The Abbey line is not that far from the Marston Vale line, which is still to this day run by diesel trains, with the same operator as the Abbey line. As it is a self-contained service, the gains from removing the diesel island are small, especially with the nearby island of Marston Vale.
The Windermere branch isn't a diesel island in any sense of the word, though I did enjoy your classification of the sea as being Oxenholme.
Did you just choose to ignore the point i was making or the evidence that on what should be one of the busiest days for people going to the lakes that the services were 3 cars all day?
Which makes it even worse; assuming it would just be done, and not doing any analysis!
Batteries are now being warranted for 10-12 years so it's likely that 3 to 4 replacements would be necessary during a trains lifetime.
Another platform means new signalling, then the cost escalates.
But you've also got to maintain OLE while it's up, and renew it when it's needed.
Why do you need another platform? Almost all charters would add Oxenholme as a stop and then go on to Carlisle to service and restock the set.
Could you even run 2 trains per hour down the Windermere line? It's just 1 single track portion and I don't think a 2nd platform at Windermere would make it any easier to fit a 2nd train in.
Come on! 10 miles of single trolley wire and on a slow-speed line it probably won't wear out for decades. The original wires were stripped out of the Woodhead route when it was closed and I have a feeling that some might still be in use (with new insulators) on the Glossop line
Quite.
KISS. We need to get it done, and embroidering it would wreck any financial case. There is a lot of prejudice to overcome anyway, and if it's true that it is worked by Barrow crews then traction training is a hurdle to clear too. Most people would assume that it would be crewed from the Manchester end and easily swapped into an electric link.
Both are very unlikely scenarios. Battery design may change but you would still be able to swap batteries out and Indeed you are likely to get better performance and lower weight from future battery designs improving the performance of the units.
The materials required to both install, maintain and renew the overhead wires etc will still be many many times those required for the batteries.
The Windermere Line has speeds just as fast as Bolton-Wigan (60mph with occasional 50mph), which has full proper electrification.
but far more (actual and potential) use...
It'll still wear out though. And it needs to be inspected regularly because if it does get in the wrong place, it'll cost a lot to put right. I suspect it'll not be able to do a simple trolley wire system because it's a twisty line with a number of quite exposed points. An urban tramway sheltered by buildings it is not. The wires will need to be able to stand up to a winter storm as well, increasing costs.
And when the train's traction batteries reach the end of that life, they can be repurposed for the trickle-charger, or other lineside batteries, and when they've finished that, they can be sold on to domestic applications. ALL systems require some element of renewal and maintenance, so let's not pretend that batteries are somehow unusual in needing to be renewed at end of life. The differences are in scale - an OLE system would need actual renewal every 40-50 years (as shown by the thread origin) whereas a battery system is likely to need replacing about every 8-10 years (according to the people running the Greenford shuttle in a recent interview).
Its not an upgrade, renewals funding.
True... but if there's a design and build team in the area anyway why not transfer some funds from a different budget, piggyback on it and get a simple job done?
There won't be, its replacing wire, not designing and building a new system.
Well, if the Trilink thing (see the WCML rewiring thread) is doing this:
and
by only "replacing wire" they are asking an awful lot of the current wire layout! They obviously have significant design capacity...
Still falls under enhancement vs renewal. If they end up being instructed to do it, then its a different matter, its very unlikely though. None of the alterations to layouts are proposed or agreed yet either, its not 100% they will happen either.
I'm pretty sure the Windermere line is already at capacity, and can only fit 1 train at a time, so you'd have to axe the existing service to fit that in.
“A while” being about 60 years by now! IIRC Windermere nearly got approved (or indeed was approved and the cancelled). I doubt a case could ever be made for Barrow. Northern stock replacement has hardly started yet and there’ll be a place for “pure diesels” for a while yet in areas where there are no wires to run under. Fairly certain that the 195s were intended for various Northern Connect service improvements elsewhere that have not (yet?) happened.
Class 195s will only be used on routes that have no electrification, we will probably have a shortage of these units
That's a pretty feeble objection! Diagramming units has so many options that there would be loads of possibilities, like (off the top of my head) running e.g. Windermere to Man Vic and then to Stalybridge and back or some such for the balance.
TRi-mode is unneccessarily complicated - and OLE to Windermere is an easy win anyway. Why not just focus on BEMUs and put a length of OLE at the (Barrow) country end for recharging?
