Is electrifying Windermere worth it?

[Mcr Warrior]

Given how short and simple the Windermere branch is, wiring it should not and would not detract from any other routes being done.

What are we talking? Approximately ten miles?

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes, 10 miles of single track, and that's it !

 

[Elecman]

It appears to be only the southernmost part of the bridge under Wallgate that's propped, possibly under the shops facing the station entrance (which may be owned by Network Rail??). But the whole bridge may lack electrification clearance. See the first 30 seconds of this cab video.

However this discussion belongs in another thread.

All the buildings on the bridge were Network Rail owned ( but may have been sold to The Arch Company)

 

[Agent_Squash]

To be fair unless you do Barrow (or truncate that to Lancaster and do Windermere from the Airport hourly instead) there's still going to be a need for bi-modes, and Windermere and Barrow interwork. I'm starting to think sticking 3-4 more 80x onto the forthcoming TPE order and having them operated by TPE as they were a while back would be the best way; the quality improvement would get more people travelling in the added capacity.

I think the lines moving to 80x and back to TPE would be good for the inter-urban service, but might be somewhat interesting for the locals. It would make it easier though if the Cumbrian Coast services were terminated at Barrow, so all services on the Windermere and Furness lines are TPE.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Yes, 10 miles of single track, and that's it !

And the branch platform at Oxenholme is already wired with the wire ending beyond the starting signal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the lines moving to 80x and back to TPE would be good for the inter-urban service, but might be somewhat interesting for the locals. It would make it easier though if the Cumbrian Coast services were terminated at Barrow, so all services on the Windermere and Furness lines are TPE.

But then you would only be able to serve one of them hourly.

The previous TPE pattern would work fine - two hourly to each from Manchester Airport with Northern filling the gaps on Barrow.

 

[Agent_Squash]

But then you would only be able to serve one of them hourly.

The previous TPE pattern would work fine - two hourly to each from Manchester Airport with Northern filling the gaps on Barrow.

The regular Barrow - Airport service has been particularly popular, and the churn at Lancaster seems to be reducing as people get used to the through services.

Two hourly would be a downgrade for Barrow - but equally, I do agree that Windermere deserves it. What options are there for splitting / joining that could potentially (bearing in mind 2x802 won’t fit into the Airport) allow everything to happen hourly?

 

[py_megapixel]

I honestly don't know what transferring Windermere and Barrow to Northern was meant to achieve. TPE running them seemed to work absolutely fine, and as of 2016 their new fleet was about to displace an lot of modern units of a reasonable type for that service with no clear future elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I honestly don't know what transferring Windermere and Barrow to Northern was meant to achieve. TPE running them seemed to work absolutely fine, and as of 2016 their new fleet was about to displace an lot of modern units of a reasonable type for that service with no clear future elsewhere.

TPE running them caused serious overcrowding on single 185s due to their low capacity. I used to avoid the TPEs for that reason. 80x on the other hand would allow electric running over most of the route and tons of capacity.

 

[py_megapixel]

Two hourly would be a downgrade for Barrow - but equally, I do agree that Windermere deserves it. What options are there for splitting / joining that could potentially (bearing in mind 2x802 won’t fit into the Airport) allow everything to happen hourly?

After electrification, serve Windermere by dividing the hourly Blackpool electric service at Preston, and send the diesel service to Barrow every hour (rather than the current arrangement of "mostly Barrow but sometimes Windermere"?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes it eliminates huge diesel under the wires running.

 

[Some guy]

I honestly don't know what transferring Windermere and Barrow to Northern was meant to achieve. TPE running them seemed to work absolutely fine, and as of 2016 their new fleet was about to displace an lot of modern units of a reasonable type for that service with no clear future elsewhere.

Tpe wanted to become an intercity operator which makes no sense as they do the stopping Manchester to Leeds services. So EX FTPE staff at barrow and Blackpool were transferred to work for northern to run the route

 

[Bletchleyite]

After electrification, serve Windermere by dividing the hourly Blackpool electric service at Preston, and send the diesel service to Barrow every hour (rather than the current arrangement of "mostly Barrow but sometimes Windermere"?

That's not a bad idea, though is the path available for an additional service through Lancaster each hour?

 

[nw1]

I think so as it would presumably be operationally more convenient and would avoid the need for lengthy diesel-under-the-wire runs. Under GBR, could it be brought back under the same pool of stock as is used for Manchester-Scotland? Is it still 350s on that route? (I've really lost track of what's going on in the north I will admit; the decision to switch the Windermere branch from TPE to Northern seemed a little odd as it makes the branch a Northern "island").

In an ideal world I can see the best service pattern, requiring minimal extra paths, might be to continue to run it as a shuttle at quiet times but have a few through trains to Manchester a day at busy times, detached from Scotland services at Lancaster or even Oxenholme. Not sure how well that would work in practice, assuming that GBR allows the franchising issue to be sorted out.

 

[Starmill]

Worth noting that an hourly service between Preston and Windermere will be very difficult. There are a couple of key reasons which are the rights of freight operators conflicting with some of the paths that might fit a standard hour, and the issue that there's only one platform at Oxenholme, therefore the up train must wait until the mainline is clear and then depart before the down train can arrive at Oxenholme. This will lead to waits on the down service, though at least it may now wait out of the way.

I think so as it would presumably be operationally more convenient and would avoid the need for lengthy diesel-under-the-wire runs. Under GBR, could it be brought back under the same pool of stock as is used for Manchester-Scotland? Is it still 350s on that route? (I've really lost track of what's going on in the north I will admit; the decision to switch the Windermere branch from TPE to Northern seemed a little odd as it makes the branch a Northern "island").

In an ideal world I can see the best service pattern, requiring minimal extra paths, might be to run it as a shuttle at quiet times but have a few through trains to Manchester a day at busy times, detached from Scotland services at Lancaster or even Oxenholme. Not sure how well that would work in practice.

There are 397s and an 802 working Manchester or Liverpool - Scotland services, but there's certainly no availability there for more work unfortunately.

 

[nw1]

There are 397s and an 802 working Manchester or Liverpool - Scotland services, but there's certainly no availability there for more work unfortunately.

Ah ok thanks. The stock on that route seems to change every couple of years!

Doesn't seem so long since the 185s came in, then we had electrification and 350s, and now it's changed again. I remember the Virgin hauled services and 158s from the late 90s too - was there also a period when 175s did Manchester-Scotland?

 

[92002]

Ah ok thanks. The stock on that route seems to change every couple of years!

Doesn't seem so long since the 185s came in, then we had electrification and 350s, and now it's changed again. I remember the Virgin hauled services and 158s from the late 90s too - was there also a period when 175s did Manchester-Scotland?

The 350s were a short term add on to an order for LNER till new units were constructed. They have now moved to LNWR.

 

[py_megapixel]

That's not a bad idea, though is the path available for an additional service through Lancaster each hour?

I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that the path used by the Windermere service theoretically exists in all hours, as I don't think any other service is missing from that section of the WCML in the hours when the Windermere one runs.

Edit: Just remembered it's used by the Barrow service... d'oh! (Beyond Lancaster it's presumably empty though)

The 350s were a short term add on to an order for LNER till new units were constructed. They have now moved to LNWR.

Sounds like nonsense to be honest. LNER didn't even exist when they were ordered, and even if they did, what use would they have had for 350s?

 

[Starmill]

Beyond Lancaster it's presumably empty though

I'm afraid that it's not. The first up slot Northern have is from Oxenholme at 1017 arriving in Preston at 1051. It might be possible to get this attached to the 1055 for Hazel Grove but it would be very tight. It is far from clear where there is any available slot earlier than this.

Not much better on the Down. There's a slot available for leaving Preston at 0539, and then their next one isn't until 0944. The arrival in Preston from Hazel Grove is at 0923 so it would be a 20 minute wait. Again not clear there'd be room here between these times.

 

[92002]

I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that the path used by the Windermere service theoretically exists in all hours, as I don't think any other service is missing from that section of the WCML in the hours when the Windermere one runs.

Edit: Just remembered it's used by the Barrow service... d'oh! (Beyond Lancaster it's presumably empty though)


Sounds like nonsense to be honest. LNER didn't even exist when they were ordered, and even if they did, what use would they have had for 350s?

I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that the path used by the Windermere service theoretically exists in all hours, as I don't think any other service is missing from that section of the WCML in the hours when the Windermere one runs.

Edit: Just remembered it's used by the Barrow service... d'oh! (Beyond Lancaster it's presumably empty though)


Sounds like nonsense to be honest. LNER didn't even exist when they were ordered, and even if they did, what use would they have had for 350s?

The nonsense you suggest was the order was addef to a LNWR order. Now known as West Midland Trains. Where they now operate.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm afraid that it's not. The first up slot Northern have is from Oxenholme at 1017 arriving in Preston at 1051. It might be possible to get this attached to the 1055 for Hazel Grove but it would be very tight. It is far from clear where there is any available slot earlier than this.

Is it plausible that this could be resolved by re-timing the Blackpool services (considering their are due to be changed in December anyway and no longer run through to Hazel Grove)? Also, would electric running save any time (I assume not as the 195s are quite quick already)?

The nonsense you suggest was the order was addef to a LNWR order. Now known as West Midland Trains. Where they now operate.

When the order was made, the franchise now held by West Midlands Trains (which owns the brands LNWR and West Midlands Railway) was held by London Midland. LNER, which is what you wrote in your previous post (which I now realise is a typo, sorry) is an unrelated train company operating totally different routes with rather different rolling stock. Apologies for the misunderstanding there.

 

[ac6000cw]

Just out of curiosity to those against Windermere electrification, if not something as simple as Windermere, then what? Seems like a case of being against any new electrification at all, and then people wonder why the railways are in such a dire state.....

Those of us old enough to remember BR of the 1970's know what 'dire state' means, and today's railway is probably in the best state it's been in for 50 years...and as a consequence is far more popular as a means of travel than it was back then too.

Re. Windermere electrification - yes it should have been done years ago, but honestly there are far more important (in terms of increasing the electrically-hauled traffic percentage) mainline electrification projects that need doing - e.g. Transpennine, East Midlands, South Yorkshire, the South West (Bristol/Taunton/Exeter at least) etc.

Also, according to the official UK transport statistics, the percentage of overall transport CO2 emissions generated by rail transport is only about 2.5%, so you can understand why electrifying the Windermere branch isn't likely to be high up the priorities list. Converting road transport to lower-carbon propulsion going to make a far bigger difference to CO2 emissions, as that accounts for around 90% of transport related CO2. I think around 80% of UK rail traffic is already electrically-hauled (based on what's been said on this forum in the past).

 

[yorksrob]

Those of us old enough to remember BR of the 1970's know what 'dire state' means, and today's railway is probably in the best state it's been in for 50 years...and as a consequence is far more popular as a means of travel than it was back then too.

Re. Windermere electrification - yes it should have been done years ago, but honestly there are far more important (in terms of increasing the electrically-hauled traffic percentage) mainline electrification projects that need doing - e.g. Transpennine, East Midlands, South Yorkshire, the South West (Bristol/Taunton/Exeter at least) etc.

Also, according to the official UK transport statistics, the percentage of overall transport CO2 emissions generated by rail transport is only about 2.5%, so you can understand why electrifying the Windermere branch isn't likely to be high up the priorities list. Converting road transport to lower-carbon propulsion going to make a far bigger difference to CO2 emissions, as that accounts for around 90% of transport related CO2. I think around 80% of UK rail traffic is already electrically-hauled (based on what's been said on this forum in the past).

None of which is really relevant to the ability to implement a quick win scheme which will easily and cheaply remove a lot of diesels from under the wires.

 

[MattRat]

Those of us old enough to remember BR of the 1970's know what 'dire state' means, and today's railway is probably in the best state it's been in for 50 years...and as a consequence is far more popular as a means of travel than it was back then too.

Re. Windermere electrification - yes it should have been done years ago, but honestly there are far more important (in terms of increasing the electrically-hauled traffic percentage) mainline electrification projects that need doing - e.g. Transpennine, East Midlands, South Yorkshire, the South West (Bristol/Taunton/Exeter at least) etc.

Also, according to the official UK transport statistics, the percentage of overall transport CO2 emissions generated by rail transport is only about 2.5%, so you can understand why electrifying the Windermere branch isn't likely to be high up the priorities list. Converting road transport to lower-carbon propulsion going to make a far bigger difference to CO2 emissions, as that accounts for around 90% of transport related CO2. I think around 80% of UK rail traffic is already electrically-hauled (based on what's been said on this forum in the past).

It's the principal. If minor projects can't be done, then major projects don't have a hope. Because the same excuses for minor upgrades will be used for major upgrades, plus the cost arguments (or cost fallacy, as I call it).

Just a side note, the best way to reduce road CO2 is to simply have a modal shift to rail where possible. It's worked wonders in Switzerland.

 

[92002]

It's the principal. If minor projects can't be done, then major projects don't have a hope. Because the same excuses for minor upgrades will be used for major upgrades, plus the cost arguments (or cost fallacy, as I call it).

Just a side note, the best way to reduce road CO2 is to simply have a modal shift to rail where possible. It's worked wonders in Switzerland.

If Windemere was in Switzerland it would have been done in the 70s as part of the WCML. As well as the HGVs being moved by trains.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Tpe wanted to become an intercity operator which makes no sense as they do the stopping Manchester to Leeds services. So EX FTPE staff at barrow and Blackpool were transferred to work for northern to run the route

It wasn't about what TPE "wanted", it was led by the Department for Transport IIRC. I'm not sure what you'd achieve by handing it back to TPE now, other than the imagined "prestige" of being operated by a long-distance operator.

Likewise as much as bi-modes allow fewer diesel miles under the wires, if the existence of bi-modes means that a line as simple to wire as Windermere falls down the pecking order, then the advent of bi-modes will do more harm than good.

 

[HSTEd]

You might want to go straight to the giant projects immediately - but the railway now has a proven track record of botching major electrification schemes at every step.

Often by over optimistic assumptions for new equipment that were not properly tested before deployment.

The railway has to rebuild trust, especially at the Treasury, that it can deliver what it promises.
The only way to do that is to do minor electrification schemes and, importantly, not botch them.

How seasonal is traffic to Windermere? Would it be possible, for example, to close the line one winter to get the work done more cheaply?

 

[Starmill]

Is it plausible that this could be resolved by re-timing the Blackpool services (considering their are due to be changed in December anyway and no longer run through to Hazel Grove)? Also, would electric running save any time (I assume not as the 195s are quite quick already)?

The December timetable as per the consultation doesn't appear to offer anything better I'm afraid, but then we don't know exactly what will be the outworking there. As for changing the times yes probably between Preston and Blackpool North, subject to the minimum permitted turnaround time, and no almost certainly not between Preston and Manchester Airport.

 

[nw1]

I'm afraid that it's not. The first up slot Northern have is from Oxenholme at 1017 arriving in Preston at 1051. It might be possible to get this attached to the 1055 for Hazel Grove but it would be very tight.

2 or 3 minutes in between the rear unit arriving and the combined formation departing was widespread on the Southern Region so presumably 4 minutes would in theory be plenty of time if there was sufficient demand for a through journey at that time.

I guess the issue is that the WCML is more prone to delays than a more self-contained commuter network of the sort which the Southern used to practice splitting and joining on - so relying on a rear portion from Windermere might make the existing service (i.e. the 1055) prone to delays, and then you'd end up with the situation where the existing train departs on its own and the Windermere ends up terminating in Preston anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

If Windemere was in Switzerland it would have been done in the 70s as part of the WCML. As well as the HGVs being moved by trains.

You might want to go straight to the giant projects immediately - but the railway now has a proven track record of botching major electrification schemes at every step.

Often by over optimistic assumptions for new equipment that were not properly tested before deployment.

The railway has to rebuild trust, especially at the Treasury, that it can deliver what it promises.
The only way to do that is to do minor electrification schemes and, importantly, not botch them.

How seasonal is traffic to Windermere? Would it be possible, for example, to close the line one winter to get the work done more cheaply?

All well and good, but the railway has to get on with electrification to show it's cost effectiveness. Windermere is as good easy line to start.