Heysham Port line new stations/improvement potential

[FlyingPotato]

A mainly bus based system may have been suitable for the area 30 years ago, but the urban Bay area is over 100k and growing now.
I suspect Stagecoach will try and stave it off a bit longer because it's a cash cow, but a tram line incorporating Lancaster (including the uni), Morecambe and Heysham will become necessary in the decade, especially if the Eden Project North goes ahead.

It's a shame that if it gets built it will be after I leave Lancaster Uni


But if they did do a tram, send it to Galgate for the garden village they are building

Anyway talking about Heysham, I'm doing the branch line today for the fun of it, even though it's a bit of branch away from the topic

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's a shame that if it gets built it will be after I leave Lancaster Uni


But if they did do a tram, send it to Galgate for the garden village they are building

Anyway talking about Heysham, I'm doing the branch line today for the fun of it, even though it's a bit of branch away from the topic

Agreed, Galgate would be a good terminus.
As for Heysham, I can see it in the distance from where I am now. In fact, there's also a disused railway in the area, but sadly few clues that it once existed.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Agreed, Galgate would be a good terminus.
As for Heysham, I can see it in the distance from where I am now. In fact, there's also a disused railway in the area, but sadly few clues that it once existed.

Apart from the cycle path


I think the problem with the uni tho is the hill from the line to it, people might just choose to walk instead

 

[AlastairFraser]

Apart from the cycle path


I think the problem with the uni tho is the hill from the line to it, people might just choose to walk instead

I'd suggest running it on a loop round campus and then adjacent to the M6 to join Bowerham Ln to solve that issue personally. The Scotforth Rd route into Lancaster is too congested for trams anyway.

 

[JKF]

Most of the material will arrive either by road, or in the case of bulk materials, by sea. The bulk of aggregates, cement and similar material for Hinkley Point C is being delivered by a pier constructed into the Bristol Channel.
Given Heysham is in a far more sheltered location for shipping than Hinkley, I expect that would be repeated.

Quite a bit of the material for Hinkley has been taken by rail to Avonmouth and from there by coastal shipping to Hinkley. I suspect if there was a railhead close enough it would have gone all the way rather than having to transfer mode en route. For the scale of the project I’m surprised they didn’t run a branch in, suggestions were made for taking one off the West Somerset Railway.

 

[FlyingPotato]

I'd suggest running it on a loop round campus and then adjacent to the M6 to join Bowerham Ln to solve that issue personally. The Scotforth Rd route into Lancaster is too congested for trams anyway.

I know the pain of that road, it's often easier to walk the Lancaster roundabout instead of taking the bus
Lancaster needs a bypass

But I think this might be for a new thread

 

[randyrippley]

Thirty years ago some people I worked with had an impromptu race from the University to White Lund. A female athlete vs an Audi coupe. Around 2pm.
The athlete won by around ten minutes.
It hasn't got any better despite the Bay Gateway

 

[AlastairFraser]

I know the pain of that road, it's often easier to walk the Lancaster roundabout instead of taking the bus
Lancaster needs a bypass

But I think this might be for a new thread

Thirty years ago some people I worked with had an impromptu race from the University to White Lund. A female athlete vs an Audi coupe. Around 2pm.
The athlete won by around ten minutes.
It hasn't got any better despite the Bay Gateway

It's the A6 that needs relieving really, but yes this needs to be in another thread.

 

[randyrippley]

Someone on the local council must be reading this (and the previous) threads
I (and others) first suggested this two years ago

Call for new rail stations and electric trains to support Morecambe

Councillors emphasise a need to boost transport for Morecambe Bay attractions for residents and visitors.

www.bbc.co.uk

New railway stations and trains are needed for Morecambe Bay attractions like the Eden Project, councillors say.
A motion signed by 15 councillors representing 37,000 residents has been supported at a full Lancaster City Council meeting.
Councillors emphasised a need to boost transport for residents and visitors to the area.
Their call followed the government's cancellation of HS2 high-speed rail to the north.
In turn, the government unveiled a £494m pot for Lancashire through the Local Transport Fund, with government minister Esther McVey MP visiting Morecambe last month to highlight it.
In Lancashire transport planning is mainly a county council role.
However, Lancaster City Council is the "accountable body" for the Eden Project on a working group.
The city council motion stated: "Substantial community benefits can be achieved by new stations or halts in Heysham, between Oxcliffe Road and Mossgate Park, in Westgate near the Morecambe football stadium and in Poulton at York Bridge.
"Visitors to Morecambe could be served by a station with a park-and ride car park on land owned by the city and county councils at the Bay Gateway near Trumacar roundabout.
"New stations should be built whilst other improvements including electrification are being implemented to benefit Eden visitors."
It recommended the city council adopted these as preferred options and to lobby organisations "at every opportunity" for a solution to benefit all.
Labour councillor Catherine Potter said: "The only concerns are about transport.
"There was formerly a station at York Bridge and the current rail line goes right to the port of Heysham. Let's get some stations along the line so people can get on trains. They don't need to be large stations."
Independent councillor Roger Sleet said: "There is the possibility to open a new station near the Heysham Gateway site.
"We were shown around there on a visit. The council owns some land. There are some tanks underground. That site could be perfect for a new station with car parking.
"Battery powered trains are the answer using charging points. A seven minute charge is enough for a train to travel 60 miles."
Labour councillor Matthew Black said: "A station in my Westgate ward would beneficial for residents and football supporters. The stadium holds 6,000 people.
"Councillors get regular complaints about car parking on match-days. There are cars everywhere. You'd not be able to get fire engines and ambulances up some streets."
Green councillor Gina Dowding said: "We need to be ambitious and there is definitely scope for Heysham line improvements. But this will need serious lobbying.
She added: "The government's £494 million transport fund has been celebrated. But there's no guarantee it'll be used for rail. It's very likely to go on potholes."

 

[AlastairFraser]

Someone on the local council must be reading this (and the previous) threads
I (and others) first suggested this two years ago

Call for new rail stations and electric trains to support Morecambe

Councillors emphasise a need to boost transport for Morecambe Bay attractions for residents and visitors.

www.bbc.co.uk

It would be nice to think that. I can't imagine them ever crediting RailUK Forums for it though

 

[randyrippley]

A fuller report on the meeting has just turned up on the local radio station website at

Council will lobby for four new railway stations in Morecambe and Heysham

Official calls will be made for four new railway stations to be built in Morecambe and Heysham to serve visitors to the new Eden Project.

www.beyondradio.co.uk

It's worth reposting here so there's a more permanent record

Council will lobby for four new railway stations in Morecambe and Heysham​

Official calls will be made for four new railway stations to be built in Morecambe and Heysham to serve visitors to the new Eden Project.

Lancaster City Council has decided to lobby for new stations or stopping points between Oxcliffe Road and Mossgate Park in Heysham, in Westgate near to the football stadium and in Morecambe at York Bridge.

The council will also call for a new station with an adjacent ‘park and ride’ car park at the end of the bypass near the Trumacar roundabout in Heysham - on land already owned by the city and county councils.

They are also calling for other improvements to the railway service to benefit visitors to the new Eden Project Morecambe - including electrification of the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham service.

During a meeting at Morecambe Town Hall on Wednesday, city councillors voted to "make the case to the appropriate bodies and organisations at every available opportunity" for these new railway stations in Morecambe and Heysham.

They also called for all political parties to work towards delivering an improved rail service for the residents of Morecambe and Heysham as well as for visitors to Eden and users of Heysham Port.

This came after a motion was brought before full council by a cross-party group of 15 councillors - Catherine Potter, Joanne Ainscough, Catherine Armistead, Matthew Black, Phillip Bradley, Claire Cozler, John Hanson, Prof Chris Harris, Colin Hartley, Margaret Pattison, Susan Penney and David Whitaker (all Labour), Roger Cleet (independent) and Paul Hart and John Livermore (Lib Dem).

Councillor Potter from Heysham South ward, proposing the motion, said: "The railway line from Lancaster to Morecambe via Bare Lane alerady passes by York Bridge, where there was a former station, then once per day travels on to Heysham Port passing between Westgate and the West End through Heysham before arriving at its destination.

"So we already have a railway line passing by us. Let's have some stations so we can actually get on the trains.

"They don't need to be big stations. Maybe just halts. They don't need to be much bigger than a bus stop."

A halt is a small and basic stopping point for trains, usually consisting of just a platform and a small shelter.

Councillor Cleet, seconding the motion, said: "Battery powered trains are the answer.

"At the end of the Bay Gateway, we could have a park and ride and along that railway line, you could have stations. I really do think it's the way forward. It's green and gets all the traffic out of Morecambe.

"What better start is there going to Eden, than on an electric-powered train?"

Councillor Matthew Black said: "We Westgate councillors have regular complaints about traffic and parking on match days (at Morecambe FC).

"Poor parking is damaging a lot of the green spaces in Westgate.

"A train station behind the (football) stadium would make a massive difference to the area."

Councillor Whitaker said: "There are many many problems rail users face travelling from Morecambe.

"It's clear the rail network in this area needs serious reform. We need to lobby. We need to put pressure on. We need a more reliable rail service with Eden coming. Having more stations will improve the lives of rail users and residents in the area. It will encourage people to abandon the car and use the train. It will improve the environment.

"It will address some of the parking problems of people coming into the West End during match days."

Councillor Andrew Gardiner, Conservative leader, said: "I'm disappointed that you haven't included me in this conversation but I am going to support (the motion).

"(Morecambe and Lunesdale MP) David Morris said he would like to thank the council for pursuing this project. He has already had a meeting with the trains minister and met with (government minister) Esther McVey to discuss potential investment as well.

"It is an opportunity to take cars off the road, to make life easier for access. I hope it won't affect the bus services, because in Overton and other rural areas they are vital."

Councillor Potter apologised for not including Councillor Gardiner, who represents Overton, and said this was because they were focussing on the wards where the stations would be.

There were also words of warning from some councillors about the vision for four new railway stations.

Councillor Gerry Blaikie of the Lib Dems, who represents the council on the Community Rail Partnership and the Lancaster-Skipton Rail Users Group, told his fellow councillors he'd previously been told by a Network Rail rep that "there is no chance at all" of electrification of the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham line.
"However since then, Eden has got the definite go-ahead and there is the money from scrapping HS2, so there is a possibility," he said.

Councillor Blaikie also said a station at York Bridge was too close to Morecambe station, because Network Rail have a "minimum distance of 1.73 miles" between stations. He said one at Westgate would be "borderline".

But, he said, the station at the end of the Bay Gateway was "a possibility" as one existed there in the 1800s.

Councillor Gina Dowding of the Greens said she supported the motion but warned of "massive hurdles" to overcome to achieve the council's new railway vision.

"There will be some serious lobbying for investment in the rail network needed if we are to get anywhere with this," she said.

"The Lancaster-Morecambe rail route uses the West Coast Mainline. There is massive investment needed in the West Coast Mainline in order to free up slots from Lancaster to Morecambe. That's what hinders us. It's already quite congested.

"Network Rail themselves have to be behind this and they have to be our main lobbying body. In the past when we've tried to get more stations, Bailrigg at the university has been mooted, they haven't been interested because they say it's not viable and not feasible.

"So let's stick to the ambition, but let's be aware of the scale of the task."


WHAT WAS THE MOTION

The motion said that Lancaster City Council will:

Adopt the above as its preferred position in relation to railway stations on the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham line; make the case to the appropriate bodies and organisations at every available opportunity for new railway stations in Westgate, Poulton, Heysham and also potentially at the end of the Bay Gateway with an adjacent ‘park and ride’ car park; and call for all parties to work towards a solution that will deliver an improved rail service for the residents of Morecambe and Heysham as well as for visitors to Eden and users of the port.

A council report said: "Having access to the railway network would enhance the lives of our residents, connect us directly to national railway services, take traffic off our roads, reduce congestion throughout the district and help us achieve our net zero targets.

"It should also make the rail line more profitable for the operator as it will deliver many thousands more paying customers per year.

"We are all great supporters of the Eden development in Morecambe and are well aware of how transformational it has the potential to be.

"Lancashire County Council has responsibility for transport and not City, however Lancaster City Council is the accountable body for the Eden funding and is represented on the working group looking into the parking and transport needs of the visitors to Eden.

"The great majority of residents are fully supportive of the coming of Eden however their main concerns are the traffic and parking impact on the lives of the people who live in the area.

"Eden will be generating up to 4,000 visitors to Morecambe per day, a significant proportion of whom will be encouraged to arrive by train, necessitating an improvement to the service between Lancaster and Morecambe and beyond to Heysham Port.

"We understand that discussions are in their very early stages about such modernisation and improvements, including a new transport hub and some form of electrification, either through overhead lines or through the use of battery trains.

"(Local campaigning group) Lancaster Civic Vision has made a point of lobbying Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council with regards to this electrification of the service.

"Transport improvements shouldn’t just be to the benefit of Eden and its visitors but equally should benefit local residents.

"A new station at Heysham is particularly needed given that Heysham does not currently benefit from a viable passenger rail service or a credible station despite its considerable population and employment hubs, especially at the power station and the port. The creation of a passenger station alongside a park and ride could provide genuine change to help ease local commuting/school run patterns and improve air quality."

Lancaster City Council has previously tried to lobby for improved railway infrastructure, including stations along the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham rail route.

During the planning application process for Morecambe Football Club’s Globe Arena (now the Mazuma Mobile Stadium), the council tried to persuade Network Rail to include a rail halt as part of the development.

But the council believes that the reallocation of funding from the cancellation of the later phase of the HS2 railway project towards major local transport improvements "provides new encouragement for ambitious transport projects in the district".

Last month government minister Esther McVey visited Morecambe to announce that Lancashire had been given the biggest share of a pot of money to spend on improving road, rail and bus links.

The Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham line was previously electrified from 1908 to 1966.

Supporters say that re-electrification of the route, or providing battery-operated trains to work on the existing line, would ensure quicker and more comfortable rail journeys for visitors to Eden.

Around 24 per cent of the north’s rail network is currently electrified.

So how much would it all cost?
Presumably restore Morecambe-Heysham to dual track and restore proper two-way signalling all the way along the branch.
Four new stations at York Bridge, Westgate/Football stadium, Oxcliffe Rd, Heysham Trumacar roundabout, the last with a car park big enough to serve as park and ride. Dedicated battery powered trains (could lightweight units share the WCML section Lancaster -Bare?) and charging facilities. Anyone care to hazard a guess?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I know the pain of that road, it's often easier to walk the Lancaster roundabout instead of taking the bus
Lancaster needs a bypass

Lancaster already has a new by-pass! The A683 link road from the M6 J34 to Salt Ayre, which if I recall correctly was only completed 7 years ago! (Further South, the Heysham end was built in the 1990s). I remember all the controversy back in the 2000s when Lancaster City and Lancashire County councils were trying to get the new by-pass built over the top of a lot of objections that we actually needed better public transport. The original intention was for the Road to pass West of Lancaster, linking Morecambe with the M6 J33 near Galgate, but the then Labour Government ruled that out on environmental reasons, so some years later Lancaster got the Northern route instead.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A fuller report on the meeting has just turned up on the local radio station website at

Council will lobby for four new railway stations in Morecambe and Heysham

Official calls will be made for four new railway stations to be built in Morecambe and Heysham to serve visitors to the new Eden Project.

www.beyondradio.co.uk

It's worth reposting here so there's a more permanent record

What I want to know is how they will fit the new services on the WCML between Lancaster and Heysham - unless, of course, they're thinking of an interchange station on the WCML to the east of Morecambe Golf Club north of Bare, or further up.
Even that is a bit far-fetched as it would still require sizeable investment and stopping intercity services there is bound to be unpopular.

Lancaster already has a new by-pass! The A683 link road from the M6 J34 to Salt Ayre, which if I recall correctly was only completed 7 years ago! (Further South, the Heysham end was built in the 1990s). I remember all the controversy back in the 2000s when Lancaster City and Lancashire County councils were trying to get the new by-pass built over the top of a lot of objections that we actually needed better public transport. The original intention was for the Road to pass West of Lancaster, linking Morecambe with the M6 J33 near Galgate, but the then Labour Government ruled that out on environmental reasons, so some years later Lancaster got the Northern route instead.

That's more of a Morecambe and Heysham bypass than Lancaster though. It only really bypasses Skerton within Lancaster, and the A6 from the Uni into Lancaster is where you see the worst congestion usually.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What I want to know is how they will fit the new services on the WCML between Lancaster and Heysham - unless, of course, they're thinking of an interchange station on the WCML to the east of Morecambe Golf Club north of Bare, or further up.
Even that is a bit far-fetched as it would still require sizeable investment and stopping intercity services there is bound to be unpopular.

Yes, fitting services onto the WCML is the fundamental problem. I think you're going to need either a grade separated junction where the Morecambe branch leaves the WCML, or a single additional bi-directional track from that junction to Lancaster platforms 1-2, which would allow Lancaster-Morecambe services to avoid any contact with the WCML. Neither will come cheap. You may also want to sort out the signalling etc. on the Morecambe branch tracks to make it a conventional 2-track railway (you probably could run a half-hourly service to Morecambe without doing that, but it wouldn't be robust and you'd have to have alternate trains using opposite lines, which would be very confusing to passengers).

If you can overcome the vast cost of doing that, the additional stations suggested are ambitious but sensible. York Bridge is only 1/2 mile from the current Morecambe station, but the housing in that area is pretty high density so I think it would still be well used, and there are plenty of other places on the network where stations only half a mile apart do very well. Westgate is also a place with high population density; somewhere South of Oxcliffe Road, if positioned well, would be half a mile from Heysham Village, allowing access to that tourist area by train; and a park-and-ride station near the Trumacar roundabout would serve those communities in the area that are not walkable from the railway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes, fitting services onto the WCML is the fundamental problem. I think you're going to need either a grade separated junction where the Morecambe branch leaves the WCML, or a single additional bi-directional track from that junction to Lancaster platforms 1-2, which would allow Lancaster-Morecambe services to avoid any contact with the WCML. Neither will come cheap. You may also want to sort out the signalling etc. on the Morecambe branch tracks to make it a conventional 2-track railway (you probably could run a half-hourly service to Morecambe without doing that, but it wouldn't be robust and you'd have to have alternate trains using opposite lines, which would be very confusing to passengers).

If you can overcome the vast cost of doing that, the additional stations suggested are ambitious but sensible. York Bridge is only 1/2 mile from the current Morecambe station, but the housing in that area is pretty high density so I think it would still be well used, and there are plenty of other places on the network where stations only half a mile apart do very well. Westgate is also a place with high population density; somewhere South of Oxcliffe Road, if positioned well, would be half a mile from Heysham Village, allowing access to that tourist area by train; and a park-and-ride station near the Trumacar roundabout would serve those communities in the area that are not walkable from the railway.

Agreed - perhaps something I hadn't considered would be to switch that bi di track you propose into Ryelands Park and continue into Lancaster City centre on a tram loop. Although you'd need to purchase tram - trains, it may be easier than fitting additional tracks over the Lune viaduct in Lancaster.

 

[M&NEJ]

Agreed - perhaps something I hadn't considered would be to switch that bi di track you propose into Ryelands Park and continue into Lancaster City centre on a tram loop. Although you'd need to purchase tram - trains, it may be easier than fitting additional tracks over the Lune viaduct in Lancaster.

An interesting idea but it still poses the question of how to get the trams across the river Lune. Skerton bridge is old and congested and Greyhound bridge would need a contra-flow. Then how to get to connect with the main line at Lancaster "Castle" railway station?

I lobbied the County Council long ago for a light rail scheme, with a new tram bridge at Salt Ayre, using the old Midland route from Morecambe towards Lancaster, a Lune bridge and straight onto the old Glasson trackbed for the short distance to Lancaster station. But then it would get complicated crossing the WCML and going down the old Midland railway "Castle branch" to get onto the streets in the vicinity of Lancaster bus station. I thought it a fine route but not without challenges! Needless to say Lancashire County Council politely made excuses.

 

[philthetube]

Are we even sure that the Heysham branch has a long term future?

Nuclear traffic will end within the next decade and I don't think the ferry foot passenger market has that much of a future.

The Isle of Man is a very different beast when it comes to passenger traffic then ferries to France or other destinations,

 

[AlastairFraser]

An interesting idea but it still poses the question of how to get the trams across the river Lune. Skerton bridge is old and congested and Greyhound bridge would need a contra-flow. Then how to get to connect with the main line at Lancaster "Castle" railway station?

I think the contraflow over Greyhound Bridge is the only way. The station wouldn't neccesarily be on the network, but you could have a stop on the city centre loop at the intersection of China and Market Sts, which would be reasonably close.

 

[randyrippley]

I think the contraflow over Greyhound Bridge is the only way. The station wouldn't neccesarily be on the network, but you could have a stop on the city centre loop at the intersection of China and Market Sts, which would be reasonably close.

there isn't room on Greyhound bridge for a contraflow. At the moment you have two traffic lanes plus a bus lane, all are needed.
And don't suggest widening the bridge - the current deck is already a cantilever on top of the old rail bridge

 

[HSTEd]

there isn't room on Greyhound bridge for a contraflow. At the moment you have two traffic lanes plus a bus lane, all are needed.
And don't suggest widening the bridge - the current deck is already a cantilever on top of the old rail bridge

Well a single track tram line could share the bus lane couldn't it?

Although if the project's economics won't stand a single track dedicated tram bridge over a comparatively small river, then I'm not sure the project is workable to start with!

 

[randyrippley]

Well a single track tram line could share the bus lane couldn't it?

Although if the project's economics won't stand a single track dedicated tram bridge over a comparatively small river, then I'm not sure the project is workable to start with!

there's around 16+ buses per hour over 9 routes using that bridge during the day just in one direction Lancaster-Morecambe/Carnforth, there's no way of adding a two way tram service to that

As for affordability, putting a new bridge in would only work if the old Midland route from Green Ayre was reinstated - and there's never going to be any money for that. Any improvement has to be based on using the current route and interworking the Morecambe service with the WCML. Or a third track........There's no room over Carlisle bridge for a third track, so that needs widening or a second bridge built, and route widening between Ryelands park and Torrisholme. Again unlikely

I lobbied the County Council long ago for a light rail scheme, with a new tram bridge at Salt Ayre, using the old Midland route from Morecambe towards Lancaster, a Lune bridge and straight onto the old Glasson trackbed for the short distance to Lancaster station. But then it would get complicated crossing the WCML and going down the old Midland railway "Castle branch" to get onto the streets in the vicinity of Lancaster bus station. I thought it a fine route but not without challenges! Needless to say Lancashire County Council politely made excuses.

That would have been possible 30 years ago before the gentrification of St Georges Quay started: you could have built a new bridge from Salt Ayre to the quay, then run trains along the route of the old St Georges Quay sidings (which were still there in the 1960's - they were used during the rebuild of Carlisle bridge) almost to the bus station. Would have bypassed Castle station completely.
Too many new buildings in the way now

 

[Grimsby town]

Well a single track tram line could share the bus lane couldn't it?

Although if the project's economics won't stand a single track dedicated tram bridge over a comparatively small river, then I'm not sure the project is workable to start with!

Realistically trams aren't suitable for Lancaster. Converting the Morecambe route would make a lot of sense in many ways if there is no need for nuclear trains. It would allow:

• Dual track operation with simplified signalling
• Easy extensions to Heysham and Morecambe seafront
• More stations in the urban areas that it runners through

The problem is that Lancaster city centre and a lot of the roads in Lancaster are incredibly space constrained. There's enough problems trying to accommodate buses, pedestrians, cyclists, and road traffic without adding trams to the mix particularly if the tram needs to be segregated to avoid congestion.

The other major issue is serving both Lancaster railway station and the city centre. I don't see an easy way to do that. Again space around the railway station is a big issue so it's likely a tram would serve the city centre at the expense of onward rail connections from Morecambe.

For me, the solution is a new line alongside M6 bypassing Lancaster and Oxenholme. That would provide the opportunity to provide a Heysham to Preston service with a new station in south Lancaster for the uni. Preston would be a better interchange station than Lancaster with a lot more onward connections. The bypass route would provide journey time and capacity benefits between Scottish and English cities.

 

[AlastairFraser]

For me, the solution is a new line alongside M6 bypassing Lancaster and Oxenholme. That would provide the opportunity to provide a Heysham to Preston service with a new station in south Lancaster for the uni. Preston would be a better interchange station than Lancaster with a lot more onward connections. The bypass route would provide journey time and capacity benefits between Scottish and English cities.

This is possible, but again requires massive investment, with the additional side effect of opposition from Lancaster residents losing InterCity services. Something else to consider - what would you do to connect the Bentham Line services with InterCity services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For me, the solution is a new line alongside M6 bypassing Lancaster and Oxenholme. That would provide the opportunity to provide a Heysham to Preston service with a new station in south Lancaster for the uni. Preston would be a better interchange station than Lancaster with a lot more onward connections. The bypass route would provide journey time and capacity benefits between Scottish and English cities.

If I was building anything alongside the M6 bypassing Lancaster it would be a road. Then non-motorway through traffic could be banned from the city centre (and there'd be an option when the motorway was closed), which is an utter blight on it. That would make the roads and bridgest quieter so you could do a street tram if you wanted, including along the A6 where it'd probably pay best.

The Western bypass, much as it's be good, is off the agenda due to sites of special scientific interest it'd go through.

The other thing I'd do is close down the industrial estate on the Lune (Marsh) and build houses there instead. It can only be accessed via the city centre, which leads to significant, highly polluting lorry traffic. A replacement could be built elsewhere, perhaps on farmland just off the Bay Gateway M6 junction, easily funded by the profit from the sale of the houses. A bridge from the Bay Gateway to there would also work, but TBH Lancaster needs more houses and putting them nearer the city is better.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If I was building anything alongside the M6 bypassing Lancaster it would be a road. Then non-motorway through traffic could be banned from the city centre (and there'd be an option when the motorway was closed), which is an utter blight on it. That would make the roads and bridgest quieter so you could do a street tram if you wanted, including along the A6 where it'd probably pay best.

The Western bypass, much as it's be good, is off the agenda due to sites of special scientific interest it'd go through.

The thing is most of the congestion into the city centre from the south at least isn't through traffic. Otherwise it would be faster to go to M6 J33 at Bay Horse and drive up to J34 or the junction closest to your final destination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is most of the congestion into the city centre from the south at least isn't through traffic.

If the motorway is closed or congested it is. There's literally no other option bar going half way to Leeds.

The traffic to the Marsh industrial estate is a problem too, though.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If the motorway is closed or congested it is. There's literally no other option bar going half way to Leeds.

The traffic to the Marsh industrial estate is a problem too, though.

Which isn't worth building a bypass for neccesarily. I think a rail bypass would be more worth it for speeding up InterCity services, at the same time as enabling more Lancaster to Morecambe/Heysham services. A Lancaster Parkway near the uni on the new bypass (with a big car park to cut out the regular traffic jams made of mostly local traffic) and the existing line would help solve both these issues to be fair.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which isn't worth building a bypass for neccesarily. I think a rail bypass would be more worth it for speeding up InterCity services, at the same time as enabling more Lancaster to Morecambe/Heysham services. A Lancaster Parkway near the uni on the new bypass (with a big car park to cut out the regular traffic jams made of mostly local traffic) and the existing line would help solve both these issues to be fair.

I think you mistyped "would be a ridiculous idea". Lancaster is a fairly small place, but due to the large student population (plenty of whom don't live at the uni campus) and connectivity it punches well above its weight in terms of IC demand. Bypassing it is a very bad idea.

I could see sense in a Lancaster Bailrigg station, particularly if Bailrigg Garden Village goes ahead, but that doesn't require a bypass, just platform loops and to be served by the Northern Cumbria service.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which isn't worth building a bypass for neccesarily. I think a rail bypass would be more worth it for speeding up InterCity services, at the same time as enabling more Lancaster to Morecambe/Heysham services. A Lancaster Parkway near the uni on the new bypass (with a big car park to cut out the regular traffic jams made of mostly local traffic) and the existing line would help solve both these issues to be fair.

For the cost of building what would have to be a minimum 8-10 miles of brand new railway by-passing Lancaster, you may as well just 4-track the much shorter section from Lancaster station to where the Morecambe line branches off and grade-separate that junction. It'd probably be a similar or lower cost (more difficult in terms of land-take vs less new track and no need to build brand new cuttings/embankments), and you'd get all the same benefits without the huge disadvantage of preventing most long-distance trains from calling at Lancaster - which as @Bletchleyite points out, is a pretty important destination on the Anglo-Scottish routes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

For the cost of building what would have to be a minimum 8-10 miles of brand new railway by-passing Lancaster, you may as well just 4-track the much shorter section from Lancaster station to where the Morecambe line branches off and grade-separate that junction. It'd probably be a similar or lower cost (more difficult in terms of land-take vs less new track and no need to build brand new cuttings/embankments), and you'd get all the same benefits without the huge disadvantage of preventing most long-distance trains from calling at Lancaster - which as @Bletchleyite points out, is a pretty important destination on the Anglo-Scottish routes.

Issue is - you'd need a lot of rebuilding to fit it through central Lancaster? And part of the point is that a bypass would increase speeds for long distance services as an additional benefit.