Wires to Windermere announced

[brianthegiant]

My hope would be that connections between northbound VT services and FTP services to Windermere might end up better connected at Oxenholme as a result of the changes.

It seems that whenever we travel to Windermere/Kendal etc via Crewe & Oxenholme we just miss the FTP service & have to wait an hour at Oxenholme, which is fairly boring with no pub nearby.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wondered...

why you didn't use 'wandered' as in the original

You missed my subtle change to "wondered", as this was in relation to the "Network Rail catenaries" to reflect the wonderment that he would see on seeing these items...

 

[WatcherZero]

It tends to be an addon to long distance routes operated by 185's but in theory its removing the need post electrification for a single DMU to act as a shuttle between Windermere and Oxenholme or two between Windermere and Preston or Lancaster.

 

[HSTEd]

Just wait until someone suggests tourist specials between Euston and Windermere in the summer.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

... and then realises how short the platforms at Windermere are.

 

[ainsworth74]

... and then realises how short the platforms at Windermere are.

That's why trains have SDO...

Only playing devils advocate here

 

[Dunc108]

... and then realises how short the platforms at Windermere are.

id bet Windermere could accomodate a 5 car Voyager.... just 185s are 3 coaches & they certainly dont fill it ..

 

[Dunc108]

My hope would be that connections between northbound VT services and FTP services to Windermere might end up better connected at Oxenholme as a result of the changes.

It seems that whenever we travel to Windermere/Kendal etc via Crewe & Oxenholme we just miss the FTP service & have to wait an hour at Oxenholme, which is fairly boring with no pub nearby.

Yes, agree, Oxenholme isnt the nicest of junctions for long waits ... the toilets arent perfect & the waiting rooms a little bleak. Its nicer waiting at Lancaster - better toilets, costa coffee, warm waiting rooms, buffets on both plats etc.

 

[The Planner]

162m long at Windermere.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, agree, Oxenholme isnt the nicest of junctions for long waits ... the toilets arent perfect & the waiting rooms a little bleak. Its nicer waiting at Lancaster - better toilets, costa coffee, warm waiting rooms, buffets on both plats etc.

And the Merchants five minutes away is a decent enough place to wait in.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

there are decent pubs at Oxenholme there up the hill from the station.

 

[edwin_m]

I doubt that it could ever cost more to sort the crossing out (even 20mph would probably suffice?) than it would to build a bridge there. It's never going to be a fast or particularly busy bit of railway, so I can't see why an AOCL would be considered unsuitable.

Unless I'm missing something it's an AOCL now and most people on here seem to consider it unsuitable!

Just looking at Streetview actually on the crossing and the view down the line away from the station looks pretty good so there might be scope for increasing the speed from this direction. The view towards the station may be less good (there's a train stopped there so hard to tell) but perhaps the crossing could be operated by a plunger on the platform with the train able to start away with no restriction on its speed once the sequence has operated?

It will probably have barriers added at some point under the current programme. While a bridge is more expensive than upgrading the crossing it takes away the ongoing maintenance, future replacement and safety risks so if feasible it might be the best option in the long term. However I'm not sure the people in the former keeper's cottage will be that keen on having a massive structure at the end of their garden.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

id bet Windermere could accomodate a 5 car Voyager.... just 185s are 3 coaches & they certainly dont fill it ..

Yes, so spend £16m putting up wires ...

... and run Voyagers?

 

[Tomnick]

It is indeed an AOCL currently, and I don't see the problem with that! Obviously the very slow permissible speed approaching the crossing is the less desirable part of it, but I'm sure that's relatively easily rectified. I don't know how Down trains strike in (treadles in rear of the station with a timer to suppress the sequence, plunger at the station or treadles as the train leaves the station at walking pace), but in the absence of a 'protecting' signal and stopping/non-stopping controls, there'd always he an enforced (near) stop at Burneside on the Down - which I suppose might be less than ideal.

 

[snail]

With the track electrified, I suspect that the line could experience quite a boom in passengers in the coming years. I suspect also that the demand will be there to run practically every train onto Preston, Manchester or whereever.

I don't understand some of the logic used on this thread. How is electrification going to increase the number of passengers? Most trains run to Preston or Manchester now, all this proposal is going to do is allow this to continue when NW trains switch to electric stock.

 

[tbtc]

Good news - sounds like a lot of money for ten miles of single line (at low speed) but hopefully worth it.

I don't agree with wiring to Barrow being affected by this - its a long way (40 miles) and if you wired to Barrow then you'd either only free up a bi-hourly train service or see the direct link from Whitehaven/ Workington to Lancaster cut.

Plenty of other better uses of forty-ish miles of electrification in north west England (like both branches of the line from Manchester/ Bolton to Wigan and Southport/ Kirby). In those terms, Barrow remains a low priority for me.

Makes me wonder what other "little rabbits" there are up the Government's sleeve - ready to be announced to get lots of little publicity boosts (like GOBLIN) - anyone want to bet on Selby - Hull to be announced by the end of the year?

I don't understand some of the logic used on this thread. How is electrification going to increase the number of passengers? Most trains run to Preston or Manchester now, all this proposal is going to do is allow this to continue when NW trains switch to electric stock.

No they don't - not since the (2007?) changes where most of the TPE services from Manchester Airport to Windermere were diverted to Glasgow/ Edinburgh (to free up Virgin Voyagers for use on enhanced Cheshire - London services).

 

[Dunc108]

Yes, so spend £16m putting up wires ...

... and run Voyagers?

I was thinking pre-electrification. Still, London services to Windermere I think will remain a pipe dream.

Of course if they stuck Pantographs on Voyagers then it wouldn't be a problem would it, not to mention make them more versatile for electrified lines?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't understand some of the logic used on this thread. How is electrification going to increase the number of passengers? Most trains run to Preston or Manchester now, all this proposal is going to do is allow this to continue when NW trains switch to electric stock.

Apart from retaining current through services it opens the possibility of others, though they might have to be 350-type trains.
It allows the recycling of one or two 185s for other work, and somewhere a couple of Pacers will drop off the bottom of the heap.
But we still can't really judge how it will all turn out because the fleet/service patterns for the new franchises (Northern/TPE taken together) have not been specified.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I was thinking pre-electrification. Still, London services to Windermere I think will remain a pipe dream.

Of course if they stuck Pantographs on Voyagers then it wouldn't be a problem would it, not to mention make them more versatile for electrified lines?

Indeed not

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Plenty of other better uses of forty-ish miles of electrification in north west England (like both branches of the line from Manchester/ Bolton to Wigan and Southport/ Kirby). In those terms, Barrow remains a low priority for me.

I absolutely agree. Barrow would be nice but the aforementioned would be higher priority in my eyes too.

Makes me wonder what other "little rabbits" there are up the Government's sleeve - ready to be announced to get lots of little publicity boosts (like GOBLIN) - anyone want to bet on Selby - Hull to be announced by the end of the year?

As I have said previously in this forum " I am a cynic where government of all shades are concerned. Politicians love two or three bites of the cherry". So no I would not bet against you. In fact I am absolutely convinced that there will be further little announcements here and small announcements there etc.

I am quite happy for politicians to have their moments of glory and I will not complain. All that matters to me is THAT IT GETS DONE. Railways have been the cinderella for far too long.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't understand some of the logic used on this thread. How is electrification going to increase the number of passengers? Most trains run to Preston or Manchester now, all this proposal is going to do is allow this to continue when NW trains switch to electric stock.

It seems to be experience from numerous electrification schemes in the past that electrification almost invariably results in increases in passenger numbers. I'm not too sure of the precise reasons for it though.

And most Windermere trains do not currently continue to Preston or Manchester. It used to be roughly alternative trains but at some point in the last few years that was cut back. Currently on weekdays only 5 of the 17 daily departures from Windermere continue past Oxenholme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is indeed an AOCL currently, and I don't see the problem with that! Obviously the very slow permissible speed approaching the crossing is the less desirable part of it, but I'm sure that's relatively easily rectified. I don't know how Down trains strike in (treadles in rear of the station with a timer to suppress the sequence, plunger at the station or treadles as the train leaves the station at walking pace), but in the absence of a 'protecting' signal and stopping/non-stopping controls, there'd always he an enforced (near) stop at Burneside on the Down - which I suppose might be less than ideal.

What's AOCL?

Not all trains stop at Burneside by the way, so what ever the mechanism for the crossing is, I'd be fairly sure it can't depend on stopping there. Indeed, I'd say it's the trains that don't stop there that are mostly badly affected by the 5mph restriction.

 

[edwin_m]

What's AOCL?

Automatic Open Crossing Locally monitored. This means that the train driver needs to see a flashing white light to confirm that the crossing has operated, and the speed limit is so that the train can stop before the crossing if it doesn't operate in time.

Thanks for the tip on trains not stopping. In this situation the crossing is probably triggered by a detector just beyond the normal stopping place, so the train has to crawl up to it waiting for the white light to come on. The alternative would be to trigger on the approach to the station but then a stopping train would close it to road traffic for quite a long time with a risk that impatient road drivers would assume it was broken and drive through the red lights. A crossing predictor, which can detect how fast the train is approaching and adjust the sequence accordingly, may be able to help here. These are new in the UK but have been used for some time in other countries.

http://www.therailengineer.com/2012/08/23/pedicting-the-future-of-level-crossings/

 

[The Planner]

Considering it is currently an isolated section of line, and is likely to be so to an extent when the knitting goes up, how vital is journey time along there? Is it putting people off now that they have to slow to 5mph and the subsequent time penalty? I imagine something will be done about it in the grand scheme of things, but I'd discount a bridge straight away and there will still be a fairly punitive line speed restriction.

 

[lancastrian]

Good news - sounds like a lot of money for ten miles of single line (at low speed) but hopefully worth it.

I don't agree with wiring to Barrow being affected by this - its a long way (40 miles) and if you wired to Barrow then you'd either only free up a bi-hourly train service or see the direct link from Whitehaven/ Workington to Lancaster cut.

Plenty of other better uses of forty-ish miles of electrification in north west England (like both branches of the line from Manchester/ Bolton to Wigan and Southport/ Kirby). In those terms, Barrow remains a low priority for me.

Makes me wonder what other "little rabbits" there are up the Government's sleeve - ready to be announced to get lots of little publicity boosts (like GOBLIN) - anyone want to bet on Selby - Hull to be announced by the end of the year?



No they don't - not since the (2007?) changes where most of the TPE services from Manchester Airport to Windermere were diverted to Glasgow/ Edinburgh (to free up Virgin Voyagers for use on enhanced Cheshire - London services).

I am pleased to see that the Windermere line is being electrified. In the past to many short lines like this were ignored during major electrification projects, leaving many DMU 'islands' all over the network. Some have since been electrified and some are still needing to be.

Regarding a loop on the Oxenholme to Windermere line, I would agree whole heartedly, that will not only double capacity, but increase flexibility on the line. The trouble is with these glorified 'long sidings' is when there is a breakdown the whole route is blocked until the 'failed' unit is removed or fixed.

I wont take that bet about the Selby to Hull line, as a fully paid up cynic, I not only expect to hear about a steady release of new electrification projects being announced between now and election day in 2015, but I also fully expect that they will end with a major announcement just before the election is called.

I would expect to see, the following lines being announced:

• Selby to Hull
• Northallerton to Middlesborough
• Sheffield to Doncaster
• Swinton (Yorks) to South Kirkby & Church Fenton

Ending with possibly either the Chilton Route or Derby to Bristol being announced just before the election.

There may be more, less or even non of these, but I expect the shorter ones to happen in the next 3 years.

Just my view. Sits back and awaits comments.

 

[Tomnick]

The alternative would be to trigger on the approach to the station but then a stopping train would close it to road traffic for quite a long time with a risk that impatient road drivers would assume it was broken and drive through the red lights.

AOCLs time out after a short period (usually, but possibly not always, something like two minutes I think), after which a plunger must be operated to manually restart the sequence. Coupled with the risk of crossing misuse if the timeout period was extended, I doubt that it'd be acceptable to use the same timings for stopping and non-stopping trains.

A crossing predictor, which can detect how fast the train is approaching and adjust the sequence accordingly, may be able to help here. These are new in the UK but have been used for some time in other countries.

There won't be very much difference between the speed of a train braking to stop at Burneside and one braking to stop, if necesary, short of the crossing, so I don't think predictors would help. They're only really designed to cope, as I understand it, with trains running at different speeds rather than one making a station stop within the crossing controls (with much greater potential to end up with a non-stop train approaching the crossing 'too soon'). Given that the train can accelerate as soon as the front is on the crossing, the 5mph check can't cost more than a minute or two anyway, can it?

In response to lancastrian's post, I doubt a crossing loop would make much difference if a unit decided to sit down somewhere on the branch (unless it managed to do so at the loop itself) - the job's going to be largely stopped either way!

 

[edwin_m]

Considering it is currently an isolated section of line, and is likely to be so to an extent when the knitting goes up, how vital is journey time along there? Is it putting people off now that they have to slow to 5mph and the subsequent time penalty? I imagine something will be done about it in the grand scheme of things, but I'd discount a bridge straight away and there will still be a fairly punitive line speed restriction.

The journey time is about 21min and the layout at Oxenholme means if an hourly service is to run to/from further south then the unit has to make its call there and get out onto the WCML in time for another one to come in and make its call all within the hour. An extra minute or so at the crossing could be helpful for flexibility or performance, but it all depends on the future timetable.

 

[Manchester77]

I would expect to see, the following lines being announced:

• Selby to Hull
• Northallerton to Middlesborough
• Sheffield to Doncaster
• Swinton (Yorks) to South Kirkby & Church Fenton

Ending with possibly either the Chilton Route or Derby to Bristol being announced just before the election.
There may be more, less or even non of these, but I expect the shorter ones to happen in the next 3 years.
Just my view. Sits back and awaits comments.

- Do you mean the Chiltern route!

- I do wonder whether the north Wales coast line will be announced pre election. There was talk about this at the begining of the year however it seems to have go quiet.
- Id like to think the 171 operated routes in the southeast are electrified however I can't see it happening before some of the surrounding lines have become OHLE as if done with 3rd rail would be waste as it wouldn't be there for that long.

 

[PhilipW]

I don't agree with wiring to Barrow being affected by this - its a long way (40 miles) and if you wired to Barrow then you'd either only free up a bi-hourly train service or see the direct link from Whitehaven/ Workington to Lancaster cut.

Just for the record, Carnforth to Barrow is 28 miles. Sure, it is not on anybody's priority list for electrification, but as more and more get wired up, its time will come.

 

[lancastrian]

- Do you mean the Chiltern route!

- I do wonder whether the north Wales coast line will be announced pre election. There was talk about this at the begining of the year however it seems to have go quiet.
- Id like to think the 171 operated routes in the southeast are electrified however I can't see it happening before some of the surrounding lines have become OHLE as if done with 3rd rail would be waste as it wouldn't be there for that long.

Yes, I do. Should have checked the 'spolling preperly'.

Also you could be right about the Crewe to Holyhead & Llandudno route. That one slipped my mind. It's happening far to often these days.

 

[snail]

It seems to be experience from numerous electrification schemes in the past that electrification almost invariably results in increases in passenger numbers. I'm not too sure of the precise reasons for it though.

But how many of those were a 10 mile branch line? The usual benefits of electrification are greater frequencies due to faster trains. A single line branch isn't going to improve that much. I'm all for retaining the Windermere service but to my mind it's not that great as a destination in terms of its location so would you really get that much of an increase in usage, even with some of the suggestions made by others.