• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Future of the Settle to Carlisle, Bentham and Ribble Valley lines

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,582
Location
Lancashire
Of course - I'd forgotten the return journey! In that case skipping all three would just about make it viable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

With that in mind, the following timings would be doable:-

Northbound
  • (Ex. Rochdale xx17)
  • Clitheroe d. xx55
  • Hellifield d. xx18
  • Settle d. xx25
  • Horton-in-Ribblesdale d. xx32
  • Ribblehead d. xx39
  • Kirkby Stephen d. xx02
  • Appleby a. xx16 (2 mins allowance)

Southbound
  • Appleby d. xx15
  • Kirkby Stephen d. xx27
  • Ribblehead d. xx57
  • Horton-in-Ribblesdale d. xx03
  • Settle d. xx11
  • Hellifield d. xx18
  • Clitheroe a. xx41 (2 mins allowance before usual xx43 departure)
  • (To Rochdale, arr. xx02)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

As it happens there is a Network Rail depot at Appleby complete with toilet and kitchen facilities, so if they were prepared to share then it wouldn't even be that difficult to provide an official train crew break location there.
That’s a long walk from the station or sidings though , there is a redundant accommodation building near the Signalbox though that’s closer and could be repurposed

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Is that NR? I thought there was only a heritage organisation at Appleby.
No it’s an NR maintenance delivery unit and a Lom/ Moms office onsite too
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

InkyScrolls

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jul 2022
Messages
1,460
Location
North of England
But you've then taken a unit away from the Leeds end in the morning peak - so adding to the total requirement.
ATM it is provided for by removing the early Carlisle which arrives Leeds 0830-ish.
Indeed - I don't think it's possible to improve services without sourcing another unit from somewhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Some thoughts based on the recent suggestions:-
  • Four services in each direction on weekdays could easily be patched as through to/from Nottingham
  • The 1340 'express' ex Carlisle could be retimed as a 1324 'stopper'
  • An additional 0654 ex Carlisle would break up the very long morning gap in 'up' services
  • This could be balanced by the evening 1949 ex Leeds running through to Carlisle
  • There is pathing available for a reasonably timed service to/from Clitheroe and beyond, morning and afternoon, leaving CLH 'down' at 0755 and 1255, and departing APP 'up' at 0956 and 1456
  • This would give a morning northbound arrival at RHD at 0834, and an afternoon southbound departure at 1535
Later pathing for southbound services is more awkward due to the current Carlisle - Leeds timings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

That’s a long walk from the station or sidings though, there is a redundant accommodation building near the Signalbox though that’s closer and could be repurposed.
Very true.
 
Last edited:

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,718
Location
Leeds
As it happens the 0824, 1340 (which could be 1324 if made a 'stopper'), 1618 and 1824 services ex Carlisle, plus the 0920, 1318, 1518 and 1819 departures ex Leeds interface very well with the hourly Northern services to/from Nottingham, so integrating them as through services would be comparatively simple.
Simple, until you remember that trains from Nottingham would come in from 'F' and have to leave via 'B' at Leeds. And arrive from 'A' and leave via 'F' when heading back south. Which means nothing can move in or out of the west of a rather busy Leeds Station while those movements are happening. Yes, I know they could come into the middle routes, and the services run on Sundays, but there's good reasons why trains to/from specific areas are pathed to specific platforms and routes most of the time.

Is there much demand for through journeys from Nottingham, Sheffield or Barnsley to Ribblehead or is it just a desire to recreate the old Midland route? It feels like the latter, though I don't have access to the ticket sales data to say.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,741
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You don't want to be looking at the ticket sales data for this sort of thing. You want to be surveying people parked up in Horton and Ribblehead for their day hike as to why they didn't consider rail.
 

InkyScrolls

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jul 2022
Messages
1,460
Location
North of England
Simple, until you remember that trains from Nottingham would come in from 'F' and have to leave via 'B' at Leeds. And arrive from 'A' and leave via 'F' when heading back south. Which means nothing can move in or out of the west of a rather busy Leeds Station while those movements are happening. Yes, I know they could come into the middle routes, and the services run on Sundays, but there's good reasons why trains to/from specific areas are pathed to specific platforms and routes most of the time.

Is there much demand for through journeys from Nottingham, Sheffield or Barnsley to Ribblehead or is it just a desire to recreate the old Midland route? It feels like the latter, though I don't have access to the ticket sales data to say.
It's not quite that bad - lines A, B, C and D can all be used to access the Aire Valley (and indeed there are a few diagrams currently which are booked to use D).

As for demand - for Ribblehead I don't know, but that wasn't the point of the exercise - through services would vastly decrease total journey time to Glasgow (for instance).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

You don't want to be looking at the ticket sales data for this sort of thing. You want to be surveying people parked up in Horton and Ribblehead for their day hike as to why they didn't consider rail.
Indeed. There's quite an untapped market there given the relatively high density but poor connectivity of rail in the area.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
10,726
Location
West Riding
Simple, until you remember that trains from Nottingham would come in from 'F' and have to leave via 'B' at Leeds. And arrive from 'A' and leave via 'F' when heading back south. Which means nothing can move in or out of the west of a rather busy Leeds Station while those movements are happening. Yes, I know they could come into the middle routes, and the services run on Sundays, but there's good reasons why trains to/from specific areas are pathed to specific platforms and routes most of the time.

Is there much demand for through journeys from Nottingham, Sheffield or Barnsley to Ribblehead or is it just a desire to recreate the old Midland route? It feels like the latter, though I don't have access to the ticket sales data to say.
It's not quite that bad - lines A, B, C and D can all be used to access the Aire Valley (and indeed there are a few diagrams currently which are booked to use D).

As for demand - for Ribblehead I don't know, but that wasn't the point of the exercise - through services would vastly decrease total journey time to Glasgow (for instance).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Indeed. There's quite an untapped market there given the relatively high density but poor connectivity of rail in the area.
This situation can be improved by trains reversing at Wakefield Kirkgate, heading to Westgate and approaching Leeds from there thus reducing conflicts at Leeds. I have been on a Leeds-bound Hallam Line train that was disrupted so did that move at Wakefield before it formed a service to Morecambe from Leeds.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,631
Location
Northampton
You don't want to be looking at the ticket sales data for this sort of thing. You want to be surveying people parked up in Horton and Ribblehead for their day hike as to why they didn't consider rail.
This something where mobile phones and a QR code make data collection far more cost effective than it ever could be. A decent survey would be of benefit to all parties around travel into the area for walking.
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
9,121
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
This something where mobile phones and a QR code make data collection far more cost effective than it ever could be. A decent survey would be of benefit to all parties around travel into the area for walking.
Unfortunately there is no mobile phone signal at Horton or Ribblehead due to the Yorkshire Dales National Park authority not permitting the construction of aerials within the park boundary.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,631
Location
Northampton
Unfortunately there is no mobile phone signal at Horton or Ribblehead due to the Yorkshire Dales National Park authority not permitting the construction of aerials within the park boundary.
Surely a small aerial could be fitted in the car park, if for no other reason than to enable emergency calls.
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
9,121
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
Surely a small aerial could be fitted in the car park, if for no other reason than to enable emergency calls.
Quite possibly. It's ironic that the National Park authority have allowed Network Rail to build GSM radio towers at every station on the line, which are about four times the height of the average mobile phone mast.
 

wilbers

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2022
Messages
512
Location
Penrith
Quite possibly. It's ironic that the National Park authority have allowed Network Rail to build GSM radio towers at every station on the line, which are about four times the height of the average mobile phone mast.

Maybe because the railway was there long before it was a National Park? I wonder if anyone has ever asked for permission to install a mobile phone mast at Ribblehead.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,631
Location
Northampton
Quite possibly. It's ironic that the National Park authority have allowed Network Rail to build GSM radio towers at every station on the line, which are about four times the height of the average mobile phone mast.
As it was related to the safe operation of the railway the National Park authority probably doesn't have the power to refuse directly, in a similar way to how heritage assets can be demolished if operationally necessary.
It also might have helped that GSM-R stations are smaller than the CSR aerials they replaced.
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,718
Location
N Yorks
As it was related to the safe operation of the railway the National Park authority probably doesn't have the power to refuse directly, in a similar way to how heritage assets can be demolished if operationally necessary.
It also might have helped that GSM-R stations are smaller than the CSR aerials they replaced.
The one NR have built at Ais Gill fills me with disgust every time I pass it. Absolutely no regard for the wild and beautiful place it is in. They could have made an effort.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,741
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Unfortunately there is no mobile phone signal at Horton or Ribblehead due to the Yorkshire Dales National Park authority not permitting the construction of aerials within the park boundary.

What a silly situation. Must be a right nuisance for the locals. It's easy enough to hide them.
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
9,121
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
It also might have helped that GSM-R stations are smaller than the CSR aerials they replaced.
We never had CSR (Cab Secure Radio) on that part of the network....went straight from NRN (National Radio Network) to GSM-R (Global System for Mobile Communication - Railway).
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,718
Location
Leeds
You don't want to be looking at the ticket sales data for this sort of thing. You want to be surveying people parked up in Horton and Ribblehead for their day hike as to why they didn't consider rail.
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."

I take your point, and surveys will always give up real-world, qualitative data, but I think most people who drive there will be reasonably local. So we can find out why the didn't take the train, yes; but I don't think that will show that there's a market from the old Midland route.

It's not quite that bad - lines A, B, C and D can all be used to access the Aire Valley (and indeed there are a few diagrams currently which are booked to use D).
Well, yes, true. I do see an LNER set in P1 one sometimes. But for most of the day the routes and platforms are grouped, there's no slack at Leeds to be too creative. Sadly.

This situation can be improved by trains reversing at Wakefield Kirkgate, heading to Westgate and approaching Leeds from there thus reducing conflicts at Leeds. I have been on a Leeds-bound Hallam Line train that was disrupted so did that move at Wakefield before it formed a service to Morecambe from Leeds.
That has the disadvantage of hitting an already-busy stretch between Wakefield W and Leeds. The stoppers to/from Featherstone don't call at Outwood, for example. And there's nowhere to squeeze in the (Bradford-)Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham via Westgate service, whch would have cut journey times to Sheffield and Nottingham by 20 minutes (and should be the next improvement along that route, not anything else (in my opinion)). Even the proposed third London-Leeds train would have run the other way, avoiding both Wakefield stations.

You could resonably extend the Sheffield-Rotherham-Wakefield-Leeds service, as it uses C & D at Leeds and is already diesel under wires... and it would free up a platform if not terminating at Leeds.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,741
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."

I take your point, and surveys will always give up real-world, qualitative data, but I think most people who drive there will be reasonably local. So we can find out why the didn't take the train, yes; but I don't think that will show that there's a market from the old Midland route.

Fair point. What I do know, though, is that it is an established day trip destination from Lancashire, which is probably why DalesRail has persisted so long. Bit nearer than the Lakes and still nice walking country.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
10,726
Location
West Riding
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."

I take your point, and surveys will always give up real-world, qualitative data, but I think most people who drive there will be reasonably local. So we can find out why the didn't take the train, yes; but I don't think that will show that there's a market from the old Midland route.


Well, yes, true. I do see an LNER set in P1 one sometimes. But for most of the day the routes and platforms are grouped, there's no slack at Leeds to be too creative. Sadly.


That has the disadvantage of hitting an already-busy stretch between Wakefield W and Leeds. The stoppers to/from Featherstone don't call at Outwood, for example. And there's nowhere to squeeze in the (Bradford-)Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham via Westgate service, whch would have cut journey times to Sheffield and Nottingham by 20 minutes (and should be the next improvement along that route, not anything else (in my opinion)). Even the proposed third London-Leeds train would have run the other way, avoiding both Wakefield stations.

You could resonably extend the Sheffield-Rotherham-Wakefield-Leeds service, as it uses C & D at Leeds and is already diesel under wires... and it would free up a platform if not terminating at Leeds.
Well the Nottingham service was supposed to be running via Westgate by this point anyway, so there must be room... ...I'm not sure the route is even back to pre-Covid service levels yet. And they managed to fit in the EMR HST's, which no longer run that way either too, plus the old Huddersfield terminators and the assorted capacity-draining shunt moves are gone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Fair point. What I do know, though, is that it is an established day trip destination from Lancashire, which is probably why DalesRail has persisted so long. Bit nearer than the Lakes and still nice walking country.
Well the advantage of Ribblehead (and Horton in Ribblesdale) is that decent and scenic day or half-day hikes start right from the stations, whereas in the Lake District you would generally need to catch a bus as well to access the good stuff, which then leaves you pressed for time.
 
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,631
Location
Northampton
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."
"Did you come from Nottingham or Sheffield?" "No."

I take your point, and surveys will always give up real-world, qualitative data, but I think most people who drive there will be reasonably local. So we can find out why the didn't take the train, yes; but I don't think that will show that there's a market from the old Midland route.
On a pedantic point, Surveys are usually seen as quantitative data. You need to interview people to get qualitative data. There is obviously some crossover as surveys can include free text entry, but personally I wouldn't put too many questions like that on a survey of this kind.
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,718
Location
N Yorks
On a pedantic point, Surveys are usually seen as quantitative data. You need to interview people to get qualitative data. There is obviously some crossover as surveys can include free text entry, but personally I wouldn't put too many questions like that on a survey of this kind.
one problem is people will cram3 or 4 adults in a car and go walking together. Railway can't compete with that.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,171
one problem is people will cram3 or 4 adults in a car and go walking together. Railway can't compete with that.
No, but it can offer service for those who can't drive, or for making point to point trips.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,631
Location
Northampton
one problem is people will cram3 or 4 adults in a car and go walking together. Railway can't compete with that.
Well, it can, because the railway can cram a lot more than 4 people in a train. Where rail can't compete is flexibility of location and time.
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,482
Location
Liverpool
What a silly situation. Must be a right nuisance for the locals. It's easy enough to hide them.
Probably only a select few are allowed out, having washed off their woad, to staff the refreshment cabins and mutter incomprehensible directions to hikers.
 

wilbers

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2022
Messages
512
Location
Penrith

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,878
Even better for stargazing as the skies are pretty dark there when not cloudy/raining
You just have to hope you're lucky and get the one day of the year it's not raining up there...
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,582
Location
Lancashire
The one NR have built at Ais Gill fills me with disgust every time I pass it. Absolutely no regard for the wild and beautiful place it is in. They could have made an effort.
In what way is it disgusting? Interestingly enough EE appear to have erected masts at Aisgill / Mallerstang now so there is some movement and there is a mobile signal only 3/4 of a mile from Ribblehead now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top