Cumbria Council submits bid for Windermere improvements

[Wearhead]

On BBC News website today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64535958

"Cumbria County Council has submitted a bid to the government for a "dynamic passing loop" on the line between Oxenholme and Windermere stations.
It is currently single track, meaning only one round trip per hour is possible.
A second platform at Burneside and line speed and level crossing improvements are also included in the bid.
A county council spokesman said the passing loop would run west from Burneside and would enable trains to pass each other without having to slow down.
He said the current single track set-up "limits its ability to support the visitor economy and restricts local community access via rail to health, education and other key services".
Keith Little, cabinet member for highways and transport, said it was an "exciting proposal", adding: "We believe creating a dynamic passing loop as part of a major investment in the Lakes Line would be hugely beneficial and help deliver a rural transport exemplar which better meets the needs of our residents, visitors and businesses."
The strategic outline case has been submitted for consideration as part of the Department for Transport's Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
The outline case argues a package of enhancements for the Lakes Line could add up to 225,000 trips to the 550,000 taken per year along the line."

A couple of obvious questions spring to mind - is a Local Authority the best placed body to be suggesting detailed line improvements, - and why now, as Cumbria County Council will cease to exist on 1st April (which is not a joke).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that to allow for charters? Hourly clockface would be nice, but the best way to deliver that would be a fourth platform at Oxenholme or a direct connection onto the main up line to allow the unit to be swapped without needing it to wait outside the station.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that they have ‘submitted for consideration‘ as part of the RNEP.

Or, to read it another way, asked for Government to pay for it. Many other local authorities choose to pay for things like this themselves, as they then have skin in the game and can control what gets done.

 

[The Planner]

Seems a potentially expensive solution, presumably there is some sort of timetabling to back it up somewhere.

 

[CE142]

Are thery pushing for electric wires as well?
If not why not? No more diesels scores highly on the 'Green' scale of things these days. Only in the UK would we run a DMU all the way from Manchester Airport to Windermere, because the last 10 miles aren't electrified.

 

[TheHSRailFan]

Are thery pushing for electric wires as well?
If not why not? No more diesels scores highly on the 'Green' scale of things these days. Only in the UK would we run a DMU all the way from Manchester Airport to Windermere, because the last 10 miles aren't electrified.

There was a proposal to get wires on that line a decade ago. Was shelved.

 

[yorksrob]

There was a proposal to get wires on that line a decade ago. Was shelved.

McNulty thought it was silly.

 

[pdeaves]

Or, to read it another way, asked for Government to pay for it. Many other local authorities choose to pay for things like this themselves, as they then have skin in the game and can control what gets done.

Without having seen all the bid detail, it is possible that the bid is for part of the funding and the council will match with the rest.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Hourly clockface would be nice, but the best way to deliver that would be a fourth platform at Oxenholme...

How's that better/easier than installing a place for trains to pass/crossover, at a location approaching the halfway point between Oxenholme and Windermere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How's that better/easier than installing a place for trains to pass/crossover, at a location approaching the halfway point between Oxenholme and Windermere?

Because that wouldn't enable the operation of an hourly clockface service without an extra unit. The bottleneck occurs at Oxenholme at times when a through service operates, because you really want both of them in the platform at once.

The loop needs to be located in a place where it enables the intended service. Are Cumbria CC trying for half hourly? Seems unlikely and unjustified. Or is it to enable charters? Would be easier, in that case, to have a second platform at Windermere, which would be very easy, you'd just need to buy a bit of Booths' car park.

 

[The Planner]

How's that better/easier than installing a place for trains to pass/crossover, at a location approaching the halfway point between Oxenholme and Windermere?

Id also ask why its assumed that halfway is the best place.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sounds awfully like the St Albans Abbey line proposal.

 

[Meerkat]

Would be easier, in that case, to have a second platform at Windermere, which would be very easy, you'd just need to buy a bit of Booths' car park.

Would be a very big chunk of their car park and not leave them enough?
How long does the charter platform need to be - would it be easier to put a short platform on the back of the current one, as Lakeland has potential for car parking to the north or east?

 

[zwk500]

Would be a very big chunk of their car park and not leave them enough?
How long does the charter platform need to be - would it be easier to put a short platform on the back of the current one, as Lakeland has potential for car parking to the north or east?

A charter is typically about 260m long, although can be 300m or could run shorter if infrastructure demands and the ticket price is attainable. The train must behind the first signal.
There's no mention of a second platform at windermere, so I suspect this project is about reliability or even a frequency uplift and nothing to do with railtours, as you would want a charter to lay over at Windermere not have to shuttle off to Oxenholme goods loop or Carnforth.

 

[A0]

Is that to allow for charters? Hourly clockface would be nice, but the best way to deliver that would be a fourth platform at Oxenholme or a direct connection onto the main up line to allow the unit to be swapped without needing it to wait outside the station.

I doubt it's for charters - there wouldn't be enough of those to even begin to make a sensible business case.

Far more likely it's for service improvements or resilience to the current service.

 

[Meerkat]

A charter is typically about 260m long, although can be 300m or could run shorter if infrastructure demands and the ticket price is attainable. The train must behind the first signal.
There's no mention of a second platform at windermere, so I suspect this project is about reliability or even a frequency uplift and nothing to do with railtours, as you would want a charter to lay over at Windermere not have to shuttle off to Oxenholme goods loop or Carnforth.

Ah. Not enough room before the first underbridge.
Not a lot of room for a load of road coaches either, if the passengers are getting shipped off to see the sights.

 

[adamedwards]

A half hourly service means it connects more frequently with main line services, rather than the current mishmash. The local campaigners have been calling for this for years. The improved service would then support the case for electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah. Not enough room before the first underbridge.
Not a lot of room for a load of road coaches either, if the passengers are getting shipped off to see the sights.

Plenty of room for road coaches. There's like a mini bus station thing going on there.

A half hourly service means it connects more frequently with main line services, rather than the current mishmash. The local campaigners have been calling for this for years. The improved service would then support the case for electrification.

It's difficult to justify half hourly. Better would be to sort out the mess that is the north WCML timetable so that itself is clockface, which would have other benefits.

 

[Meerkat]

Plenty of room for road coaches. There's like a mini bus station thing going on there.

Really? Looks like 3 bus stops and one waiting spot. Not a lot of room for stacking enough coaches to cart off a charter train’s worth of passengers.

 

[zwk500]

Really? Looks like 3 bus stops and one waiting spot. Not a lot of room for stacking enough coaches to cart off a charter train’s worth of passengers.

A fair number would want to stay in the town itself though - a Charter would only have 3 or 4 hours before it needed to return again. And a Charter doesn't need the full length platforming - it would only need to be behind the signal.

However there's no mention in the application for a second platform, so I think Charters are very much a red herring. To me this seems to be more about allowing the branch trains to be timed more conveniently for the main line trains, either connections at Oxenholme or by being more flexible on paths down towards Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However there's no mention in the application for a second platform, so I think Charters are very much a red herring. To me this seems to be more about allowing the branch trains to be timed more conveniently for the main line trains, either connections at Oxenholme or by being more flexible on paths down towards Preston.

In which case it's in the wrong place, as it'd only achieve that if a second unit was added. Whereas an additional platform at Oxenholme or direct connection to the WCML up line would allow two units to be at Oxenholme at once (the one coming in and the one going out), and thus would allow that flexibility. Goodness only knows why they built that silly siding just south of the station rather than doing it properly.

 

[zwk500]

In which case it's in the wrong place, as it'd only achieve that if a second unit was added. Whereas an additional platform at Oxenholme or direct connection to the WCML up line would allow two units to be at Oxenholme at once (the one coming in and the one going out), and thus would allow that flexibility. Goodness only knows why they built that silly siding just south of the station rather than doing it properly.

I make no comment on the quality of the application. Just that they don't seem to be considering railtours as part of the answer. Which leads me to suspect that they have asked for a very quick desktop feasibility assessment of the timetable for hourly and half-hourly options. Or something like that.

If it were me I'd certainly be looking for double track from the WCML end to a suitable point and then down to single track as now. However making changes at Oxenholme is likely to mean losing the car park, or at least the access to the overflow, and also require rejigging of the CE Sidings and Down Loop south of the station. That's all VERY expensive and so a loop is probably seen as at least feasible if not cheap.

What I might consider would be to have a cut-in platform (a la MKC P2a) for a shuttle at the north end of 3, maintaining the south end of 3 for through trains from the WCML. With a modest extension of double track (Kendal station being an obvious point to aim for) and a facing/trailing crossover set this would allow mainline trains to depart towards Windermere without waiting for the shuttle to clear the branch, and allow trains from the branch heading to the WCML to pull into the platform and then the shuttle depart 1 minute behind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it were me I'd certainly be looking for double track from the WCML end to a suitable point and then down to single track as now. However making changes at Oxenholme is likely to mean losing the car park, or at least the access to the overflow, and also require rejigging of the CE Sidings and Down Loop south of the station. That's all VERY expensive and so a loop is probably seen as at least feasible if not cheap.

The main car park is on the other side. If there's a secondary one that would be lost on the branch side, that's no major thing. The main one could be double decked if needs be.

 

[zwk500]

The main car park is on the other side. If there's a secondary one that would be lost on the branch side, that's no major thing. The main one could be double decked if needs be.

The car parks on the Up side also function as an Engineer's access (although there is another entrance at the south end) and I suspect that the loss of the car park income would be seen quite poorly, especially when a full-blown Platform 4 isn't *Really* justified either. You may have missed my later edit about a cut-in platform for a branch shuttle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The car parks on the Up side also function as an Engineer's access (although there is another entrance at the south end) and I suspect that the loss of the car park income would be seen quite poorly, especially when a full-blown Platform 4 isn't *Really* justified either. You may have missed my later edit about a cut-in platform for a branch shuttle.

If 3 was extended both ways you could probably do a "long platform split in half" type solution.

 

[zwk500]

If 3 was extended both ways you could probably do a "long platform split in half" type solution.

So the optimum solution for me would be a Long 3 with mid-platform crossover to allow the shuttle to sit at the north end, similar to Penryn loop or Chester P3, as this allows a long train to call in extreme circumstances. However there is quite an old boundary wall and the Train Shed abutment next to P3, so instead I'd opt for a 'cut-in' P2a/3a at the north end (Like New St 4c, Clapham Jn P1 or MKC P2a), which will sadly involve the waiting room being demolished/relocated but the platform is wide enough otherwise.
Either option would be in tandem with double track to Kendal to give resilience into the plan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the optimum solution for me would be a Long 3 with mid-platform crossover to allow the shuttle to sit at the north end, similar to Penryn loop or Chester P3, as this allows a long train to call in extreme circumstances. However there is quite an old boundary wall and the Train Shed abutment next to P3, so instead I'd opt for a 'cut-in' P2a/3a at the north end (Like New St 4c, Clapham Jn P1 or MKC P2a), which will sadly involve the waiting room being demolished/relocated but the platform is wide enough otherwise.
Either option would be in tandem with double track to Kendal to give resilience into the plan.

That won't work as a 6 car shuttle train has to be planned for.

There isn't a separate shuttle unit. What happens is that each hour that operates a through service (three per day at the moment I think) the unit that was shuttling comes out and is replaced by the incoming one.

 

[javelin]

Given how oversubscribed the RNEP is according to the Rail Minister, this appears to have two chances; slim and fat.

 

[zwk500]

That won't work as a 6 car shuttle train has to be planned for.

There isn't a separate shuttle unit. What happens is that each hour that operates a through service (three per day at the moment I think) the unit that was shuttling comes out and is replaced by the incoming one.

If a 6x23m train has to be planned for then I don't see how you get all the pointwork etc for a P4 in without completely remodelling the southern end. A single lead at Oxenholme station wouldn't be the worst thing so long as you have double track to Kendal or even Burneside to allow the down train onto the branch before the up train has cleared it.

 

[Bald Rick]

A half hourly service means it connects more frequently with main line services, rather than the current mishmash. The local campaigners have been calling for this for years. The improved service would then support the case for electrification.

Electric trains (not necessarily electrification) would improve the service by itself. Would probably knock 5 mins off a return trip. Tighten up the turnrounds a bit, and a de facto frequency increase is certainly possible.

Given how oversubscribed the RNEP is according to the Rail Minister, this appears to have two chances; slim and fat.

Well quite. I’d be astonished if the answer is anything but “interesting proposal, feel free to take it forward yourselves”