Cumbria Council submits bid for Windermere improvements

[The Planner]

• The work relates specifically to public transport with the aim of minimising connection times at Oxenholme (which can be awful) for branch passengers and doubling the number of passengers to over half a million annually. This would be achieved by the introduction of a half-hourly service on the nine-mile branch which has a current journey time of 19 or 20 minutes. To allow sufficient time for the turn-round and build in some recovery time, the recommendation was to create an extended passing loop from Burneside towards Staveley, build a second platform at Burneside, improve line speeds where possible, improve level crossings (one has a 5mph restriction at present) and add further signalling. This wouldn't be cheap.
• Not part of the proposals, but worth noting: Staveley's single platform is accessed exclusively by a single stairway with around 40 steps. (Look on Google Street View) This will need to be addressed, presumably sooner rather than later, likely as part of an accessibility initiative.

"Wouldn't be cheap" is an understatement!

 

[Pinus contorta]

Is it all to tick some boxes with the world heritage status that was awarded a few years back, I half think that it's all been submitted now, because zl, as someone Else pointed out, the County Council is being re jigged in April. And this sort of thing will go on the shelf to gather dust.

 

[paul1609]

Im always surprised at the low passenger figures that the Windermere Branch attracts considering the tourist potential of the area. The ORR figures give about 400 k exits and entries for Windermere and about 120K for Kendal. I reckon that puts it at around 25 to 30% of my own local line Marshlink. I think maybe there's only a limited market for public transport in to national parks which don't have onward public transport to enable you to reach all the areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Im always surprised at the low passenger figures that the Windermere Branch attracts considering the tourist potential of the area. The ORR figures give about 400 k exits and entries for Windermere and about 120K for Kendal. I reckon that puts it at around 25 to 30% of my own local line Marshlink. I think maybe there's only a limited market for public transport in to national parks which don't have onward public transport to enable you to reach all the areas.

400K isn't terrible. Bletchley had just under 600K this year, for example (showing the massive commuter decline - it was about 1.2m in 2019).

Aughton Park, a quiet Merseyrail station, has just over 100K.

Windermere does have onward transport to most of the Lakes, it's actually a pretty good picture of integration so far as the UK goes. I think putting Ambleside and the bus timetable in the journey planners would cause a not at all trivial increase.

 

[weepingwillowb]

It's a very busy little transport hub with regular Stagecoach services to Lancaster, Keswick, Kendal, Barrow, Grasmere, Coniston and Penrith. It's also a crew change over point and at times it can't even cope with the regular services ! There is a narrow single way 'throat' at the entry and exit point as well as a well used taxi rank and the need to maintain access the Lakeland Ltd store car park . I've driven services out of there for 5 years and in season it can be chaotic. There is no scope whatever to stack and load/unload tour coaches at this location, trust me !

And also Mountain Goat, which always seems to have one or two minibuses parked outside, and narrows the road space near the junction with Victoria Street.

 

[John S2]

There is a much cheaper option that would make travelling to destinations such as Ambleside & Grasmere more attractive. Legislation to put the local authority in charge of bus timetables with an instruction that buses should connect with trains at Windermere.
Consider the current timetables. The first through train at a sociable hour from Manchester & Preston arrives Windermere at 10:41 Mon-Fri. The 555 bus to Ambleside & Grasmere departs at 11:09. A wait of 28 minutes.
Now consider the return journey. There is a through train departing Windermere at 16:00. The 555 bus arrives Windermere at 15:33. A wait of 27 minutes. [There is a 599 service arriving 16:03 - useless]
This situation is a major disincentive to visit the area. Indeed I would definitely visit the area more frequently myself if the connections were better.

 

[childwallblues]

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

Long before that. There was a proposal to use redundant overhead equipment from Kingmoor Yard.

 

[driverd]

"Wouldn't be cheap" is an understatement!

You say this, but in the grand scheme of rail projects, its relatively small change. Especially when you consider the cost:benefit ratio, compared to some resignalling/improvement schemes, which are essentially implemented to save operational cost with no benefit to service level.

For essentially zero operational cost (assuming TCB/axle counters installed into an existing panel, less an additional unit and crew), you'll double service level.

Im always surprised at the low passenger figures that the Windermere Branch attracts considering the tourist potential of the area. The ORR figures give about 400 k exits and entries for Windermere and about 120K for Kendal.

A big part of the issue is its relatively inaccessible and requires a lot of connections. You can get there directly from Manchester a handful of times a day, but you're looking at 2 connections from anywhere off the WCML/Manchester City centre. For example, even the relatively close Barrow in Furness requires 2 connections for most of the day and to perform a very circuitous journey to get there. Yorkshire and Greater Manchester also have awfully convoluted routes to get there. When you consider the relatively good road infrastructure in the lakes, its no surprise people chose to drive. Ignoring the journey time savings by car, the thought of being stuck at Oxenholme for an hour because a TPE service doesn't turn up (and let's be honest, it's got to the point that it's more surprising to see a TPE service not cancelled), is more than enough to put lots of people off.

I reckon that puts it at around 25 to 30% of my own local line Marshlink. I think maybe there's only a limited market for public transport in to national parks which don't have onward public transport to enable you to reach all the areas.

It's less the market, more the service. A great counter example would be the full and standing walkers trains between Leeds and Horton/Ribblehead.

Personal suggestion would be to aim for 1 tph Windermere line shuttle, 1 tph extending off the Branch, with an AP to either Manchester or Leeds at Lancaster. More than anything else, I'd expect that to massively drive up custom.

 

[The Planner]

You say this, but in the grand scheme of rail projects, its relatively small change. Especially when you consider the cost:benefit ratio, compared to some resignalling/improvement schemes, which are essentially implemented to save operational cost with no benefit to service level.

For essentially zero operational cost (assuming TCB/axle counters installed into an existing panel, less an additional unit and crew), you'll double service level.

But what is the BCR of this? Has any of the proposal been costed? I doubt any signalling principal route engineer is going to sign off hacking into Carlisle when its nigh on life expired.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a much cheaper option that would make travelling to destinations such as Ambleside & Grasmere more attractive. Legislation to put the local authority in charge of bus timetables with an instruction that buses should connect with trains at Windermere.
Consider the current timetables. The first through train at a sociable hour from Manchester & Preston arrives Windermere at 10:41 Mon-Fri. The 555 bus to Ambleside & Grasmere departs at 11:09. A wait of 28 minutes.
Now consider the return journey. There is a through train departing Windermere at 16:00. The 555 bus arrives Windermere at 15:33. A wait of 27 minutes. [There is a 599 service arriving 16:03 - useless]
This situation is a major disincentive to visit the area. Indeed I would definitely visit the area more frequently myself if the connections were better.

Some connections are decent, though. It varies a bit, largely because the buses are clockface and the railway isn't. Fixing the latter would be of great value.

Also, there is Booths to pass the time, either in the cafe or buying stuff!

 

[Killingworth]

A big part of the issue is its relatively inaccessible and requires a lot of connections. You can get there directly from Manchester a handful of times a day, but you're looking at 2 connections from anywhere off the WCML/Manchester City centre. For example, even the relatively close Barrow in Furness requires 2 connections for most of the day and to perform a very circuitous journey to get there. Yorkshire and Greater Manchester also have awfully convoluted routes to get there. When you consider the relatively good road infrastructure in the lakes, its no surprise people chose to drive. Ignoring the journey time savings by car, the thought of being stuck at Oxenholme for an hour because a TPE service doesn't turn up (and let's be honest, it's got to the point that it's more surprising to see a TPE service not cancelled), is more than enough to put lots of people off.

That brought back memories of the last time I used the train from Windermere and found myself with an hour to kill. A quick walk down the hill to Natland to see a house I lived in for a few months back in 1969 and still got back in time to get something from the refreshment room. In '69/70 some mainline coaches may still have had a leather strap to let down the window to reach the external door handle to get out. My girl friend coming to visit couldn't manage it and nearly got carried on towards Preston. Sorry for the digression, but a half hourly service today would be a big improvement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That brought back memories of the last time I used the train from Windermere and found myself with an hour to kill. A quick walk down the hill to Natland to see a house I lived in for a few months back in 1969 and still got back in time to get something from the refreshment room. In '69/70 some mainline coaches may still have had a leather strap to let down the window to reach the external door handle to get out. My girl friend coming to visit couldn't manage it and nearly got carried on towards Preston. Sorry for the digression, but a half hourly service today would be a big improvement.

Given that it mainly exists to connect with the mainline, just making those connections work better would be a big help. The north WCML is long overdue going properly clockface.

 

[Class 170101]

NO! Once you have done the overheads on the Windermere branch, you then start to do the overheads between Carnforth to Barrow! What is this countries obsession with having Electro-Diesels running around?

You could have the Windermere branch done in about 3 months with weekend closures in the winter, then with overnight closures on the Furness line during the winter you could do a hell of a lot of work ready for the wires to go up. Should take no longer than 18 months.

I get your frustration but its an add on that probably needs doing Paisley Canal style. In the immediate future it should be served by bi-modes so the service can make use of the wires between Oxenholme (or Carnforth) and Manchester.

 

[Bald Rick]

For essentially zero operational cost (assuming TCB/axle counters installed into an existing panel, less an additional unit and crew), you'll double service level.

So double the operating cost then!

 

[driverd]

So double the operating cost then!

No, the railway costs are far more than just the cost of the train and crew.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, the railway costs are far more than just the cost of the train and crew.

Not an awful lot more on an unsignalled branch line like that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Especially when you consider the cost:benefit ratio

What is the cost:benefit ratio?

No, the railway costs are far more than just the cost of the train and crew.

In marginal costs terms, the train, fuel and crew is about all there is on that line.

 

[Pinus contorta]

Not an awful lot more on an unsignalled branch line like that.

The crossing at Burneside is signalled.

 

[driverd]

Not an awful lot more on an unsignalled branch line like that.

What is the cost:benefit ratio?

Perhaps I wasnt making my point too clearly. What I was getting at was, in terms of signalling, the additional ongoing cost of a passing loop, modernised crossing and 2 sets of points would be quite a minimal increase, in comparison to the current arrangement, especially if simply added to an existing panel. There would be no need for a new signal box or extra staffing and there would only be a couple of hundred metres of extra track to patrol.

When you consider that this minimal extra cost would enable a 100% increase in service, it looks quite favourable compared to other projects. Local to me, I can think of a few that have been very expensive and added very minimal gains. Examples include Horsforth turn back sidings (used twice daily) and Leeds platform 0 (used regularly but not, as of yet, enabling any additional capacity - the same number of trains use Leeds Station as before P0 existed - and even when used to capacity, it'll far from enable a 100% increase in service level), to name just a few.

Other ideas suggested (eg: an additional platform at Oxenholme), whilst seemingly simpler, would be multiple times more complex and more costly (both up front and on-going), in infrastructure terms, before we even consider service provision and what revenue growth could be delivered.

 

[The Planner]

Other ideas suggested (eg: an additional platform at Oxenholme), whilst seemingly simpler, would be multiple times more complex and more costly (both up front and on-going), in infrastructure terms, before we even consider service provision and what revenue growth could be delivered.

Why? that capital cost of the signaling intervention is what will drive any solution to this. If you suddenly trip ergonomics etc in an existing box then you need more staff.

 

[class68fan]

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.

If you red the first post you will see that a 30 min service is what the council want. Extra platform at Penrith wont do it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you red the first post you will see that a 30 min service is what the council want. Extra platform at Penrith wont do it.

I know they do, and it is both unjustified and not going to happen.

 

[wilbers]

If you red the first post you will see that a 30 min service is what the council want. Extra platform at Penrith wont do it.

An extra platform at Penrith even more won't do it, given the Windermere trains are going to Oxenholme [also that Penrith already has a third platform that is essentially never used].

 

[class68fan]

I know they do, and it is both unjustified and not going to happen.

Weather it happens is unlikely. I take it you are a regular person on the branch and no more than the council about what the people need.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Weather it happens is unlikely. I take it you are a regular person on the branch and no more than the council about what the people need.

Yes, I've used it often. Its purpose is to connect to the mainline. Increased frequency is a lazy and expensive way to do that.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, I've used it often. Its purpose is to connect to the mainline. Increased frequency is a lazy and expensive way to do that.

Removing the through trains entirely except for the first and last (similar to the Sunday timetable all week) would of course help this, but we have to put up with people moaning about changing trains so we waste six car sets going all the way to Windermere and back with barely anyone on them in the evening peak from Manchester.

The other key reason why connections on clock face times wouldn't really work is heavy freight. The FOCs have daytime rights whether people like it or not. They're commercially valuable and won't just be given up. More loops doesn't help much for freight because it takes so long for them to climb from a standing start, so unless you're proposing to triple-track all of the hills...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

Goodness only knows why they built that silly siding just south of the station rather than doing it properly.

The new down line is hardly a silly siding. It was an existing goods loop which has been modified to become a passenger line with a faster set of turnouts. Have you seen the elevation difference between the Lakes line and the Up main at the north end of the station? How are you going to fix that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing the through trains entirely except for the first and last (similar to the Sunday timetable all week) would of course help this, but we have to put up with people moaning about changing trains so we waste six car sets going all the way to Windermere and back with barely anyone on them in the evening peak from Manchester.

Changing trains would be fine if connections were of high quality and trains were punctual. Windermere does do OK on the former - cross platform northbound - but the latter, well, you've used Avanti/TPE, haven't you?

What did work fairly well in the past was the integrated Furness and Windermere timetables, whereby you had a two hourly fast (TPE) through service to each, interspersed with an all stations regional (Northern in Barrow's case, TPE for Windermere using the same unit) service in the opposite hour (continuing to Carlisle in Barrow's case, with a couple of extras added for Sellafield shifts). For Windermere, you avoided the "clash at Oxenholme" issue by running the through services fast (Kendal only), so the southbound would get to Oxenholme slightly earlier, and get out of the way of the inbound, which would leave Oxenholme slightly late and call at Kendal and Windermere only. Services at Burneside and Staveley, which are and were primarily used by locals (in so much as they're used by anyone) would operate in the opposite hour calling at all stations. This did mean less frequent services at the local stations but they're not well used.

The main downside of that was that the departure times at Kendal and Oxenholme followed a 2 hour pattern, but it wasn't that much of an issue as it was only a few minutes difference so if you wanted to remember a time you'd just remember the earlier one.

While you could question running beyond there, there is a good case for going to Preston, because you've got far more connections that can be made there without the double change.

As for sending six-cars to Barrow and Windermere, the obvious answer is to shunt three off at Preston and join them onto the southbound, reducing unit usage by one. It's like we've forgotten what benefits can be gained from multiple unit operation.

The other key reason why connections on clock face times wouldn't really work is heavy freight. The FOCs have daytime rights whether people like it or not. They're commercially valuable and won't just be given up. More loops doesn't help much for freight because it takes so long for them to climb from a standing start, so unless you're proposing to triple-track all of the hills...

The solution to the freight problem is to stop it being underpowered, and insist on everything being hauled by two high power Co-Co electric locomotives on that section. The issues are starting out and getting up Shap - a 60 or 75mph freight path an hour could otherwise nicely slot into a flighted Takt, and with enough power looping them wouldn't be a major problem. I often talk about Manchester Airport being a tail wagging a dog, but freights on the north WCML are even more so given that there's an easy and obvious solution to their eating up of paths. A single Class 66 might be cheap but is utterly unsuitable for the task.

The new down line is hardly a silly siding. It was an existing goods loop which has been modified to become a passenger line with a faster set of turnouts. Have you seen the elevation difference between the Lakes line and the Up main at the north end of the station? How are you going to fix that?

It was a "solution" on the cheap. Having passenger trains sit in a siding for 10-20 minutes is plain silly, it's just poor timetabling.

I'd have to go and look re elevation, but there are options to rejig things to allow the branch line to go straight onto the up fast.

 

[driverd]

Why? that capital cost of the signaling intervention is what will drive any solution to this. If you suddenly trip ergonomics etc in an existing box then you need more staff.

Sure, but the capital cost of installing a new platform (and associated track, circa 500m minimum), the facilities required on it (likely a lift etc) and the loss of revenue if it eats into car park space etc will see it as a far more expensive solution than 500m or so of track to form a passing loop.

In terms of signalling manpower, I (perhaps wrongly) would assume that an ARS equipped route, signalled (minimally) throughout, would reduce the workload vice the time taken to release/return the token.

 

[Falcon1200]

Have you seen the elevation difference between the Lakes line and the Up main at the north end of the station? How are you going to fix that?

There were actually, at one time, connections between the WCML and the Windermere branch at the north end of Oxenholme station, at the expense however of shorter platforms on the main line, so probably impossible to reinstate now.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

There were actually, at one time, connections between the WCML and the Windermere branch at the north end of Oxenholme station, at the expense however of shorter platforms on the main line, so probably impossible to reinstate now.

Looking at old OS maps, I would concur, but as you say, what's now the (Northbound) mainline platform appears to be much shorter than is the case at present. Do you know when the station /track layout was subsequently re-modelled?