Settle-Carlisle as solution to Northern WCML capacity problems

[yorksrob]

That is fine, Chester and North Wales end up without a service for probably 2 days as does Shrewsbury. I doubt you could run more than 2 hourly via the S&C with a 10 car Voyager which is replacing up to 40 cars worth of Pendo. The other options Avanti would want compensating for over and above what the industry Schedule 4 regime allows and then even if that is agreed it is likely to be completely non cost effective for NR to do the actual work. Even if you did all that, chances are you would get a "do not travel" message to reduce the passenger loadings.

Well, we're used to fewer trains on a Sunday during engineering works. Run what you can through and use the buses as a relief.

I know this might be above and beyond "shedule 4" etc, but train companies are there to run a train service.

 

[geoffk]

But many people would prefer to stay on a train, even if it takes longer, than have the hassle of buses. Yes, the intermediate stations still need to be dealt with but that's a minority of the overall passengers.

However, I very much doubt if we'll see diversions being reintroduced.

Local user groups have been pressing for use of S&C as a diversionary route rather than RRBs but the TOC's answer is always lack of diesel traction and route knowledge. Both of those can be overcome of course at a price. Does any other country use RRBs as extensively as Britain?

 

[yorksrob]

Post pandemic when the country is skint there will be much interest in how much sparsely used lines are subsidised. If it must be kept have it as a slow goods line only to serve quarries and non revenue earning trains.

I'm afraid that's not part of my agenda, nor I suspect on that of the other hundreds of travellers on my S&C train today.

If any Government does decide to pursue this agenda they can look forward to resistance.

 

[The Planner]

Well, we're used to fewer trains on a Sunday during engineering works. Run what you can through and use the buses as a relief.

I know this might be above and beyond "shedule 4" etc, but train companies are there to run a train service.

What about the day before and after? How do you explain to people wanting to use a Chester London service that you won't be because of works at Shap? Its all moot anyway as Avanti request work north of Preston to be aligned with work north of the border too.

 

[yorksrob]

What about the day before and after? How do you explain to people wanting to use a Chester London service that you won't be because of works at Shap? Its all moot anyway as Avanti request work north of Preston to be aligned with work north of the border too.

One alternative would be to run a shuttle between Crewe and Euston, then use the spare electric sets to take Chester passengers to Euston. An inconvenience to passengers, but a minor one.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

There are endless supplies of locos and stock available to hire. They (VT) even had their own, in the form of the Pretendolino, but they chose to get rid of it.

That's the point. If you're not operating them the cost to hire in locos will be higher than that to hire in buses and economically I know what I do as a company in that situation

 

[chorleyjeff]

Well, we're used to fewer trains on a Sunday during engineering works. Run what you can through and use the buses as a relief.

I know this might be above and beyond "shedule 4" etc, but train companies are there to run a train service.

Yes but their duty primarily is to make a profit for shareholders.

 

[yorksrob]

That's the point. If you're not operating them the cost to hire in locos will be higher than that to hire in buses and economically I know what I do as a company in that situation

Yes but their duty primarily is to make a profit for shareholders.

The railway exists to run a train service for its customers. Without that, there is no railway.

 

[chorleyjeff]

The railway exists to run a train service for its customers. Without that, there is no railway.

No. The privatised railway companies run trains as required by the conditions of their agreements with the govt in order to make a profit for their shareholders. If an open operator they run trains as allowed by govt. to make money. If they don't they cease to exist or rely on subsidy from someone else.

 

[yorksrob]

No. The privatised railway companies run trains as required by the conditions of their agreements with the govt in order to make a profit for their shareholders. If an open operator they run trains as allowed by govt. to make money. If they don't they cease to exist or rely on subsidy from someone else.

All very lovely, but it's not as though these companies have come up with a new design of fruit smoothy which prospective customers can choose to take or leave.

The railways are a pre-existing service, and there will be political consequences if they are removed arbitrarily.

 

[Ianno87]

All very lovely, but it's not as though these companies have come up with a new design of fruit smoothy which prospective customers can choose to take or leave.

The railways are a pre-existing service, and there will be political consequences if they are removed arbitrarily.

Nothing arbitrary about it - TOCs have finite resources that must be deployed in the most ecomonally effective way in line with their franchise agreements, and serve the most customers overall.

 

[yorksrob]

Nothing arbitrary about it - TOCs have finite resources that must be deployed in the most ecomonally effective way in line with their franchise agreements, and serve the most customers overall.

You know as well as I do that TOC boundaries are entirely arbitrary in themselves - in the case of Northern to scoop up the leftover bits that other more glamorous TOC's don't want.

 

[Ianno87]

You know as well as I do that TOC boundaries are entirely arbitrary in themselves - in the case of Northern to scoop up the leftover bits that other more glamorous TOC's don't want.

No different really to the business sector boundaries that existed under BR. It's simply a way of running a railway where you have accountability for your costs.

 

[yorksrob]

No different really to the business sector boundaries that existed under BR. It's simply a way of running a railway where you have accountability for your costs.

It doesn't really negate the point that a train service isn't a business like a socks manufacturer. If one brand of socks closes, people will buy their socks from elsewhere. If a railway closes, there will be political consequences.

 

[The Planner]

Where has anyone suggested that a railway closes? if Avanti using the S&C was such an issue they would be leaned on by the DfT to do it. As it stands, they aren't.

 

[DB]

if Avanti using the S&C was such an issue they would be leaned on by the DfT to do it. As it stands, they aren't.

The DfT doesn't care, clearly.

 

[Ianno87]

It doesn't really negate the point that a train service isn't a business like a socks manufacturer. If one brand of socks closes, people will buy their socks from elsewhere. If a railway closes, there will be political consequences.

The railway isn't closing. The arrangements during engineering works suit the vast majority of passengers.

Like I said upthread, to some passengers, a multi-hour diversion via a scenic route is even more unappealing than a direct replacement bus.

 

[yorksrob]

The railway isn't closing. The arrangements during engineering works suit the vast majority of passengers.

Like I said upthread, to some passengers, a multi-hour diversion via a scenic route is even more unappealing than a direct replacement bus.

If it is, that shouldn't be a problem because there will be plenty to get the bus, leaving more space for those who get the fewer direct trains.

 

[chorleyjeff]

It doesn't really negate the point that a train service isn't a business like a socks manufacturer. If one brand of socks closes, people will buy their socks from elsewhere. If a railway closes, there will be political consequences.

Sounds a bit like railways before mass car ownership then an alternative became available. Now add aeroplanes into the mix. Home working may also dent rail commuter numbers. The political consequences of Covid will outrank those of closing a largely irrelevant railway which is a pity but the relatively few people who use the S&C will find alternatives.

 

[Ianno87]

If it is, that shouldn't be a problem because there will be plenty to get the bus, leaving more space for those who get the fewer direct trains.

Duplication of capacity and not necessarily a great use of taxpayers money ("space" costs money)

 

[HSTEd]

About the only operational role for Settle Carlisle that would lead to anything other than a long slow death would be something along the lines of the Haut-Bugey line to relieve pressure on the WCML, but still I doubt it.

The line's curves are not particularly onerous, and the once challenging gradient is no great issue for modern high performance rolling stock.

 

[A0]

Astonishing really. One of my old trainspotting haunts was Hest Bank between Lancaster and Carnforth in the late 1960s. Although, there were light engine movements between Heysham docks and Carnforth shed, the norm was for between 40-50 trains per hour. The level crossing gates at Hest Bank were almost permanently shut.

40-50 trains per hour..... I think not.

Reminds me of doing GCSE Geography back in the 80s where we were all shipped off to do traffic counts and one of the less academically gifted / lazy (delete as applicable) groups decided to make their numbers up. Came unstuck when the 10 minutes of counting was extrapolated up and it suggested that road was seeing something like 70 buses an hour......

 

[tbtc]

TOCs have finite resources that must be deployed in the most ecomonally effective way in line with their franchise agreements, and serve the most customers overall

This is a point that seems to go over the heads of others - in a thread where there's plenty of magical thinking along the lines of "why can't we just electrify a hundred miles of lightly used scenic railway so that there's a diversionary route from Preston to Carlisle on a handful of weekends a year".

Obviously people would prefer a direct train (I'd prefer a direct train myself), but this is the kind of simplistic approach that creates the mess of "everywhere must have an hourly service to Manchester Airport" which strangles capacity around Greater Manchester (or the suggestion that XC provide a direct link each day between each pair of cities hundreds of miles apart). But ensuring that a direct train service is maintained comes at a cost - additional resources/ maintaining route knowledge/ borrowing units from elsewhere etc. Simply giving people an open question of "should direct services be maintained" feels a bit pointless (since there are costs attached to this). Especially in this example where a coach up the M6 will probably get to Carlisle faster than any diverted train via Clithero.

The frustrating thing is that people seem to accept disrupting direct journeys, just as long as the people inconvenienced are (say) passengers from north Wales to London (or the majority of passengers on the northern WCML who have to be put on buses because the diversionary route can't cope with everything), just so we can have a nice day out with unusual stock on unusual lines.

Or, put it another way... If the WCML is closed between Lancaster and Carlisle then how do you maintain a link from London/ Birmingham/ Manchester to stations at the northern end of the WCML as well as maintaining a direct service for Lancaster? Is it okay if the majority of passengers are put on buses, as long as there's some token train service maintained (via the S&C)? Is this just a box ticking exercise? How many passengers on the Holyhead route do you inconvenience to give a minority of people a scenic jaunt along the S&C?

Where has anyone suggested that a railway closes?

I think it's standard Strawman argument, we must man the barricades and whip up some "resistance" (even if nothing is under threat - look at how hard it is to close a tiny section of unused line at Newhaven or Weymouth) - but I guess you need to try to energise your supporters by pretending that something sacred is being threatened - modern political discourse. Depressing!

 

[BayPaul]

One alternative would be to run a shuttle between Crewe and Euston, then use the spare electric sets to take Chester passengers to Euston. An inconvenience to passengers, but a minor one.

So it's a minor inconvenience for passengers to Chester to have to change, but a major inconvenience for passengers to Glasgow to need to do so.
Isn't the ECML a much better alternative if the WCML is closed? There are services from London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham direct to Scotland already, so no need to muck around with trying to cram impossible numbers of electric trains onto a slow, minor branch line. If a new electrified diversion route is desperately needed, then Manchester - York seems the obvious choice, especially as it is needed already!

 

[Nick Ashwell]

All very lovely, but it's not as though these companies have come up with a new design of fruit smoothy which prospective customers can choose to take or leave.

The railways are a pre-existing service, and there will be political consequences if they are removed arbitrarily.

Who is suggesting closure?
Why worsen a service for those unaffected to give a longer service than the bus?

There are no political consequences of not running a diversion.

You're also thinking the railway should do unprofitable things that aren't subsidised? No business does that, it's a silly waste of resources.

Some bustitution is much more economic than a diversion as already mentioned.

The railway, in doing the bustitution, is providing the service you claim they exist to provide, it's not like they aren't replacing the service

 

[yorksrob]

Sounds a bit like railways before mass car ownership then an alternative became available. Now add aeroplanes into the mix. Home working may also dent rail commuter numbers. The political consequences of Covid will outrank those of closing a largely irrelevant railway which is a pity but the relatively few people who use the S&C will find alternatives.

That's the interesting thing though. Whereas in the previous culls, regional railway lines were the dead weight to be culled, in the post commuter/leisure rail world, the regional railway will be to the forefront of the railway's shop window.

Duplication of capacity and not necessarily a great use of taxpayers money ("space" costs money)

Not in a long term situation, but for most RRB's I've been on, there have been some for the stoppers, some for the expresses. Add a train into the mix would only be good for passengers.

About the only operational role for Settle Carlisle that would lead to anything other than a long slow death would be something along the lines of the Haut-Bugey line to relieve pressure on the WCML, but still I doubt it.

The line's curves are not particularly onerous, and the once challenging gradient is no great issue for modern high performance rolling stock.

It's important for Yorkshirians to get to the North and West. There are enough of us.

So it's a minor inconvenience for passengers to Chester to have to change, but a major inconvenience for passengers to Glasgow to need to do so.
Isn't the ECML a much better alternative if the WCML is closed? There are services from London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham direct to Scotland already, so no need to muck around with trying to cram impossible numbers of electric trains onto a slow, minor branch line. If a new electrified diversion route is desperately needed, then Manchester - York seems the obvious choice, especially as it is needed already!

No, it's a minor inconvenience for Chester or Glasgow passengers to change from train to train. It's a major inconvenience to change from train to bus.

 

[Dr Hoo]

No, it's a minor inconvenience for Chester or Glasgow passengers to change from train to train. It's a major inconvenience to change from train to bus.

It really depends whether you've got to (say) wait for an hour and three quarters for an already full (diverted) train on which you will stand for over two hours travelling through the darkness as opposed to hopping on a fast coach via the M6 in a few minutes.

Do you ever travel by bus? Even being of an age where I have an English bus pass I really don't find it a "major inconvenience". Before these COVID times I made loads of combined rail and bus trips to all sorts of places. And I've been very thankful for scheduled buses getting me out of various train 'strandings' during strikes and disruptions, quite apart from occasional RRBs.

 

[adamedwards]

What we need is a set of generator cars which enable the pendolini to use their motors. Fitted with auto couplers. Rather than diesels dragging all that weight. Of course impossible to justify for a few Sundays. The engine would have to be pretty beefy too.

 

[alistairlees]

Going via the S&C from Preston to Carlisle (for example) would add around 1.5 to 2 hours to journey times - depending on how it was resourced / what stick was used. So, getting from London to Carlisle would be slower than train to Preston, then coach to Carlisle. Going from London to Glasgow might be comparable though, because of the need for two changes on the train - coach - train version.

But why is this so outrageous? I’ve been on HSTs Between Edinburgh and London many times that are scheduled to be diverted via the Tyne Valley. This takes at least 1.5 hours more. So far as I know there was no coach option via Berwick; but equally there were many people on all the trains I travelled on (including on one occasion every seat taken, including 1st class, in which I was sitting) and I overheard no one wishing they were on a quicker coach. Many people had lots of luggage, so this must have been Much better than changing once or twice.

If this happens via the S&C though, it’s a terrible idea, apparently.

I understand there are resource constraints. And I know the traction is different. But the customers are basically the same, and the consideration of them in this thread (as in many) is very poor.

In a post-Covid world a lot more consideration needs to be given to customers. Otherwise rail is dead.

 

[Ianno87]

But why is this so outrageous? I’ve been on HSTs Between Edinburgh and London many times that are scheduled to be diverted via the Tyne Valley. This takes at least 1.5 hours more. So far as I know there was no coach option via Berwick; but equally there were many people on all the trains I travelled on (including on one occasion every seat taken, including 1st class, in which I was sitting) and I overheard no one wishing they were on a quicker coach. Many people had lots of luggage, so this must have been Much better than changing once or twice.

If this happens via the S&C though, it’s a terrible idea, apparently.

I understand there are resource constraints. And I know the traction is different. But the customers are basically the same, and the consideration of them in this thread (as in many) is very poor.

In a post-Covid world a lot more consideration needs to be given to customers. Otherwise rail is dead.

If talking trains per hour in a standard hour London-Edinburgh represents 40% of LNER's business (as a whole service).

Meanwhile London-Glasgow is about 11% of Avanti's.

LNER have "more to lose" by not diverting as a portion of their whole business.