Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,997
What are we talking? Approximately ten miles?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?Given how short and simple the Windermere branch is, wiring it should not and would not detract from any other routes being done.
All the buildings on the bridge were Network Rail owned ( but may have been sold to The Arch Company)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.
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.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.
And the branch platform at Oxenholme is already wired with the wire ending beyond the starting signal.Yes, 10 miles of single track, and that's it !
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.
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.
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"?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?
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 routeI 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.
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"?
There are 397s and an 802 working Manchester or Liverpool - Scotland services, but there's certainly no availability there for more work unfortunately.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.
The 350s were a short term add on to an order for LNER till new units were constructed. They have now moved to LNWR.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?
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.That's not a bad idea, though is the path available for an additional service through Lancaster each hour?
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 350s were a short term add on to an order for LNER till new units were constructed. They have now moved to LNWR.
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.Beyond Lancaster it's presumably empty though
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.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?
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)?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.
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.The nonsense you suggest was the order was addef to a LNWR order. Now known as West Midland Trains. Where they now operate.
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.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).
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).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).
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.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.
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.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
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.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)?
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'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.
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?