Should the closed stations between Preston and Lancaster be reopened? ?

[Bald Rick]

I think your comments about air travel suggest that you do.

Yet again, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

Those who know me, know me.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A very good example indeed - Southampton, twice the size of Lancaster District and six times the size of Lancaster proper, and at one end of a pretty (sub)urbanised area, and each of those local stations (except St Denys) can only support 1tph.
(Preston has two "suburban" stations in Lostock Hall and Bamber Bridge, and again they sustain an hourly service only, less than Morecambe does).

Without wanting to go off-topic, I suspect that, from a passenger point of view, it's not a case of can sustain only 1tph, but rather, for whatever reason (timetabling/infrastructure constraints/etc.), the railway has chosen to only provide 1tph, which therefore makes the service completely unattractive for the majority of people who might otherwise use it. For that particular line, line speeds may be an issue too.

An hourly service at Bailrigg, if it were feasible with existing resources, might attract a few longer distance passengers, but to achieve modal shift over the major flow into Lancaster you would need at least a half-hourly service, and therein lies the problem.

I agree there. As I said upthread, Bailrigg station would probably not be worth bothering with if it were to only get an hourly service. But a half-hourly service and you would be talking of attracting a lot of people to use it (but maybe not for the flow into Lancaster though - it's gonna be hard for the railway to compete with local buses on that particular flow).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree there. As I said upthread, Bailrigg station would probably not be worth bothering with if it were to only get an hourly service. But a half-hourly service and you would be talking of attracting a lot of people to use it (but maybe not for the flow into Lancaster though - it's gonna be hard for the railway to compete with local buses on that particular flow).

It'd probably get two main uses - commuters from somewhere other than Lancaster to the uni (both students and staff) and students going longer distances (e.g. London changing at Manchester for lower fares). Hourly might work if well timed, half hourly pretty certainly would.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Stagecoach are running fewer buses on the University service than they were pre-covid. Assuming they can find the staff, numbers could easily be doubled.
As for the A6 in "South Lancaster" getting clogged, this is in reality due to traffic coming from M6 J33 to the university via Galgate, where the cross roads create a pinch point. Easily solved by building the dedicated university junction J33A which was originally planned in the 1970s. That would then open up Hazelrigg for development for the second university site on the east of the motorway (again plans from the 1970s) but most importantly you could place a park-and-ride there, served by the university buses

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2023 ==


The houses are being built in the knowledge that there is no workable flood mitigation. It's yet another case of planners ignoring the realities on the ground. Galgate floods every few years, some of the houses are uninsurable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2023 ==


So people get the 40/41 to Bailrigg/Outhwaite interchange...........a train to Lancaster and then maybe another train to Morecambe, or alternatively walk to Lancaster bus station where they catch another bus, quite possibly the one they just got off.
It's absolutely farcical

Point 1: They can't find the staff to run most of their services at usual freq., plus congestion is more severe in Lancaster than pre lockdown (partly as a feedback loop from reduced bus frequency). And there is absolutely NO WAY Highways England would allow an additional junction on a strategic road like the M6.
The uni don't need Hazelrigg as they are building out towards Hala and also actually buildings in Preston (https://lusom.ac.uk/).
A park and ride wouldn't solve the tailbacks at the hospital roundabout in Lancaster city centre and down the A6/Bowerham Rd.

Point 2 - Incorrect, they've already made provision for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in the development, see here -

https://planningdocs.lancaster.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01026312.pdf.

Point 3 - Morecambe is not the main destination, Lancaster city centre is, then Preston, Manchester, the Lakes and various long distance destinations. It's 5th/6th on the list at best.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2023 ==

I agree there. As I said upthread, Bailrigg station would probably not be worth bothering with if it were to only get an hourly service. But a half-hourly service and you would be talking of attracting a lot of people to use it (but maybe not for the flow into Lancaster though - it's gonna be hard for the railway to compete with local buses on that particular flow).

Just to say DS, it depends how creative Northern are with their advance price management policies, they could compete heavily with Stagecoach at the right price. Plus for evenings out in Preston/further afield

 

[Bletchleyite]

Point 1: They can't find the staff to run most of their services at usual freq., plus congestion is more severe in Lancaster than pre lockdown (partly as a feedback loop from reduced bus frequency). And there is absolutely NO WAY Highways England would allow an additional junction on a strategic road like the M6.

Umm, an extra junction on the M6 near Bailrigg IS actually proposed as part of the Bailrigg Garden Village project which will increase Lancaster's population (not including Morecambe) by almost half. And junctions are added to motorways all the time.

Edit: Sorry, was. It seems to have been shelved for now due to ancient woodland which seems to have become the standard NIMBY objection despite the fact that trees, er, grow on trees:

Revamped M6 junction shelved by council to avoid harming ancient woodland

The route for the new South Lancaster Link Road was agreed by Lancashire County Council’s cabinet exactly two years ago this month

www.lancs.live

It seems that what will instead be built is a Galgate bypass, essentially, from the current southern junction.

Plans to revamp a junction of the M6 near Lancaster have been shelved after it emerged that the radical redesign would have harmed an area of ancient woodland.

The route for the new South Lancaster Link Road was agreed by Lancashire County Council’s cabinet exactly two years ago this month. It would have seen the northbound entry and southbound exit slip roads of the motorway at junction 33 shifted just under two miles north of their current locations.

Sorry, only a short quote as copy pasting from Reach websites with all the advertising junk is very difficult.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Umm, an extra junction on the M6 near Bailrigg IS actually proposed as part of the Bailrigg Garden Village project which will increase Lancaster's population (not including Morecambe) by almost half. And junctions are added to motorways all the time.

Edit: Sorry, was. It seems to have been shelved for now due to ancient woodland which seems to have become the standard NIMBY objection despite the fact that trees, er, grow on trees:

Revamped M6 junction shelved by council to avoid harming ancient woodland

The route for the new South Lancaster Link Road was agreed by Lancashire County Council’s cabinet exactly two years ago this month

www.lancs.live

It seems that what will instead be built is a Galgate bypass, essentially, from the current southern junction.

I think the current plans are the ones you can see on the map at https://www.beyondradio.co.uk/news/...ial-south-lancaster-housing-and-roads-scheme/.

I can't quite make out whether the previous cancelled plans were for an additional M6 junction or for moving junction 33 northwards.

In my view, building new road capacity is usually a pretty bad idea, but Galgate probably does need a by-pass and as plans go, building the by-pass right alongside the M6 is not bad in terms of minimising local environmental impact.

The fact that they are proposing an expensive new road to support loads of planned new housing near Bailrigg does though emphasize how insane it is that they aren't looking at how to improve rail access.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Point 1: They can't find the staff to run most of their services at usual freq., plus congestion is more severe in Lancaster than pre lockdown (partly as a feedback loop from reduced bus frequency). And there is absolutely NO WAY Highways England would allow an additional junction on a strategic road like the M6.
The uni don't need Hazelrigg as they are building out towards Hala and also actually buildings in Preston (https://lusom.ac.uk/).
A park and ride wouldn't solve the tailbacks at the hospital roundabout in Lancaster city centre and down the A6/Bowerham Rd.

Lancaster Uni would very much like a second campus, actually. And they already own the land: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/l...asterUniversityEstateStrategy2022-2027(3).pdf

 

[JamieL]

The fact that they are proposing an expensive new road to support loads of planned new housing near Bailrigg does though emphasize how insane it is that they aren't looking at how to improve rail access.

I think the issue is anyone planning a new development is hit with the persermism seen so often on the forum. "The cost! The timetables! The problems!". And thus just discount rail.

This Preston to Lancaster stretch is indicative. The railway line already exists there but the very idea that it could contribute doesn't even merit discussion. If the railway can't contribute there, when can it? Virtually never it would seem. Until or unless the railway can overcome this mindset, it will be marginalised.

 

[SynthD]

If the railway can't contribute there, when can it?

This case is unlucky: the proposed service probably needs extra tracks, it’s not easy to add them, and it’s a core route with slow freight. To look at another proposal, extra services to Meridian Lane/Cheshunt, including from Stratford. That’s not the only way to Cambridge and the land for the quad tracking is flat and railway owned. Or Lumo: didn’t need new tracks because it fitted into everything else that already existed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As it's a fairly short section would it need to be quadded, or would adding one bidirectional local line work, perhaps with a station loop if necessary? That's what those dastardly Swiss would do. Would have the added benefit of making the stations cheaper as no lift-fitted footbridge would be required.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Lancaster Uni would very much like a second campus, actually. And they already own the land: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/l...asterUniversityEstateStrategy2022-2027(3).pdf

According to this not a new campus, rather solar farm plus - "Land at Forrest Hills and East of the M6 The long-term planning and purchase of land east of the M6 near to the University has been in place for many years and approximately equates to the same area as the main Bailrigg Campus. This provides many opportunities to assist in meeting the sustainability strategic objectives of the University both in our operations such as the Wind Turbine, Forest of the Future and the planned Solar Farm as well as rich opportunities for our research for the Lancaster Environment Centre. Key considerations include: • Land already in use, e.g. Environmental Monitoring Station, Wind Turbine and Forrest Hills Conference Centre • A land bank for future developments eg Solar Farm, Expansion of Forrest of the Future, new academic research projects • Operate a Management Board for all our land holding east of the M6 to deliver priorities requiring land including academic, climate emergency, sustainability and commercial projects • Development of the Solar Farm • Expansion on Forrest of the Future • Support Academic teaching and research projects that require open land"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2023 ==

Umm, an extra junction on the M6 near Bailrigg IS actually proposed as part of the Bailrigg Garden Village project which will increase Lancaster's population (not including Morecambe) by almost half. And junctions are added to motorways all the time.

Not a motorway as strategic as the M6 usually. The M49 and M181 were the last 2 I think.

It seems that what will instead be built is a Galgate bypass, essentially, from the current southern junction.

A sensible idea, but not nearly enough to account for the new Garden village.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As it's a fairly short section would it need to be quadded, or would adding one bidirectional local line work, perhaps with a station loop if necessary? That's what those dastardly Swiss would do. Would have the added benefit of making the stations cheaper as no lift-fitted footbridge would be required.

How would that work? If you want to avoid conflicting moves, you'd have to put the bi-directional line and platform in between the two running lines, and then you still have to build a lift because the station entrance will need to be on a bridge above the lines, as well as reroute the fast lines. Would that save that much money compared to just 4-tracking the station?

 

[randyrippley]

According to this not a new campus, rather solar farm plus - "Land at Forrest Hills and East of the M6 The long-term planning and purchase of land east of the M6 near to the University has been in place for many years and approximately equates to the same area as the main Bailrigg Campus. This provides many opportunities to assist in meeting the sustainability strategic objectives of the University both in our operations such as the Wind Turbine, Forest of the Future and the planned Solar Farm as well as rich opportunities for our research for the Lancaster Environment Centre. Key considerations include: • Land already in use, e.g. Environmental Monitoring Station, Wind Turbine and Forrest Hills Conference Centre • A land bank for future developments eg Solar Farm, Expansion of Forrest of the Future, new academic research projects • Operate a Management Board for all our land holding east of the M6 to deliver priorities requiring land including academic, climate emergency, sustainability and commercial projects • Development of the Solar Farm • Expansion on Forrest of the Future • Support Academic teaching and research projects that require open land"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2023 ==


Not a motorway as strategic as the M6 usually. The M49 and M181 were the last 2 I think.

A sensible idea, but not nearly enough to account for the new Garden village.

The plan for Hazelrigg to be a second campus with another eight colleges was instituted as a long term objective back in the 1970s. I saw the plans, along with those for J33A linking the two sites during a student occupation of University House years ago.
J33A would have lined up with the central underpass through the university site

As for not adding a new junction..........have you forgotten J31A?

 

[Bartsimho]

I think the issue is anyone planning a new development is hit with the persermism seen so often on the forum. "The cost! The timetables! The problems!". And thus just discount rail.

This Preston to Lancaster stretch is indicative. The railway line already exists there but the very idea that it could contribute doesn't even merit discussion. If the railway can't contribute there, when can it? Virtually never it would seem. Until or unless the railway can overcome this mindset, it will be marginalised.

There is too much initial pessimism. Sure there are problems with cost and logistically but they are always the first reaction. The industry needs to start with a positive outlook to projects and go optimistically into ideas rather than just problems.

 

[The Planner]

There is too much initial pessimism. Sure there are problems with cost and logistically but they are always the first reaction. The industry needs to start with a positive outlook to projects and go optimistically into ideas rather than just problems.

We do, but at the end of the day, unless the railway can get its costs down, that is the bottom line.

 

[snowball]

And junctions are added to motorways all the time.

I think "very rarely" would be more accurate than "all the time".

 

[zwk500]

There is too much initial pessimism. Sure there are problems with cost and logistically but they are always the first reaction. The industry needs to start with a positive outlook to projects and go optimistically into ideas rather than just problems.

Have you ever been in a railway project planning meeting?

 

[Falcon1200]

The railway line already exists there but the very idea that it could contribute doesn't even merit discussion.

The idea merits discussion, as has happened here (not that this will have any influence however!). But I note no-one has been able to put a cost on the work required to facilitate re-opening these stations, and providing a useful train service to them. The cost absolutely has to be the starting point, in order to justify whether rail is the best method of improving public transport in the area, or whether other improvements could be made, eg to bus services, at lower cost and perhaps greater usefulness. Or, maybe if money is available, it could be spent on rail elsewhere for more benefit?

 

[zwk500]

As it's a fairly short section would it need to be quadded, or would adding one bidirectional local line work, perhaps with a station loop if necessary? That's what those dastardly Swiss would do. Would have the added benefit of making the stations cheaper as no lift-fitted footbridge would be required.

This has a lot of potential but would heavily depend on whether the gaps existed for the crossing move for the direction that the track wasn't on the correct side for. It also depends on whether you can reasonably site all stations on the same side, otherwise you're not really saving much money.

 

[JamieL]

But I note no-one has been able to put a cost on the work required to facilitate re-opening these stations, and providing a useful train service to them. The cost absolutely has to be the starting point, in order to justify whether rail is the best method of improving public transport in the area, or whether other improvements could be made, eg to bus services, at lower cost and perhaps greater usefulness. Or, maybe if money is available, it could be spent on rail elsewhere for more benefit?

Approaching this from a cost first basis is self-defeating. We all know the railways can't do anything cheaply. But, like most public sector projects, the actual cost is less relevant than the worth of the project to the Government who will quite happily spend public money to promote their interests. For the Tories, building stations here would benefit 'Wyre and Preston North' - a Tory constituency held by a high-value Tory Minister (Ben Wallace). It would deliver benefits to Lancaster, something of a marginal in 2019 (21k for Labour/19k for Tory). The work could be allocated to a Tory donor. The proposal marketed as 'levelling up'. Framed as such., the railwayman's calculate of cost becomes an irrelevance that is not even worth the paper it is written on. Instead, if the same focused on developing proposals, they would stand a chance of getting adopted. The railway is its own worst enemy.

 

[zwk500]

Approaching this from a cost first basis is self-defeating. We all know the railways can't do anything cheaply. But, like most public sector projects, the actual cost is less relevant than the worth of the project to the Government who will quite happily spend public money to promote their interests. For the Tories, building stations here would benefit 'Wyre and Preston North' - a Tory constituency held by a high-value Tory Minister (Ben Wallace). It would deliver benefits to Lancaster, something of a marginal in 2019 (21k for Labour/19k for Tory). The work could be allocated to a Tory donor. The proposal marketed as 'levelling up'. Framed as such., the railwayman's calculate of cost becomes an irrelevance that is not even worth the paper it is written on. Instead, if the same focused on developing proposals, they would stand a chance of getting adopted. The railway is its own worst enemy.

Are you now proposing that the railway should advocate in favour of political corruption?

 

[JamieL]

Are you now proposing that the railway should advocate in favour of political corruption?

No, of course not. I am saying the railway should focus on the railway - devise solutions, propose options, craft Government policy aligned initiatives, tantalise invites to treat to Ministers - and then allow Government to focus on any funding solution. At least as far as major infrastructure upgrades go. As it happens, we have a railway that says 'no' meaning very few projects ever get off the ground. Pontificating about the cost, when the Government will quite happily spend £millions without blinking to promote their interests, just means the railway misses out on what cash there is to offer. And when the railway can't contribute, it gets cutback and back.

 

[The Planner]

No, of course not. I am saying the railway should focus on the railway - devise solutions, propose options, craft Government policy alignment initiatives - and then allow Government to focus on any funding solution. At least as far as major infrastructure upgrades go. As it happens, we have a railway that says 'no' meaning very few projects ever get off the ground. Pontificating about the cost, when the Government will quite happily spend £millions without blinking to promote their interests, just means the railway misses out on what cash there is to offer. And when the railway can't contribute, it gets cutback and back.

Which is what happens, via the RUS process of old and the long term planning studies carried out now. They all propose options for funders, its up to the funders if they want to buy it.

Long-term planning - Network Rail

We’re responsible for understanding and shaping what the future of Britain’s railway looks like through delivery of long-term plans

www.networkrail.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

No, of course not. I am saying the railway should focus on the railway - devise solutions, propose options, craft Government policy aligned initiatives, tantalise invites to treat to Ministers - and then allow Government to focus on any funding solution. At least as far as major infrastructure upgrades go. As it happens, we have a railway that says 'no' meaning very few projects ever get off the ground. Pontificating about the cost, when the Government will quite happily spend £millions without blinking to promote their interests, just means the railway misses out on what cash there is to offer. And when the railway can't contribute, it gets cutback and back.

Have you heard of the Restoring your Railway fund? The industry jumped St the cash on offer then and is reopening at least 3 lines with it.

 

[70014IronDuke]

No, of course not.

But stating: "The work could be allocated to a Tory donor." is most explicitly advocating political corruption. Welcome to a banana republic, where 'somebody's mate does well' at the expense of another who has a better solution or a solution at a better price.

I am saying the railway should focus on the railway - devise solutions, propose options, craft Government policy alignment initiatives - and then allow Government to focus on any funding solution. At least as far as major infrastructure upgrades go. As it happens, we have a railway that says 'no' meaning very few projects ever get off the ground. Pontificating about the cost, when the Government will quite happily spend £millions without blinking to promote their interests, just means the railway misses out on what cash there is to offer. And when the railway can't contribute, it gets cutback and back.

I sympathise with you to a certain extent. It certainly does seem shocking that all these developments near Lancaster University seem to have gone ahead without any thought to services by rail.

 

[JamieL]

But stating: "The work could be allocated to a Tory donor." is most explicitly advocating political corruption. Welcome to a banana republic, where 'somebody's mate does well' at the expense of another who has a better solution or a solution at a better price.

Its just accepting the reality. Projects will happen if the Government is so minded, it doesn't need the railway to start off as a blocker in the first place.

 

[zwk500]

Its just accepting the reality. Projects will happen if the Government is so minded, it doesn't need the railway to start off as a blocker in the first place.

Again, when money has been offered the railway has bitten the government's hand off.

 

[JamieL]

Again, when money has been offered the railway has bitten the government's hand off.

Yes, but it is the proactive proposals that are missing. By way of example, there should be a publically available railway plan for restoring local utility to the Preston to Lancaster railway. It should be integrated with other local projects and seeking to align with them. Framed as such an invitation, Governments - either Labour or Tory - can use it as a starting point for regeneration and local/regional business interests can frame options accordingly.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, but it is the proactive proposals that are missing.

They really arent, have a look at the NR long term planning webpage.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd be very disappointed if you went to all the trouble of building stations, 4-tracking to provide extra capacity, and then didn't put in some extra services to take advantage of the new capacity. I'd go as far as to say it wouldn't be worth doing if you weren't going to provide some additional trains. As noted upthread, I'd hope you'd see something like a half-hourly Morecambe-Lancaster-Preston-somewhere replacing the existing Morecambe service to serve all the new stations. And maybe also have the somewhat irregular Northern Barrow/Windermere trains also call at Bailrigg.

Then we’re into building new platforms at Preston…

Sorry for picking this up so long after you posted it, but something was playing on my mind here and I finally figured what it was: As far as I'm aware Preston already has 5 through platforms that are broadly dedicated to through trains on the WCML: Platforms 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Off the top of my head, these platforms are used by about 4tph in each direction (2 * London-Scotland, 1 * Manchester-Scotland, 1 * Manchester-Barrow/Windermere) plus a few occasional extras like Liverpool-Scotland, plus freight. That works out at about 2 trains per hour calling per platform. It seems odd if that leaves no capacity to fit an extra 2tph in somewhere, since numerous platforms up and down the country accommodate far more trains than that.