How should Heysham and Morecambe be served?

[Bletchleyite]

Lancaster - Morecambe/Heysham Harbour to operate as a shuttle, maybe converted to tram operation with Lancaster city centre being seriously penetrated and/or possibly extended to Lancaster University.

It would be hard to sell tram conversion unless the Eden Project could fund it instead of their crackpot cable car idea. However, I agree in principle - this should be part of the Lakes and Furness service group and worked using 15x and crews from the same pool as the Cumbrian Coast.

As for Heysham - should this even stay open? It gets in the way of an even regular interval service to Morecambe, and I believe it's barely used? Alternatively "do a Fishguard", build a station located to actually serve Heysham (a 2-car single platform can't cost that much) and serve it hourly.

 

[yorksrob]

I quite like the idea of having a station to serve the quite large urban area south of Morecambe station.

It would be a shame to lose the through service from Leeds. There usually seem to be a reasonable number who don't alight at Lancaster, so presumably are travelling through.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be a shame to lose the through service from Leeds. There usually seem to be a reasonable number who don't alight at Lancaster, so presumably are travelling through.

That actually surprises me, but having grown up with Merseyrail I think I would suggest it is worth losing it in favour of a branded, regular interval "Morecambe Metro" service even if it remained heavy rail. While we can debate for a long time whether regular-interval is important for long-distance (I am personally in favour of it) or whether it would be a good model for Castlefield and the likes, it certainly has a strong track record of success for local services, and Northern clearly think so too given that they have introduced it e.g. on the Ormskirk branch.

It would also remove the need for services to cross the WCML - Leeds services would use platform 5 at Lancaster and Morecambe services 1 or 2.

Lancaster-Morecambe takes 10 minutes or thereabouts, so a half hourly regular interval service could be operated using one unit (perhaps dedicated and branded?), though adding in Heysham would take that up to two.

 

[yorksrob]

That actually surprises me, but having grown up with Merseyrail I think I would suggest it is worth losing it in favour of a branded, regular interval "Morecambe Metro" service even if it remained heavy rail. While we can debate for a long time whether regular-interval is important for long-distance (I am personally in favour of it) or whether it would be a good model for Castlefield and the likes, it certainly has a strong track record of success for local services, and Northern clearly think so too given that they have introduced it e.g. on the Ormskirk branch.

It would also remove the need for services to cross the WCML - Leeds services would use platform 5 at Lancaster and Morecambe services 1 or 2.

Lancaster-Morecambe takes 10 minutes or thereabouts, so a half hourly regular interval service could be operated using one unit (perhaps dedicated and branded?), though adding in Heysham would take that up to two.

In terms of the WCML, Leeds services would still have to cross the up main to travel North to Carnforth (and visa versa South), so I don't think you'd gain that much operationally from splitting it.

Given that there are currently two tracks most of the way between the triangular junction with the mainline to the two platform station at Morecambe (albeit as parallel reversible lines, rather than traditional up/down) the branch could probably accommodate both a regular shuttle and the Leeds services. This might be more difficult with the WCML North of Lancaster station though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In terms of the WCML, Leeds services would still have to cross the up main to travel North to Carnforth (and visa versa South), so I don't think you'd gain that much operationally from splitting it.

Given that there are currently two tracks most of the way between the triangular junction with the mainline to the two platform station at Morecambe (albeit as parallel reversible lines, rather than traditional up/down) the branch could probably accommodate both a regular shuttle and the Leeds services. This might be more difficult with the WCML North of Lancaster station though.

Potentially if you did that you could have one unit going up and down on the "dead end" on a perfect clockface half hourly pattern to Morecambe, branded up etc, and the Leeds services could do Heysham's present service via the other line. Extending a regular interval service to Heysham would be nice, but costly, and perhaps hard to justify given the decent bus service in the area and given Lancaster not being huge.

 

[HSP 2]

Potentially if you did that you could have one unit going up and down on the "dead end" on a perfect clockface half hourly pattern to Morecambe, branded up etc, and the Leeds services could do Heysham's present service via the other line. Extending a regular interval service to Heysham would be nice, but costly, and perhaps hard to justify given the decent bus service in the area and given Lancaster not being huge.

So we have all of the Morecombe services from Lancaster, that's much as a muchness.

Then to run to Heysham from Leeds Etc. What do you want to do kill the service. Carnforth has no direct main line connection, to get to the main line from say Skipton to go to Birmingham you have to go to Lancaster. To go to Lancaster by that route would involve a reversal at Morecombe to get to Heysham and then to reverse to Morecombe to Lancaster. Or are you saying to go to Morecombe and change trains to go to Lancaster?

Lancaster may not be huge but it's still a very important City in this Country, the number of students that go to the university could prove that.

Maybe you do really need to get up the north end of the WCML more.
HSP2

 

[randyrippley]

The two tracks are more or less treated as independent branches now, with one track used by local shuttles, the other by the Leeds trains and nuclear traffic. Wouldn't take much to make it clockface every 30 mins.
The line is busy, but a large part of that is due to schoolkids and commuters who know the chances of having to pay are low. If fare collection was improved, passengers would drop but revenue could be doubled with no extra passengers. In terms of longer distance travel, most of it is heading south to Preston or Manchester and only a small fraction takes the continuing service to Leeds. Makes sense to terminate the Leeds service a Lancaster. The little that heads north is mainly only going to Carnforth. There may be a case for running an hourly Morecambe-Carnforth direct shuttle, but it would be very marginal
The demand for public transport in the area is huge - the line could be used to relieve the Heyham-University bus route. With another six or so stations between Heysham and Bare Lane the prospect of road traffic reduction is good, though the chance of opening a platform at Bailrigg may soon be lost as the old site is under redevelopment. Bailrigg is the University and would be the key to making an improved service work
Operationally the line needs battery units, recharging off the 25kv AC at Lancaster

 

[HSP 2]

Or would that be at Oubeck loops, just south of Lancaster.

To me the best lines to have keep would have been Wennington junction to Green Area then on to Lancaster or on to Heysham and Morecambe. The big down side to this is that the Greyhound bridge could not have been used for part of the Lancaster ring road.
But the train to Morecambe and Leeds would not have had to use the W.C.M.L. The big oil trains from the east would have had a bit of a job going to Heysham, but at the same time it was 25Kv.

 

[edwin_m]

In terms of the WCML, Leeds services would still have to cross the up main to travel North to Carnforth (and visa versa South), so I don't think you'd gain that much operationally from splitting it.

Perhaps any future re-signaling could provide bi-directional running on the Down between Lancaster and the junction so trains from Morecambe to Lancaster (west side bays) only conflict with the Down WCML.

Or would that be at Oubeck loops, just south of Lancaster.

Why run further down the WCML and block a loop when it could just sit in a bay at the station?

To me the best lines to have keep would have been Wennington junction to Green Area then on to Lancaster or on to Heysham and Morecambe. The big down side to this is that the Greyhound bridge could not have been used for part of the Lancaster ring road.
But the train to Morecambe and Leeds would not have had to use the W.C.M.L. The big oil trains from the east would have had a bit of a job going to Heysham, but at the same time it was 25Kv.

I assume that's how your autocorrect interpreted "Green Ayre"... I guess at the time the direct Lancaster route was closed and the Carnforth route remained open, there would still have been through freight to/from the Furness line via the former direct east-west curve north of Carnforth.

Wouldn't your suggestion destroy the through service between Lancaster (Castle) and Morecambe and the opportunity for connections north and south, unless the existing route was kept as well or the trains reversed at Green Ayre? The Morecambe-Heysham line was never 25kV, it was originally 6500V at 25Hz and was updated to 50Hz but the voltage was never changed. ​

 

[randyrippley]

Or would that be at Oubeck loops, just south of Lancaster.

No, as far as I'm aware the old Bailrigg private platform was near where site of the old water treatment works is, opposite Bailrigg Lane- room there now for station and car park but its being built on now, possibly as part of the new medical research unit across the road.
You could use the Oubeck loops but road access off the A6 for those is awful and also you've got the Oubeck itself in the way

To me the best lines to have keep would have been Wennington junction to Green Area then on to Lancaster or on to Heysham and Morecambe. The big down side to this is that the Greyhound bridge could not have been used for part of the Lancaster ring road.
But the train to Morecambe and Leeds would not have had to use the W.C.M.L. The big oil trains from the east would have had a bit of a job going to Heysham, but at the same time it was 25Kv.

Allegedly the Midland line was BR's preferred option, but Lancashire County Council organised some kind of payment to enforce the change.

 

[randyrippley]

Perhaps any future re-signaling could provide bi-directional running on the Down between Lancaster and the junction so trains from Morecambe to Lancaster (west side bays) only conflict with the Down WCML.

I thought it already was bi-di between Lancaster and Carnforth, just never used? All the through platforms are bi-di

 

[158756]

Perhaps any future re-signaling could provide bi-directional running on the Down between Lancaster and the junction so trains from Morecambe to Lancaster (west side bays) only conflict with the Down WCML.

​

Wouldn't the trains running the wrong way eat up quite a lot of capacity on the down line though?

It'd be interesting to see how many people actually use (and pay for) travel just between Morecambe and Lancaster. There's plenty of buses. If most people are making connections maybe that's what the timings should be optimised for. Of course an increased frequency would automatically make more good connections.

 

[tbtc]

A simple shuttle as far as Lancaster seems much better than what we currently have - the fact that the Morecambe is the tail end of the West Yorkshire service seems to be more about popular Victorian holiday flows, rather than much modern need (there's bound to be some demand, but then there'd be a lot more demand for a Manchester service or a Liverpool service).

And then, once you've turned it into a simple self contained shuttle, it becomes a much better candidate for electrification. And then, once its electrified, I suppose it'd be much easier to justify some kind of through service to Manchester/ Liverpool (whereas running a DMU all that way under the wires would be a waste).

 

[HSP 2]

A simple shuttle as far as Lancaster seems much better than what we currently have - the fact that the Morecambe is the tail end of the West Yorkshire service seems to be more about popular Victorian holiday flows, rather than much modern need (there's bound to be some demand, but then there'd be a lot more demand for a Manchester service or a Liverpool service).

And then, once you've turned it into a simple self contained shuttle, it becomes a much better candidate for electrification. And then, once its electrified, I suppose it'd be much easier to justify some kind of through service to Manchester/ Liverpool (whereas running a DMU all that way under the wires would be a waste).

What has been mentioned above is very good as its basically what we have now.
26 services to Morecambe from Lancaster with 5 of them going on to Leeds and 1 serving Heysham with a similar service in reverse.

Maybe it should have been thought about making the 195s and maybe the 331s bi-modes.

PS. Lancaster has 8 services per day to Leeds 3 of them going direct, it's the same in reverse.

 

[edwin_m]

I thought it already was bi-di between Lancaster and Carnforth, just never used? All the through platforms are bi-di

Not according to the Sectional Appendix.

Wouldn't the trains running the wrong way eat up quite a lot of capacity on the down line though?

The trains from Morecambe cross the Down at the South Junction and again a few minutes later at Lancaster (assuming they use a west side bay). I doubt there's enough time to run a Down through train under clear signals in between. Although the WCML is near capacity, this is mainly because of the difference in speed between the fastest and slowest trains so there are actually quite long gaps in specific places, they just don't join up to allow through paths over long distances. Bi-di might allow more timetable flexibility to run a Morecambe-Lancaster train on the Down line when there is such a gap in that direction but not on the Up. I'm not suggesting removing the crossovers, so the train could still use the Up line as it does today.

 

[158756]

Not according to the Sectional Appendix.


The trains from Morecambe cross the Down at the South Junction and again a few minutes later at Lancaster (assuming they use a west side bay). I doubt there's enough time to run a Down through train under clear signals in between. Although the WCML is near capacity, this is mainly because of the difference in speed between the fastest and slowest trains so there are actually quite long gaps in specific places, they just don't join up to allow through paths over long distances. Bi-di might allow more timetable flexibility to run a Morecambe-Lancaster train on the Down line when there is such a gap in that direction but not on the Up. I'm not suggesting removing the crossovers, so the train could still use the Up line as it does today.

Ah right, that setup would work at least as well as the current one then. There are a number of trains in the current timetable that would still have to use the up line, because a train is booked to depart Lancaster on the down as the Morecambe train is crossing the junction or between the junction and the station.