The proposed Eden Project North at Morecambe

[Bald Rick]

Mainstream? A single unrepeated trial counts as mainstream? Where do these magic zero carbon batteries come from?

mainstream as in passenger service in Europe, and now being used in main line locomotives in the US (pure battery not hybrids).

to answer the second question, he same place where zero carbon engines, cooler groups, fuel systems, exhaust systems, alternators etc etc come from.

 

[mmh]

mainstream as in passenger service in Europe, and now being used in main line locomotives in the US (pure battery not hybrids).

to answer the second question, he same place where zero carbon engines, cooler groups, fuel systems, exhaust systems, alternators etc etc come from.

Ah, so not zero then.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah, so not zero then.

correct, same as electrification. But much less carbon in whole life terms, as I’m sure you know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

correct, same as electrification. But much less carbon in whole life terms, as I’m sure you know.

Indeed.

It does seem like some people end up misinformed on quite a lot of things due to being unable to deal in anything other than absolutes.

"There's no point in EVs or battery trains because they aren't zero carbon" - yes, there is, they will reduce carbon and improve other emissions
"There's no point in COVID vaccinations because they don't prevent you getting COVID" - yes, there is, they will reduce the risk and the severity if you do
"There's no point in a 40 limit on that road because people will still drive like idiots and crash" - yes, but fewer will be killed as the collisions will be less serious
Etc.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed.

It does seem like some people end up misinformed on quite a lot of things due to being unable to deal in anything other than absolutes.

"There's no point in EVs or battery trains because they aren't zero carbon" - yes, there is, they will reduce carbon and improve other emissions
"There's no point in COVID vaccinations because they don't prevent you getting COVID" - yes, there is, they will reduce the risk and the severity if you do
"There's no point in a 40 limit on that road because people will still drive like idiots and crash" - yes, but fewer will be killed as the collisions will be less serious
Etc.

This isn't true of my position however. As far as I'm concerned there are many lines which are borderline suitable for electrification where battery trains would be a good solution. I do however think that if you have a very short stub from an electrified main line without major obstacles, electrification should be the primary choice.

 

[SuperNova]

This isn't true of my position however. As far as I'm concerned there are many lines which are borderline suitable for electrification where battery trains would be a good solution. I do however think that if you have a very short stub from an electrified main line without major obstacles, electrification should be the primary choice.

The issue is what services use it. Leeds services won't and if a shuttle remains to Lancaster then a battery/hydrogen train is likely more cost efficient. If like Windermere, there a numerous service per day that run as diesel under wires to Manchester, then it should be electrified.

 

[yorksrob]

The issue is what services use it. Leeds services won't and if a shuttle remains to Lancaster then a battery/hydrogen train is likely more cost efficient. If like Windermere, there a numerous service per day that run as diesel under wires to Manchester, then it should be electrified.

And if you don't electrify it on that basis, your locked into running a shuttle for ever more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if you don't electrify it on that basis, your locked into running a shuttle for ever more.

I think it would be best as a half hourly clockface shuttle. I can't see any obvious through service to attach it to without removing a through service that would be more desirable, and the last thing we want to do on a 2-track railway is cram more in.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it would be best as a half hourly clockface shuttle. I can't see any obvious through service to attach it to without removing a through service that would be more desirable, and the last thing we want to do on a 2-track railway is cram more in.

A half hourly service should justify electrification, shuttle or not.

 

[M&NEJ]

I think it would be best as a half hourly clockface shuttle. I can't see any obvious through service to attach it to without removing a through service that would be more desirable, and the last thing we want to do on a 2-track railway is cram more in.

The west coast main line is congested between Lancaster and Carnforth. It would need an extra track over the river Lune to facilitate an even-interval, half hourly shuttle to Morecambe. But the existing, nominally hourly shuttle could more easily be extended south of Lancaster, where there is capacity, to Preston or beyond.

Until the WCML modernisation came along, Morecambe did have a through service to Liverpool; but gains on the main line have come at a loss for Morecambe in the recent past. The then Virgin "very high frequency timetable" saw off a key commuter service from Morecambe to Lancaster. Now the recently added Skipton to Lancaster "commuter" train from the Bentham line terminates at Carnforth because there is no path into Lancaster.

I'd say electrify the few miles to Morecambe and run hourly to/from Liverpool or Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The west coast main line is congested between Lancaster and Carnforth. It would need an extra track over the river Lune to facilitate an even-interval, half hourly shuttle to Morecambe. But the existing, nominally hourly shuttle could more easily be extended south of Lancaster, where there is capacity, to Preston or beyond.

It isn't hourly, it is roughly 2tph but on a very messy pattern with no consistency from one hour to the next. Hourly would be a downgrade.

From Morecambe the only hour or more gaps are (other than overnight):
1232-1339
1841-1949

If you can't do exactly half hourly might you be able to do close to it? It is surely easier to path a regular interval service than one that is all over the place. But with typical gaps between 11 and 45 minutes, dropping to hourly would be a definite backward step, to serve what would be a very small market if Liverpool was chosen at least (if Liverpool people want the seaside, they go to West Kirby or Southport).

 

[SouthernR]

It isn't hourly, it is roughly 2tph but on a very messy pattern with no consistency from one hour to the next. Hourly would be a downgrade.

From Morecambe the only hour or more gaps are (other than overnight):
1232-1339
1841-1949

If you can't do exactly half hourly might you be able to do close to it? It is surely easier to path a regular interval service than one that is all over the place. But with typical gaps between 11 and 45 minutes, dropping to hourly would be a definite backward step, to serve what would be a very small market if Liverpool was chosen at least (if Liverpool people want the seaside, they go to West Kirby or Southport).

Of course, the "extended lunch break" is when the train goes to Heysham.

Intermediate stops between Morecambe and Heysham might attract passengers, but the area is well served by buses, including to Lancaster via the Bay Gateway.
There's zero demand for additional (non-ferry) passengers to Heysham Port (unless services were introduced for power station workers).
It's about 1km from the ferry terminal/station to the nearest bus stop, and about 600m to the nearest house.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, the "extended lunch break" is when the train goes to Heysham.

Intermediate stops between Morecambe and Heysham might attract passengers, but the area is well served by buses, including to Lancaster via the Bay Gateway.
There's zero demand for additional (non-ferry) passengers to Heysham Port (unless services were introduced for power station workers).
It's about 1km from the ferry terminal/station to the nearest bus stop, and about 600m to the nearest house.

To be fair, I did use the station (Heysham) once to visit the nearby nature reserve.

 

[30907]

Of course, the "extended lunch break" is when the train goes to Heysham.

...and you could timetable a Leeds train to do that (assuming you can find the extra path out of Lancaster), as has happened before.
(There might even be a case for running the odd Leeds service to Lancaster via Morecambe for passenger demand rather than operating convenience.)

 

[M&NEJ]

It isn't hourly, it is roughly 2tph but on a very messy pattern with no consistency from one hour to the next. Hourly would be a downgrade.

From Morecambe the only hour or more gaps are (other than overnight):
1232-1339
1841-1949

If you can't do exactly half hourly might you be able to do close to it? It is surely easier to path a regular interval service than one that is all over the place. But with typical gaps between 11 and 45 minutes, dropping to hourly would be a definite backward step, to serve what would be a very small market if Liverpool was chosen at least (if Liverpool people want the seaside, they go to West Kirby or Southport).

I agree with you that there are more trains than I suggested, so I went to Northern timetable N7 and did a count. It is indeed very hap-hazard, and in the 16.5 hours between 06:00 and 22:30 (Monday to Friday) I counted 25 departures from Morecambe to Lancaster. That's 1.5 trains per hour or an average interval of 40 minutes between trains.

Many people including me would love there to be a half-hourly, even interval service; but I believe we are thwarted by the congestion on the WCML between Lancaster and Morecambe South Junction (and Carnforth). As a CRP director I am trying to give this point a wide press in case one day someone acknowledges it!

I also believe Morecambe would benefit greatly from through services to Manchester or Liverpool, which is why I hope the few miles to the seaside get electrified!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I also believe Morecambe would benefit greatly from through services to Manchester or Liverpool, which is why I hope the few miles to the seaside get electrified!

Given that the running time is just 10 minutes, I could see sense in a "mini Windermere" type operation, where you would have an hourly through EMU from e.g. Liverpool, which would go to Morecambe, then back to Lancaster, then Morecambe, then back to Liverpool, which would neatly fit the hourly cycle but provide 2tph, one through and one shuttle, on the branch. You could move the layover around if those couldn't be exactly half hourly.

The "shuttle run" could be canned if it was running seriously late, to avoid the through service getting messed up, though you'd not want that to happen often or the line's reputation would be damaged.

 

[M&NEJ]

Given that the running time is just 10 minutes, I could see sense in a "mini Windermere" type operation, where you would have an hourly through EMU from e.g. Liverpool, which would go to Morecambe, then back to Lancaster, then Morecambe, then back to Liverpool, which would neatly fit the hourly cycle but provide 2tph, one through and one shuttle, on the branch. You could move the layover around if those couldn't be exactly half hourly.

Yes, and presumably this could be an extension of an existing Liverpool - Wigan terminator? I like the idea but would we then have to abandon the Leeds - Morecambe service; or could we accommodate 2.5 tph? (I realise now, my earlier notion that the present shuttle is hourly arises from the fact that what we actually have is a roughly hourly local shuttle with the Leeds service superimposed, hence 1.5 tph).

As a die-hard crayonista I hereby draw an extra line over the river Lune and all problems are solved! Or as someone said in the "bulldozer" thread, we could build a Lancaster bypass for the HS2 trains (not).

 

[adamedwards]

Liverpool or Blackpool to Heysham by ferry and back by train would be a fab or the other way around would be a fab day out combined with the Eden Project. I suspect however a not very eco hovercraft would be needed to get as close as possible to the Eden project, given the sands in the Bay. But that's another thread . ..

 

[Bald Rick]

Liverpool or Blackpool to Heysham by ferry and back by train would be a fab or the other way around would be a fab day out combined with the Eden Project. I suspect however a not very eco hovercraft would be needed to get as close as possible to the Eden project, given the sands in the Bay. But that's another thread . ..

a ferry is hardly eco friendly - shifting a few thousand tonnes through water takes rather more energy than a few hundred tonnes on steel or rubber through air.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Liverpool or Blackpool to Heysham by ferry and back by train would be a fab or the other way around would be a fab day out combined with the Eden Project. I suspect however a not very eco hovercraft would be needed to get as close as possible to the Eden project, given the sands in the Bay. But that's another thread . ..

Perhaps a train ferry to Northern Ireland too

There is talk about possible train services, but what about the eden project north (northwest?).
Anyone visited the eden project southwest?

 

[Bletchleyite]

a ferry is hardly eco friendly - shifting a few thousand tonnes through water takes rather more energy than a few hundred tonnes on steel or rubber through air.

The extremely high environmental impact of shipping does seem to be ignored far too often and is something that needs properly addressing, partly by switching to other technologies (including reinvestigating when sail can be used, but also solar and the likes) and partly by stopping shipping stuff half way round the world when there is really no need.

 

[6Gman]

Perhaps a train ferry to Northern Ireland too

There is talk about possible train services, but what about the eden project north (northwest?).
Anyone visited the eden project southwest?

I have visited the Cornish Eden Project.

It attracts a lot of visitors.
Very few arrive by public transport.
It hasn't transformed Saint Austell.

But the setting is very different to the Morecambe project so I'm not sure we can learn a lot from the experience there.

 

[yorksrob]

I have visited the Cornish Eden Project.

It attracts a lot of visitors.
Very few arrive by public transport.
It hasn't transformed Saint Austell.

But the setting is very different to the Morecambe project so I'm not sure we can learn a lot from the experience there.

Very true. When me and the family visited, we caught the train to Set Austell, then had to get a reasonably long taxi ride to it. The Morecambe one will be on the seafront and right near to the station, do a different prospect for public transport (and possibly the town) altogether.

 

[Class 170101]

Spot on.

In this case, given the length of the branch, its speed and the intermediate stop, a three car EMU could easily manage with a battery of the same size as you find in a Renault Zoe.

Not sure the turnaround would be long enough at Lancaster to charge the battery. I would certainly want to reach Preston if possible as there would be connections to Leeds / York, Manchester, Liverpool, Blackpool, London and the South. Would also help charging the battery.

I'm not sure if operators are confident enough as yet to rely on battery traction. The Class 379 trial seemed to operate one way on battery and the other way using the OLE. PPM was more important.

I think electrification is a step too far - it would be perfect for batteries - but I wouldn’t rule out a direct service from, say, Manchester or Liverpool. But definitely not both.

Why not both? Say a portion off the Barrow / Windermere from Manchester and a service from Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not both? Say a portion off the Barrow / Windermere from Manchester and a service from Liverpool.

If Windermere doesn't justify both, Morecambe definitely doesn't. If wired, I could see it working to do Liverpool-Morecambe-Lancaster-Morecambe-Liverpool as an hourly cycle, though, it would fit provided it could be pathed between Preston and Lancaster.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure the turnaround would be long enough at Lancaster to charge the battery.

it’s not about turnaround, it’s about time on/off the juice. Roughly speaking it needs to be on the juice for as long as it is off. Given that the Morecambe branch itself is slow speed, and a train will spend more time stopped on it than moving, it will be fine.

I'm not sure if operators are confident enough as yet to rely on battery traction.

better tell TfW….

 

[M&NEJ]

a ferry is hardly eco friendly - shifting a few thousand tonnes through water takes rather more energy than a few hundred tonnes on steel or rubber through air.

It's not the weight of the vessel or the energy used per journey, it's the CO2 emission per passenger mile or per tonne [of freight] mile that matters. A ship may use more energy per mile than a train but it carries more payload.

It seems a ship could be twice as "green" as the equivalent number of trains (and that's also why a freight train is several times greener that the equivalent fleet of lorries):-

Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?

How can individuals reduce their emissions from transport?

ourworldindata.org

It makes sense to use ships and trains, not lorries and planes; and encourage modal shift accordingly.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not the weight of the vessel or the energy used per journey, it's the CO2 emission per passenger mile or per tonne [of freight] mile that matters. A ship may use more energy per mile than a train but it carries more payload.

i agree with the principle… but…

You need to look behind the headline data. The calculations for ferry transport per passenger km are made on the weight of passengers / luggage as a proportion of the gross weight of passengers and freight on Ferries from the UK. Essentially the additional carbon emissions for a passenger on a ferry full of trucks is next to nothing.

in the case of a shore ferry from Liverpool to Morecambe, as being discussed here, you’ll find zero trucks, and therefore all the carbon emissions would be due to the passengers, and thus much, much higher.

Same applies to, say, a cruise liner crossing the Atlantic vs a few A350s Carrying the same number of passengers. The QM2 will burn between 1000-1500 tonnes of fuel to cross from the U.K. to New York With 2,600 passengers. Virgin Atlantic could do that with 7 A350 flights burning about 300t of fuel.

 

[Phil56]

Won’t a fair proportion of the traffic come from people already holidaying in the area, such as at Blackpool or the lakes? These people aren’t going to be an easy target for train travel.

Yes, but part of the planning/proposal is pedestrianisation of quite a large part of the promenade around Eden site, removal of the car park on the site, and a clear expectation that visitors will get there by means other than driving. There are no new car parks proposed, and the whole project is based on the environment. The question is how visitors will get there if not by car.

There's a discussion about a new bus service from the Lancaster park n ride site, but it's car park isn't particular large and it's quite a long/boring bus journey that will feed into the already busy/congested Morecambe Road/Shrimp Roundabout/Lancaster Road corridor. Seeing as the train station is within easy walking distance, it would make sense to use the line/station to get at least a fair proportion of visitors there, but significant changes are needed, least of all some kind of park n ride system using the trains.

It's a shame that there is no obvious way of using the Hest Bank line so shuttle trains to Morecambe can at least avoid Carlisle Bridge and Lancaster station, i.e. either an expanded car park for PNR at Carnforth, or a new "halt" on the barely used 3rd track at Hest Bank (using the shore as the car park and reinstating a platform at the site of the old Hest Bank station on the spur line only), both options have pretty big drawbacks, mainly car park sites being too small.

I do think there are two aspects here. One being for travellers to come the full journey by train, i.e. from Manchester, Liverpool, etc., and the other for a more local/short service from a park and ride car park to "catch" the travellers coming by car. Two different solutions needed for two different target markets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a discussion about a new bus service from the Lancaster park n ride site, but it's car park isn't particular large

Could be double decked as many South East railway stations are these days. Or move it to a field on the other side of the junction (it is constrained by being within the junction arm).

and it's quite a long/boring bus journey

Exactly the same journey as you would do to get there from the M6 in the car.

that will feed into the already busy/congested Morecambe Road/Shrimp Roundabout/Lancaster Road corridor.

I am sure some sort of bus lane arrangement would work.

Seeing as the train station is within easy walking distance, it would make sense to use the line/station to get at least a fair proportion of visitors there, but significant changes are needed, least of all some kind of park n ride system using the trains.

There is nowhere sensible to do that. The A6 through Carnforth is badly congested so this is not a sensible option. For those arriving by road, the M6 P&R via the Bay Gateway using electric buses is the only sensible option, bar expensive ones like a tram down the Green Ayre line, which might be nice but makes no financial sense.

It's a shame that there is no obvious way of using the Hest Bank line so shuttle trains to Morecambe can at least avoid Carlisle Bridge and Lancaster station, i.e. either an expanded car park for PNR at Carnforth, or a new "halt" on the barely used 3rd track at Hest Bank (using the shore as the car park and reinstating a platform at the site of the old Hest Bank station on the spur line only), both options have pretty big drawbacks, mainly car park sites being too small.

And being nowhere near the M6, on which almost all visitors will arrive. The railway should cater for those coming from Lancaster station or city centre (duplicating that with a shuttle bus as is planned is nuts) but for those arriving by road the M6 P&R is really the best option.

I do think there are two aspects here. One being for travellers to come the full journey by train, i.e. from Manchester, Liverpool, etc., and the other for a more local/short service from a park and ride car park to "catch" the travellers coming by car. Two different solutions needed for two different target markets.

I agree. Train for the former, bus from the P&R the latter.