Future of the Settle to Carlisle, Bentham and Ribble Valley lines

[daodao]

more important flows from Carlisle to Sheffield or Nottingham.

Important flow?! Any passengers from Nottingham to Carlisle and beyond can change at Crewe, allowing them to make use of the "Premier Line".

 

[zwk500]

I suppose it's useful for the odd Armathwaite to Barnsley or Garsdale to Chesterfield passenger, but must be a drag for more important flows from Carlisle to Sheffield or Nottingham.

So Important the train runs once a week...

It's effectively a Carlisle - Leeds and a Leeds - Nottingham stitched together, not a dying remnant of the Thames-Clyde Express.

 

[D6130]

So Important the train runs once a week...

It's effectively a Carlisle - Leeds and a Leeds - Nottingham stitched together, not a dying remnant of the Thames-Clyde Express.

Yes, it's primarily a through service for Sunday ramblers from Nottingham, Chesterfield and Sheffield wishing to have a day out in the Dales. I would be very surprised if there were a significant number of passengers travelling through to/from Carlisle. A bit like Lancashire Dalesrail really, but a slightly longer distance.

 

[Neptune]

Yes, it's primarily a through service for Sunday ramblers from Nottingham, Chesterfield and Sheffield wishing to have a day out in the Dales. I would be very surprised if there were a significant number of passengers travelling through to/from Carlisle. A bit like Lancashire Dalesrail really, but a slightly longer distance.

Not much use northbound as it only stops at Settle, Kirkby Stephen and Appleby.

It’s literally just 2 services stitched together, nothing more than that.

 

[70014IronDuke]

So Important the train runs once a week...

As you surely know (and it's mentioned up thread), running such a through service entails a move blocking all lines at Leeds. It is therefore deemed operationally far too much trouble to run such trains when Leeds is busiest on weekdays (or so the argument goes) - but presumably Northern do it on a Sunday because reduced traffic allows it, and at least one diagram works out for the rolling stock.

It's effectively a Carlisle - Leeds and a Leeds - Nottingham stitched together, not a dying remnant of the Thames-Clyde Express.

It's clearly nothing to do with the former TCE, but why do you (and others) say "stiched together"? Are you saying Northern do this out of convenience for themselves, and have no interest in attracting through passengers, however limited the numbers from Appleby to Chesterfield, or Settle to Wakefield may be?

I somehow don't believe that, otherwise, why advertise it (and the morning down train) as a through service?

Interestingly, that is exactly what Northern does with the 07.48 weekdays Leeds - Carlisle, two cars of which originate from Sheffield. Perhaps the TOC wants to have the easy option of taking this set out of service at Leeds?

Important flow?! Any passengers from Nottingham to Carlisle and beyond can change at Crewe, allowing them to make use of the "Premier Line".

I suggest it is potentially an important flow for this train - or the up train might be if it ran limited stop between Carlisle and Leeds. And judging from the appalling reports I read of the modern Crewe - Derby service I read in here, I think I'd avoid that route whenever I could. (If speed were important for me from Carlisle, I'd prefer to opt for a TPE train to Manchester, then EMR onwards.)

But in any case, as the OP @InkyScrolls notes upthread, he encounters a surprising number (I forget his exact words) of Leeds - Glasgow and vv passengers on S&C trains, even though all but one (the up 13.40 ex Carlisle, and that still takes 2 hr 25 to Leeds) are more or less all stops on the S&C.

Not much use northbound as it only stops at Settle, Kirkby Stephen and Appleby.

Indeed, it is a rather unbalanced service, but this is, presumably, because the up train is timed to connect with the Dales Rail walkers' special at Hellifield, at least in winter (and for a few more Sundays yet).

It’s literally just 2 services stitched together, nothing more than that.

So again, you don't think Northern want to encourage, when feasible, Barnsley - Skipton or Nottingham - Settle etc through traffic, however limited that might be?

 

[Neptune]

So again, you don't think Northern want to encourage, when feasible, Barnsley - Skipton or Nottingham - Settle etc through traffic, however limited that might be?

You can do it all week around with a change.

The Sunday through saves a conductor diagram (LD conductor works the down from Sheffield to Carlisle then the up back to Leeds) for a start and more importantly 2 unit diagrams. Precious commodities on a Sunday.

 

[70014IronDuke]

You can do it all week around with a change.

Of course. But unlike 97% of the folks who read this blog, I would posit that there is a significant percentage of 'normals' who dislike - and even positively fear - changing trains. This is especially true of a place like Leeds, which has been the subject of discussions on this board as a station that is not the most user-friendly on the network, certainly not for the newcomer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course. But unlike 97% of the folks who read this blog, I would posit that there is a significant percentage of 'normals' who dislike - and even positively fear - changing trains. This is especially true of a place like Leeds, which has been the subject of discussions on this board as a station that is not the most user-friendly on the network, certainly not for the newcomer.

And when changing onto infrequent trains where a miss means a long wait and/or your day ruined, who can blame them?

Civilised countries with proper railways would of course hold the connection.

 

[zwk500]

But unlike 97% of the folks who read this blog, I would posit that there is a significant percentage of 'normals' who dislike - and even positively fear - changing trains.

This is regularly raised as a factor but is there any serious evidence that there is a significant number of people put off by any changes at all. I can quite readily accept that somebody's 90-year-old mother with 2 suitcases doesn't want to change, or somebody who hasn't used the railway since 1983 wants to only get one train, but realistically how many journeys in the country are taken that don't require at least one change.

N.B. - I'm not claiming the the number of changes is irrelelvant. It's not, a direct train is clearly preferable. Especially for commuters (at some point the connection will go wrong) or for journeys involving 3+ legs (Every change increases the chance of the overall itinerary going out of the window). But I'm just questioning if single-change journeys have a demonstrable negative effect of statistical significance over a direct journey for leisure use such as this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is regularly raised as a factor but is there any serious evidence that there is a significant number of people put off by any changes at all. I can quite readily accept that somebody's 90-year-old mother with 2 suitcases doesn't want to change, or somebody who hasn't used the railway since 1983 wants to only get one train, but realistically how many journeys in the country are taken that don't require at least one change.

The vast, vast majority of them. People drive to stations to avoid the need for a change.

 

[zwk500]

The vast, vast majority of them. People drive to stations to avoid the need for a change.

And you're sure it's solely the change. And not anything like more frequent services, more/cheaper parking, or a coffee shop that's open?

 

[70014IronDuke]

And you're sure it's solely the change. And not anything like more frequent services, more/cheaper parking, or a coffee shop that's open?

You raise a very valid point. Obviously there may be a zillion factors - it might be the waitress at the coffee shop that's open . But I think this topic deserves a completely separate thread. I shall try to transfer these posts into a new one. Rgds.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Not much use northbound as it only stops at Settle, Kirkby Stephen and Appleby.

Intriguingly, the weekday up 'semi-fast' service will, from the summer TT, leave Carlisle 4 mins earlier (13.36) and stop additionally at Gargrave and Ribblehead. Would this be for walkers?
I'd have thought, if anything, a stop at Langwathby, for half-day commuters from Carlisle, would have been more worthwhile.

 

[30907]

Intriguingly, the weekday up 'semi-fast' service will, from the summer TT, leave Carlisle 4 mins earlier (13.36) and stop additionally at Garsdale and Ribblehead. Would this be for walkers?

Corrected - it has already had Gargrave added. And yes, walkers (etc) would be the main users, plus a steady trickle of "ordinary" customers from Hawes - it might even warrant an extra round trip of the Little White Bus if a vehicle can be spared from the school run, as it coincides with a northbound train.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I was speaking with the manager of the local bus company a few weeks ago - we met in passing at KSW (I forget the name, unfortunately) - and apparently they are introducing some extra services to GSD and RHD which the train is timed to meet - it was he who pulled the relevant strings.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Corrected - it has already had Gargrave added.

Yes, of course! Brain was in neutral when posting

And yes, walkers (etc) would be the main users, plus a steady trickle of "ordinary" customers from Hawes - it might even warrant an extra round trip of the Little White Bus if a vehicle can be spared from the school run, as it coincides with a northbound train.

2H90 - the 13.18 Leeds - Carlisle you mean? Arr Garsdale 14.50. Yes. Two birds one stone, etc

I was speaking with the manager of the local bus company a few weeks ago - we met in passing at KSW (I forget the name, unfortunately) - and apparently they are introducing some extra services to GSD and RHD which the train is timed to meet - it was he who pulled the relevant strings.

Good for the manager! And for Northern - who get an awful lot of stick on these fora - for listening to him and taking the trouble to tweak the service.

I must say that this once-a-day semi-fast is slightly odd (I wish there were one or two more, by the way, in addition to the current service) because it leaves a huge gap of roughly four hours in services from the lesser-used S&C stations in the middle of the day.

@InkyScrolls - what the loadings like on this service (assuming you work it at times). Any evidence of passengers ex-Glasgow or other (eg Cumbrian Coast? Dumfries?) using this slightly faster S&C semi-fast working?

 

[30907]

I must say that this once-a-day semi-fast is slightly odd (I wish there were one or two more, by the way, in addition to the current service) because it leaves a huge gap of roughly four hours in services from the lesser-used S&C stations in the middle of the day.

It is, of course, the last remnant of the extra train that RRNE introduced to the timetable way back in the 90s (originally seasonal) which ran through to and from Glasgow for a few years (and IIRC used to run later, with the stopper earlier)

1336 vice 1340 for the 2 extra stops is as early as you can manage without rewriting the timetable - arguably it might be better at 1250 all stations but that makes it 15min slower for minimal extra traffic (and it loses the Hawes connection opportunity).

@InkyScrolls - what the loadings like on this service (assuming you work it at times). Any evidence of passengers ex-Glasgow or other (eg Cumbrian Coast? Dumfries?) using this slightly faster S&C semi-fast working?

From my limited experience neither early afternoon train from Carlisle is busy, and the "fast" doesn't have significantly better connections than any other.

 

[Neptune]

It is, of course, the last remnant of the extra train that RRNE introduced to the timetable way back in the 90s (originally seasonal) which ran through to and from Glasgow for a few years (and IIRC used to run later, with the stopper earlier)

It was never seasonal, it ran all year round from 1998 to 2003. It was 0947 from Leeds and 1345(ish) from Glasgow and booked for a 158/9 (no first class available) although TPE 158’s were known to work the service with FC declassified.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I must say that this once-a-day semi-fast is slightly odd (I wish there were one or two more, by the way, in addition to the current service) because it leaves a huge gap of roughly four hours in services from the lesser-used S&C stations in the middle of the day.

@InkyScrolls - what the loadings like on this service (assuming you work it at times). Any evidence of passengers ex-Glasgow or other (eg Cumbrian Coast? Dumfries?) using this slightly faster S&C semi-fast working?

Indeed - particularly over summer extra semifast workings would take some pressure off the stoppers, which can become uncomfortably loaded.

It's only Carlisle crews which work the semifast generally but the one time I have worked it (covering a Carlisle job) it was reasonably full - without it the 1450 would struggle, I think.

 

[Ken H]

Indeed - particularly over summer extra semifast workings would take some pressure off the stoppers, which can become uncomfortably loaded.

It's only Carlisle crews which work the semifast generally but the one time I have worked it (covering a Carlisle job) it was reasonably full - without it the 1450 would struggle, I think.

What are the platform lengths. 4 x 23m i assume. Or are some longer?
I suppose I am asking if 5 x 23m would be possible?

 

[30907]

It was never seasonal, it ran all year round from 1998 to 2003. It was 0947 from Leeds and 1345(ish) from Glasgow and booked for a 158/9 (no first class available) although TPE 158’s were known to work the service with FC declassified.

Perhaps I over simplified the story - I don't have my early 90s T/T to hand, but in the early 90s, long before it ran to Glasgow, there was a seasonal train, all stations from Leeds, between the 08xx and 10xx departures. I caught it from Cononley to Appleby and back with family and friends and it was a 3-car Pacer on May BH Monday!

Indeed - particularly over summer extra semifast workings would take some pressure off the stoppers, which can become uncomfortably loaded.

Whether there is enough demand to warrant an extra round trip I am not sure, but the 0920, the train I use most often, needs to be 4 not 3, even at the expense of the 1049.

It's only Carlisle crews which work the semifast generally but the one time I have worked it (covering a Carlisle job) it was reasonably full - without it the 1450 would struggle, I think.

I agree - even with 4 cars instead of the 2 we used to have.

And the disadvantage of running it earlier as I suggested upthread would be to shift the passenger loading onto to 1450. 2-hourly interval services sound nice, but running the service to match actual demand has to beat that.

 

[Iskra]

It was never seasonal, it ran all year round from 1998 to 2003. It was 0947 from Leeds and 1345(ish) from Glasgow and booked for a 158/9 (no first class available) although TPE 158’s were known to work the service with FC declassified.

The Arriva Trains Northern class 37 loco hauled train was seasonal, which I think is from where the confusion is arising.

Edit: Nevermind, I’ve just seen the post with the explanation!

 

[Neptune]

The Arriva Trains Northern class 37 loco hauled train was seasonal, which I think is from where the confusion is arising.

Edit: Nevermind, I’ve just seen the post with the explanation!

The ATN 37 hauled train wasn’t seasonal either. It ran solidly throughout (May ‘03 to May ‘04) with no seasonal gaps. M-F it also did Knaresborough am/pm peak services and Sat it started/finished at York running non stop between York and Leeds.

 

[InkyScrolls]

A perennial topic of discussion seems to be whether 170s are suited to lines with frequent stops. With that in mind - and bearing in mind that this is Speculative Discussion! - would there be any merit to Northern diagramming its 170s to the Leeds - Lancaster/Carlisle services? Three carriages is, in my reasonably extensive experience, the optimum number of carriages for these routes. They have less frequent stations than the Harrogate Loop, for example, and use could be made of the 170s' higher maximum speed on the section between Carnforth and Lancaster.

As I see it:-

Pros:

• Optimum train length
• Fewer stations means worse acceleration less of an issue
• Twelve units are required for a two-hourly alternating clockface timetable on these routes, which the 16 units can comfortably fill allowing for repairs
• Fit at all stations (4 carriages don't at quite a few!)
• Harrogate depot could in theory sign just 158s, saving crew training costs
• 158s, with demonstrably superior acceleration, freed up to work the more frequent stops of the Harrogate line

Cons/Questions:

• Crew training cost/time for Skipton and Carlisle depots
• Route clearance work
• Would 158s be suitable for Doncaster - Hull services?
• Relatively steep gradients - would this negate any other benefits?
• Is this change for change's sake, or would it deliver tangible benefits?

 

[tbtc]

Any news about the cost of replacing that footbridge on the Bentham line?

Or are we still running several replacement coaches for a station with just a couple of passengers a day?

Cons/Questions:

• Crew training cost/time for Skipton and Carlisle depots
• Route clearance work
• Would 158s be suitable for Doncaster - Hull services?
• Relatively steep gradients - would this negate any other benefits?
• Is this change for change's sake, or would it deliver tangible benefits?

I’d be fine with 170s going there, it ties up a small non-standard fleet with a small relatively self contained set of services

However two additional “cons” Would be:

1. Lack of unit swaps etc at Carlisle, my understanding was that Northern sometimes cycle their DMUs around there, e.g. a Tyne Valley 158 swaps with a S&C one to avoid long ECS moves

2. Some people (not me) have got very sniffy in the past about the wide doors of the 170s on places like the Highland Main Line… so presumably they won’t want 170s at places like Dent in winter months!

(mind you, I’d be happier with Northern giving the 170s back to Scot Rail and getting an equivalent number of 156/158 carriages.., given the surplus of faster/ longer distance DMUs relative to their need at Northern)

 

[D6130]

A perennial topic of discussion seems to be whether 170s are suited to lines with frequent stops. With that in mind - and bearing in mind that this is Speculative Discussion! - would there be any merit to Northern diagramming its 170s to the Leeds - Lancaster/Carlisle services? Three carriages is, in my reasonably extensive experience, the optimum number of carriages for these routes. They have less frequent stations than the Harrogate Loop, for example, and use could be made of the 170s' higher maximum speed on the section between Carnforth and Lancaster.

Scotrail use 170s on routes with more frequent stops and steeper gradients (Borders Line & Fife Circle) than either the Bentham or S & C lines, although I would agree that their wide one third/two third doors would not be very popular at Ribblehead, Dent and Garsdale in winter. TBH, I wouldn't have thought that their slightly higher speed would make a lot of difference over the less than six mile stretch between Carnforth and Lancaster.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Any news about the cost of replacing that footbridge on the Bentham line?

Or are we still running several replacement coaches for a station with just a couple of passengers a day?

That work was completed early last month, I believe, though the bridge hasn't actually been replaced - there are temporary steps built from scaffolding!

I’d be fine with 170s going there, it ties up a small non-standard fleet with a small relatively self contained set of services

However two additional “cons” Would be:

1. Lack of unit swaps etc at Carlisle, my understanding was that Northern sometimes cycle their DMUs around there, e.g. a Tyne Valley 158 swaps with a S&C one to avoid long ECS moves

Very true.

2. Some people (not me) have got very sniffy in the past about the wide doors of the 170s on places like the Highland Main Line… so presumably they won’t want 170s at places like Dent in winter months!

Scotrail use 170s on routes with more frequent stops and steeper gradients (Borders Line & Fife Circle) than either the Bentham or S & C lines, although I would agree that their wide one third/two third doors would not be very popular at Ribblehead, Dent and Garsdale in winter.

Very true! It gets cold enough on there as it is, especially on the first trains of a morning.

TBH, I wouldn't have thought that their slightly higher speed would make a lot of difference over the less than six mile stretch between Carnforth and Lancaster.

Perhaps 30 seconds? But not enough to be useful in altering the WTT, presumably.

(Mind you, I’d be happier with Northern giving the 170s back to Scot Rail and getting an equivalent number of 156/158 carriages.., given the surplus of faster/ longer distance DMUs relative to their need at Northern)

This would be the simpler option.

On balance it seems clear that shifting the 170s over to the S&C/Bentham lines is at best benefit neutral. An interesting thought experiment nonetheless!

 

[Bletchleyite]

170s would certainly be good for the S&C - massive windows and near full alignment, and the body profile almost makes them panoramic units.

 

[yorksrob]

A perennial topic of discussion seems to be whether 170s are suited to lines with frequent stops. With that in mind - and bearing in mind that this is Speculative Discussion! - would there be any merit to Northern diagramming its 170s to the Leeds - Lancaster/Carlisle services? Three carriages is, in my reasonably extensive experience, the optimum number of carriages for these routes. They have less frequent stations than the Harrogate Loop, for example, and use could be made of the 170s' higher maximum speed on the section between Carnforth and Lancaster.

As I see it:-

Pros:

• Optimum train length
• Fewer stations means worse acceleration less of an issue
• Twelve units are required for a two-hourly alternating clockface timetable on these routes, which the 16 units can comfortably fill allowing for repairs
• Fit at all stations (4 carriages don't at quite a few!)
• Harrogate depot could in theory sign just 158s, saving crew training costs
• 158s, with demonstrably superior acceleration, freed up to work the more frequent stops of the Harrogate line

Cons/Questions:

• Crew training cost/time for Skipton and Carlisle depots
• Route clearance work
• Would 158s be suitable for Doncaster - Hull services?
• Relatively steep gradients - would this negate any other benefits?
• Is this change for change's sake, or would it deliver tangible benefits?

Oh no, I far prefer the 158's.

 

[InkyScrolls]

170s would certainly be good for the S&C - massive windows and near full alignment, and the body profile almost makes them panoramic units.

Oh no, I far prefer the 158's.

A perfect example of why personal preference should not dictate unit diagramming! Personally I would quite like to see DRS 37s along the S&C, but I doubt that'll happen again any time soon. . .