Lancaster's Timetable Abomination

[ccityplanner12]

Planning a trip up to Glasgow, I noticed the following at Lancaster C on the Sunday table:
TPE Glasgow Central - Manchester Victoria service 1M93 arrives in platform 4 (the Up main) at 10:40, & stays for 1 minute. 2Y09, a Northern sprinter to Leeds departs shortly afterwards at 10:41. This allows for only a 1-minute connection time.
The irony is that it wouldn't be too bad if 2Y09 departed from platform 5, but it uses platform 1, the furthest possible platform away, requiring at least a 145-yard sprint. The train arrives at 10:25 from Leeds, so there is nothing preventing it from going in 5.
I often have trouble at Barnes, where Up main-line arrivals occur almost immediately before Down loop-line departures, a connection which I can never make, which pushes me onto the bus, but at Lancaster the wait for the next train is 2 hours, but despite this, changing at Lancaster is still the fastest way of getting from Glasgow to Skipton.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/LAN/2019/07/07/1041?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
I have heard that BR would deliberately use timetabling that was not user-friendly to give unprofitable lines a bad reputation so people would stay quiet about them closing down, but this is unlikely to be a remnant from those days as (I believe) Transpenniners via Lowton are a more recent innovation.

 

[PHILIPE]

Planning a trip up to Glasgow, I noticed the following at Lancaster C on the Sunday table:
TPE Glasgow Central - Manchester Victoria service 1M93 arrives in platform 4 (the Up main) at 10:40, & stays for 1 minute. 2Y09, a Northern sprinter to Leeds departs shortly afterwards at 10:41. This allows for only a 1-minute connection time.
The irony is that it wouldn't be too bad if 2Y09 departed from platform 5, but it uses platform 1, the furthest possible platform away, requiring at least a 145-yard sprint. The train arrives at 10:25 from Leeds, so there is nothing preventing it from going in 5.
I often have trouble at Barnes, where Up main-line arrivals occur almost immediately before Down loop-line departures, a connection which I can never make, which pushes me onto the bus, but at Lancaster the wait for the next train is 2 hours, but despite this, changing at Lancaster is still the fastest way of getting from Glasgow to Skipton.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/LAN/2019/07/07/1041?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
I have heard that BR would deliberately use timetabling that was not user-friendly to give unprofitable lines a bad reputation so people would stay quiet about them closing down, but this is unlikely to be a remnant from those days as (I believe) Transpenniners via Lowton are a more recent innovation.

If there is not a minimum of 6 minutes between trains at Lanacaster then it is not a planned connection.

 

[Merseysider]

If there is not a minimum of 6 minutes between trains at Lanacaster then it is not a planned connection.

Correct, but the point being made, I believe, is that it would be a lot more passenger-friendly to make the connection time realistic, ie 6 minutes instead of 1, given that the following service is 2 hours later.

 

[Ianno87]

Planning a trip up to Glasgow, I noticed the following at Lancaster C on the Sunday table:
TPE Glasgow Central - Manchester Victoria service 1M93 arrives in platform 4 (the Up main) at 10:40, & stays for 1 minute. 2Y09, a Northern sprinter to Leeds departs shortly afterwards at 10:41. This allows for only a 1-minute connection time.
The irony is that it wouldn't be too bad if 2Y09 departed from platform 5, but it uses platform 1, the furthest possible platform away, requiring at least a 145-yard sprint. The train arrives at 10:25 from Leeds, so there is nothing preventing it from going in 5.
I often have trouble at Barnes, where Up main-line arrivals occur almost immediately before Down loop-line departures, a connection which I can never make, which pushes me onto the bus, but at Lancaster the wait for the next train is 2 hours, but despite this, changing at Lancaster is still the fastest way of getting from Glasgow to Skipton.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/LAN/2019/07/07/1041?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
I have heard that BR would deliberately use timetabling that was not user-friendly to give unprofitable lines a bad reputation so people would stay quiet about them closing down, but this is unlikely to be a remnant from those days as (I believe) Transpenniners via Lowton are a more recent innovation.

The timing of the Glasgow-Manchester service is going to be heavily constrained by pathing throughout its journey, particularly the approaches to Glasgow and Manchester. Not much can be done about that.

The Lancaster-Leeds looks like it has to get to Shipley to be in front of a Bradford-Leeds local. It cannot be behind this as that would clash with a Leeds-Knaresborough service at Armley Jn. So cannot leave Lancaster any later.

Such is timetabling on Britain's railwats

 

[Mag_seven]

In an ideal timetabling world everything would connect into everything else. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal timetabling world and something has to give somewhere.

 

[PHILIPE]

Connection planning can be very tricky. If you adjust timings at location X in order to effect a connection you may break another connection at Y further down the line

 

[thenorthern]

Lancaster has always had annoying connections back in the 1990s I remember having to wait over an hour for the Barrow-in-Furness train after getting off a Virgin CrossCountry Train.

Back then the timetable counted for nothing as Virgin CrossCountry trains were often late on that part of the route.

 

[LancasterRed]

Lancaster is a frustrating one with timetabling. The bulk of southbound services tend to come in one block.

You've also now got Manchester-Windermeres running non-stop from Preston to Oxenholme now which has left me confused. I assume this due to pathing issues otherwise? I'm not sure what the reason could be.

 

[Ianno87]

Lancaster is a frustrating one with timetabling. The bulk of southbound services tend to come in one block.

You've also now got Manchester-Windermeres running non-stop from Preston to Oxenholme now which has left me confused. I assume this due to pathing issues otherwise? I'm not sure what the reason could be.

Passenger trains are bunched to leave nice big gaps for freights to crawl (and I mean crawl) up the climbs to Shap and Beattock between them.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

This is a problem nationally, as we now have about 200% of the passenger services BR had to accommodate. Local stations generally have all day services as well, so the opportunity to just depart later for a key connection and knock out the smallest stop no longer exists.

(Regional Railways got really good at doing that, to the extent that many minor wayside stations virtually reached parliamentary service levels.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've also now got Manchester-Windermeres running non-stop from Preston to Oxenholme now which has left me confused. I assume this due to pathing issues otherwise? I'm not sure what the reason could be.

That is very much not desirable, so it must be so. I think it needs a reshuffle to try to find a way to avoid that - the regional service really should be running all stations!

Is it done to mitigate the use of 90mph 158s perhaps and could be reversed when it's a solid 195?

 

[DarloRich]

Sadly this is an example of professional planners having to live in the real world of a very busy and very congested network while trying to fit in an ever increasing number of trains. The picture is invariably much more complicated than posters here will acknowledge. I wonder if the real constraint at Lancaster is the need to path much slower freight trains on the WCML and the need to hit a certain gap near Leeds for the northern train.

btw: Lancaster's Timetable Abomination - that isnt in any way a massive over reaction is it?

 

[30907]

The timing of the Glasgow-Manchester service is going to be heavily constrained by pathing throughout its journey, particularly the approaches to Glasgow and Manchester. Not much can be done about that.

The Lancaster-Leeds looks like it has to get to Shipley to be in front of a Bradford-Leeds local. It cannot be behind this as that would clash with a Leeds-Knaresborough service at Armley Jn. So cannot leave Lancaster any later.

Such is timetabling on Britain's railwats

In this particular case, as it is a Sunday and the line is relatively quiet, it could actually run 10 later throughout with no conflicts and still have 42min before its return working. The Glasgow service runs slightly off-pattern so it's only the one connection.

Perhaps the OP could write politely to Northern, point out the problem, and ask them to implement the alteration from December?

 

[yorksrob]

That is very much not desirable, so it must be so. I think it needs a reshuffle to try to find a way to avoid that - the regional service really should be running all stations!

Is it done to mitigate the use of 90mph 158s perhaps and could be reversed when it's a solid 195?

Indeed. Particularly if you're travelling from the Leeds direction towards Windermere. Lancaster is an important hub, so I can't imagine they'd want to miss it out.

There seem to be a number of freight loops between Preston and Glasgow. Can't they make better use of these ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd just have all trains between Preston and Carlisle call at all stations, to be honest.

 

[Ianno87]

In this particular case, as it is a Sunday and the line is relatively quiet, it could actually run 10 later throughout with no conflicts and still have 42min before its return working.

Then depends whether 42 minutes is a sufficient break for the crew at Leeds (if they've worked it through from Lancaster and will be working back again).

 

[Ianno87]

I'd just have all trains between Preston and Carlisle call at all stations, to be honest.

...aaaaannnnnd there go your Glasgow turnround times in the Pendolinos.... 40 minutes (plenty) suddenly becomes 30 minutes (risky day in day out for the length of journey)....

 

[VT 390]

...aaaaannnnnd there go your Glasgow turnround times in the Pendolinos.... 40 minutes (plenty) suddenly becomes 30 minutes (risky day in day out for the length of journey)....

Also with the TPE service every hour and 2 Virgin ones plus northern extras to Oxenholme it seams like to many services for Oxeholme and Penrith, especially off peak.

 

[30907]

Then depends whether 42 minutes is a sufficient break for the crew at Leeds (if they've worked it through from Lancaster and will be working back again).

Thought 30 was enough for a PNB?
But I assume the crew will have come into Lancs with the set from Leeds or Skipton.

 

[bb21]

There seem to be a number of freight loops between Preston and Glasgow. Can't they make better use of these ?

You simply do not stop-start freights unnecessarily just because the loops are there. By the time they have slowed down, moved slowly into the loop, then the same in reverse, you have eaten up quite a few paths.

If you can keep freight on the move, keep them going.

Thought 30 was enough for a PNB?

If we are talking about an official PNB, plus walking times, I very much doubt it.

If it were simply a turnaround with the official PNB elsewhere, 30 would be fine.