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

[zwk500]

It looks like most nights there might typically be one freight working. If they really want it to run overnight the freight operator should be paying the full cost of keeping the line open for them. The whole line is over spec for what it is now the freight traffic has died. The current traffic could be accommodated by a low speed single line with minimal signalling, but obviously it'd cost a substantial sum to change it now.

The speed can't reasonably be dropped for the passenger service, tbf. I agree that the freight could be retimed to allow the line to close overnight and potentially save on a signaller's shift. However the real gain would be if we can get trains to reliably self-prove their integrity, then you can install ETCS without needing to install track circuits and axle counters the whole way along as well. Whilst the signalling still needs continuous train detection, the costs of upgrading and maintaining it don't justify the savings in staff or capacity benefits. If you can get to Balise-only ETCS, then it becomes worth it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The speed can't reasonably be dropped for the passenger service, tbf. I agree that the freight could be retimed to allow the line to close overnight and potentially save on a signaller's shift. However the real gain would be if we can get trains to reliably self-prove their integrity, then you can install ETCS without needing to install track circuits and axle counters the whole way along as well. Whilst the signalling still needs continuous train detection, the costs of upgrading and maintaining it don't justify the savings in staff or capacity benefits. If you can get to Balise-only ETCS, then it becomes worth it.

I know RETB is deprecated, but is there a reason the railway couldn't come up with a similarly cheap and effective replacement for it? How is train integrity dealt with there - by the guard looking at it? Similarly for train staff working?

There'd not be much point spending money singling it until major renewals were necessary, at which point that may be cheaper and thus preferable. I was never quite sure why BR went around singling lines that weren't being renewed at the time - was it purely for the scrap value?

 

[zwk500]

I know RETB is deprecated, but is there a reason the railway couldn't come up with a similarly cheap replacement for it? How is train integrity dealt with there - by the guard looking at it? Similarly for train staff working?

I don't know for certain, but basically yes, I believe the Remote signalling areas self-confirm the Train is complete. This obviously isn't terribly practical to do for a non-stop train. Similarly RETB requires stopping and a slow radio communication to exchange the tokens, which is fine in the highlands but the S&C if it were covered by 1 person they'd be quite busy, especially if a freight needed a ground frame or something.

Forcing every train to stop on the S&C at every block post would not be a sensible way of running it. I'm not a signalling engineer or operations specialist, but I don't see a way in which the RETB system could be adapted for non-stop trains (double track is straightforward, but every train must stop at every Token exchange).
However, as only limited capacity is required, in theory it should be possible to mount a RFID beacon on the trains, with balises at block sections that 'tag' the train as it comes past to prove the Train is complete without track circuits or Axle counters, with MAs dealt with as per normal ETCS L2. It'd need some tweaks to train and interlocking software, but should be doable. Presumably places like Sweden and Norway are coming up with solutions for remote lines in miles of wilderness.

 

[The Planner]

It looks like most nights there might typically be one freight working. If they really want it to run overnight the freight operator should be paying the full cost of keeping the line open for them. The whole line is over spec for what it is now the freight traffic has died. The current traffic could be accommodated by a low speed single line with minimal signalling, but obviously it'd cost a substantial sum to change it now.

On the contrary, there is still development work going on to up the line speed.

 

[InkyScrolls]

On the contrary, there is still development work going on to up the line speed.

That's very interesting - are you able to provide a source, or is that information you know through work? Either way good to know if true (if somewhat surprising!).

 

[The Planner]

That's very interesting - are you able to provide a source, or is that information you know through work? Either way good to know if true (if somewhat surprising!).

No idea if it is being progressed to any detailed design, but I know that it is/was being looked at within NR recently.

 

[philthetube]

But if it's that or close the line, would you get up early and use the 0827 instead? I would. The DalesRail is popular and that's a very early start.

That sound like closure by stealth, make it inconvenient and expensive, (no rail cards), drive off the passengers then close it.

 

[yorksrob]

That sound like closure by stealth, make it inconvenient and expensive, (no rail cards), drive off the passengers then close it.

Indeed. This thread has descended into pie in the sky slashing proposals offering little potential benefit.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Indeed. This thread has descended into pie in the sky slashing proposals offering little potential benefit.

Little benefit to the S&C, yes. But given the current financial situation and strongly anti-railway government currently in place, if services on the S&C could be altered to minimise losses that would not, in the long term, necessarily be a bad thing.

Of course I would far rather see an hourly clock-face timetable for both the S&C and Bentham lines, but that's never going to happen.

As a middle ground - and something which, in the medium term, is more likely - I would prefer to see the following:-

• Clock-face timetable for both lines
• Regular two-hourly departures
• All stations called at by all trains
• Linespeed raised to 75 mph to improve timing

These are not only possible but (the current government notwithstanding!) probable improvements in the medium term.

 

[yorksrob]

Little benefit to the S&C, yes. But given the current financial situation and strongly anti-railway government currently in place, if services on the S&C could be altered to minimise losses that would not, in the long term, necessarily be a bad thing.

Of course I would far rather see an hourly clock-face timetable for both the S&C and Bentham lines, but that's never going to happen.

As a middle ground - and something which, in the medium term, is more likely - I would prefer to see the following:-

• Clock-face timetable for both lines
• Regular two-hourly departures
• All stations called at by all trains
• Linespeed raised to 75 mph to improve timing

These are not only possible but (the current government notwithstanding!) probable improvements in the medium term.

I think that we can both agree that an hourly service on both lines is overly optimistic at present.

I agree that a two hourly minimum on the lines would be desirabe, however that seems close to the status quo anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that we can both agree that an hourly service on both lines is overly optimistic at present.

I agree that a two hourly minimum on the lines would be desirabe, however that seems close to the status quo anyway.

What would be nice would be 5.195 every two hours from Leeds to Hellifield, allowing a decent length service for the commuters, with three coaches continuing onto the S&C and two to Lancaster via Bentham, and Morecambe a separate, more regular-interval timetable.

In the other hour, it'd be an EMU from Leeds to Skipton.

DalesRail both Saturday and Sunday in summer.

I do however think any reasonable timetable cut for now is better than any closures.

 

[yorksrob]

What would be nice would be 5.195 every two hours from Leeds to Hellifield, allowing a decent length service for the commuters, with three coaches continuing onto the S&C and two to Lancaster via Bentham, and Morecambe a separate, more regular-interval timetable.

In the other hour, it'd be an EMU from Leeds to Skipton.

I do however think any reasonable timetable cut for now is better than any closures.

I think that at the very least, passenger usage of both lines justifies the status quo in terms of services.

Whether they could justify further improvements, remains to be seen.

 

[zwk500]

What would be nice would be 5.195 every two hours from Leeds, allowing a decent length service for the commuters, with three coaches continuing onto the S&C and two to Lancaster via Bentham, and Morecambe a separate, more regular-interval timetable.

In the other hour, it'd be an EMU from Leeds to Skipton.

I do however think any reasonable timetable cut for now is better than any closures.

Closure is unrealistic for financial as much as political reasons. Restriction of hours to save overnight shifts would be useful, but only if it doesn't kick up a fuss with the unions.

0.5tph on each line, common path Leeds-Hellifield 1tph (with Bentham line serving all stations, S&C trains not stopping at Gargrave and Long Preston) would be my personal aim. Not sure if Lancaster or Morecambe is the more sensible final destination, but I'd try and serve the same terminus each time for Betham line trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

0.5tph on each line, common path Leeds-Hellifield 1tph (with Bentham line serving all stations, S&C trains not stopping at Gargrave and Long Preston) would be my personal aim. Not sure if Lancaster or Morecambe is the more sensible final destination, but I'd try and serve the same terminus each time for Betham line trains.

If it was to Morecambe and the timings fitted, you could have it do a Windermere - through to Morecambe via Lancaster, back to Lancaster, back to Morecambe then back to Leeds via Lancaster, allowing an hourly clockface service on the Morecambe branch which I think would be better than the present messy service.

 

[zwk500]

If it was to Morecambe and the timings fitted, you could have it do a Windermere - through to Morecambe via Lancaster, back to Lancaster, back to Morecambe then back to Leeds via Lancaster, allowing an hourly clockface service on the Morecambe branch which I think would be better than the present messy service.

I'm not sure the timings would fit, or that you'd be able to find suitable paths - the Leeds-Lancaster via Morecambe service needs a conflicting move across the Down Main 3 or 4 times in very short order, at Carnforth North, Hest bank Jn, Morecambe Sth Jn, and Lancaster throat (if using 1/2).
Maybe SX it would terminate Lancaster direct but SO it would go via Morecambe.

 

[urbophile]

Closure is unrealistic for financial as much as political reasons. Restriction of hours to save overnight shifts would be useful, but only if it doesn't kick up a fuss with the unions.

0.5tph on each line, common path Leeds-Hellifield 1tph (with Bentham line serving all stations, S&C trains not stopping at Gargrave and Long Preston) would be my personal aim. Not sure if Lancaster or Morecambe is the more sensible final destination, but I'd try and serve the same terminus each time for Betham line trains.

Aww! As a sometime resident of Gargrave (albeit many years ago) I was perking up at the prospect of 1 train an hour. The village seems to be (gradually) growing and the population more affluent and possibly more elderly, just the demographic more likely to use trains. Cononley on the other side of Skipton, a somewhat smaller village, benefits from 3 tph (at least pre-covid) because the line is electrified.

 

[D365]

I bet the preston signallers are pleased the leeds - lancaster trains are now 90 mph 158's rather than 75mph 150 or pacers.

Do the Northern stoppers even make it to 90 between stops?

 

[zwk500]

Aww! As a sometime resident of Gargrave (albeit many years ago) I was perking up at the prospect of 1 train an hour. The village seems to be (gradually) growing and the population more affluent and possibly more elderly, just the demographic more likely to use trains. Cononley on the other side of Skipton, a somewhat smaller village, benefits from 3 tph (at least pre-covid) because the line is electrified.

If you could justfiy Preston-Blackburn-Hellifield-Skipton-Leeds services, I'd happily support extending the wires and stopping more trains at Gargrave. However atm the journey time of Leeds to the dales is more critical and even the 3-5 mins stopping at Gargrave makes a difference.

 

[Neptune]

However atm the journey time of Leeds to the dales is more critical and even the 3-5 mins stopping at Gargrave makes a difference.

I would definitely stop every service at Gargrave. 3-5 minutes extra really isn’t all that critical in the grand scheme of things and Gargrave has higher passenger figures than Hellifield which seemingly deserves an hourly service.

 

[InkyScrolls]

If you could justfiy Preston-Blackburn-Hellifield-Skipton-Leeds services, I'd happily support extending the wires and stopping more trains at Gargrave. However atm the journey time of Leeds to the dales is more critical and even the 3-5 mins stopping at Gargrave makes a difference.

The extra stop adds just two minutes, and as others have said, GGV actually has higher passenger figures than HLD.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2022 ==

Aww! As a sometime resident of Gargrave (albeit many years ago) I was perking up at the prospect of 1 train an hour. The village seems to be (gradually) growing and the population more affluent and possibly more elderly, just the demographic more likely to use trains. Cononley on the other side of Skipton, a somewhat smaller village, benefits from 3 tph (at least pre-covid) because the line is electrified.

CEY actually had (and will have again from Monday 12/12/22) four trains per hour in each direction - four to SKI, and two each to LDS and BDQ.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2022 ==

Do the Northern stoppers even make it to 90 between stops?

No, but only because they aren't timed to. If running late then 90 mph is achievable between most stations, bar where the limit is lower. The 333s and 331s have very good acceleration.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2022 ==

0.5tph on each line, common path Leeds-Hellifield 1tph (with Bentham line serving all stations, S&C trains not stopping at Gargrave and Long Preston) would be my personal aim. Not sure if Lancaster or Morecambe is the more sensible final destination, but I'd try and serve the same terminus each time for Betham line trains.

Why not?

 

[zwk500]

The extra stop adds just two minutes, and as others have said, GGV actually has higher passenger figures than HLD.

Why not?

Didn't realist Gargrave had the higher numbers! Fair enough, the S&C can stop there if it fits in the unit cycle. The target was to get some recovery time in the S&C schedules by speeding up the overall journey time, but if Gargrave has higher passenger numbers the revenue will be more important.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Didn't realist Gargrave had the higher numbers! Fair enough, the S&C can stop there if it fits in the unit cycle. The target was to get some recovery time in the S&C schedules by speeding up the overall journey time, but if Gargrave has higher passenger numbers the revenue will be more important.

It surprised me as well at first, especially given the current stopping patterns. The main reason for me to not skip stations is that, due to the long journey time (two hours SKI to CAR) and relatively few stations there isn't much time to be saved by running semifast - even a hypothetical express, calling at only SKI and CAR, would take 1 hr 35 mins (approx.). Linespeed improvements world reduce this further of course.

 

[Neptune]

Long Preston is the oddball station. Is it really worth keeping it open when it is so close to Hellifield and it’s usage figures are so low?

For the record I’d terminate at Lancaster rather than Morecambe to reduce conflicts.

 

[InkyScrolls]

For the record I’d terminate at Lancaster rather than Morecambe to reduce conflicts.

Definitely. I'm surprised that's not the case already.

The business case for the passenger service to MCM is shaky enough as it is, given the frequent bus service and very poor reliability/punctuality.

 

[30907]

Long Preston is the oddball station. Is it really worth keeping it open when it is so close to Hellifield and it’s usage figures are so low?

It's well sited for the village, but the village isn't exactly huge (nor has it had the housing growth of Gargrave and Hellifield to attract regular commuters). I would keep it.

For the record I’d terminate at Lancaster rather than Morecambe to reduce conflicts.

But then you'd want to replace the Lancaster-Morecambe section, so you gain very little if anything, and possibly require an additional crew and unit (AIUI, the 4tpd concerned are crewed from the Skipton end).

 

[Neptune]

But then you'd want to replace the Lancaster-Morecambe section, so you gain very little if anything, and possibly require an additional crew and unit (AIUI, the 4tpd concerned are crewed from the Skipton end).

There is a booked unit to do the shuttle all day so it wouldn’t need an extra unit.

All LNW services are crewed by Skipton between Skipton and Lancaster however Wigan crews take one of them through the week (a double shuttle with the 158) whilst the Skipton crew have a break in Lancaster. A Barrow crew works to Heysham on a Sunday.

There would be no issues with an hourly Lancaster - Morecambe shuttle using crews from these depots and making the Leeds - Lancaster service more reliable (the Morecambe shuttle causes these services their biggest delays). Crew resources would not need to be increased as an hourly clockface shuttle will be very crew efficient.

Even more efficient, have a west side depot sign Lancaster - Skipton to share the workload and make it more crew reliable (2 depots signing a route is always preferable to 1).

 

[matacaster]

How would the service going to Preston and Blackpool rather than morecambe compare to route via Bradford interchange?

 

[Greybeard33]

There is a booked unit to do the shuttle all day so it wouldn’t need an extra unit.

All LNW services are crewed by Skipton between Skipton and Lancaster however Wigan crews take one of them through the week (a double shuttle with the 158) whilst the Skipton crew have a break in Lancaster. A Barrow crew works to Heysham on a Sunday.

There would be no issues with an hourly Lancaster - Morecambe shuttle using crews from these depots and making the Leeds - Lancaster service more reliable (the Morecambe shuttle causes these services their biggest delays). Crew resources would not need to be increased as an hourly clockface shuttle will be very crew efficient.

Even more efficient, have a west side depot sign Lancaster - Skipton to share the workload and make it more crew reliable (2 depots signing a route is always preferable to 1).

The Northern unit diagrams show that the Morecambe shuttle interworks with Lancaster - Barrow/Carlisle services and that five different 156s are booked to work the shuttle at different times of day, M-F. The relevant unit diagrams are:
HT663 - 6 evening round trips Lancaster - Morecambe
HT671 - 1 evening
HT673 - 1 mid morning
HT674 - 4 afternoon
HT680 - 7 morning + the Heysham round trip

The five Leeds - Morecambe services, booked as 158s, are interspersed amongst these, and one of them shuttles Lancaster - Morecambe twice before returning to Leeds.

It is by no means obvious that unit and crew resources could be used as efficiently if these diagrams were disentangled in order that a single unit could work the shuttle all day. Units and crews would likely have longer layovers at Lancaster before returning to Barrow/Carlisle/Leeds.

 

[HSTEd]

The speed can't reasonably be dropped for the passenger service, tbf. I agree that the freight could be retimed to allow the line to close overnight and potentially save on a signaller's shift. However the real gain would be if we can get trains to reliably self-prove their integrity, then you can install ETCS without needing to install track circuits and axle counters the whole way along as well. Whilst the signalling still needs continuous train detection, the costs of upgrading and maintaining it don't justify the savings in staff or capacity benefits. If you can get to Balise-only ETCS, then it becomes worth it.

I'm not sure the potential savings from even an ETCS L2/3H hybrid solution are fully appreciated.
I think from Long Preston to just short of the Tyne Valley line junction, even fully axle countering entrances to sidings and junctions (to assist post-fault sweeping), you are looking at a total of 41 axle counters and 28 point machines for the entire line.
If you were willing to pay for structural repairs to the Ribbleshead viaduct so it can be double track again you could cut that further, as well as rationalising sidings arrangements, there are a lot of random sidings that probably serve little purpose in a multiple unit dominated railway.

When Signal Equivalent Units are £400,000 apiece, even marginal savings on signalling cost from deleting most of the axle counters would pay for a lot of freight trains to be fitted with ECP braking (which would give them electronic train integrity checking). The US Federal Railroad Administration was using estimates of $8,000 per freight vehicle and $80,000 per locomotive for retrofit costs.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not sure the potential savings from even an ETCS L2/3H hybrid solution are fully appreciated.
I think from Long Preston to just short of the Tyne Valley line junction, even fully axle countering entrances to sidings and junctions (to assist post-fault sweeping), you are looking at a total of 41 axle counters and 28 point machines for the entire line.
If you were willing to pay for structural repairs to the Ribbleshead viaduct so it can be double track again you could cut that further, as well as rationalising sidings arrangements, there are a lot of random sidings that probably serve little purpose in a multiple unit dominated railway.

When Signal Equivalent Units are £400,000 apiece, even marginal savings on signalling cost from deleting most of the axle counters would pay for a lot of freight trains to be fitted with ECP braking (which would give them electronic train integrity checking). The US Federal Railroad Administration was using estimates of $8,000 per freight vehicle and $80,000 per locomotive for retrofit costs.

ECP makes a hell of a lot of sense on the S&C for performance and safety reasons aside from the potential train integrity checking. However while ECP braking might solve the freight issues, AIUI there would still be the issues of DMUs which could work in multiple and heritage/Charter stock which will only fit ECP braking if they are forced to. Also is ECP part of the L3 spec? I agree that a L2.5 would offer the UK great benefit for lesser used lines.

I seem to recall seeing higher estimates of ECP fitments, although still a far sight lower than the SEU costs.

There aren't that many sidings that serve no purpose on the S&C - most of the connections are to quarries or railheads, and Appleby sidings are a transfer siding to the heritage line there as well as being a Departmental siding.