My idea for Trans Pennine Express on the Settle-Carlisle

[Eagle]

Would Leeds to Glasgow via S&C work using 185s? IIRC there isn't much of a journey time difference between a pair of 158s on the S&C followed by a Pendolino to Glasgow, than a Voyager via the ECML.

There used to be such a service (run by 158s IIRC). It was a joint ATN–Scotrail service, but it was scrapped in 2004 following the WCML upgrade because it was felt that the 90 mph units would hold up the 125 mph Pendolinos and Voyagers too much.

Of course, when 100 mph units started to run north of Carlisle in 2007, nothing of the sort was said...

 

[34D]

31 and mk1s i think you mean.

With steam heat. And the odd class 40 or 45 too.

 

[Condor7]

Are you being serious?

Well let me firstly say I mistyped the average number of freight trains, last week it was 8 a day not 6 so sorry about that.

Yes I was serious, I disagree that passenger trains are being "squeezed" into a freight line. This was once a main line capable of considerably more trains than are using it today, and after the investment should not keep failing at every suggestion to increase capacity.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think that an hourly service from Skipton to Settle would be a big step forward (some running as Leeds - Carlisle services, some just shuttling from Skipton to Settle and connecting with the Airedale services at Skipton).

It should only be about twenty minutes, so a spare Pacer could provide an hourly shuttle from Skipton to Settle all by itself (on top of the longer distance S&C service), providing a lot of connections onto the 333.

The problem with your idea is that there is no way of crossing from the down to the up at Settle. Hence the reason why the last train of the day runs to Ribblehead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well let me firstly say I mistyped the average number of freight trains, last week it was 8 a day not 6 so sorry about that.

Yes I was serious, I disagree that passenger trains are being "squeezed" into a freight line. This was once a main line capable of considerably more trains than are using it today, and after the investment should not keep failing at every suggestion to increase capacity.

Like you I'm a big supporter of the S & C and I would love to see more trains run on in it. The problem is though over the last forty years the S & C has lost a lot of capacity through signal box closures. Not only that but during the steam era refuge sidings were frequently used; the remaining ones at Kirkby Stephen are too short for modern freight trains. We need to increase capacity on the down line and could make a start by reinstating the down loop at Blea Moor.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can imagine that by the time they reached the summit on the S&C, they'd either be barely moving or be heading back in the direction they came in :P.

Hmmm, not so sure about this! Although the S & C is known as the Long Drag, the Midland laid out the route to maintain high speeds (in the 19th Century) and so there aren't any really severe gradients. Trains were double headed in the Midland days because of their small engine policy rather than because of anything else.

 

[DarloRich]

Well let me firstly say I mistyped the average number of freight trains, last week it was 8 a day not 6 so sorry about that.

Yes I was serious, I disagree that passenger trains are being "squeezed" into a freight line. This was once a main line capable of considerably more trains than are using it today, and after the investment should not keep failing at every suggestion to increase capacity.

whilst i am sure you are right my view is that you dont, really, understand what the money was spent on, why it was spent, how much things cost in a railway environment or even have much understanding of the operating restrictions on the line.

Not that i dont think there are opportunities to enhance and expand services on the S&C, from Lancashire and from West Yorkshire, and perhaps further afield by running a few more through trains - The first would be to go over top a clock face 2 hourly timetable if possible. it just isn't going to be a main line now or at any point in the future.

 

[HSTEd]

"Squeezed in" !!!!!!!

Last week the average number of freight trains on the S&C Monday to Friday was 6 per day over a 24 hour period.

And how long do they take to transit the line?
I am afraid Pauli's exclusion principle is in effect.
The passenger train cannot pass through the freight train ahead of it which imposes a hard limit on journey time reductions.

This means that it will never be competitive with the other routes available.
(It is quicker even now to go the 'long way around' via Newcastle to a rather wide range of destinations, Leeds-Carlisle is ~2hr30 at best, whereas Leeds-Edinburgh is ~2hr48)
Especially considering there will soon be a pair of fully electric routes to chose from as alternatives to the S&C which will remain diesel for the forseable future.

The line needed massive investment in the recent past to upgrade what was a fast deteriorating infrastructure which it received but now everytime someone suggests additional services there is ALWAYS a reason why not.

That upgrade was to allow it to move more coal and (possibly?) biomass.
Not to allow more pointless subsidy-farm passenger trains to operate.

This line was capable of over 100 trains a day in the past, and now it is around 30, and we are saying we can't "squeeze" any more in.

Those trains had rather lower performance differentials than they do now.
A 66 hauled Coal train is far slower than a Class 156.

I wonder what the point of the millions of pounds was for.

To allow the route to fulfill its primary purpose more effectively, that is to provide a means for slow, heavy, freights to be taken off the more effective parts of the passenger railway.

 

[Eagle]

And how long do they take to transit the line?
I am afraid Pauli's exclusion principle is in effect.
The passenger train cannot pass through the freight train ahead of it which imposes a hard limit on journey time reductions.

I'm impressed that you've managed to use quantum mechanics to successfully explain something to do with the railways.

But yes, this is the crux of the matter. There may not be much freight numerically speaking, but it's slow, and slow trains (that you can't overtake) use up more capacity than fast ones. Fundamental rule of timetabling, that.

 

[dave59]

Would Leeds to Glasgow via S&C work using 185s? IIRC there isn't much of a journey time difference between a pair of 158s on the S&C followed by a Pendolino to Glasgow, than a Voyager via the ECML.

Surely if we are going to do anything to passenger services on the S&C, a higher priority would be to establish a clockface service pattern of every 2 hours throughout the day...

EDIT: The fastest time between Leeds and Glasgow is 4hr5 mins by the direct XC services, closely followed by Leeds to Glasgow via S&C with a time of 4hr12 (departing LDS on the 08:49).

Indeed. S&C services are not generally recognised by NRES for Leeds-Glasgow and if there's no collective will to even market existing S&C services for through travel (by sharpening up today's scenic railway timetable) what chance an 'express'?

It could be done but only if NR pull their finger out and raise line speeds from 60 to at least 75mph over the 88 mile section north of Skipton. Something like 3.30 Leeds-Glasgow/Edinburgh timing should then be possible with a 185.

 

[YorkshireBear]

They have much bigger fish to fry.

 

[swt_passenger]

...That upgrade was to allow it to move more coal and (possibly?) biomass.
Not to allow more pointless subsidy-farm passenger trains to operate.

Wasn't it only a one-way (southbound) track upgrade as well? Because the northbound freights are all running empty?

 

[The Planner]

It could be done but only if NR pull their finger out and raise line speeds from 60 to at least 75mph over the 88 mile section north of Skipton. Something like 3.30 Leeds-Glasgow/Edinburgh timing should then be possible with a 185.

That isn't dead and is still being looked at.

 

[Tomnick]

And how long do they take to transit the line?
I am afraid Pauli's exclusion principle is in effect.
The passenger train cannot pass through the freight train ahead of it which imposes a hard limit on journey time reductions.
...
That upgrade was to allow it to move more coal and (possibly?) biomass.
Not to allow more pointless subsidy-farm passenger trains to operate.

Never thought I'd say it, but you're bang on the money there. A very quick look suggests that loaded trains on the Up are timed to take an hour or so longer between Carlisle and Skipton than the typical passenger path. With limited opportunities to recess them (none on the 'long drag'), that's a serious constraint to faster or more frequent passenger trains; putting them in (new) loops to allow (empty?) passenger trains to whizz past at regular intervals just harms the freight operation by limiting the number of paths available and increasing their journey time. It's far better for them to be completely segregated - fast passengers via the WCML and ECML, freight via the Midland.

 

[Beveridges]

A 66 hauled Coal train is far slower than a Class 156.

Is it ??
A Northern service stopping everywhere takes ages.
On most routes, Northern local stopping passenger services are *the* slowest of the slow, way slower than freights. Maybe the S&C is a rare exception, with it's long gaps between stations (favouring the Northern service) and the steeply graded line (slowing down the freights).

 

[tbtc]

Indeed. S&C services are not generally recognised by NRES for Leeds-Glasgow and if there's no collective will to even market existing S&C services for through travel (by sharpening up today's scenic railway timetable) what chance an 'express'?

It could be done but only if NR pull their finger out and raise line speeds from 60 to at least 75mph over the 88 mile section north of Skipton. Something like 3.30 Leeds-Glasgow/Edinburgh timing should then be possible with a 185.

75mph would speed things up a lot, if there were no slow freights in the way.

But as there are enough freights to get in the way, there's no point worrying about speeding up the S&C to cater for long(er) distance passenger services.

 

[Buttsy]

Why was I thinking of 37s and mk2s then?? :?

They were used on limited stop services in the early 00s as I have a couple of shots of them at Blea Moor.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that an hourly service from Skipton to Settle would be a big step forward (some running as Leeds - Carlisle services, some just shuttling from Skipton to Settle and connecting with the Airedale services at Skipton).

It should only be about twenty minutes, so a spare Pacer could provide an hourly shuttle from Skipton to Settle all by itself (on top of the longer distance S&C service), providing a lot of connections onto the 333.

I think the issue with running a Settle service is that the first point trains can currently reverse from the down to the up is at Blea Moor, the signalling isn't there to reverse at Settle at present. I think this is partly why the last northbound service runs through to Ribblehead, though this now allows some commuting from Ingleton...

 

[The Planner]

Is it ??
A Northern service stopping everywhere takes ages.
On most routes, Northern local stopping passenger services are *the* slowest of the slow, way slower than freights. Maybe the S&C is a rare exception, with it's long gaps between stations (favouring the Northern service) and the steeply graded line (slowing down the freights).

6M21 Killoch to Ratcliffe takes 2 hours 29 from Pettril Bridge to Settle Jn non stop, take out the 15 minutes pathing it has due to the AB sections and following then it is still 2 hours 14. 2H89 does the same with the stops in 1 hour 37.

 

[Dunc108]

Really who came up with that one, even if DFT hadnt let TPX retain them to increase capacity on the North Transpennine route, I would imagine that TPX would have prefered to release the 170's.

My understanding is that the spare 185s are already spoken for, for the new TPE from Liverpool to Newcastle via Man Vic, due to start next May... looks like they'll be with TPE a bit longer!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Arriva Trains Northern took on the top-and-tail 37+MkII as a crowdbuster on the Harrogate line in the peaks. They were sensible and used it to go to Carlisle during the day, using the displaced DMU to run a mid-afternoon to Carlisle (and a later return from Carlisle). The S&C route was not the driver for the hire of that loco hauled stock though.

I know people like the idea of an hourly S&C service but, honestly, would people really use it? The reason why the S&C was almost closed is because it doesn't really serve anywhere of note, especially off-season. It was only really reprieved for freight, taking it off the WCML, and for that reason freight generally takes priority on it. The track upgrades were to deal with the weight of freight trains, rather than to have a high top speed.

As for an hourly service to Settle, again I'm really not sure where the demand would be. A better use of that stock would be a Lancaster-Skipton shuttle- the demand would be there.

 

[swt_passenger]

My understanding is that the spare 185s are already spoken for, for the new TPE from Liverpool to Newcastle via Man Vic, due to start next May... looks like they'll be with TPE a bit longer!

The 'new Liverpool to Newcastle service' is really a diversion, it replaces the existing Newcastle - Manchester Airport service initially, so it shouldn't need significant extra stock - maybe one unit? It will not be doubled up until a few years later, post full Northern Hub changes. Initially, in May 14 the extra Northeast destination is York.

(So I suppose you could also say that the Airport - Newcastle service is being cut back to York, and the Liverpool Newcastle is new, but it's six and two threes I think...)

But you are right about all the 185s staying with TPE, it has been officially stated any number of times. The idea that some will transfer away from TPE is straight from the book of railway myths...

 

[khib70]

As a fairly regular user of the Edinburgh-Manchester service I'm cautiously optimistic about the current inadequate, noisy, uncomfortable DMU's being replaced eventually by (slightly) more commodious EMU's and to the route not having a Bolton-Manchester local service tacked onto the end of the journey.

But here's another idea. Keep the aforementioned DMU's, and delay things still further by running these 100mph units up a rural freight line which doesn't even allow a 150 to run at top speed. Richard Branson will love this. He'll have to strengthen all his trains because everyone who actually wants to go anywhere will be taking them from Edinburgh to Preston on the way to Manchester, rather than trundle across vast tracts of uninhabited moorland at roughly the same speed as the Midland Railway managed at the turn of the 20th Century.

Yes the S and C was a mainline, but only because at the time, everybody had to have one. Hence the equally uneconomic and scarily profiled Waverley route which it moved on to after Carlisle. It's a staggeringly beautiful line with a real role to play in linking isolated communities, giving access to the countryside, and diverting freight off the WCML. It's not an option for through Intercity services.

And having travelled a few times on both the above routes in the 70's in flyblown Mk1 Open saloons with jammed windows, no heating (except in summer) and lit by wonky 10w lightbulbs, behind some toiling, claggy Class 27, I can confidently say that that was not the Golden Age!

 

[Buttsy]

I can see the point in improving the service to 2 hourly from Leeds and if Northern market it well, the S&C offers a route to Glasgow from Leeds that is around 20 mins slower than the other routes with one change for £54.50 Anytime return as opposed to the cheapest Advance combo which is £44 return.

 

[cle]

Are enough people really travelling from Glasgow to Leeds (often mentioned as a pair, like the even more obscure Nottingham to Glasgow) to warrant a regular service.

Surely it's easier to have clockface changes via either Edinburgh, Manchester or Preston?

 

[Buttsy]

Are enough people really travelling from Glasgow to Leeds (often mentioned as a pair, like the even more obscure Nottingham to Glasgow) to warrant a regular service.

Surely it's easier to have clockface changes via either Edinburgh, Manchester or Preston?

Easier for the railway, but not necessarily cheaper or convenient for the passenger. The scrum on platform 14 at Piccadilly is a sight to see!

As well as those options, what is wrong with showing Carlisle as a change option and improving the viability of the S&C? NRE automatically puts you via Preston or Edinburgh, even though 'via Appleby' could be cheaper and more flexible.

I feel that the S&C should have a 2 hourly service (alongside a 2 hourly Leeds - Lancaster service) for more than just Glasgow passengers and if you show such services on the search engines, you aid people's choice. If it came up 'via Settle & Carlisle' I'm sure it would be considered by more people who aren't that time conscious.

I worked with a lass who wanted to get back to Glasgow from Leicester the cheapest way, which was lift with a colleague to Leeds and then S&C to Glasgow changing at Carlisle. She loved the run up the S&C.

 

[47802]

The 'new Liverpool to Newcastle service' is really a diversion, it replaces the existing Newcastle - Manchester Airport service initially, so it shouldn't need significant extra stock - maybe one unit? It will not be doubled up until a few years later, post full Northern Hub changes. Initially, in May 14 the extra Northeast destination is York.

(So I suppose you could also say that the Airport - Newcastle service is being cut back to York, and the Liverpool Newcastle is new, but it's six and two threes I think...)

But you are right about all the 185s staying with TPE, it has been officially stated any number of times. The idea that some will transfer away from TPE is straight from the book of railway myths...

I dont where you get the idea of little extra stock from, given the May timetable will increase to 5 trains an hour on the core TPX route, im sure the released 185's will be fully occupied.

Clearly there will be some scope for releasing 185's after electrification of the core route but obviously that is some way off.

 

[Dunc108]

I dont where you get the idea of little extra stock from, given the May timetable will increase to 5 trains an hour on the core TPX route, im sure the released 185's will be fully occupied.

Clearly there will be some scope for releasing 185's after electrification of the core route but obviously that is some way off.

Thats what I was trying to get at; 185s operating the existing Manchester Airport - Newcastle will just switch to operating the Airport - York, whereas 185s freed off the Scottish services will operate the TPE Liverpool - Newcastle via Manchester Vic. I don't know why people think they'll be suddenly loads of 185s up for grabs?!

 

[yorksrob]

As for an hourly service to Settle, again I'm really not sure where the demand would be. A better use of that stock would be a Lancaster-Skipton shuttle- the demand would be there.

Well, I agree that some additional services over the Little North Western would be very welcome, although the number of people I've seen waiting at Settle for the first train out on a Sunday suggests that it is also a market with some potential. Perhaps some sort of shuttle alternating with Lancaster and Settle ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and if you show such services on the search engines, you aid people's choice. If it came up 'via Settle & Carlisle' I'm sure it would be considered by more people who aren't that time conscious.

I worked with a lass who wanted to get back to Glasgow from Leicester the cheapest way, which was lift with a colleague to Leeds and then S&C to Glasgow changing at Carlisle. She loved the run up the S&C.

That's a fair point. Living in Leeds, I shared a house with a lad who went to Glasgow for a job interview. He'd already planned to go via the Settle - Carlisle but only realised its significance after I mentioned it to him. A longer journey for £54 anytime return can easily trump a £44 advance if you need to travel soon.

 

[swt_passenger]

I dont where you get the idea of little extra stock from, given the May timetable will increase to 5 trains an hour on the core TPX route, im sure the released 185's will be fully occupied.

I was really just pointing out that Liverpool to Newcastle isn't really a new route so it alone doesn't need (much) extra stock.