Rebuilding the 'Little North Western' ?

[fishwomp]

The LM Region timetable issued June 1965 available on Timetable World shows the weekday Thames-Clyde express was somewhat faster from Leeds to Carlisle, presumably with diesel haulage, taking 133 minutes for 102.25 miles. It was timed to depart at 1441 and arrive at 1654, with intermediate stops at Skipton, Hellifield, Settle and Appleby,

This came up recently: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ttle-theoretical-minimum.267864/#post-6774442

Back in 1964 timetable - "The Thames Clyde Express" (Glasgow St Enoch - London St Pancras) was scheduled 11:32 ex Carlisle, arriving Leeds at 13:39 - non-stop. That's a journey of 2h07 mins.

A limited stops "The Waverley" (Edinburgh-St Pancras) with stops at Appleby, Settle, Hellifield, Gargrave, Skipton would do it in 2h17.

Progress eh?

 

[Grumpy]

I think that has become railway folklore for the wrong reasons, I don't believe it ever got close to happening.

Any potential for SP Differentials? The line has 158s tied down to the same speeds as 2000+ton freights

 

[sprinterguy]

These are very often 4, 5 or 6 car now - problem solved.

It may be a waste of your time, but the extra stop isn't worthwhile for most others on the train. Nor is reinstating those platforms for just three trains per day each way.

Four services out of fourteen in each direction are 6-cars on the Manchester - Barrow/Windermere circuit, the remainder are 3-cars. Double sets are the minority, and as far as Windermere is concerned, it's one diagram.

 

[The Planner]

Any potential for SP Differentials? The line has 158s tied down to the same speeds as 2000+ton freights

Potential for anything if someone decides to spend money on it, which they aren't.

 

[Meerkat]

I know it is overall less efficient than continuous electrification, but I think the opposition to wiring places like Ribblehead Viaduct will be immense, so it's the only practical way to do it.

At the point where we have reached wiring the S&C I reckon it would be “it gets wired, or it gets closed”

Absolutely. The majority of passengers travel on the line for the scenery, which would be severely marred by masts and 'knitting'.

Not from inside the train, and it would be a much nicer trip without diesels thrashing away under the floor.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Not from inside the train, and it would be a much nicer trip without diesels thrashing away under the floor.

Again I think that's a matter of opinion. I prefer engine noise over transformer hum myself!

But it's moot anyway, the S&C is never going to be wired.

 

[AlastairFraser]

At the point where we have reached wiring the S&C I reckon it would be “it gets wired, or it gets closed”

At that point surely battery development would be far ahead enough to power through while keeping pans up across small unelectrified sections reliably?

 

[Halifaxlad]

I feel like the best option would be to build a new connecting line from the Bentham line to the WCML near Carnforth to facilitate services from Leeds to both Windermere and Carlisle (and maybe beyond) via the WCML without a reversal, loosely paralleling the long-distance flows that use the A65.

An example of such a service would be Leeds-Shipley-Bingley-Keighley-Skipton-Hellifield-Giggleswick-Bentham-Oxenholme and then either Kendal and Windermere or Penrith and Carlisle, ideally worked by 100mph bi-mode multiple units.

The construction of such a chord is complicated by the presence of the M6 and Pine Lake, so a longer, albeit green field route would have to be taken. Of course various upgrades would be desirable on the existing routes that such services would use, including installing a faster turnout at Settle Jn, new intermediate signals and linespeed improvements where possible on the Little North Western and maybe the creation of a passing loop on the Windermere branch if these services were to supplement the existing services on that line.

I feel that this idea is the best compromise between travel times, affordability and provision of new connectivity, as at most it would only require two miles of new track to enable significant journey time reductions and create two new routes.

I do quite like this idea, having a look at the map I would suspect the best place for it would be below Hutton Wood nature reserve.



Also I quite like the idea of a through and direct service to Windmere from Yorkshire although I suspect that one might be reliant upon the suggested M6 bypass.

It would also probably justify electrifying the Bentham line.

 

[randyrippley]

I do quite like this idea, having a look at the map I would suspect the best place for it would be below Hutton Wood nature reserve.

View attachment 165909

Also I quite like the idea of a through and direct service to Windmere from Yorkshire although I suspect that one might be reliant upon the suggested M6 bypass.

It would also probably justify electrifying the Bentham line.

you'd get a lot of Nimby resistance there, plus the ground between the A6 at Yealand and the WCML is yet again bog which again might have the environment agency up in arms. The WCML is on an embankment there for a reason.....
If you wanted to avoid a Carnforth reversal perhaps the easiest solution would be to reopen the Midland-Furness link at Carnforth, reopen Arnside - Hincaster Junction with a new south-east spur south of Arnside station to allow direct running from Silverdale-Hincaster. Most of the route is still clear, would need some new bridges

 

[HSTEd]

Surely, by far the cheapest option for Yorkshire-Windermere services would just be to provide a reversing siding south of Carnforth. That probably means using one of the existing sidings with a platform-style walking route to ensure the driver can change ends?

Then again, none of these options escape the timetabling issues associated with trying to get more trains onto that segment of the WCML, so I doubt it is workable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely, by far the cheapest option for Yorkshire-Windermere services would just be

...for those passengers to change at Lancaster. The ideal would be to provide a fourth platform at Windermere to allow an hourly clock face service to Preston.

 

[30907]

...for those passengers to change at Lancaster. The ideal would be to provide a fourth platform at Windermere to allow an hourly clock face service to Preston.

Do you mean that?

 

[AlastairFraser]

...for those passengers to change at Lancaster. The ideal would be to provide a fourth platform at Windermere to allow an hourly clock face service to Preston.

Introducing more traffic through Lancaster is stupid when you can route any Leeds to Glasgow express via the S and C, and the WCML platforms at Carnforth could be reopened at relatively little expense for passengers from Yorkshire.

 

[HSTEd]

...for those passengers to change at Lancaster. The ideal would be to provide a fourth platform at Windermere to allow an hourly clock face service to Preston.

Well yes, but that doesn't technically meet the stated requirement for Yorkshire-Windermere Services

I expect any money spent on the Windermere branch (although I don't think it needs four platforms!) would be better spent on getting the frequency up high enough for a park and ride to be attractive on the M6. Although obviously Windermere station is not attractively placed for such an operation.

 

[randyrippley]

Do you mean that?

I don't think anyone else is awake enough to actually understand that this morning

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2024 ==

Carnforth station actually has better road and to some extent public transport access than Lancaster station has.
If the WCML platforms were reinstated and a decent sized car park provided it would make a good park-and-ride railhead.
Creating the car park would also create a justification for clearing the scrap yard known as WCRC

 

[Halifaxlad]

If you wanted to avoid a Carnforth reversal perhaps the easiest solution would be to reopen the Midland-Furness link at Carnforth, reopen Arnside - Hincaster Junction with a new south-east spur south of Arnside station to allow direct running from Silverdale-Hincaster. Most of the route is still clear, would need some new bridges

Its certainly an interesting idea which certainly could do with looking at further!

With that I would also look at laying another track adjacent to the WCML between Hevesham and Oxenholme.

Looking at the possibilities then you could have a Manchester - Blackburn - Bolton - Clithero - Hellifield - Bentham - Oxenholme - Windmere service.

Provided a 3rd line was built suggested above these could be segregated from the WCML.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Its certainly an interesting idea which certainly could do with looking at further!

With that I would also look at laying another track adjacent to the WCML between Hevesham and Oxenholme.

Looking at the possibilities then you could have a Manchester - Blackburn - Bolton - Clithero - Hellifield - Bentham - Oxenholme - Windmere service.

Provided a 3rd line was built suggested above these could be segregated from the WCML.

And how long would such a service take?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Creating the car park would also create a justification for clearing the scrap yard known as WCRC

 

[randyrippley]

And how long would such a service take?

less than reversing at Carnforth

 

[InkyScrolls]

less than reversing at Carnforth

But that's irrelevant - there are already direct services between Manchester and Windermere, which are far faster than @Halifaxlad's proposal would be!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well yes, but that doesn't technically meet the stated requirement for Yorkshire-Windermere Services

I expect any money spent on the Windermere branch (although I don't think it needs four platforms!) would be better spent on getting the frequency up high enough for a park and ride to be attractive on the M6. Although obviously Windermere station is not attractively placed for such an operation.

I did of course mean a fourth platform at Oxenholme. Without this a clockface hourly through service off the branch isn't possible.

 

[30907]

I did of course mean a fourth platform at Oxenholme. Without this a clockface hourly through service off the branch isn't possible.

Thought so

I think you could do this with a Penryn-style loop at the Kendal end of the platform, if the gradient permits; if not, a loop just north of the station would do the job tolerably well.

(Or you could continue to use the Down Loop south of the station, but it makes the scheduling tighter.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Or you could continue to use the Down Loop south of the station, but it makes the scheduling tighter.)

I think having looked at it it makes it too tight for an hourly clockface service to be in any way reliable, and you don't want it importing delays to the WCML.

My absolute ideal for it would be hourly 6 car Manchester Airport-Lancaster and split for Barrow/Windermere, but that'd require changes at Lancaster too otherwise you'd be blocking a through platform for too much of an hour for splitting northbound.

 

[30907]

My absolute ideal for it would be hourly 6 car Manchester Airport-Lancaster and split for Barrow/Windermere, but that'd require changes at Lancaster too otherwise you'd be blocking a through platform for too much of an hour for splitting northbound.

Lancaster only basically has 4tph calling, and an extra 4min or so isn't critical so long as it's not between the two Avantis. Time for a freight to overtake?

Alternatively, you could do a Preston split with 2 "fast" Airport-Preston-Blackpool/Cumbrias an hour, but that uses a path PRE-LAN.

 

[Grumpy]

Just out of pure curosity: what do people think about rebuilding the Little North Western or a similar route from somewhere after Settle Junction to Low Gill and elecrifying the line from Skipton ?

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, there isn't realistically any chance of the money being found to provide the line or electrification. Similarly any significant investment to provide a Leeds-Windermere service isn't likely to be justified by the largely seasonal demand.
What we do have is two major population centres (West Yorkshire and the Glasgow area) with an almost direct line in between, but no direct through train service.
Provision of a few through trains a day, as suggested by daodao, would be ideal (although I would quibble with his timings-an 0800 first train is too late for the business market). There is no need to talk about bi-modes, 385's, or Voyagers. Simply start with 158's which the local crews are familiar with.
Inky suggests a 224 minute timing without any infrastructure works. He had 10 intermediate stops. I would suggest these be replaced by just Shipley, Steeton, Skipton, Carlisle and Motherwell. Cutting the stops might bring the journey down closer to 3 hours 30mins i.e. almost an hour quicker than the present railway offering and without the unappealing need to change.
In the 4 hours between 10am and 2pm today there were 14 northbound trains through Lockerbie, so lets not be thinking there's no capacity.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, there isn't realistically any chance of the money being found to provide the line or electrification. Similarly any significant investment to provide a Leeds-Windermere service isn't likely to be justified by the largely seasonal demand.
What we do have is two major population centres (West Yorkshire and the Glasgow area) with an almost direct line in between, but no direct through train service.

Is that perhaps indicative of little need?

Provision of a few through trains a day, as suggested by daodao, would be ideal (although I would quibble with his timings-an 0800 first train is too late for the business market). There is no need to talk about bi-modes, 385's, or Voyagers. Simply start with 158's which the local crews are familiar with.

Not possible - there is no way you could keep time on the WCML without a HS unit.

Inky suggests a 224 minute timing without any infrastructure works. He had 10 intermediate stops. I would suggest these be replaced by just Shipley, Steeton, Skipton, Carlisle and Motherwell.

Steeton? Now that's a random one.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Steeton? Now that's a random one

Probably trying to serve what could work as a parkway for the wider Keighley area, but again it doesn't really make sense, as it's easy to connect into other services at Shipley or Skipton from anywhere on the Airedale lines. It would make sense to replace it with Appleby at the very least, as a railhead for the north Yorkshire Dales and a sizeable tourist draw in its own right.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Probably trying to serve what could work as a parkway for the wider Keighley area, but again it doesn't really make sense, as it's easy to connect into other services at Shipley or Skipton from anywhere on the Airedale lines. It would make sense to replace it with Appleby at the very least, as a railhead for the north Yorkshire Dales and a sizeable tourist draw in its own right.

Indeed - or even Settle, which is far more of a tourist draw than even Appleby!

 

[Grumpy]

Is that perhaps indicative of little need?

Not possible - there is no way you could keep time on the WCML without a HS unit.

Steeton? Now that's a random one.

It could be because of no need, but I cant really believe that given the population sizes involved.
I prefer to think it's because of the poor railway offering. Similar arguments could be made re the likes of Okehampton, Waverley route, Worcester Parkway etc.-just because a service wasn't provided before didn't mean there was no need.

I accept a 90mph 158 should take longer then a 125mph unit, but comparing the current timetable and 2005 (185 operated) there's not in practice much difference in Carlisle to Glasgow journey times. With the long gaps in service north of Carlisle it should surely be possible to fit a few more trains in.

Steeton was put in as suggested by AlistairFraser.

With regard to the likes of seasonal tourists to Settle and Appleby, let them use the existing services. The aim should be to provide an attractive service to the year round potentially much bigger market.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Indeed - or even Settle, which is far more of a tourist draw than even Appleby!

The thing with Settle is that at least it's close to Skipton by rail or road to catch this longer distance service there, and you could change onto a Northern service southbound at Appleby if you wanted to visit it from Glasgow.