Windermere line: suggestions to improve services on this line

[BS56]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/windermere-line-electrification-progress.191705/#post-4192064

Will increasing line capacity mean putting in a passing loop somewhere along the line say Burnside ?

 

[Meerkat]

Obviously scope escalation can be a project killer but is there any scope for expansion, ie would the power and capacity on WCML allow for a second Windermere platform? Surely would be a big market for charters to extend the season, and maybe direct trains from London/Manchester aimed at the outdoor enthusiasts market.
It would be a shame for electrification to freeze the minimalist provision for decades.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A second platform at Windermere would seem a no-brainer on the face of it.

 

[jonesy3001]

is there space to either redouble the line or to put loops in incase of increase of capacity, since it was double track before the beeching cuts.

 

[hwl]

Just electrifying Oxenholme - Burnside would be sufficient for battery hybrid duty cycle for charging to allow it to be operated as shuttle service on the branch. And dirt cheap + all outside the NP too.

 

[edwin_m]

A second platform at Windermere would seem a no-brainer on the face of it.

A second platform wouldn't be much use. It would allow a train to depart as soon as one arrives in the other platform, saving a few minutes of turnaround time, but the train that just arrived would then have to hang around until the next train arrived, unless the signalling was altered to allow two trains to follow relatively closely in the same direction which isn't particularly useful for passengers. With a one-way journey time of about 20min I'm not sure this would work anyway.

The service could be improved to half-hourly with a passing loop somewhere near the middle (in time) of the branch, but I would have thought an hourly service was adequate.

 

[cle]

An hourly electric service to Manchester would be fantastic - and hopefully the Barrow route could go to hourly too.

Cue debates on Airport vs Victoria, or perhaps Stockport? And Liverpool could well feature, perhaps in the same clock slots as the new TPEs to Glasgow?

These all allow even more skip stopping between the Lakes stations themselves on the longer distance services to Scotland.

 

[Dr Hoo]

is there space to either redouble the line or to put loops in incase of increase of capacity, since it was double track before the beeching cuts.

In the interests of accuracy, I thought that the singling came about as part of the ‘Surplus Track Capacity [elimination] Grant’ initiative under the Transport Act 1968 rather than being a Beeching era initiative.

 

[Meerkat]

A second platform would allow charters to sit there, or a long distance service (which could be OA or charter for walkers etc rather than dining train/excursion type)

 

[paul1609]

Obviously scope escalation can be a project killer but is there any scope for expansion, ie would the power and capacity on WCML allow for a second Windermere platform? Surely would be a big market for charters to extend the season, and maybe direct trains from London/Manchester aimed at the outdoor enthusiasts market.
It would be a shame for electrification to freeze the minimalist provision for decades.

As a outdoor enthusiast from the South East if I want to go to the Lakes, Penrith would be my preferred Railhead. Changing at Oxenholme for a branch line train and then to a bus on the outskirts of Windermere and then another bus at Ambleside is necessary to reach the best walking areas. The line needs extending to Ambleside.

 

[adamedwards]

If only Wordsworth hadn't been such a nimby.

If the was a passing loop, there could be a service gap for an excursion train which I assume would need top and tailing which would then shunt back to the loop at Oxenholme to layover. Might that be more cost effective than a second platform which would probably need to take land from the Booths carpark?

 

[Elecman]

Just electrifying Oxenholme - Burnside would be sufficient for battery hybrid duty cycle for charging to allow it to be operated as shuttle service on the branch. And dirt cheap + all outside the NP too.

But the NP authorities are in favour of electrification so why complicate matters?

 

[hwl]

But the NP authorities are in favour of electrification so why complicate matters?

The NP authorities might be but the local NIMBYs might not - see Goring gap.

 

[Elecman]

The NP authorities might be but the local NIMBYs might not - see Goring gap.

But NIMBYs don’t give planning approval

 

[hwl]

But NIMBYs don’t give planning approval

They can give those that do lots of headaches though...

 

[randyrippley]

As a outdoor enthusiast from the South East if I want to go to the Lakes, Penrith would be my preferred Railhead. Changing at Oxenholme for a branch line train and then to a bus on the outskirts of Windermere and then another bus at Ambleside is necessary to reach the best walking areas. The line needs extending to Ambleside.

How do you propose to do that without wholescale demolitions?

 

[randyrippley]

If only Wordsworth hadn't been such a nimby.

If the was a passing loop, there could be a service gap for an excursion train which I assume would need top and tailing which would then shunt back to the loop at Oxenholme to layover. Might that be more cost effective than a second platform which would probably need to take land from the Booths carpark?

Correct - to make room for a second platform you would need to convert the existing platform into an island, taking land from the car park for the new track. Theres a bank on the other side of the track preventing a new platform there, unless you suspended it over Lakeland Plastic's car park

 

[adamedwards]

I was thinking more you build a second platform opposite the existing one which will likely mean taking land from the supermarket car park on the side of the line. As it's the site of an original platform that would work.

As to extending to Ambleside, if that ever happened it would have to be in tunnel all the way to an underground station. I suspect electric buses will be more likely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you propose to do that without wholescale demolitions?

One option would be to turn the branch into a tram and go onto the road at Windermere station. It's one of the two options I'd favour, though I prefer the idea of hourly through trains from Manchester Airport to both Barrow and Windermere using portion worked bi-modes or even better battery trains.

 

[randyrippley]

One option would be to turn the branch into a tram and go onto the road at Windermere station. It's one of the two options I'd favour, though I prefer the idea of hourly through trains from Manchester Airport to both Barrow and Windermere using portion worked bi-modes or even better battery trains.

I doubt a tram could cope with the gradients and bends on that road, nor the existing traffic cope with the trams

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt a tram could cope with the gradients and bends on that road

I bet it could.

nor the existing traffic cope with the trams

It would have to be part of a concerted effort to get cars out of the Park (e.g. to a park and ride somewhere in the manner of the likes of Zermatt) - it couldn't realistically stand alone.

 

[randyrippley]

I was thinking more you build a second platform opposite the existing one which will likely mean taking land from the supermarket car park on the side of the line. As it's the site of an original platform that would work.

As to extending to Ambleside, if that ever happened it would have to be in tunnel all the way to an underground station. I suspect electric buses will be more likely.

the original platforms are now the supermarket............if you built on the other side of the track from the existing platform you'd be building in air over the Lakeland Plastics site

 

[Bletchleyite]

the original platforms are now the supermarket............if you built on the other side of the track from the existing platform you'd be building in air over the Lakeland Plastics site

Eh?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W...11da459e2ef94fee!8m2!3d54.3800842!4d-2.904022

It's easy to see that there is plenty of room for another platform alongside the supermarket car park. It wouldn't even need any land take beyond a row of parking spaces. The coping stones are even still there.

The Lakeland store is on the other side (the same side as the present platform).

 

[Meerkat]

The local authority and national Park would have to make a choice - make a new green site available for Booths so they can build a decent transport interchange to get more people into the park without their cars, which then support the bus services and could support an electric hire car plan, and a charter turning out into a row of coaches.

 

[adamedwards]

You can see how far the platforms used to extend out of the train shed (now Booths) on this map which compares old OS maps with current satalite views in Bing Maps. Hours of fun looking at old railways!
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=18&lat=54.3792&lon=-2.9029&layers=168&right=BingHyb

 

[Bletchleyite]

The local authority and national Park would have to make a choice - make a new green site available for Booths so they can build a decent transport interchange to get more people into the park without their cars, which then support the bus services and could support an electric hire car plan, and a charter turning out into a row of coaches.

Leave Booths where it is, it's very convenient when arriving by train. I don't think any such P&R should be there, it'd be better sited nearer one of the main roads. Oxenholme itself wouldn't be a bad bet, there are plenty of fields off the A65 that could be used. Windermere station as it is has plenty of space for a decent bus interchange.

I am unconvinced that public money should be spent on enabling works for charter trains, which is all the second platform would be. A loop allowing a half-hourly service at busy times would be better value.

 

[adamedwards]

The solution to traffic should be a congestion charge on all non-local vehicles entering the National Park priced to encourage use of the buses and with the buses subsidised from the revenue. Exemptions for disabled drivers. All buses to have room for bikes on every route. ideally you want to discourage people taking their cars, not doing park and ride which means the M6 is full of traffic.

As for the trains, yes to restoring long distance links such as London. It could be called The Lakes Express!

 

[adamedwards]

Should have added, long distance to London would be a 5 cars 221 replacement train joining up with a similar unit from Blackpool at Preston or Chester at Crewe.

 

[Meerkat]

Congestion charge would be incredibly unpopular and damaging to the tourism industry.
Much subtler to hammer the parking charges (can still give locals discounts)

When I say charters I am thinking of transport charters - ie a tour company charters the train with coaches to meet it. Less about the train trip, more that the train trip is quicker and more comfortable than doing the M6 in a coach.
However it is a fair point that Oxenholme could do the job, but that can’t be cross platform and really needs a Kendal Southern bypass

 

[VT 390]

However it is a fair point that Oxenholme could do the job, but that can’t be cross platform and really needs a Kendal Southern bypass

As long as the connection could be guaranteed does it matter if it is cross platform interchange or not as Oxenholme has ramps (I think) between the platforms so is accessible and other places have non cross platform interchanges on to branch lines which work fine.