronage was high enough. If paths are available south of Skipton, then extend the extra Carlisle service to Bardford FS.
My thinking is that you maintain 1tp2h to Carlisle/Morecambe from Leeds, supplemented with 1tp2h from Skipton to Carlisle/Lancaster if patronage was high enough. If paths are available south of Skipton, then extend the extra Carlisle service to Bardford FS.
I had considered working BDQ into the equation; there certainly are the paths available at the right times south of Skipton and it would go some way towards lessening Bradford being 'Britain's worst connected city'.
Alas raising the linespeed seems naught but a pipedream; I've asked the relevant authorities within Northern if there is any intention of doing so in the future but have yet to receive a reply.
What are the major issues in raising the linespeed on SOME of the line? Excluding bridges and viaducts that may have a speed restriction (including a restriction of the current linespeed). Would signalling for example be a substantial problem raising it?
What are the major issues in raising the linespeed on SOME of the line? Excluding bridges and viaducts that may have a speed restriction (including a restriction of the current linespeed). Would signalling for example be a substantial problem raising it?
On your first point, I think the not uncommon passengers heading south from Scotland who don't realise how many platforms Leeds has would disagree that ten minutes late is acceptable
Do many people do Scotland-Lancaster-Leeds at all (genuine question) and then go forward to somewhere with only an hourly service?
Lancaster-Leeds(xx37/54)-Hull looks the only risky connection to me.
My thinking is that you maintain 1tp2h to Carlisle/Morecambe from Leeds, supplemented with 1tp2h from Skipton to Carlisle/Lancaster if patronage was high enough. If paths are available south of Skipton, then extend the extra Carlisle service to Bardford FS.
I can't see Bentham ever warranting an hourly service, and even Carlisle is only busy at limited times (much though I would like a fast to Glasgow via the GSW....).
Perhaps 0719-0849-0949-1119 to Carlisle would work if an extra train is justified?
I just tried and it does come up on the planners (alongside via the S&C, viaManchester and via Newcastle) so I guess people do. Most people will do what the planners offer at their desired time.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
