Rebuilding the 'Little North Western' ?

[InkyScrolls]

Try the WCML over Shap and tell me that again! I think that's in many ways better than the S&C.

Indeed but the WCML was, is, and always will be far busier than the S&C, and is it no way reliant on discretionary 'scenery travel'.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes, there will be objections... but there are plenty of other "scenic" locations that haven't been "spoiled" by sympathetically-designed OHLE masts. It's a working railway first and foremost, and that should take precedence over subjective aesthetic concerns. Now if the sorts of heavy-duty steelwork used on parts of the GWML were to be proposed, there would be case for objections and I'd join those objecting to it, but there are ways and means of minimising any visual impact.

Of course there are way, but, to be realistic, any process to electrify it continuously will cost far more than discontinuously, because of the constant legal challenges NR will have to contest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2024 ==

there's a new housing estate in the way of that idea......(and of course it's built on bogland to make life even more interesting)

Isn't that east of the WCML? I was thinking a low speed curve west of the WCML between Midland Terrace and the WCML itself.

Depends if Lancaster is a wasted stop and it also means you aren't spending money on a chord which also stops you serving Carnforth.

I don't anticipate Lancaster or Carnforth to be a significant stop on any Yorks-Scotland intercity - Lancaster already has significant intercity provision to Scotland and Carnforth is a small town.
Isn't congestion around Lancaster on the WCML a barrier to better Lancaster to Morecambe service too?

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

Sympathetic Swiss-style wooden pole electrification probably wouldn't disrupt the aesthetic value of key structures, although the rapidly reducing cost of small traction batteries wouldn't be worth the expense of a whole new design for the UK loading gauge in this case.

Because that would a) cost a fortune, b) lose two significant sources of traffic (Lancaster and Carnforth), and c) save you twenty minutes at best.

1.) Cost a fortune? Not neccesarily.
2.) I'm not sure I'd describe Carnforth as a major traffic source. Even interchange off the Furness line isn't going to be any quicker than now, given the reversal at Lancaster.
3.) Surely 20 mins is worth saving on a longer journey, as well as releasing pressure off a congested section of the WCML.
How much difference is there between this route and running non-stop Skipton to Carlisle?

 

[fishwomp]

The "Godwin's Law" of this forum... how long does it take before someone mentions the war Skipton-Colne?

Not long - because for whatever problem we are solving - S*****n to C****e is the solution! :0)

 

[InkyScrolls]

I don't anticipate Lancaster or Carnforth to be a significant stop on any Yorks-Scotland intercity - Lancaster already has significant intercity provision to Scotland and Carnforth is a small town.

This is true.

Isn't congestion around Lancaster on the WCML a barrier to better Lancaster to Morecambe service too?

Not so much congestion as it not being a clockface timetable, plus having to fit the Heysham train in.

Sympathetic Swiss-style wooden pole electrification probably wouldn't disrupt the aesthetic value of key structures, although the rapidly reducing cost of small traction batteries wouldn't be worth the expense of a whole new design for the UK loading gauge in this case.

I think bimode units running on diesel away from the wires is almost certainly what we'll see, probably within a few years.

1. Cost a fortune? Not necessarily.

More than is worth for a relatively small traffic source.

2. I'm not sure I'd describe Carnforth as a major traffic source. Even interchange off the Furness line isn't going to be any quicker than now, given the reversal at Lancaster.

Both granted.

3. Surely 20 mins is worth saving on a longer journey, as well as releasing pressure off a congested section of the WCML.

It is possible to reverse in the loops at Carnforth too, which would miss Lancaster but save ~14 mins for minimal cost (they're not currently classed as passenger loops, although passenger services can use them with special permission).

How much difference is there between this route and running non-stop Skipton to Carlisle?

Again with perfect timings and in minutes, and including Settle and Appleby because it would be daft to miss them:-

• Leeds 0
• Shipley 12
• Bingley 17
• Keighley 22
• Skipton 34
• Settle 52
• Appleby 99
• Carlisle 134
• Lockerbie 153
• Carstairs 189
• Motherwell 204
• Glasgow Central 224

So saving around seventeen minutes vs. going via Lancaster, and roughly on par with reversing at Carnforth.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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

"Severely marred" really? When you're on a train on an electrified line you barely notice the masts as they're so thin, and you can't see the "knitting" at all as it's above your head. Do people cancel their trips on some of the mountainous routes in Switzerland because of the OHLE masts?

 

[InkyScrolls]

For comparison, I've worked out roughly how long it would take to travel from Leeds to Glasgow via a reopened Clapham - Low Gill route:-

• Leeds 0
• Shipley 12
• Bingley 17
• Keighley 22
• Skipton 34
• Penrith 101
• Carlisle 120
• Lockerbie 139
• Carstairs 175
• Motherwell 190
• Glasgow Central 210

To summarise, fastest to slowest:-

1. Via Clapham/Low Gill (3 hrs 30 mins)
2. Limited stop via Settle (3 hrs 44 mins)
3. Reversal at Carnforth (3 hrs 47 mins)
4. Reversal at Lancaster (4 hrs 1 min)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2024 ==

"Severely marred" really? When you're on a train on an electrified line you barely notice the masts as they're so thin, and you can't see the "knitting" at all as it's above your head. Do people cancel their trips on some of the mountainous routes in Switzerland because of the OHLE masts?

Clearly it's a matter of opinion!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not so much congestion as it not being a clockface timetable, plus having to fit the Heysham train in.

Still an issue with shoving more trains down there though.

I think bimode units running on diesel away from the wires is almost certainly what we'll see, probably within a few years.

Indeed, but you'll need some electrification beyond Skipton and south of Carlisle to make it viable.

More than is worth for a relatively small traffic source.

If you made it a wye, to allow north-south connections through Carnforth station at the same time, that might increase your value for money (Carnforth on a Windermere service might be useful for Lakes and Furness holidaymakers planning to visit both on the same day).

It is possible to reverse in the loops at Carnforth too, which would miss Lancaster but save ~14 mins for minimal cost (they're not currently classed as passenger loops, although passenger services can use them with special permission).

Maybe a decent idea.

Again with perfect timings and in minutes, and including Settle and Appleby because it would be daft to miss them:-

• Leeds 0
• Shipley 12
• Bingley 17
• Keighley 22
• Skipton 34
• Settle 52
• Appleby 99
• Carlisle 134
• Lockerbie 153
• Carstairs 189
• Motherwell 204
• Glasgow Central 224

So saving around seventeen minutes vs. going via Lancaster, and roughly on par with reversing at Carnforth.

Makes the most sense as I see it at the moment - using a lightly used route vs a section of WCML with little practical alternative routes for other services, the fastest on existing infrastructure, and it also serves some sizeable tourist hotspots like Settle and Appleby on a long-distance service. Looks good for TPE with an 802. You'd save a significant chunk of time from most of West Yorks heading this way to western Scotland than via the existing ECML/WCML-based fastest options.

For comparison, I've worked out roughly how long it would take to travel from Leeds to Glasgow via a reopened Clapham - Low Gill route:-

• Leeds 0
• Shipley 12
• Bingley 17
• Keighley 22
• Skipton 34
• Penrith 101
• Carlisle 120
• Lockerbie 139
• Carstairs 175
• Motherwell 190
• Glasgow Central 210

To summarise, fastest to slowest:-

1. Via Clapham/Low Gill (3 hrs 30 mins)
2. Limited stop via Settle (3 hrs 44 mins)
3. Reversal at Carnforth (3 hrs 47 mins)
4. Reversal at Lancaster (4 hrs 1 min)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2024 ==


Clearly it's a matter of opinion!

For nearly 23 miles of new railway, 14 mins doesn't seem worth it to me, especially as you could implement some speed improvements on the Settle and Carlisle relatively cheaply.

 

[randyrippley]

Isn't that east of the WCML? I was thinking a low speed curve west of the WCML between Midland Terrace and the WCML itself.

The Environment Agency would freak out if you did that. That ground east / north of Millhead is the Keer floodplain and turns into a lake most winters. While they try to control the flooding there to protect the buildings in Warton, there's a tradeoff to keep the winter birds happy. I think you'd be turned down flat if you suggested it

 

[AlastairFraser]

The Environment Agency would freak out if you did that. That ground east / north of Millhead is the Keer floodplain and turns into a lake most winters. While they try to control the flooding there to protect the buildings in Warton, there's a tradeoff to keep the winter birds happy. I think you'd be turned down flat if you suggested it

Fair enough - sounds like you'd have to build a storage reservoir for contingency and that would push costs up. Oh well. Inkyscrolls has demonstrated the S and C limited stop is nearly as fast anyway.

 

[randyrippley]

It is possible to reverse in the loops at Carnforth too, which would miss Lancaster but save ~14 mins for minimal cost (they're not currently classed as passenger loops, although passenger services can use them with special permission).

I don't think that's so. My memory, and checking Google maps seems to concur, is that northern access to/from the loops is only possible from the yard or the platforms, not from the WCML tracks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2024 ==

Fair enough - sounds like you'd have to build a storage reservoir for contingency and that would push costs up. Oh well. Inkyscrolls has demonstrated the S and C limited stop is nearly as fast anyway.

I don't quite think you understand: that ground IS the storage reservoir that stops Warton from flooding

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don't quite think you understand: that ground IS the storage reservoir that stops Warton from flooding

Yes I do agree that is the case currently, but you could build retention ponds and flood control systems elsewhere, if money was less of an object. Realistically, that would push costs too high on such a project though.

 

[daodao]

It is possible to reverse in the loops at Carnforth too, which would miss Lancaster but save ~14 mins for minimal cost

A service could be trialled from Leeds to Glasgow Central, reversing in the loops just south of Carnforth, with essentially no capital expenditure on infrastructure, although an intermediate block post between Settle Junction and Carnforth would be desirable. Use of an express bimode train, such as a class 802, would make full use of the extensive existing electrification on the route and not cause delays over Shap and Beattock. Initially, I suggest trains departing at 0800/1300/1800 Mon-Sat (1000/1800 Sun) from each terminus, thus requiring just 2 trainsets.

 

[yorksrob]

It's interesting that people are suggesting routing Leeds - Carlisle services over the West Coast main line, when whenever someone proposes other enhanced services over the line such as Liverpool to Scotland, we're told on this forum that the WCML is too full !

 

[daodao]

It's interesting that people are suggesting routing Leeds - Carlisle services over the West Coast main line, when whenever someone proposes other enhanced services over the line such as Liverpool to Scotland, we're told on this forum that the WCML is too full !

I'm only proposing 3 extra fast trains per day (2 on Sundays) north of Carnforth. I understood that the problem is accommodating slower freight trains on the WCML without losing too many express passenger paths.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm only proposing 3 extra fast trains per day (2 on Sundays) north of Carnforth. I understood that the problem is accommodating slower freight trains on the WCML without losing too many express passenger paths.

Wouldn't they be better used enhancing neglected North Western flows such as Liverpool - Scotland.

And lets face it, we need freight on the rails.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I don't think that's so. My memory, and checking Google maps seems to concur, is that northern access to/from the loops is only possible from the yard or the platforms, not from the WCML tracks.

Forgive me for overruling you, but as a driver over that LOR I can assure you, it is possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2024 ==

Personally I think a fast service via Settle is the best option (if indeed a direct Leeds - Glasgow service is desirable). It keeps it off the WCML for as long as possible, and timings are on par. If the line were to be signed off for 75 mph running, which was supposed to happen in 2017, that would be the quickest route.

 

[Halish Railway]

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.

 

[InkyScrolls]

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.

The time that would save is surely minimal compared with the construction costs? Though I do like the idea of through services to Windermere, and with proper advertising believe they could be profitable (in summer at least). I don't think you'd need an IB though.

As an example..:-

• Leeds 0
• Shipley 12
• Bingley 17
• Keighley 22
• Skipton 34
• Hellifield 48
• Bentham 66
• Carnforth (inc. reversal) 90
• Oxenholme 102
• Kendal 106
• Windermere 115

 

[AlastairFraser]

The time that would save is surely minimal compared with the construction costs? Though I do like the idea of through services to Windermere, and with proper advertising believe they could be profitable (in summer at least). I don't think you'd need an IB though.

As an example..:-

• Leeds 0
• Shipley 12
• Bingley 17
• Keighley 22
• Skipton 34
• Hellifield 48
• Bentham 66
• Carnforth (inc. reversal) 90
• Oxenholme 102
• Kendal 106
• Windermere 115

Surely a better idea for that plan would be to reopen Carnforth's WCML platforms, and introduce a reasonable connection time off the existing Bentham line services onto the Windermeres.

A service could be trialled from Leeds to Glasgow Central, reversing in the loops just south of Carnforth, with essentially no capital expenditure on infrastructure, although an intermediate block post between Settle Junction and Carnforth would be desirable. Use of an express bimode train, such as a class 802, would make full use of the extensive existing electrification on the route and not cause delays over Shap and Beattock. Initially, I suggest trains departing at 0800/1300/1800 Mon-Sat (1000/1800 Sun) from each terminus, thus requiring just 2 trainsets.

Why route it via Bentham and Carnforth when the S and C is similarly fast? Yes, you use less electrification as it is, but the WCML is too busy to make this an efficient use of paths.

If the line were to be signed off for 75 mph running, which was supposed to happen in 2017, that would be the quickest route.

Interesting - how much time would that save?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely a better idea for that plan would be to reopen Carnforth's WCML platforms, and introduce a reasonable connection time off the existing Bentham line services onto the Windermeres.

Just change at Lancaster. More options if they have to turn it short at Oxenholme to connect with it. They aren't going to be stopping Scotland ICs at Carnforth.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Just change at Lancaster. More options if they have to turn it short at Oxenholme to connect with it. They aren't going to be stopping Scotland ICs at Carnforth.

It's a waste of time though. I wasn't asking for Avanti or TPE to stop at Carnforth, I was thinking the Northern Windermere (this also makes Furness and Lakes connections better - ideally you want as many passengers off those rammed 3 car 195s as soon as possible.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a waste of time though. I wasn't asking for Avanti or TPE to stop at Carnforth, I was thinking the Northern Windermere (this also makes Furness and Lakes connections better - ideally you want as many passengers off those rammed 3 car 195s as soon as possible.)

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.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Surely a better idea for that plan would be to reopen Carnforth's WCML platforms, and introduce a reasonable connection time off the existing Bentham line services onto the Windermeres.

That would be the 'nice' option but BR deemed stopping at Carnforth too detrimental to the WCML timetable, hence the closure of those platforms. Of course trains today have for superior acceleration so that argument may no longer be valid.

Why route it via Bentham and Carnforth when the S and C is similarly fast? Yes, you use less electrification as it is, but the WCML is too busy to make this an efficient use of paths.

That user has a well known history of wishing for the closure of the S&C.

Interesting - how much time would that save?

Around thirteen minutes, I think.

 

[AlastairFraser]

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.

I'll leave you to deal with Northern's random unit generator if you trust it.
Reinstating those platforms for just 3 trains a day? Huh?
I'm proposing it for the benefit of the Manchester Airport to Windermere and the Leeds to Morecambe/Lancaster mostly - I'd send the Leeds to Glasgow via the S and C. 6 services a day on the Leeds to Morecambe/Lancaster.

That would be the 'nice' option but BR deemed stopping at Carnforth too detrimental to the WCML timetable, hence the closure of those platforms. Of course trains today have for superior acceleration so that argument may no longer be valid.

I agree with the notion the situation leading to closure has definitely changed; since the 195s have been introduced, acceleration on any unit regularly used on that section of the WCML above Carnforth North Jcn cannot be reasonably be described as slow.

That user has a well known history of wishing for the closure of the S&C.

Lmao
Each to their own, I guess.

Around thirteen minutes, I think.

That would make it around 3hr30 Leeds to Glasgow, correct?

 

[The Planner]

If the line were to be signed off for 75 mph running, which was supposed to happen in 2017, that would be the quickest route.

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

 

[InkyScrolls]

That would make it around 3hr30 Leeds to Glasgow, correct?

Thereabouts, aye.

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

Though, and do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the signal spacing is such that it is possible to raise to 75 mph?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thereabouts, aye.

That sounds like a reasonable timing to attract a decent amount of passengers to use it.

 

[Senex]

Forgive me for overruling you, but as a driver over that LOR I can assure you, it is possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2024 ==

Personally I think a fast service via Settle is the best option (if indeed a direct Leeds - Glasgow service is desirable). It keeps it off the WCML for as long as possible, and timings are on par. If the line were to be signed off for 75 mph running, which was supposed to happen in 2017, that would be the quickest route.

The S&C used to be an 80-mph railway. Has anyone got WTT times for the Thames-Clyde Express in the mid-60s, after the Peaks had taken over, for the Skipton-Carlisle section (Leeds-Skipton is certainly faster today than it was then)?

 

[InkyScrolls]

Looking at the 1961 Bradshaw, available on Timetable World, the TC was timed at 2 hrs 54 mins Leeds to Carlisle with no intermediate stops. No idea for later in the decade I'm afraid.

 

[daodao]

Looking at the 1961 Bradshaw, available on Timetable World, the TC was timed at 2 hrs 54 mins Leeds to Carlisle with no intermediate stops. No idea for later in the decade I'm afraid.

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 112.75 miles. It was timed to depart at 1441 and arrive at 1654, with intermediate stops at Skipton, Hellifield, Settle and Appleby,