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

[D6130]

I beg to differ also. Please check how many non passenger trains run from Carlisle to Settle. None today and very few on weekdays which could well be handled with a low speed minimal signalling line or extended sidings from each end. The few passenger trains to Carlisle could go via Carnforth as mentioned earlier. I don't reckon lines should be kept open and subsidised for people to have occasional nostalgia jollies and also not for hikers to wander the hills during our quite short summer. Better to spend the money where it is raised ie where there are many people and businesses likely to use the railway.

OK....OK....I was wrong! I admit defeat!

However, as I have stated upthread, if the Bentham Line were to be used for more and heavier - or faster - traffic, it would need to be almost completely relaid and reballasted at vast expense (some of the existing track is nearly 80 years old and the whole line is only maintained for light traffic with a maximum speed of 60 mph). One way to reduce the cost of renewal might be to single the line with a dynamic loop between Clapham and Bentham or Bentham and Wennington....but that would entail the installation of four new sets of points (including traps), together with their associated signalling, cabling and control equipment, so would probably negate the savings made by singling. The line is certainly not up to carrying regular freight traffic and to make it do so in its present condition would be to invite a repeat of the 1998 Dent Head coal train derailment, IMHO.

 

[zwk500]

OK....OK....I was wrong! I admit defeat!

However, as I have stated upthread, if the Bentham Line were to be used for more and heavier - or faster - traffic, it would need to be almost completely relaid and reballasted at vast expense (some of the existing track is nearly 80 years old and the whole line is only maintained for light traffic with a maximum speed of 60 mph). One way to reduce the cost of renewal might be to single the line with a dynamic loop between Clapham and Bentham or Bentham and Wennington....but that would entail the installation of four new sets of points (including traps), together with their associated signalling, cabling and control equipment, so would probably negate the savings made by singling. The line is certainly not up to carrying regular freight traffic and to make it do so in its present condition would be to invite a repeat of the 1998 Dent Head coal train derailment, IMHO.

Installing a loop would be many times more expensive than a plain line renewal, for a probably net increased maintenance cost.

 

[Ken H]

Installing a loop would be many times more expensive than a plain line renewal, for a probably net increased maintenance cost.

What could be done cheaply. Controlling the points at Settle Junction (SJ) could be done from Hellifield. Probably using mechanical interlocking but color lights and point motors.
The SJ junction is a single lead. Move the points for where it goes from single to double track to west of Gigg station. Then you save maintenance of a bit of track and eliminate 1 platform and the foot crossing - no footbridge at Gigg.

The signal box at Carnforth is only there by accident. It should have been eliminated when preston powerbox was created. Do that now.

 

[Iskra]

And the junction at Carnforth faces the wrong way to be of any use for heading North onto the WCML. It’s not insurmountable but it would be impractical and consume more resources.

 

[Meerkat]

The Bentham line must be one of the cheapest bits of railway in the country to run- it’s simple, flat, lightly used, has no point work that is used regularly and has no intermediate signal boxes, crossings and barely any other major pieces of infrastructure to maintain. I strongly suggest that it adds much more than it costs, if you think beyond mere financial benefit.

relatively cheap in railway terms is not cheap.
The line still needs maintenance and inspection, the stations still need lighting etc.
And at some point something expensive will need doing, even if that is ’just’ rerailing.

If the Bentham service was canned what services on the S&C could you do with stock and crew?
Some combo of Leeds-Ribblehead, Skipton-Ribblehead, Blackburn-Ribblehead??

 

[daodao]

If the Bentham service was canned what services on the S&C could you do with stock and crew?
Some combo of Leeds-Ribblehead, Skipton-Ribblehead, Blackburn-Ribblehead??

Given that virtually no one lives at Ribblehead, and few people live anywhere between Settle and Carlisle except at Appleby, what is the purpose of retaining the S&C line as a through route from a passenger perspective? If it closed, there would be no need for a replacement bus service, although the existing bus service from Appleby to Penrith would need to be enhanced.

As for the comments above about freight traffic, Realtime Trains reveals that there was minimal freight traffic north of Blea Moor during the last week (29/1/23-4/2/23 inclusive):

• 3 trips to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works (2 via Skipton, 1 via Carlisle)
• 3 single way trips by a civil engineering train from Carlisle N.Y. to Crewe Bas Hall S.S.M.

 

[zwk500]

What could be done cheaply. Controlling the points at Settle Junction (SJ) could be done from Hellifield. Probably using mechanical interlocking but color lights and point motors.

I highly doubt there is room in the Hellifield Locking grid for this, or that Hellifield has space for an NX panel to take over Settle Jn. It would trigger a resignalling of Gargrave and Clitheroe to Settle into Manchester ROC. Several hundred million pounds. It may well be worth it, as then you abolish two boxes and that southern end has more traffic and is less remote from maintenance, but it isn't cheap.

The SJ junction is a single lead. Move the points for where it goes from single to double track to west of Gigg station. Then you save maintenance of a bit of track and eliminate 1 platform and the foot crossing - no footbridge at Gigg.

Points are the problem to maintain and you don't want to space them out as that means maintenance teams have to travel to multiple sites slowing them down.

The signal box at Carnforth is only there by accident. It should have been eliminated when preston powerbox was created. Do that now.

This isn't cheap, because you have to start messing about with the relay interlocking in Preston PSB. Or move the control area to the ROC.

It should be remembered that Hellifield, Settle Jn and Carnforth station jn boxes handle an awful lot of shunt moves for WCRC charters, which would need to be factored into a signallers workload assessment.
Maintaining plain line double track is much cheaper than any paintwork, especially remote controlled motorised points. I'm not sure if the HOBC could work over the line, but even a conventional relay will be easier than signalling changes.
If you want a capacity increase then Intermediate Block from Carnforth and Settle jn is the answer, although whether that's necessary is up for debate. Keep the line as it is, its as cheap as you could hope for and seems to be valued enough for connecting West Yorks with Morecambe and Lancaster.

 

[Iskra]

relatively cheap in railway terms is not cheap.
The line still needs maintenance and inspection, the stations still need lighting etc.
And at some point something expensive will need doing, even if that is ’just’ rerailing.

If the Bentham service was canned what services on the S&C could you do with stock and crew?
Some combo of Leeds-Ribblehead, Skipton-Ribblehead, Blackburn-Ribblehead??

That would be a worse use of resources than just leaving the Bentham line as it is.

Given that virtually no one lives at Ribblehead, and few people live anywhere between Settle and Carlisle except at Appleby, what is the purpose of retaining the S&C line as a through route from a passenger perspective? If it closed, there would be no need for a replacement bus service, although the existing bus service from Appleby to Penrith would need to be enhanced.

As for the comments above about freight traffic, Realtime Trains reveals that there was minimal freight traffic north of Blea Moor during the last week (29/1/23-4/2/23 inclusive):

• 3 trips to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works (2 via Skipton, 1 via Carlisle)
• 3 single way trips by a civil engineering train from Carlisle N.Y. to Crewe Bas Hall S.S.M.

A couple of railtours too on Saturday 28th and these are much more frequent over the summer.

I highly doubt there is room in the Hellifield Locking grid for this, or that Hellifield has space for an NX panel to take over Settle Jn. It would trigger a resignalling of Gargrave and Clitheroe to Settle into Manchester ROC. Several hundred million pounds. It may well be worth it, as then you abolish two boxes and that southern end has more traffic and is less remote from maintenance, but it isn't cheap.

Points are the problem to maintain and you don't want to space them out as that means maintenance teams have to travel to multiple sites slowing them down.

This isn't cheap, because you have to start messing about with the relay interlocking in Preston PSB. Or move the control area to the ROC.

It should be remembered that Hellifield, Settle Jn and Carnforth station jn boxes handle an awful lot of shunt moves for WCRC charters, which would need to be factored into a signallers workload assessment.
Maintaining plain line double track is much cheaper than any paintwork, especially remote controlled motorised points. I'm not sure if the HOBC could work over the line, but even a conventional relay will be easier than signalling changes.
If you want a capacity increase then Intermediate Block from Carnforth and Settle jn is the answer, although whether that's necessary is up for debate. Keep the line as it is, its as cheap as you could hope for and seems to be valued enough for connecting West Yorks with Morecambe and Lancaster.

Agree. There are a lot of WCRC shunt moves and both lines are really important for that company, not just for running tours on but also for ECS and positioning moves to the East.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Perhaps it was more down to determined driving? The following 1M53 left Leeds 19 down, and arrived Carlisle 24 down. (Of course, this less than stellar performance may not have been anything to do with the driver.)

But the return working of 2H12 - presumably with the same crew - left Carlisle 24 down (after a five minute turnround) and made up 15 mins by Leeds, arriving just 9 late. Another excellent effort.

I've just spoken to the driver of 1M53; apparently the engine wasn't running on the second carriage.

 

[zwk500]

A couple of railtours too on Saturday 28th and these are much more frequent over the summer.

Agree. There are a lot of WCRC shunt moves and both lines are really important for that company, not just for running tours on but also for ECS and positioning moves to the East.

I would say that Railtours, although they need to be considered, are not significant traffic. WCRC runs at most 1 or 2 tours via the S&C on a weekend. The S&C tours use the Bentham line to position the loco (mostly). There will usually be tours on every other weekend (on average) through the summer from about late May to the end of August. I'd have to ask my old boss what the actual numbers are, but perhaps a 100 tours from all companies through Hellifield in a summer? And NR is not allowed to charge Railtours more than the cost of operating them (i.e. if they didn't run it'd be net-zero to NR), and railtour delay payments under schedule 8 are capped, so NR can end up footing some of the bill. The cost of providing infrastructure for a tour is also quite high if it's not being used for other purposes as is the staffing requirements at times (if points need to be clipped etc).

This is just to say that the Bentham and S&C lines need to make sense as part of the transport system before you start considering charters. On their own, charters will not keep the lines open. However, as I've mentioned, the Bentham line in particular is as cheap as you can get it and does fulfil a seemingly valuable enough link to justify trains through from Leeds. Therefore closing it would save very little money and cause issues bigger than the ones it resolves.
The S&C is arguably more dicey, as the large number of boxes means it costs more to operate, but then it does have the quarry traffic which contributes considerably to the cast for retention as otherwise the loads would go by local roads.
If on-train integrity proving was used in the UK (and options exist, it's used in other countries), then I think the case for resignalling the S&C would be much stronger, as we could use semi-virtual blocks (basically a balise reader at each block marker that registers the passage of the front and rear of the train to verify it's left the block in rear) rather than physical train detection on plain line sections, which would considerably lower the cost of installing ETCS L2. You'd still use Axle Counters or Track circuits at Junctions, but as these are concentrated together this is less of a problem. However I've seen no suggestion of using such technology on the main line.

 

[daodao]

it does have the quarry traffic which contributes considerably to the case for retention as otherwise the loads would go by local roads.

The quarry traffic only justifies retention of the S&C line as a 1 track "mineral siding" south of Ribblehead viaduct. The only freight traffic north of there that runs on a regular basis and has no alternative route is to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works.

This is just to say that the Bentham and S&C lines need to make sense as part of the transport system before you start considering charters. On their own, charters will not keep the lines open.

Exactly. Excursion trains by themselves are not a case for retention of any publicly financed railway.

 

[InkyScrolls]

The quarry traffic only justifies retention of the S&C line as a 1 track "mineral siding" south of Ribblehead viaduct. The only freight traffic north of there that runs on a regular basis and has no alternative route is to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works.

Excursion trains by themselves are not a case for retention of any publicly financed railway.

You seem to forget that the line turns a profit through passenger revenue alone; you've evidently not travelled along the S&C in summer.

 

[zwk500]

The quarry traffic only justifies retention of the S&C line as a 1 track "mineral siding" south of Ribblehead viaduct. The only freight traffic north of there that runs on a regular basis and has no alternative route is to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works.

It's not just the quarry traffic though, the line serves the towns of Settle and Appleby as well as an extra link to Carlisle. The trains aren't empty over the S&C even if they're not London Commuter loadings. Changing the S&C is more expensive than leaving it as is until cheaper options (like on-train detection) come into play.

Excursion trains by themselves are not a case for retention of any publicly financed railway.

Agree

 

[Meerkat]

You seem to forget that the line turns a profit through passenger revenue alone; you've evidently not travelled along the S&C in summer.

Do you have proof for that? A handful of crowded short trains during the summer seems unlikely to cover the all year cost.

 

[The Planner]

Given that virtually no one lives at Ribblehead, and few people live anywhere between Settle and Carlisle except at Appleby, what is the purpose of retaining the S&C line as a through route from a passenger perspective? If it closed, there would be no need for a replacement bus service, although the existing bus service from Appleby to Penrith would need to be enhanced.

As for the comments above about freight traffic, Realtime Trains reveals that there was minimal freight traffic north of Blea Moor during the last week (29/1/23-4/2/23 inclusive):

• 3 trips to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works (2 via Skipton, 1 via Carlisle)
• 3 single way trips by a civil engineering train from Carlisle N.Y. to Crewe Bas Hall S.S.M.

And as I have repeatedly noted, it is expected to get more use post HS2.

The signal box at Carnforth is only there by accident. It should have been eliminated when preston powerbox was created. Do that now.

it will be done when Preston goes ETCS in the next couple of control periods. You are not going to recontrol that now into an aging PSB.

 

[yorksrob]

Do you have proof for that? A handful of crowded short trains during the summer seems unlikely to cover the all year cost.

Trains are well used throughout the year.

The line is popular with local passengers, as well as through passengers, and these flows are not seasonal.

Yesterday going North, every double seat was taken by Settle on a 3 carriage 158.

 

[Meerkat]

Trains are well used throughout the year.

The line is popular with local passengers, as well as through passengers, and these flows are not seasonal.

Yesterday going North, every double seat was taken by Settle on a 3 carriage 158.

“Well used” is a very adaptable phrase, and doesn’t mean much on infrequent short trains.
are you claiming there is no seasonal variation in passenger numbers?
Does ’every double seat taken’ mean a 3 car train was half empty?

 

[Iskra]

“Well used” is a very adaptable phrase, and doesn’t mean much on infrequent short trains.
are you claiming there is no seasonal variation in passenger numbers?
Does ’every double seat taken’ mean a 3 car train was half empty?

Or half full…

Look, it’s clear that with its freight use, charter use, its much improved passenger service and its role in keeping the WCML clear the S&C is going nowhere. It’s not particularly strong in any particular area but combined it is enough to keep it going. What it could do with is some rationalisation in terms of signalling to reduce operating costs, but that costs money in the short term so it will probably just keep going as it is for the foreseeable.

 

[yorksrob]

“Well used” is a very adaptable phrase, and doesn’t mean much on infrequent short trains.
are you claiming there is no seasonal variation in passenger numbers?
Does ’every double seat taken’ mean a 3 car train was half empty?

Lots of double seats had two passengers, not all, so at least two thirds full.

 

[zwk500]

It’s not particularly strong in any particular area but combined it is enough to keep it going.

This is probably the most accurate assessment of both lines. They're very much in the 'hoping nothing big happens' territory, as any sudden major expenditure is unlikely to be found but it can be kept ticking along for a long while yet.

 

[InkyScrolls]

This is probably the most accurate assessment of both lines. They're very much in the 'hoping nothing big happens' territory, as any sudden major expenditure is unlikely to be found but it can be kept ticking along for a long while yet.

I think Eden Brows might disagree with you there.

 

[30907]

Lots of double seats had two passengers, not all, so at least two thirds full.

Assuming that was 1M53, 0920 off Leeds, that's good for a grey Saturday in early February, but it often loads significantly better - it's a train that could ideally use 4 cars most of the year but is (for good reasons) diagrammed for a 3.

Overall, you might be able to thin out the timetable on both routes by one mid-day train (where the loads are lightest apart from late in the day) - but would that produce a net saving? I doubt it.

 

[chorleyjeff]

You seem to forget that the line turns a profit through passenger revenue alone; you've evidently not travelled along the S&C in summer.

How does that accounting work ?

 

[70014IronDuke]

I've just spoken to the driver of 1M53; apparently the engine wasn't running on the second carriage.

Thank you. In that case, I dare say he (she?) did a good job to keep the 'extra' lost time down to just 5 mins.

 

[Ken H]

Or half full…

Look, it’s clear that with its freight use, charter use, its much improved passenger service and its role in keeping the WCML clear the S&C is going nowhere. It’s not particularly strong in any particular area but combined it is enough to keep it going. What it could do with is some rationalisation in terms of signalling to reduce operating costs, but that costs money in the short term so it will probably just keep going as it is for the foreseeable.

and currently it runs, albeit briefly, through the prime ministers constituency...

 

[geordieblue]

The quarry traffic only justifies retention of the S&C line as a 1 track "mineral siding" south of Ribblehead viaduct. The only freight traffic north of there that runs on a regular basis and has no alternative route is to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works.

IIRC there are stone trains from Ribblehead yard, north of the viaduct - how do you retain these?

 

[InkyScrolls]

IIRC there are stone trains from Ribblehead yard, north of the viaduct - how do you retain these?

I'm afraid you remember wrongly - Ribblehead Quarry is south of the viaduct (though trains proceed as far as Blea Moor to run round).

 

[geordieblue]

I'm afraid you remember wrongly - Ribblehead Quarry is south of the viaduct (though trains proceed as far as Blea Moor to run round).

My mistake, got it mixed up

 

[Greybeard33]

As for the comments above about freight traffic, Realtime Trains reveals that there was minimal freight traffic north of Blea Moor during the last week (29/1/23-4/2/23 inclusive):

• 3 trips to/from New Biggin Gypsum Works (2 via Skipton, 1 via Carlisle)
• 3 single way trips by a civil engineering train from Carlisle N.Y. to Crewe Bas Hall S.S.M.

RTT shows that there are paths for a loaded freight train from Teeside to Newbiggin British Gypsum, via York, Castleford and Settle, on five days per week (Tu-Sa). It appears that occasionally a variant route via Durham and Hexham, reversing at Carlisle N.Y., is used instead. Even assuming that only three of those trains typically run, hundreds of HGV movements every week to/from the works would be needed to transfer the flow to road. These would all have to use the minor road through the centre of Kirkby Thore village to access the works from the A66.

And there is a national shortage of HGV drivers.

 

[yorksrob]

Assuming that was 1M53, 0920 off Leeds, that's good for a grey Saturday in early February, but it often loads significantly better - it's a train that could ideally use 4 cars most of the year but is (for good reasons) diagrammed for a 3.

Overall, you might be able to thin out the timetable on both routes by one mid-day train (where the loads are lightest apart from late in the day) - but would that produce a net saving? I doubt it.

Yes, I can imagine it would be even busier in summer.

The route gets a train roughly every two hours, so to withdraw any would likely cause more damage than savings.