Railways in the North, Dark Clouds Looming

[HSTEd]

BR's 'burdensome estate' didn't just dissapear because no trains ran over the bridges and through the tunnels in it.

 

[PG]

Plenty of room inside but everyone is crowding around the doors, I notice they dont show the insides very often but when they do you can see it there is plenty of space.

Loads of room there for another 10-15 people inside each carriage if the passengers are sensible!

Yep, just need to get to know your fellow passengers a bit better.

Unbelievable how the DFT have let this get to beyond crisis point before coming up with a solution (even this is going to take years even from now).

Typical incompetence.

I'm pretty sure that DFT doesn't stand for the Department for Trains (their priorities lie elsewhere) hence them dragging their feet for so long. :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

Could you outline how closing lines in the 1960s didn't achieve significant infrastructure savings? I appreciate the fact that the cuts did not solve the railway's financial problems. It seems to me that this was due to the fact that public transport patronage was in clear decline and that bus services were not well integrated with trains and replicated the route of trains rather than taking routes better suited to the demography.

BR's 'burdensome estate' didn't just dissapear because no trains ran over the bridges and through the tunnels in it.

Essentially this.

Funnily enough, whilst you can drive down costs in terms of track layout, signalling and station facilities for an operational railway, the bit you can't change so much, bridges, tunnels, viaducts etc, tend to hang around needing maintenance long after the trains have stopped.

 

[Bantamzen]

I said this should be considered in particular where journey times are similar - I don't suggest this for services running into Leeds or Manchester (except perhaps TPE night trains). The buses wouldn't have to serve the railway stations, just the main roads through the settlements. I agree that replacing trains with buses a last resort when passenger numbers are very low. It maintains a service at much lower cost. A bus service every 15/30 minutes would not necessarily be less attractive than an hourly train. Using buses could also increase the operating hours of the service. Possible candidates for this could include Middlesbrough to Saltburn and Pontefract to Wakefield. Buses which run relatively busy routes during the day could run in place of some marginal rail services at very quiet times and buses normally running more peripheral bus routes could run on principal routes at these times. As I have said before, many (though not all) of the problems with buses stem from how they are organised, not intrinsic problems the mode itself.

Sorry, I slightly misunderstood regarding the longer journeys. However, even the with buses replacing low usage local rail services has it's risks. For example, back in my area, we only have a Bradford - Ilkley Sunday service every two hours. This came about partly because the then duplicate bus service was far more popular (that was 1 bus per hour). But now that service has been withdrawn completely, leaving only the train service left (unless you want to go from Bradford to Guiseley (1 bus per hour), then onto Otley (half hourly) & then onto Ilkley (2ph)). Sadly many bus services are being chopped with monotonous regularity, especially by the big 5 companies. Occasionally smaller companies step in, but they usually have lower capacity vehicles & ironically require greater subsidies to keep going. So more often than not, many routes eventually melt into the ether.

 

[strowger]

If they start charging to use my local station car park, the cost benefit of the train will be gone, so I will stay in my car, as the petrol cost to work will be cheaper than paying £5 per day (for example)

In most areas I think the net effect of charging for station parking will be to transfer costs from rail subsidies on to local councils & populations in the areas around stations. The immediate impact will be that people park in surrounding streets, which will then need residents parking schemes. The cost of these will fall on councils and residents.

 

[starrymarkb]

BR's 'burdensome estate' didn't just dissapear because no trains ran over the bridges and through the tunnels in it.

Indeed, I remember Network South East doing work on the disused bridge outside the former Budleigh Salterton (near Exeter) station in the early 1990s

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In most areas I think the net effect of charging for station parking will be to transfer costs from rail subsidies on to local councils & populations in the areas around stations. The immediate impact will be that people park in surrounding streets, which will then need residents parking schemes. The cost of these will fall on councils and residents.

Don't you think that the councils will be wise to such a move that you propose ? If it is found that rail passengers are attempting to subvert parking charges by causing an obstruction in areas adjacent to the railway station, surely the local councillors will ensure that their councils raise the matter with the relevant railway authorities.

Has anyone on this thread had examples of rail passengers parking near to their properties which could cause driveways to be blocked, etc.

 

[Oscar]

Sorry, I slightly misunderstood regarding the longer journeys. However, even the with buses replacing low usage local rail services has it's risks. For example, back in my area, we only have a Bradford - Ilkley Sunday service every two hours. This came about partly because the then duplicate bus service was far more popular (that was 1 bus per hour). But now that service has been withdrawn completely, leaving only the train service left (unless you want to go from Bradford to Guiseley (1 bus per hour), then onto Otley (half hourly) & then onto Ilkley (2ph)). Sadly many bus services are being chopped with monotonous regularity, especially by the big 5 companies. Occasionally smaller companies step in, but they usually have lower capacity vehicles & ironically require greater subsidies to keep going. So more often than not, many routes eventually melt into the ether.

I agree with you, the suggestion was made from a more theoretical point of view assuming a regulated, integrated system. Bus deregulation brings significant challenges. I don't think that it will be possible to develop closer rail-bus integration without structural change in both industries either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Essentially this.

Funnily enough, whilst you can drive down costs in terms of track layout, signalling and station facilities for an operational railway, the bit you can't change so much, bridges, tunnels, viaducts etc, tend to hang around needing maintenance long after the trains have stopped.

Yes, that's interesting, without any figures it's difficult to make a judgement about how much could/could not be saved by mothballing lines and where else it could be invested.

 

[Starmill]

I'm concerned by the focus on rural lines being profitable on here, and the focus on Northern needing to economise which might just kill what potential (and there is a lot of it, but as ever serious investment and time are required to unlock it, two things which all to often we apparently don't 'have a business case' for!) we have.

What is the subsidy like on Greater Anglia or East Midlands Trains rural routes? I refuse to belive that the East Suffolk Line is more worthy of subsidy or investment than the Mid-Chesire line, as a random example. Northern are crap, in many, many ways. But that should be an incentive to make them better, not worse!

There is certainly a cultural thing in this country around Public Transport - and I don't just mean trains. We've grown used to it's absence or uselessness in many places. The arguments about social good and the environment are perfectly valid and exceptionally important. If we could decide as a nation that everyone - everyone has a right to minimum standards of public transport, we might just be able to change the 'default' from private transport to public in a few generations. Now that level of time and investment input would definitely have a positive BCR!

 

[nw1]

This is not meant to be a North South debate.... i am simply a little dissapointed that they suddenly want to lower the funding significantly...

Its the fares, and reducing services i am more concerned about. Car parks, people can deal with it.

I suppose that is the Conservative Party for you, and sadly the other two main parties these days to a lesser extent. Sadly I doubt the likes of David Cameron and George Osborne care about not-that-well-off people who need to use the train in the North - and indeed the South, for that matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is certainly a cultural thing in this country around Public Transport - and I don't just mean trains. We've grown used to it's absence or uselessness in many places. The arguments about social good and the environment are perfectly valid and exceptionally important. If we could decide as a nation that everyone - everyone has a right to minimum standards of public transport, we might just be able to change the 'default' from private transport to public in a few generations. Now that level of time and investment input would definitely have a positive BCR!

Public transport is no longer seen as a "trendy" political issue and there does not seem to be the desire to encourage people to use it over driving, which perhaps there was at one point. In my area the trains have thankfully not been reduced - in fact they've been improved in terms of frequency - but it's certainly the case with buses. Rural areas are particularly badly affected - in my lifetime (which doesn't extend as far back as the 1960s) Itchen Abbas in Hampshire, for example, has gone from an hourly train service in 1972 (source: old timetable), through a decent-enough 7-day bus service as recently as 2005 or 2006, to not even a single bus after 6pm on Mon-Sat and none at all on Sundays. Even in the past 10 years the Meon Valley has gone from a two-hourly bus service Mon-Sat , running to around 6 or 7pm, to two journeys on Wed/Sat only. The prevailing political attitude seems to be that non-profitable public transport is a luxury that this wealthy Western country cannot afford.

 

[Oscar]

I'm concerned by the focus on rural lines being profitable on here, and the focus on Northern needing to economise which might just kill what potential (and there is a lot of it, but as ever serious investment and time are required to unlock it, two things which all to often we apparently don't 'have a business case' for!) we have.

What is the subsidy like on Greater Anglia or East Midlands Trains rural routes? I refuse to belive that the East Suffolk Line is more worthy of subsidy or investment than the Mid-Chesire line, as a random example. Northern are crap, in many, many ways. But that should be an incentive to make them better, not worse!

There is certainly a cultural thing in this country around Public Transport - and I don't just mean trains. We've grown used to it's absence or uselessness in many places. The arguments about social good and the environment are perfectly valid and exceptionally important. If we could decide as a nation that everyone - everyone has a right to minimum standards of public transport, we might just be able to change the 'default' from private transport to public in a few generations. Now that level of time and investment input would definitely have a positive BCR!

I completely agree with you, though there is inevitably a certain amount of money available to spent on public transport, and I think we should consider which modes, routes and services are most worthy of the money.

I would like to see much better regional and urban multi-modal networks developed, which would require significant investment but bring huge long-term benefits. Apart from in the case of HS2, we don't seem very capable of planning in the long term - there is no plan for developing the network's infrastructure beyond the next control people, meaning mistakes about where to invest are likely to (and in my opinion) have been made.

 

[strowger]

I don't find fares in the Northern area particularly cheap. That's before we get to relatively short hops such as Leeds - York which seem very expensive.

York-Leeds is priced by TPX and is indeed..."reassuringly expensive".

Fares priced by Northern tend to be rather cheaper. There are interesting anomalies all over the network in the North as the decision as to which TOC sets fares between any two points seems somewhat random.

I very much suspect that the sort of routes which people have in mind when they talk about "lines that have to go" are most likely not the ones that cost a lot to run. I doubt very much that shutting a rural route with unstaffed stations and minimal signalling is going to save you a lot of money in reality, but the way artificially created costs such as track access charges and rolling stock leasing costs are apportioned, means that the relatively low cost of the infrastructure, isn't reflected in the day to day running costs of those routes.

Accounting is hard. Your unstaffed one-engine-in-steam rural route has little cash cost most years...until the track is life-expired, a landslip occurs, or similar, and you get a massive bill. If you don't account for this then you're continuing operations on a "when something expensive breaks, we close the line" basis. I have no good answers - I'd like more data.

With regard to 40ppm is that cheaper than running a car ? Have you taken into consideration all the upfront costs of buying and maintaining the car, tax etc, rather than just the cost of petrol, which doesn't reflect the whole cost (genuine question as I don't drive, so have no idea).

You're right to question, as most car users haven't the faintest idea what the true cost of the vehicle is. Back of a fag packet:

£10k capital cost, lasts for 10 years, does 100k miles before it's scrap; 10p/mile
Tyres: £200 for fronts every 2 years, £200 for rears after 5 years: £1k over 10 years; 1p/mile
Servicing is £250pa on average, in the last few years of life there will be repairs to pay for - let's say £2500 servicing and £2500 in repairs: £5k; 5p/mile
Tax is £100pa but will probably rise over its lifetime - let's say £1500 over 10 years; 1.5p/mile
Insurance is hard - once you get old, if you don't crash, it gets seriously cheap. Mine's only £200pa - but let's say £500pa; £5k over 10 years; 5p/mile

That's 22p/mile on 'fixed' costs (let's not argue over tyres and service intervals, this is a fag packet not a business case!)

If we say 15p/mile for fuel that's a fair average; if you do a high mileage you will chose an economical car which costs more to buy but uses much less fuel, so the fuel cost will be lower but the capital cost of the car higher, and we end up about even.

Now we're at 37p/mile whole-life, and I've used fairly pessimistic assumptions to get here (you should get a lot more than 100k miles from a new car, if you buy nearly-new your capital cost is lower, my repairs budget assumes nasty stuff will go wrong which is mostly avoidable if you buy carefully). Cars which are used regularly and do high mileages tend to last longer and have lower per-mile whole-life costs.

The key figure as you note is the petrol cost, because once you commit to owning the bloody thing, the marginal cost of an extra journey is *for most car users most of the time* just fuel.

 

[PG]

Public transport is no longer seen as a "trendy" political issue and there does not seem to be the desire to encourage people to use it over driving, which perhaps there was at one point. In my area the trains have thankfully not been reduced - in fact they've been improved in terms of frequency - but it's certainly the case with buses. Rural areas are particularly badly affected - in my lifetime (which doesn't extend as far back as the 1960s) Itchen Abbas in Hampshire, for example, has gone from an hourly train service in 1972 (source: old timetable), through a decent-enough 7-day bus service as recently as 2005 or 2006, to not even a single bus after 6pm on Mon-Sat and none at all on Sundays. Even in the past 10 years the Meon Valley has gone from a two-hourly bus service Mon-Sat , running to around 6 or 7pm, to two journeys on Wed/Sat only. The prevailing political attitude seems to be that non-profitable public transport is a luxury that this wealthy Western country cannot afford.

I think it's even wider than politics... If you look back to the first half of the 20th century then you've got a country with a heritage based on manufacturing industry. Its workers went to the factories and yards on foot, by bike or bus; while the managers came in their cars. People aspired to 'get on' and the car was a status symbol that you were indeed 'getting on'.

We may no longer be a country with vast factories and yards but society still views having a car as a showing that you are someone - so public transport, including the railways, suffers from society viewing it as something for the less well off ie regardless of the congestion/environmental effects if we all could then we'd go everywhere in our cars. :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

Accounting is hard. Your unstaffed one-engine-in-steam rural route has little cash cost most years...until the track is life-expired, a landslip occurs, or similar, and you get a massive bill. If you don't account for this then you're continuing operations on a "when something expensive breaks, we close the line" basis. I have no good answers - I'd like more data.

Well, there is that risk (and such events were certainly used to justify closures in the 1960's). However, as we know from recent events, such incidents can occur anywhere on the network, so I'd be more inclined to consider the contingency on a national, rather than a line by line basis (afterall, such things occur on minor roads, yet we don't close the road !).

Obviously track renewal is an inevitable necessity, but it will come around a lot less frequently on a rural route.

You're right to question, as most car users haven't the faintest idea what the true cost of the vehicle is. Back of a fag packet:

£10k capital cost, lasts for 10 years, does 100k miles before it's scrap; 10p/mile
Tyres: £200 for fronts every 2 years, £200 for rears after 5 years: £1k over 10 years; 1p/mile
Servicing is £250pa on average, in the last few years of life there will be repairs to pay for - let's say £2500 servicing and £2500 in repairs: £5k; 5p/mile
Tax is £100pa but will probably rise over its lifetime - let's say £1500 over 10 years; 1.5p/mile
Insurance is hard - once you get old, if you don't crash, it gets seriously cheap. Mine's only £200pa - but let's say £500pa; £5k over 10 years; 5p/mile

That's 22p/mile on 'fixed' costs (let's not argue over tyres and service intervals, this is a fag packet not a business case!)

If we say 15p/mile for fuel that's a fair average; if you do a high mileage you will chose an economical car which costs more to buy but uses much less fuel, so the fuel cost will be lower but the capital cost of the car higher, and we end up about even.

Now we're at 37p/mile whole-life, and I've used fairly pessimistic assumptions to get here (you should get a lot more than 100k miles from a new car, if you buy nearly-new your capital cost is lower, my repairs budget assumes nasty stuff will go wrong which is mostly avoidable if you buy carefully). Cars which are used regularly and do high mileages tend to last longer and have lower per-mile whole-life costs.

The key figure as you note is the petrol cost, because once you commit to owning the bloody thing, the marginal cost of an extra journey is *for most car users most of the time* just fuel.

Thanks, that is very interesting. Of course, if you were planning to put everyone on the Northern Rail network in taxi's as an efficiency measure, the cost of the taxi drivers would push that figure up somewhat

 

[PHILIPE]

Somebody has already posted that we have drifted away from the North and it looks we are doing it again

 

[Hebden Bridger]

If they start charging to use my local station car park, the cost benefit of the train will be gone, so I will stay in my car, as the petrol cost to work will be cheaper than paying £5 per day (for example)

Ah yes but the AA say that running costs per mile are double the petrol cost - after you take the higher service, repair and parking(!) charges into consideration.

 

[SF-02]

I cant see anyone voting for tax increases to cover public spending irrespective of political persuasion. And as more than a few have pointed out ( including me ) we really should be looking at less state influence on the rail industry

The UK gov could find more cash within existing spending plans for transport if so desired and enough pressure levied from mp's and the public. Priorities can be re-focused within total gov spending, reduced or not.

For example, UK spending PER YEAR on the military is $4.6 billion more than France, $12.8 billion more than Germany, $31.8 billion more than Italy, and over $40 billion more than Spain. Why? We don't have an empire. The days of Germany looking to invade are no longer here. Do we need to spend so much more than comparable European nations? And that doesn't include things like that £2 billion plus spent each year in Afghanistan.

Source for that is this Feb 2014 BBC article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26054545

And that's just one area. The UK has a vast budget. Even with cuts we can find more for the things almost everyone uses and requires for a decent life - transport, housing etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Funny how this thread has degenerated into a north vs south rant.

Interesting article though.

Always does. And people don't realise politicians LOVE this. Get them squabbling amongst themselves so they don't take a step back and see that the entire spend on transport is too low within the UK budget. Transport is fundamental to quality of life and financial prosperity. A bigger share nationally benefits all. But it doesn't suit as many vested interests at the upper echolons of gov so gets less priority than other areas.

 

[Carlisle]

Proposals for a number of route closures due to high cost of a particular item of Infrastructure repair lasted well into the 1980s era too .Some lines affected were those across Ribblehead viaduct ,Goole swing bridge and Balloch pier that were amongst those closed or nearly closed in those latter BR days

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You're right to question, as most car users haven't the faintest idea what the true cost of the vehicle is.

As you will all be aware, I am and always have been a staunch supporter of rail travel but there are instances where car ownership is a most essential part of everyday living.

Where we live, in a very rural location that is two miles away from the nearest bus stop and railway station (four miles there and back), the use of our 4 x 4 is essential, as I suffered from a stoke at the age of 67 in 2012 and a mini-stroke six months ago. My good lady wife is of some 72 years vintage, so a two-mile hike to the nearest usage point of public transport and a two-mile hike on the return is most definitely not a viable alternative.

Don't let the usual cry of "the leafy lanes of Cheshire" that come from the mouths of those who are envious hide the fact that an attempted hike for some distance in driving rainfall or worse still, up narrow lanes that have no lighting in deep snowdrifts that affect such lanes, is most certainly not one for either my good lady wife or myself to contemplate.

There are times and occasions when the cost of motoring, whatsoever its cost, is one that is worth bearing.

 

[edwin_m]

Just listened to Evan Davies on BBC2. He talked about investment in HS2 and wheeled on the MP for Stoke who said this wouldn't help with agglomeration between the cities in the north. But I didn't hear any mention of Northern Hub - perhaps because it spoils the theory?

 

[strowger]

Thanks, that is very interesting. Of course, if you were planning to put everyone on the Northern Rail network in taxi's as an efficiency measure, the cost of the taxi drivers would push that figure up somewhat

You'd get more than one person per taxi, and you haven't just got the 40ppm subsidy to work with, but also the 20ish ppm ticket revenue.

 

[johnnychips]

Just listened to Evan Davies on BBC2. He talked about investment in HS2 and wheeled on the MP for Stoke who said this wouldn't help with agglomeration between the cities in the north. But I didn't hear any mention of Northern Hub - perhaps because it spoils the theory?

Almost the very last thing he said criticised that there wasn't enough East-West investment between northern cities.

 

[ianhr]

Almost the very last thing he said criticised that there wasn't enough East-West investment between northern cities.

He visited the disused eastern bores of Standedge Tunnel and pointed out that there were originally 4 tracks all the way from Manchester to Leeds (if you include 2 routes to Stalybridge, the Micklefield Loop & the Leeds New Line). He said that while the route would be "upgraded" it would still only be 2 track. This is a point that I have made, i.e. even with electrification (and possibly even worse because of it) there will be a severe shortage of track capacity and endemic unreliabilty with an even more frequent timetable! As we know the Standedge 4 tracking has been cut from the investment plan "because electric trains have better acceleration"......just so that a fast train will back up behind a stopping train even more quickly and run on yellows all the way to Huddersfield or Leeds! Alternatively Marsden, Greenfield etc will lose their interconnectivity, which we are told is so important, as few trains will stop.

 

[Greybeard33]

Accounting is hard. Your unstaffed one-engine-in-steam rural route has little cash cost most years...until the track is life-expired, a landslip occurs, or similar, and you get a massive bill. If you don't account for this then you're continuing operations on a "when something expensive breaks, we close the line" basis. I have no good answers - I'd like more data.

Well, there is that risk (and such events were certainly used to justify closures in the 1960's). However, as we know from recent events, such incidents can occur anywhere on the network, so I'd be more inclined to consider the contingency on a national, rather than a line by line basis (afterall, such things occur on minor roads, yet we don't close the road !).

Obviously track renewal is an inevitable necessity, but it will come around a lot less frequently on a rural route.

Proposals for a number of route closures due to high cost of a particular item of Infrastructure repair lasted well into the 1980s era too .Some lines affected were those across Ribblehead viaduct ,Goole swing bridge and Balloch pier that were amongst those closed or nearly closed in those latter BR days

Closures that did occur in the 1980s due to the high cost of infrastructure repairs included (in the North West) sections of the CLC Woodley to Glazebrook line (Tiviot Dale tunnel at Stockport and Partington Viaduct over the Ship Canal) and the Skelton Junction to Warrington Arpley line (Latchford Viaduct over the Ship Canal).

Of course the procedures for closing a freight-only line are much simpler than if it carries passenger services. I have not seen any suggestion that the Cambrian Coast line should be permanently closed to avoid the cost of rebuilding Pont Brewit and repairing the sea defences damaged in this winter's storms. Nevertheless I imagine that the cost of this work is a much higher multiple of the annual farebox revenue from the line than is the case for the repairs to the Great Western Main Line to Devon and Cornwall. If a lightly used, and less iconic, rural Northern line needed very expensive repairs, I wonder how willing Westminster politicians would be to underwrite the cost?

There have been cases of roads being permanently closed because of the high cost of repair, for example the A625 from Chapel-en-le-Frith to Castleton, due to the landslip at Mam Tor.

 

[Chris125]

As we know the Standedge 4 tracking has been cut from the investment plan "because electric trains have better acceleration"......just so that a fast train will back up behind a stopping train even more quickly and run on yellows all the way to Huddersfield or Leeds!

Eh? Stopping services benefit most from better acceleration as they need to accelerate back up to linespeed more often, and doing this quicker reduces the impact on following fast services.

Chris

 

[ianhr]

Eh? Stopping services benefit most from better acceleration as they need to accelerate back up to linespeed more often, and doing this quicker reduces the impact on following fast services.

Chris

Yes ok I see your point. However in the UP direction the only loop between Huddersfield and Stalybridge is at Marsden which has a very slow approach speed for the turnout, and in the DOWN direction the only loop is at Diggle and I have never known this to be used by a passenger train. It is going to involve some very tight timetabling to get 4 express & 2 stopping trains per hour over this section + occasional freights. Late running on TPE is endemic now even with rather slack timings. Obviously the type of rolling stock will be a factor too. It seems likely that the stopping trains will be 319s which are 100mph capable but do not have particularly good acceleration. I suppose they could be re-geared.

With all the investment that is going on it seems to me an act of almost deliberate meanness not to provide at least some increase in track capacity by building a few more loops with higher speed turnouts. Also Thornhill LNW Jct to Heaton Lodge should be restored to 4 tracks, and this could be done cheaply with almost no realignment of the existing 3 track formation.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem with loops is that for the slower train to be looped soon enough to avoid delaying the faster train, it would have to wait for probably six or seven minutes. I can't think of anywhere a passenger-carrying train is scheuled to be recessed in a non-station loop, though others probably can! Adding a third track to Standedge Tunnel, perhaps continuing some way onto the former four-track formations either end, would probably be long enough to create a dynamic loop where the fast train can overtake without the slower one being delayed very much. However this would only be possible in one direction at at time.

There was talk at one time of skip-stopping on the Transpennine so each train did a couple of the local calls, but I'm not sure if this idea is still active. It would be hopeless good for intermediate journeys, and would probably kill the ale trail stone dead!

 

[brompton rail]

The problem with loops is that for the slower train to be looped soon enough to avoid delaying the faster train, it would have to wait for probably six or seven minutes. I can't think of anywhere a passenger-carrying train is scheuled to be recessed in a non-station loop, though others probably can! Adding a third track to Standedge Tunnel, perhaps continuing some way onto the former four-track formations either end, would probably be long enough to create a dynamic loop where the fast train can overtake without the slower one being delayed very much. However this would only be possible in one direction at at time.

There was talk at one time of skip-stopping on the Transpennine so each train did a couple of the local calls, but I'm not sure if this idea is still active. It would be hopeless good for intermediate journeys, and would probably kill the ale trail stone dead!

From time to time, when long distance services are running late, Doncaster / Leeds stoppers use the loops at Hemsworth / Fitzwilliam to allow East Coast and CrossCountry trains to pass. I believe to 0708 ex Doncaster is scheduled to do so, hence the longer journey time (it must be a XC northbound service that passes.

 

[edwin_m]

From time to time, when long distance services are running late, Doncaster / Leeds stoppers use the loops at Hemsworth / Fitzwilliam to allow East Coast and CrossCountry trains to pass. I believe to 0708 ex Doncaster is scheduled to do so, hence the longer journey time (it must be a XC northbound service that passes.

Just checked the working timetable and the 0708 is indeed booked to wait at Hemsworth from 0726.5 to 0731.5 for 1S31 0600 Birmingham to Glasgow to pass. Thanks for this, I learn something every day!

 

[Chris125]

With all the investment that is going on it seems to me an act of almost deliberate meanness not to provide at least some increase in track capacity by building a few more loops with higher speed turnouts. Also Thornhill LNW Jct to Heaton Lodge should be restored to 4 tracks, and this could be done cheaply with almost no realignment of the existing 3 track formation.

If electrification can avoid the infrastructure cost and journey time implications of loops, why build them? Avoiding unnecessary spending is not being 'mean'.

Chris