Can the S&C really be compared to The Alps? It’s not even the most scenic line in the UK.
You’ve mentioned a few times that you like the Northern 158 refurb
It’s not even the most scenic part of the Dales. It’s nice and has one spectacular part for me (Blea Moor to Dent) visible on only one side of the train. The most famous part of the line isn’t even visible from the train which actually disappoints so many visitors to the line!
You won’t encourage more punters off season. The line is open 364 days a year with normal prices. Charging a bit more for a totally pointless panoramic car (nobody has yet acknowledged that the scenery on this route isn’t actually above you so would be an expense for no reason) will encourage them less.
They are still decent units. However as you say they are long in the tooth and I wouldn’t want to see us getting even more from other companies as some people on here seem to wish for.
You would have to have 2+2 seating though so as not to lose capacity on other routes such as Calder Valley, Wolds Coast etc…. 2+2 FC would be the sham FC you don’t like am I correct?
No train should have 3+2 seating in the UK. We just don’t have the loading gauge for it.
I guess the argument is that it works all year round in Switzerland. But the the S&C is not the RhB. Swiss mountain railways support a vast tourist infrastructure which peaks in the winter and also sees large numbers throughout the year. No conceivable tourism strategy for the Dales would come close.
Because these would have to be extra carriages, to prevent overcrowding in the remainder of the train at peak times. There would have to be a number of these carriages, in order to ensure that those trains booked to convey them actually did convey them - day after day. Our railways are not at all good at doing such things. Much of the year these extra carriages would lie idle, or be carried around without attracting worthwhile custom.
I don’t think going back to sticking on 153’s are the answer.
Not regularly overcrowded. I said ‘running close to capacity’. However certain services particularly on a summer Saturday will be overcrowded. Platform extensions for the purpose of attaching a 153 to a few high peak summer services isn’t exactly a great use of funds when you consider other financial issues throughout the industry.
Yes I get a bit tired of this old argument. The S&C is nice, not spectacular or amazing where mountains tower above you like the Alps, it’s nice with some biggish hills in the distance (not mountains) a few rolling fields and some historic infrastructure, most of which can’t be seen from the train.
Is it going to cover its cost to fit it bearing in mind it’ll be declassified for 95% of the work the 158’s do.
Quite right.
There’s 8 tables per coach on a 158 meaning 16 per 2 car unit, 24 per 3 car and 32 per 4 car. Not exactly poor provision bearing in mind that on a 4 car set 128 people can be sat around a table. This is around half the seating capacity of a 158 which is fair in my book. Many more people prefer an airline seat these days than even 10 years ago. Legroom on the Northern 158’s is good (except the awful slouchy original seats in the 3 car units).
Hmm a few bike racks at one end with awful Richmond seats most likely at the same leg crushing pitch. Still not ideal for me.
The S&C is as far out of reach of most of England too to be fair.
Agreed. I prefer the Tyne Valley route too, a much nicer run.
But well within reach of the Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire conurbations, which account for a big chunk of the population.
For what it's worth, there is room in a clockface timetable akin to the one I posted above for semifast services LDS - CAR (plus the reverse) in between the stoppers. They would leave both Carlisle and Leeds at 0550, 1150 and 1750 (29 and 6 minutes before the stopping services respectively); they'd call at Appleby, Kirkby Stephen, Settle, Skipton and Shipley, and arrive at 0800, 1400 and 2000, 60 and 36 minutes before the following stopping services. There is just the pathing available for such a service between the local trains on the Airedale Line.
How many units and crew would your combined timetable require to operate, compared to today?
How’s running services so close together going to affect the limited capacity at Carlisle?
You’ve missed out the not inconsiderable populations of Keighley and Bingley to probably catch up the stopper in front. Poor use of a sparse path.
More, certainly. Including the semifasts there are an additional five round trips over the two lines - which is partly why I don't believe the case is there for semifast services.
It shouldn't matter at Carlisle, largely thanks to the separation from the WCML (assuming using platforms 5 or 6). As for catching up the stopper - unless it's running late that wouldn't happen, but for the sake of four minutes Keighley and Bingley could easily be added.
Total overkill on top of a 2 hourly stopper which has higher overall benefits than a semi fast.
Carlisle has the single line bottleneck outside plus there are 2 Tyne Valley services an hour meaning 4 trains from that route pass over it each hour. Platform capacity is fine until you start throwing in lots of longer formations and there’s too much chance of conflicting moves.
Missing Bingley and Keighley is ridiculous to be honest. There is a huge market from those 2 stations.
No. Your example of Kirkby Stephen only just fits 4 cars in for example.
Expresses only ever stopped at Appleby (West) and Settle. Kirkby Stephen (West) is a long distance out of town and only ever served by local trains.
Regardless of any other issues, the 333s with their longer carriages would not clear Dent platform.
Any particular reason ?
The down platform is too close to the track - not unchangeable though.
Are the 230s failures? Island Line would seem to disagree.
Thank you for the correction - but other operators do use 230s.
I think we can safely say even in a speculation thread, 333s will never see diesel engines strapped to them!