The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,045
P5 is too short. 171mWon't a 200m set already be able to do that? The terminator can't be 400m as the other half is the second Liverpool.
P5 is too short. 171mWon't a 200m set already be able to do that? The terminator can't be 400m as the other half is the second Liverpool.
P5 is too short. 171m
It's part of the city centre conservation area as I recall. So I can't see it happening in my lifetime.I think that as Lancaster station has Grade II listed status, there could well be problems encountered with a proposed rebuilding of the railway station.
You know on Google maps you can right click and measure distance directly?Ah, my memory fails me then, I thought it was the full length of 4.
Having done a quick aerial view it doesn't look 94m shorter than 4 (which is at least 265m to fit an 11 car Pendolino). I guess it is about signal positions for a reversal? Nonetheless it also looks like it would be very easily extended at the south end to be exactly the same length as 4. Using cars nearby as a guide (assuming them to be 4m long which is fairly average for a car) it looks to be physically maybe 20-30m shorter.
Edit: there is a 156 visible in 5 on Google Maps, using that as a guide it looks to be about 25 m.
Is there room to put the pointwork and signals in for the additional line?If you need an extra platform, just reopen and extend P6
It's been sitting unused since electrification, and possibly since Green Ayre closed
Room at both ends to extend, whereas 4&5 are limited
5 is the shortest of the through platforms: I remember a dead mk3/DVT/motorail set coasting into it, blocking the pointwork at both ends.
Apparently 4 would have been clear
You know on Google maps you can right click and measure distance directly?
It's a useful tool, although of course not 100% accurate.That I did not.
The signals are quite far back, although it may also be because of issues for despatchers sighting the length of the trains. Having had a look at some of the photos from the platforms, it seems that any rebuilding would be contingent on rebuilding the road bridge south of the platforms. I don't know Lancaster very well, but looking at the map it seems that would be incredibly disruptive and therefore expensive.I get 23.56m as the difference between the two southern ends and there's nothing I can see in the way of extending. Though the shape of the curve could mean the difference is slightly longer, but not 90-odd metres - that must be because of the signalling.
looks like it to meIs there room to put the pointwork and signals in for the additional line?
closing that bridge would cut the town in half, the alternative routes are all height or weight or width restricted.................... it seems that any rebuilding would be contingent on rebuilding the road bridge south of the platforms. I don't know Lancaster very well, but looking at the map it seems that would be incredibly disruptive and therefore expensive.
north end has space on the east side, where the remnants of the curve to Green Ayre still exists. You're limited by the embankment for the bridge, but there's enough room to feed a track into P6HS2 were fag packet looking at the north end.
It would be P5 they extend.closing that bridge would cut the town in half, the alternative routes are all height or weight or width restricted
north end has space on the east side, where the remnants of the curve to Green Ayre still exists. You're limited by the embankment for the bridge, but there's enough room to feed a track into P6
They would need to reinstate a bridge over Long Marsh Lane that was removed around 30 years ago in order to use P6 againlooks like it to me
Google maps still shows track in place to the south of P6 - I think it's used as an engineers siding
It's a useful tool, although of course not 100% accurate.
The signals are quite far back, although it may also be because of issues for despatchers sighting the length of the trains. Having had a look at some of the photos from the platforms, it seems that any rebuilding would be contingent on rebuilding the road bridge south of the platforms. I don't know Lancaster very well, but looking at the map it seems that would be incredibly disruptive and therefore expensive.
Have a look at the pointwork. You'd need to move or get rid of the overrun at the north end and the engineer's sidings at the south end. Not insurmountable by any means, but a potential cost and possible operational complication.You could add 23.56m by simply filling in the hole in what's there! Look at the Google aerial shot. It's nice and wide there too, quite narrow at the north end.
Have a look at the pointwork. You'd need to move or get rid of the overrun at the north end and the engineer's sidings at the south end. Not insurmountable by any means, but a potential cost and possible operational complication.
The overhang is one problem, although hardly unsolvable (York Platform 3/4 has a mid platform switch, for example). It's also about where the overlaps end up. At Chester, the lines are already very low speed and you can set flank protection for most routes on P3. At Lancaster if the overlap fouls the main lines it will have a significant capacity impact on the 125mph railway as they will have a 2-minute timeout before the road can be reset.What's the reason you can't have pointwork on a platform here, as some others do have it e.g. those with mid platform "overtakes" like Chester P3? Is it risk that something might overhang and whack it?
The south end was re-modelled in 2013 which allowed down trains into 4 and 5. Up Goods was upgraded to passenger standard and the up crossover out of platform 3 was upgraded from 15 to 40mph.
If you are coming out of 3 on the up chances are you arent going to get much above 40mph anyway so its moot. Any faster and a new crossover may not have fitted. Anything on the down into 4 or 5 would likely be facing a red so again not a lot of benefit.However the upgrade to 40mph was obviously a cost limited partial upgrade, as it is less than speed modern passenger stock can accelerate and decelerate when stopping at the platforms.
Having the loops helps timetabling, so ideally should be kept, but having to crawl through speed restricted junctions wastes time. But sometimes got to widen the formation to put in long turnouts and have loops that can hold 775m long trains.
The 10:30 still used to be express from Preston to Penrith even under Avanti as the Euston- Birmingham- Glasgow behind it served Lancaster and oxenholme but that’s been canned due to Covid so they managed to path the 10:30 to serve the both. In the done direction the 10:00,14:00 and 16:00 Glasgow to Euston via Birmingham never stopped at LancasterAll of the TPE Manchester services stop except the long standing 1010 from Manchester Airport. A few Liverpool ones don't and a few that aren't currently running, such as the 2212 from Edinburgh to Manchester Airport, which may or may not return.
As far as Avanti West Coast goes they've already acted since franchise start to add the Lancaster call to the 1030 London Euston to Glasgow Central. The 1330 does not stop but again this is because of a lack of time. You could say it may be able to call at Lancaster in place of Oxenholme Lake District as the Windermere service has a connection there instead so this would be preserved but that doesn't mean it is easy.
The change was planned in for the 1030 for May 2020, in addition to the service from the West Midlands. Of course, the May 2020 came and went in various stages of disarray so it never actually ran.The 10:30 still used to be express from Preston to Penrith even under Avanti as the Euston- Birmingham- Glasgow behind it served Lancaster and oxenholme but that’s been canned due to Covid so they managed to path the 10:30 to serve the both. In the done direction the 10:00,14:00 and 16:00 Glasgow to Euston via Birmingham never stopped at Lancaster
If it does the 10:30 calling patterns would most likely be Lancaster, Penrith, Carlisle and Glasgow with the one behind service stopping at Lancaster, oxenholme, Carlisle, Motherwell and GlasgowThe change was planned in for the 1030 for May 2020, in addition to the service from the West Midlands. Of course, the May 2020 came and went in various stages of disarray so it never actually ran.
If next year or the year after the two-hourly service between Glasgow and the West Midlands is restored I would hope to see the 1030 keep its call.