Reducing DMUs on Barrow and Windermere services?

[Bletchleyite]

Continuing a side discussion on whether the through Barrow/Windermere services could be split into EMU and DMU services to free up 195s...

Platform 3 at Oxenholme is not set up for multiple trains.
If the Dmu comes in from Windermere what happens to it to allow the Emu from Manchester to arrive?
There is only the one loop on the Down side before the station

The only feasible way to do this would presumably be to have the EMU arrive and depart while the DMU is on the branch, though that would obviously have the downside of increasing journey times by about half an hour. It doesn't seem totally clear however if signalling would allow for such a move or if the branch platform is fully part of the branch in signalling terms.

Alternatively the EMU could be a Manchester-Carlisle service (for DMU connections to both Barrow and Windermere) which could allow the TPE Scotland service to be sped up? No idea if that could be pathed, though.

As a third option look to increase the capacity of the TPE service and adjust timings on both the DMU and the TPE service so they connect well. However you would probably still at least want a Manchester to Lancaster EMU so you didn't halve the service between those two places.

 

[Farigiraf]

By the time any of these proposals could come to fruition, Northern will likely have received new battery trains which can continue the current service on electric power and will displace enough 195s to hopefully concentrate them on diesel islands (e.g. Cumbrian Coast, S&C).

With the exception of a few TOCs (GA for example) which prioritise the passengers' journey over minor delay statistics, to most of them connections are typically just a suggestion and aren't held if it's inconvenient to do so. Additionally such connections could also be ruined by a timetable rewrite (see the Cardiff-Penzance split at Exeter with almost 1-hour connections between the two halves.)

 

[ScottGallagher]

I guess this would happen eventually ( along way off for now) by the new Northern battery capable fleet so no need in the end to split anything provided it can do Lancaster to Barrow section without difficulty. That would cascade the 195s.

 

[amahy]

Another potential option:

- 1 tph Manchester Airport to Oxenholme, using 6 car 331s
- 1 tph Lancaster to Barrow, using 3 car 195s
- 1 tph Lancaster to Windermere, using 3 car 195s

Depending on terminating capacity, the 195 operated services may be extended to Preston. Additionally, as this would provide an extra Northern service per hour at Oxenholme, enabling more Avanti/TPE services to run fast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depending on terminating capacity, the 195 operated services may be extended to Preston. Additionally, as this would provide an extra Northern service per hour at Oxenholme, enabling more Avanti/TPE services to run fast.

As there's also demand from the north, I don't think you would want to lose Scotland-Oxenholme entirely.

I do wonder if the following might be workable though:

Manchester Airport-Lancaster EMU 1tph
Windermere-Preston 0.5tph (with a shuttle to Oxenholme in between, ideally timed to connect with London trains)
Barrow-Preston 0.5tph (with a Lancaster-Carlisle in between)

This isn't that far off what operated in TPE days, at least for some of the time. It'd also give you an improved Lancaster-Preston service.

 

[cactustwirly]

Continuing a side discussion on whether the through Barrow/Windermere services could be split into EMU and DMU services to free up 195s...



The only feasible way to do this would presumably be to have the EMU arrive and depart while the DMU is on the branch, though that would obviously have the downside of increasing journey times by about half an hour. It doesn't seem totally clear however if signalling would allow for such a move or if the branch platform is fully part of the branch in signalling terms.

Alternatively the EMU could be a Manchester-Carlisle service (for DMU connections to both Barrow and Windermere) which could allow the TPE Scotland service to be sped up? No idea if that could be pathed, though.

As a third option look to increase the capacity of the TPE service and adjust timings on both the DMU and the TPE service so they connect well. However you would probably still at least want a Manchester to Lancaster EMU so you didn't halve the service between those two places.

Or leave it as is, would be the far simpler answer

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or leave it as is, would be the far simpler answer

It would, but Northern are perennially short of DMUs. The planned BEMUs would solve the issue, but those are realistically well over 5 years off by the time they are ordered, built and in service.

 

[deltic08]

I seem to recall that the trailing unit of a 2x 2 or 3x3 car DMU was detached and left in the platform at Oxenholme with the leading unit only continuing to Windermere as the platform there could only take three coaches They joined up again on return to Oxenholme. If they could do this then, then the signalling must be there for the Windermere shuttle to enter platform 3 when it is occupied by another train ie an EMU.
I recall this because I sent a contribution towards improving facilities at Windermere's new single platform built after the original station was sold to Booths supermarket. My name was on a plaque on the station together with other contributors.

 

[cle]

I would suggest:

1tph Liverpool - Barrow (in the Glasgow path or additional)

1tph Manchester (Airport) - Windermere

TPE could probably speed up the Scotland (Birmingham takes the Oxenholme call)

 

[biggerisbetter]

I imagine the answer to this is no as it would already have happened if feasible but could 195s and 331s be easily made to work together? That way could a 2-car 195 + 3-car 331 could work from Manchester Airport to Windermere hourly with the 331 left behind in the platform at Oxenholme then re-joined for the journey back south. Wouldn’t save that many DMUs and I imagine not worth the effort of making it work even if feasible.

Not sure where else this would work as there wouldn’t appear to be any platform space for the rear unit to layover for the Barrow or Southport services there is also a fair bit of diesel under the wires on the busiest part of a Northern route. Skipton maybe for some Bentham line services?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

EMUs aren't exactly plentiful either. Even now a 150 or 156 occasionally shows up on an EMU diagram (usually the peak time only Wigan North Western - Manchester via Eccles).

 

[Bletchleyite]

EMUs aren't exactly plentiful either. Even now a 150 or 156 occasionally shows up on an EMU diagram (usually the peak time only Wigan North Western - Manchester via Eccles).

This originated from the 350/2 thread - there is potential for EMUs to be plentiful!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2025 ==

I imagine the answer to this is no as it would already have happened if feasible but could 195s and 331s be easily made to work together?

I doubt it, though it is a shame this wasn't considered in the designs a la Southern EMUs and DEMUs and indeed 80x.

 

[Bevan Price]

Subject to path availability:
Manchester to Oxenholme (Platform 2 arrive and depart)
Cross platform interchange:
Oxenholme (Platform 3) to & from Windermere.

And yes, you can depart southbound from Platform 2 at Oxenholme (I did that in July...)

 

[Topological]

Subject to path availability:
Manchester to Oxenholme (Platform 2 arrive and depart)
Cross platform interchange:
Oxenholme (Platform 3) to & from Windermere.

And yes, you can depart southbound from Platform 2 at Oxenholme (I did that in July...)

That would be great if it worked around the various fast services wanting to go through 2.

My thoughts are 1 diagram each for Barrow and Windermere that does go to Manchester as a DMU. Other diagrams to be to/from Lancaster or Oxenholme only. Gaps in the service from Manchester to be filled by EMU to/from Lancaster. Given the Manchester to Lancaster would need to be in current paths, there would need to be sufficient flexing of the connecting services to make those connections work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest I would like to see another branch platform at Oxenholme, as not having one removes the ability to have an hourly clockface timetable on the branch, it had to be slightly off because the unit can't go on and off at the same time. There is room to do something at the expense of the car park and access track, perhaps a Dovey Junction style arrangement with one long platform and a partial bypass line. However it would be costly, particularly as it would require changes to the overall roof and back wall.

The loop is handy, but not quite as good, as for pathing some services have to sit there for a long time with no platform to leave the train.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I know it has been lightly touched on in this thread, but what about spltting at Lancaster, it usually has a bay spare.

1tph EMU (4, 6 or 8 car) Manchester Airport - Lancaster
Current frequency for Windermere and Barrow but turning at Lancaster instead (maybe with 156s for Barrow assuming there is space for more 75mph paths on the WCML).

 

[deltic08]

The obvious solution is close the Windermere branch so that it can be worked on for 16 hours a day. This should only be 3 or 4 months as the branch is only 16 kilometres long, all single track and no bridges to raise. Track skewing may need to be done under arched bridges instead of raising them. Electrification teams in Scotland have reduced electrification to £1.7m/stk. That includes bridge raising, feeder stations, and signalling. There is no signalling on the branch, a feeder station is not needed as OHLE can be fed from the WCML, bridges may not need raising and work can be continuous instead of night time only. I reckon cost could be as low as £25m. Is there nowhere in the transport budget that £25m cannot be found for this easy in-fill.

Admittedly DMUs will still be needed for the Barrow service but they could convert this service to hourly Windermere using EMUs and extend the Cumbrian Coast service to Lancaster using the north facing bay platforms.

 

[ScottGallagher]

I know it has been lightly touched on in this thread, but what about spltting at Lancaster, it usually has a bay spare.

1tph EMU (4, 6 or 8 car) Manchester Airport - Lancaster
Current frequency for Windermere and Barrow but turning at Lancaster instead (maybe with 156s for Barrow assuming there is space for more 75mph paths on the WCML).

That would only be able to use Platform 5 at Lancaster as the bays are at the North end. Even then Bay Platform 2 ( the longer one) is prohibited for class 195, cant remember why, but the fact the 195 operated trains to Corkickle always depart from Platform 1 backs this up still.

 

[MattRat]

If it's really that big an issue for that specific line, Northern could always shuffle the 769s to run that service, and have the DMUs handle current 769 services. But that really does depend on how highly you value those services over others

 

[Russel]

To be honest I would like to see another branch platform at Oxenholme, as not having one removes the ability to have an hourly clockface timetable on the branch, it had to be slightly off because the unit can't go on and off at the same time. There is room to do something at the expense of the car park and access track, perhaps a Dovey Junction style arrangement with one long platform and a partial bypass line. However it would be costly, particularly as it would require changes to the overall roof and back wall.

The loop is handy, but not quite as good, as for pathing some services have to sit there for a long time with no platform to leave the train.

Oxenholme seems to act more as an interchange rather than a start or end point, so I wonder if there would be much objection to turning part of the carpark into another platform?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oxenholme seems to act more as an interchange rather than a start or end point, so I wonder if there would be much objection to turning part of the carpark into another platform?

It is a fairly big railhead by car for London trains, but I'd imagine that being surrounded largely by fields a replacement car park area could be found easily enough.

 

[43096]

This originated from the 350/2 thread - there is potential for EMUs to be plentiful!

There's nine off-lease 323s too, which would be an even simpler fix without needing maintenance staff or crew training.

 

[Russel]

It is a fairly big railhead by car for London trains, but I'd imagine that being surrounded largely by fields a replacement car park area could be found easily enough.

Ah, whenever I've been there, it always seems to be more of an interchange, but I guess in the morning it gets more people using it as a railhead for the WCML.

Some of the connections between the Avanti services and the Windermere branch do seem a little tight, especially given how sloppy Avanti's punctuality can be, usually, I arrive on the 08.23 from Crewe for the 08.29 Windermere whenever I visit the lakes and more often than not it's a bit tight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of the connections between the Avanti services and the Windermere branch do seem a little tight, especially given how sloppy Avanti's punctuality can be, usually, I arrive on the 08.23 from Crewe for the 08.29 Windermere whenever I visit the lakes and more often than not it's a bit tight.

Unusually the connection is very often (but not always) held.

 

[Paul AC]

I imagine the answer to this is no as it would already have happened if feasible but could 195s and 331s be easily made to work together? That way could a 2-car 195 + 3-car 331 could work from Manchester Airport to Windermere hourly with the 331 left behind in the platform at Oxenholme then re-joined for the journey back south. Wouldn’t save that many DMUs and I imagine not worth the effort of making it work even if feasible.

Not sure where else this would work as there wouldn’t appear to be any platform space for the rear unit to layover for the Barrow or Southport services there is also a fair bit of diesel under the wires on the busiest part of a Northern route. Skipton maybe for some Bentham line services?

195s cannot work in multi with 331s. 195s have 24 V control systems, 331s are 110 V. This was revealed some years ago at an IMechE presentation in Manchester on the new trains, not yet introduced at that time. At "question time" I suggested that this designed-in incompatibility was a bad idea, but the Northern rep didn't consider it a problem.

 

[Kingston Dan]

It would, but Northern are perennially short of DMUs. The planned BEMUs would solve the issue, but those are realistically well over 5 years off by the time they are ordered, built and in service.

Presumably you could electrify the branch in that time.

 

[cle]

If only the northern wires taskforce effort was a rolling effort still - they could move from Wigan right onto this, and other relatively simple wiring jobs - although TPU may well be that next big one.

 

[TheWalrus]

In an ideal world you would order a load of bi mode (electric and diesel/battery) FLIRTS for Manchester to Barrow/Windermere, Leeds-Carlisle, maybe Liverpool-Norwich and so on).

 

[Bletchleyite]

In an ideal world you would order a load of bi mode (electric and diesel/battery) FLIRTS for Manchester to Barrow/Windermere, Leeds-Carlisle, maybe Liverpool-Norwich and so on).

A bi mode order is likely in the works. But it's not likely to enter service for 5 years or more.

 

[Russel]

A bi mode order is likely in the works. But it's not likely to enter service for 5 years or more.

With what we've seen of new train introductions over the last few years, 5 years would be optimistic if an order is placed Monday morning!