Northern - a catch 22?

[Bantamzen]

Withdrawing rail services is currently very controversial because it is perceived as degrading or removing transport links to communities. However, if national public transport planning were more holistic, it may not be perceived this way. Settle Junction to Carnforth could be replaced by Settle - Clapham - Ingleton - Oxenholme - Kendal, Ingleton - Bentham - Wennington - Lancaster and Dent/Garsdale - Sedbergh - Kendal - Oxenholme buses which could run hourly or every 2 hours and offer a timetable and fares structure integrated with that of the Leeds - Settle - Carlisle railway. Buses can run more frequently than trains because of their lower running costs. An hourly bus from Clapham village to Settle for trains to Leeds would surely be an improvement on an irregular rail service which has its station around 2 km from the village. Connections in Manchester or Preston for Leeds - Cumbria passengers could be optimised and this could mean faster or equally fast journey times with better rolling stock.

In the Beeching report, both the Airedale & Wharfedale lines were recommended for closure as Dr Beeching expected that bus services could easily replace the trains. Now I for one am thankful that there was enough opposition to these proposals, as the lines are now busier than ever, in fact some peak services are heavily over-subscribed. So had we lost these trains, passengers from say Skipton to Leeds would have faced a 1 hour 40 minute commute (based on the X84 FirstBus service) as opposed to just over 40 minutes. And that's without the traffic, which anybody that's ever driven along these two valleys at peak time (and even off peak) can be bedlam so that journey time can quickly approach 2 hours. Just because it's concivable to replace rail with bus, doesn't mean you should. I dread to think how long your proposed service would take having to snake through the Dales.

What is needed is proper & honest consultation with the people that are likely to use lines like this to see how bus to utilise it before we consign it to the scrap heap. Maybe a semi-fast operation between Settle & Leeds rather than the current all-stopper would be better? I know recently it was suggested to operate this semi fast service hourly, with the trains alternating between Carlisle & Lancaster/Morecambe. Of course it would help the idea immensely if enough 158s were available to run the route rather than the pacers currently operating it. This would, in my opinion, better serve the area giving a faster connection into Yorkshire whilst still making it an effective service for locals an tourists alike. Remember this year sees two stages of the Tour De France going through the Dales, so there are going to be many more tourists in the region & with lots of very positive publicity on the area recently (Lonely Planet has named Yorkshire the 3rd most desirable place to visit) tourism here might just be about to increase substantially. So maybe this service might just benefit from this?

 

[yorksrob]

I have travelled on this service from Leeds to Long Preston on a summer Friday evening, and it was reasonably well patronised by hikers, cyclists and holidaymakers. But really, is it the best use of taxpayers' money to carry on maintaining the 25 miles of double track from Settle Junction to Carnforth, including a tunnel, four stations, nine level crossings and two junctions, when there is not normally enough demand to fill a 2-car Pacer at less than 2-hourly frequency, and no regular freight traffic?

Well, it would be an unreasonable use of taxpayers money to treat the route like a mainline, but as we all know, the route isn‘t treated like a mainline. Given the benefit it provides to local communities and its handyness as a through route (strategically useful as well when the long drag or the copy pit lines are closed) I would say it's a pretty decent use of taxpayers money.

Don't forget that many of the structures would still need to be maintained anyway (though I must confess I've never noticed nine level crossings on the route. Occupation crossings perhaps ?)

 

[Oscar]

What is needed is proper & honest consultation with the people that are likely to use lines like this to see how bus to utilise it before we consign it to the scrap heap. Maybe a semi-fast operation between Settle & Leeds rather than the current all-stopper would be better? I know recently it was suggested to operate this semi fast service hourly, with the trains alternating between Carlisle & Lancaster/Morecambe. Of course it would help the idea immensely if enough 158s were available to run the route rather than the pacers currently operating it. This would, in my opinion, better serve the area giving a faster connection into Yorkshire whilst still making it an effective service for locals an tourists alike. Remember this year sees two stages of the Tour De France going through the Dales, so there are going to be many more tourists in the region & with lots of very positive publicity on the area recently (Lonely Planet has named Yorkshire the 3rd most desirable place to visit) tourism here might just be about to increase substantially. So maybe this service might just benefit from this?

Yes, of course, closure should always be considered alongside other options and users of the affected line should be consulted. In this case, a way to revive the line's fortunes may be to create an hourly semi-fast path from Leeds (which would provide additional capacity on the Airedale Line) with services continuing alternately to Carlisle and Carnforth. In an integrated regular interval timetable a Barrow - Lancaster service could stop on the opposite platform at Carnforth for perhaps 3-4 minutes at the same time as the train from Leeds stops. In the case of a slight delay these services would wait for one another if possible but excellent punctuality would be essential. The train from Leeds could then reverse and use a new chord to access the WCML North and continue to Oxenholme, Kendal and Windermere. A Lancaster - Barrow service would stop in Carnforth shortly afterwards. The sequence would be reversed in the opposite direction and the train to Leeds would have stop at Carnforth just over an hour later to make this work (as it would now be stopping simultaneously with the Lancaster - Barrow service). Thus Leeds/Skipton would be linked directly to Kendal and Windermere every 2 hours and there would also be excellent connections for Leeds/Skipton <> Barrow / Lancaster and Barrow <> Oxenholme, Kendal and Windermere. Further east, the trains would pass each other around 25 minutes journey time east of Carnforth, so in the Clapham area. A bus services between Giggleswick Station and Settle connecting with both trains would ensure that Leeds is connected to Settle hourly and Settle has connections to Cumbria. Buses integrated with the railway in a similar way could connect it to other villages such as Clapham and Austwick (from Giggleswick), Low Bentham, Burton in Lonsdale and Ingleton (from Bentham/Wennington) and Melling, Arthington, Hornby and Kirkby Lonsdale (from Wennington). Buses connecting from Bentham and Wennington could perhaps wait for both trains to stop. The Leeds <> Skipton semi-fast path could be duplicated in the other half hour by a EMU to provide faster journey times from the stations which provide most passengers and additional capacity. The timetable would also need to fit around the WCML timetable. The question is whether an improved service of this kind would be enough to justify the investment required to operate such a service and whether a service of this kind would justify retaining the line.

 

[HSTEd]

If there is 25 miles of double track with only 1tp2h passenger trains and no freight.... why has this line not been singled?

Double tracks seems rather excessive.
(Journey time from Long Preston to Carnforth is only 42 minutes which sort of implies that that frequency could be supported by single track with no passing loops, the entire section could be operated using a train staff operating ground frames at each end).

The timetable as required would appear to require a single passing loop somewhere near the midpoint of the route although it might be simpler to simply recast the timetable to have only one train on the section.

 

[northwichcat]

I do think Northern's worst performers need to be identified and looked at, then look at the options, improvement, closure, whether Network Rail would close the line etc, impact of each, I certainly don't think the current railway network should be set in stone that's for sure.

Unfortunately the politician etc don't have the bottle for a fight re line closure's so we the have pointless parliamentary and token services.

The problem you'll have in some rural locations is the alternative road route would make for a much longer journey and even then sending a suitable size bus down it may not be suitable for the rural roads.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, of course, closure should always be considered alongside other options and users of the affected line should be consulted. In this case, a way to revive the line's fortunes may be to create an hourly semi-fast path from Leeds (which would provide additional capacity on the Airedale Line) with services continuing alternately to Carlisle and Carnforth. In an integrated regular interval timetable a Barrow - Lancaster service could stop on the opposite platform at Carnforth for perhaps 3-4 minutes at the same time as the train from Leeds stops. In the case of a slight delay these services would wait for one another if possible but excellent punctuality would be essential. The train from Leeds could then reverse and use a new chord to access the WCML North and continue to Oxenholme, Kendal and Windermere. The sequence would be reversed in the opposite direction and the train to Leeds would have stop at Carnforth an hour later to make this work. This would probably mean fast running and omitting the stops between Kendal and Windermere to make the Carnforth-Windermere round trip possible in an hour. Thus Leeds/Skipton would be linked directly to Kendal and Windermere every 2 hours and there would also be excellent connections for Leeds/Skipton <> Barrow / Lancaster and Barrow <> Oxenholme, Kendal and Windermere. Further east, the trains would pass each other around half an hour east of Carnforth, so in the Clapham/Giggleswick area. A bus service every 2 hours between Giggleswick Station and Settle connecting with both trains would ensure that Leeds is connected to Settle hourly and Settle has connections to Cumbria. Bus integrated with the railway in a similar way could connect it to other villages such as Clapham and Austwick (from Giggleswick), Low Bentham, Burton in Lonsdale and Ingleton (from Bentham/Wennington) and Melling, Arthington, Hornby and Kirkby Lonsdale (from Wennington). Buses connecting from Bentham could perhaps wait for both trains to stop but routes from Wennington would perhaps need two connections. The Leeds <> Skipton semi-fast path could be duplicated in the other half hour by a EMU to provide faster journey times from the stations which provide most passengers and additional capacity. The question is whether an improved service of this kind would be enough to justify retaining the line.

Certainly a lot of the improvements that you mention would be a great step forward.

Certainly better connections to the Lake District are a must and a regular two hourly service would undoubtedly make the service more attractive to residents along the route.

We must also be aware of costs though and we don't want to set the route up for a fall. Perhaps an additional early train and an additional later traion would be a good place to start, making it more useful for employment and leisure purposes.

 

[underbank]

I have travelled on this service from Leeds to Long Preston on a summer Friday evening, and it was reasonably well patronised by hikers, cyclists and holidaymakers. But really, is it the best use of taxpayers' money to carry on maintaining the 25 miles of double track from Settle Junction to Carnforth, including a tunnel, four stations, nine level crossings and two junctions, when there is not normally enough demand to fill a 2-car Pacer at less than 2-hourly frequency, and no regular freight traffic?

A better service would mean more people used the route. I often travel from Lancaster to York and in theory, the Carnforth>Skipton>Leeds line would be ideal, but in practice, I drive instead. Four reasons. Firstly, the service is so sparse that it's nigh on impossible to get to York and back to have any meaningful time in York. Secondly, it's a hell of a long drag, very slow, awful rolling stock, far quicker by car. Thirdly, the cost is crazy! Finally, there are no fast services - all services are painfully slow and stop everywhere.

No route is going to be popular if there's no regular service, it's expensive, and the comfort is poor. It's one of the classic chicken and egg situations. Lancaster and York are both county towns and are only 85 miles apart, yet there is effectively no decent railway service between the towns. "There's no demand" is the cry, but without the service, there'll be no demand!

 

[yorksrob]

If there is 25 miles of double track with only 1tp2h passenger trains and no freight.... why has this line not been singled?

Double tracks seems rather excessive.
(Journey time from Long Preston to Carnforth is only 42 minutes which sort of implies that that frequency could be supported by single track with no passing loops, the entire section could be operated using a train staff operating ground frames at each end).

The timetable as required would appear to require a single passing loop somewhere near the midpoint of the route although it might be simpler to simply recast the timetable to have only one train on the section.

The route does currently have the benefit of not having any signalling infrastructure. If you were to have single track sections and passing loops, this would probably become more expensive.

 

[HSTEd]

The route does currently have the benefit of not having any signalling infrastructure. If you were to have single track sections and passing loops, this would probably become more expensive.

Really? Isn't that unusual?
Is that the longest signal block on British railways then?

Perhaps attempting a relatively short burst of a clockface hourly timetable would be the best bet, since that would also not require additional signally infrastructure and would determine whether there is suppressed demand.

But that would require us to find another unit from somewhere.

 

[Oscar]

If there is 25 miles of double track with only 1tp2h passenger trains and no freight.... why has this line not been singled?

Double tracks seems rather excessive.
(Journey time from Long Preston to Carnforth is only 42 minutes which sort of implies that that frequency could be supported by single track with no passing loops, the entire section could be operated using a train staff operating ground frames at each end).

The timetable as required would appear to require a single passing loop somewhere near the midpoint of the route although it might be simpler to simply recast the timetable to have only one train on the section.

The problem with this is that interaction with other services or optimal connections to/from those services requires may require the trains to pass somewhere on the line. This is precisely why some form of timetable should be created before making infrastructure decisions. If it is deemed wise to single the line and a passing point is necessary, it could be built where it is needed to make the timetable work.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not necesarily true, if the maximum the market will stand is £50 and only one person travels the company gets £50, if the price is set at £35 then 2 people might travel, with all fixed costs being the same the company would be £20
better off.

I thought by 'maximum price the market would allow' you meant the price that generated the most revenue. Not the maximum price at which anyone at all would travel, which I don't think anyone really thinks the railway companies would charge.

I really don't see why (except for regulation) they'd ever set the price at anything other than at the market equilibrium, and even with government involvement they'd try to get themselves as close as possible.

 

[yorksrob]

Really? Isn't that unusual?
Is that the longest signal block on British railways then?

Perhaps attempting a relatively short burst of a clockface hourly timetable would be the best bet, since that would also not require additional signally infrastructure and would determine whether there is suppressed demand.

But that would require us to find another unit from somewhere.

I suppose it is unusual, but then again, not having to negotiate single block sections probably gives them more leeway to mesh services with the fairly heavy duty time critical main lines at either end (I think we did establish on another thread recently that it is the longest single block section on the network).

An extra unit probably would be the easiest and quickest way to improve services on the route.

 

[David Sinnett]

On the subject of changes to the railway reacting to non-rail developments, was there ever a plan to put in a heavy rail station alongside the Eastlands Manchester Sport City developments?

 

[tbtc]

Is it worth tax payers money to treat people in car crashes they caused themselves or need mountain rescue or have kids they can't afford. Probably not but we do it because thats what society does. I help pay for you, you help pay for me.

Is that the best reason for continuing to subsidise train services that don't have enough passengers to fill a minibus though?

 

[yorksrob]

Is that the best reason for continuing to subsidise train services that don't have enough passengers to fill a minibus though?

I can assure you that that from my experience, trains on the little north western frequently carry a lot more passengers than that !

 

[NotATrainspott]

On the subject of changes to the railway reacting to non-rail developments, was there ever a plan to put in a heavy rail station alongside the Eastlands Manchester Sport City developments?

I believe it was one of the original options for HS2's Manchester terminus.

 

[Moonshot]

On the subject of changes to the railway reacting to non-rail developments, was there ever a plan to put in a heavy rail station alongside the Eastlands Manchester Sport City developments?

Dont know about that, but the tram link now in place is far more suitable anyway.

 

[David Sinnett]

It certainly is for the locals but for those visiting teams' fans that use charter trains or when theres national events on when there's a track right there....

 

[Moonshot]

It certainly is for the locals but for those visiting teams' fans that use charter trains or when theres national events on when there's a track right there....

Paid for by who???

 

[David Sinnett]

Given the amount already invested by Mr Etihad a simple station wouldn't have been noticed.

 

[northwichcat]

Horwich Parkway was originally built as a GMPTE funded station for people to travel to rather than to travel from, consequently a ticket office wasn't considered as they didn't think many people would start outward journeys there. However, people did want to start journeys at the station so ticket selling facilities have been added. If GMPTE hadn't funded the station initially then some of the rail users using it may not have considered using the train to get to/from Manchester, Bolton and Preston.

 

[Moonshot]

Given the amount already invested by Mr Etihad a simple station wouldn't have been noticed.

It would never have got part the first stage of MCFCs PLC equivalent of a grip process. Trams do the job far better.....the line links into both Piccadilly and Victoria for starters.

 

[Moonshot]

Given the amount already invested by Mr Etihad a simple station wouldn't have been noticed.

It would never have got part the first stage of MCFCs PLC equivalent of a grip process. Trams do the job far better.....the line links into both Piccadilly and Victoria for starters.