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!
You're forgetting the rather different usage profile of the ECML and WCML. Glasgow isn't the main traffic, the North West is.
It's bad enough that HS2 are proposing taking Lancaster out of the Scottish services in order to justify sticking with 200m stock, but actually building infrastructure to do that would be a spectacular misuse of funds.
Issue is - you'd need a lot of rebuilding to fit it through central Lancaster? And part of the point is that a bypass would increase speeds for long distance services as an additional benefit.
Set against that, the land just East of Lancaster where the M6 runs is very hilly. To get a new railway line there you'd need to build some pretty big viaducts/embankments/cuttings. And while speeding up long distance services is usually good, I think not stopping at Lancaster more than outweighs the benefit. Lancaster station had 1.83 million passengers in 2022-3. Obviously not all for the long-distance services, but most of them will be. Compare with Oxenholme (0.48 million), Penrith (0.49 million) and Carlisle (1.80 million). Lancaster even compares not too unfavourably with Preston's 4.2 million - so not much more than twice Lancaster's figure for a station where many more people will be using local rather than IC services.
If you were that bothered about speeding up the IC services, you'd inconvenience a lot fewer people if you just scrapped the Oxenholme and Penrith calls (which I'm not recommending either).
Have a look on Google Earth - there appears to be space for an extra line.
You're forgetting the rather different usage profile of the ECML and WCML. Glasgow isn't the main traffic, the North West is.
It's bad enough that HS2 are proposing taking Lancaster out of the Scottish services in order to justify sticking with 200m stock, but actually building infrastructure to do that would be a spectacular misuse of funds.
1.) You'd have to comp purchase property west of Ryelands Park unfortunately to fit a 4 track viaduct through the gap in the St George's Quay development.
2.) If you want to encourage modal shift from air, I think you need to reduce journey time further. I don't think it's viable to reduce it using a new dedicated HSR lines further north than the Golborne link.
The North West does need better InterCity services, but, a point that has been made several times on the forum now is that new HSR is about capacity too, so the NW could have increased capacity as the by product of HSR bypasses to decrease Anglo Scottish journey times.
Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on a bypass as this is going too far away from the original premise, although they are indirectly related.
1.) You'd have to comp purchase property west of Ryelands Park unfortunately to fit a 4 track viaduct through the gap in the St George's Quay development.
2.) If you want to encourage modal shift from air, I think you need to reduce journey time further. I don't think it's viable to reduce it using a new dedicated HSR lines further north than the Golborne link.
Another coastal site, not too far south of Heysham, that was also once served by the train service from Lancaster was Glasson Dock railway station, which closed 94 years ago in 1930. This seems to still have a large thriving marina.
Yes it would be an expensive route but the traffic is far more likely to justify an intervention that provides speed and frequency benefits to intercity trains.
3 tracking all the way to Lancaster is going to cost £100s million for one extra service from Morecambe to Lancaster. It also leaves other conflicts such as Carnforth and Oxenholme in place.
A bypass would cost £billions but provide far more benefits than trying to separate Morecambe services from the WCML. As you've already pointed out, the plan for HS2 would be for London-Scotland trains to operate non stop through Lancaster anyway. If you look at the usage statistics you'll see Glasgow and Edinburgh are tiny flows from Lancaster compared to flows to the south.
A London train terminating at Lancaster would be fine. An hourly service could continue to link Lancaster to Glasgow/Edinburgh perhaps originating from Liverpool. A bypass would provide more options to run Morecambe and Windermere trains to Preston with it's better connections.
A London train terminating at Lancaster would be fine. An hourly service could continue to link Lancaster to Glasgow/Edinburgh perhaps originating from Liverpool. A bypass would provide more options to run Morecambe and Windermere trains to Preston with it's better connections.
London services terminating at Lancaster would be brilliant! All those empty seats to choose from.
But if you want to bypass Lancaster with the HS2 Scotland services there's a simple answer: electrify the Settle-Carlisle route and send them that way, avoiding Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme & Penrith. That would free up enough space for Morecambe-Lancaster. TPE could cope with the relatively small Scottish demand from those four stations.
London services terminating at Lancaster would be brilliant! All those empty seats to choose from.
But if you want to bypass Lancaster with the HS2 Scotland services there's a simple answer: electrify the Settle-Carlisle route and send them that way, avoiding Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme & Penrith. That would free up enough space for Morecambe-Lancaster. TPE could cope with the relatively small Scottish demand from those four stations.
With electrification, resignaling, elimination of minor stops then you could easily increase the speed. It's only slow because it's at the back of the queue for expenditure.
Or there's another alternative: reinstate the Ingleton branch as an electrified express route
I think it depends. 3 tracks between Lancaster and the Morecambe branch junction would suffice if you only want to run Morecambe trains to Lancaster, avoiding the WCML. If you ever wanted to be more ambitious and - say - send Morecambe trains to Bailrigg, then that wouldn't work. But then if that's the aim, maybe you don't need an extra track at all North of Lancaster, and grade separating where the Morecambe branch heads off would suffice. But either way, be it 2, 3 or 4 tracks, you're talking massively less work than building a whole new by-pass line.
Indeed. I just had a look on Google maps, and it looks to me like, if you want to create a straightish alignment for the by-pass route that keeps high speeds, you'd need the by-pass track to leave the WCML somewhere around M6 J33, South of Galgate, and rejoin it North of Bolton-le-Sands. Anything shorter is going to force you into curves that are too tight and/or knocking down bits of Lancaster to build it. So you're talking 10 miles, plus a new railway bridge across the Lune, plus several bridges across motorways (It would have to cross the M6 and run East of the M6 at least part of the way because in places there's no room to the West of the M6). You'd also need some massive viaducts or tunnels because the land is so hilly there (The M6 goes up and down gradients that you'd never want a train to do). And I guess you'd want grade-separated junctions where it leaves/rejoins the WCML too. All that so you can save IC trains a few minutes by having them stupidly avoid a station that's actually where quite a few people on those trains want to go!
And once the people advocating the by-pass line have done that, how will people in Lancaster travel either North or South? You'll have basically reduced Lancaster to being served by the Morecambe shuttles, and the irregular Leeds trains plus a few Manchester-Barrow/Windermere services. You'll be able to run the Morecambe shuttles as frequently as you want, but you'll also have destroyed half their custom because the onward connections at Lancaster won't exist any more.
But then if that's the aim, maybe you don't need an extra track at all North of Lancaster, and grade separating where the Morecambe branch heads off would suffice.
How many would you want to? You're going to struggle to justify more than 2, Eden isn't that big and it's hardly Merseyrail. Go up to 4 car if it gets that busy.
I think it would be totally justifiable to take a Swiss style approach and design infrastructure specifically for 2tph clockface, i.e. something based on a single line with appropriate passing opportunities.
How many would you want to? You're going to struggle to justify more than 2, Eden isn't that big and it's hardly Merseyrail. Go up to 4 car if it gets that busy.
I think it would be totally justifiable to take a Swiss style approach and design infrastructure specifically for 2tph clockface, i.e. something based on a single line with appropriate passing opportunities.
Well in terms of passenger numbers, it'd be hard to justify more than 2tph to Morecambe (which is already as high as lots of larger towns get and would itself be a massive improvement on the current service). There are roughly 4-5tph heading up the WCML (3tph Scotland, 1tph Barrow/Windermere, occasional Leeds). Adding 2tph to Morecambe gives you 6-7tph, and you also need to add the occasional freight. Lots of 2-track railways see higher frequencies than that, and since everything except the freights stops at Lancaster, everything will be going at similar-ish speeds on that section. So I reckon that with grade separation at the junction so there are no conflicting moves, that should be doable. The only proviso is you'd need to sort something out to allow local trains to reverse at Bailrigg without blocking the fast trains. (Central platform between the fast lines?). You could add some extra flexibility by bringing the platform opposite Platform 5 at Lancaster back into use - then you have potentially two platforms in each direction, allowing trains to overtake/etc. there.
We're potentially sorted - no need for extra tracks at all to get a basic half-hourly Morecambe-Bailrigg service up - just work on the junctions, signalling, and stations And some careful timetabling.
One other thing - I've said 2tph to Morecambe. You'd need to do some track doubling between Morecambe and Heysham if you want them both to run to Heysham. Without that, the best you could probably do if you want a robust timetable is 2tph to Morecambe Westgate and nothing beyond there, or 1tph terminating at Morcambe, the other running to Heysham.
They tend not to at the moment.
Get on a midday train at Morecambe and there's unlikely to be more than five passengers.
It’s only busy at times when you're likely to miss the ticket check if you sit in the front carriage
They tend not to at the moment.
Get on a midday train at Morecambe and there's unlikely to be more than five passengers.
It’s only busy at times when you're likely to miss the ticket check if you sit in the front carriage
I will admit to not using it often, but when I have used it on weekends it's been heaving.
On weekdays there's just not that much demand, the buses won't be that busy either. The £2 fares will also be skewing it a bit.
However, 4tph of double-crewed heavy rail trains is just not justifiable for the likely levels of demand. If you want to go higher you're going to need to make it cheaper - one member of crew paid a lot less than a mainline driver - which means light rail is the only viable way.
FWIW I actually do think Lancaster, as it's so car unfriendly with it being an old city, would work well as an "ecocity" showpiece with trams and excellent cycling provision, after all it's just a hilly and less posh version of Oxford or Cambridge (albeit with a newer uni). But I equally think the conspirababble lot would be out quickly, and you'd have to do something about the through traffic, particularly to the Marsh.
Buses during the day will have each around 30+ passengers in total spread out between Battery and Lancaster on the 1/1A and there's six of those per hour, plus 100,2X,6A,40/41
Uh? Isn't being 'likely to miss the ticket check' the same thing in practice as 'so busy that the conductor might not get round to you', which means the logic of your statement reduces to 'It's only busy when it's busy'?
And once the people advocating the by-pass line have done that, how will people in Lancaster travel either North or South? You'll have basically reduced Lancaster to being served by the Morecambe shuttles, and the irregular Leeds trains plus a few Manchester-Barrow/Windermere services. You'll be able to run the Morecambe shuttles as frequently as you want, but you'll also have destroyed half their custom because the onward connections at Lancaster won't exist any more.
In my previous post I stated that Lancaster would continue to get Euston services either terminating at Lancaster as proposed by HS2, continuing to Windermere or carrying on up the WCML. HS2 Glasgow/Edinburgh services weren't proposed to call at Lancaster anyway. Moving those services on to a bypass allows more services to serve Lancaster and creates more capacity for freight services.
Any bypass wouldn't just be a bypass of Lancaster. It would bypass other conflicts such as Carnforth and Oxenholme. Its highly unlikely that building a 3rd line from Lancaster at the cost of hundreds of millions is going to be viable just so a 2nd Morecambe shuttle can be provided. It would do very little to provide more capacity on the WCML which would still be constrained by other passenger conflicts and freight.
A bypass on the other hand would be expensive but allow for a better local service, more and quicker intercity services, and potentially more freight. It would cost billions but benefits are just confined to the Morecambe branch. A bypass might not be viable, my point is 2 trains to Morecambe almost certainly isn't viable while the WCML is the main north south railway.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The bus services is likely far more attractive than the rail service unless you are using it connect to other rail services. The bus isn't that much slower than the train outside of peaks and better serves the city centre. Bus also serves the residential areas more directly. Realistical the train will never be overly competitive on local journeys. A tram could be but i think the lack of space in the city centre and surrounding roads make that very unlikely (and that's before considering that the UK is crap at building tram systems).
The railway should focus on offering longer distance connections to Morecambe. That's why I believe the service should continue on to Preston to provide those better to long distance connections. I personally think a bypass of Lancaster will be needed to achieve that. I could be wrong there though. Obviously I don't have acces to a whole business case for the proposal.
Don't know where you got an hour from - the no. 100 is the main route and just under 30 mins Lancaster to Morecambe bus station. Most of the town centre is closer to the bus station too.
The route could easily justify 4tph with a station at Bailrigg, maybe not without, but 2tph is not suitable for any growth or improvements, especially when the competing public transport frequency is every 15 mins.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One other thing - I've said 2tph to Morecambe. You'd need to do some track doubling between Morecambe and Heysham if you want them both to run to Heysham. Without that, the best you could probably do if you want a robust timetable is 2tph to Morecambe Westgate and nothing beyond there, or 1tph terminating at Morcambe, the other running to Heysham.
This would be a fairly decent initial plan - 1tph to each to build up demand. I suggested a "Bay Smartcard" multi-modal ticket scheme here before, I think you'd need that to support service growth before any more improvements.
Uh? Isn't being 'likely to miss the ticket check' the same thing in practice as 'so busy that the conductor might not get round to you', which means the logic of your statement reduces to 'It's only busy when it's busy'?
The railway generally is quiet during the day on a non school holiday weekday. You'll easily take an 8 car MKC-Euston stopper with fewer than 10 on it if it's Wednesday mid morning.
I've used the line occasionally, although not since Covid, and as I recall, I used to see some fairly busy trains and some very empty trains. I don't think the busy trains were only in the peak hours.
Trying to be a bit more scientific about it, official station usage stats (from Wikipedia) are: Morecambe 0.165 M (M=million), Bare Lane 0.113M, Heysham Port 0.009 M. That adds up to 0.287 M. That makes 788 journeys a day. A quick check on the timetable says, 26 return train journeys Mon-Fri, 25 Sat, 12 Sun which works out at an average of 24 tpd each way. So that makes an average of 17 passengers on each train.
There'll be some double counting in that figure - because I've counted anyone travelling only West of Bare Lane twice, but on the reasonable assumption that most journeys are to Lancaster or beyond, that number won't be that far out (and on the other side ticketless journeys are not accounted for, and also not accounted for cancelled trains/engineering works etc.).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On another note, I realised looking at the timetable that trains are timetabled to take 15 minutes from Morecambe to Heysham Port, a distance of 4.3 miles, making the average speed 17.2 mph with no intermediate stops. (Before anyone objects, I've excluded the 3 minutes dwell time at Morecambe - public timetables show 18 minutes). Does that track really have such a low maximum speed? I think if we want to provide a couple of intermediate stops to get regular passengers from Westgate/Heysham, you'd need to do something about that.
With electrification, resignaling, elimination of minor stops then you could easily increase the speed. It's only slow because it's at the back of the queue for expenditure.
Or there's another alternative: reinstate the Ingleton branch as an electrified express route
Is this by reversing at Preston to get to Blackburn, or going via Manchester and that congested Oxford Road-Salford Crescent bit? I'm very curious how this is going to be quicker than going up the WCML through Lancaster?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
And some careful timetabling.