Is electrifying Windermere worth it?

[yorksrob]

Southport is a completely different tier of service to Windermere. But the power of a line user group shows!

It's an important and will used line, however it's not a "quick win" in terms of electrification that Windermere Would be

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's an important and will used line, however it's not a "quick win" in terms of electrification that Windermere Would be

Indeed. Wigan Wallgate bridge poses a significant complication. I do believe it should be electrified, but it'll require some very expensive work* to get there. It may prove cheaper just to use battery fitted EMUs which would charge between Manchester and the junction for North Western once Westhoughton is wired.

* Either purchase everything sitting on the bridge, demolish and replace, a lengthy closure for a structural rebuild (it's already "shored up") to allow the trackbed to be lowered, or rebuilding the station slightly further west so it is possible to coast under it with power off and pantograph down.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

coast under it with power off and pantograph down.

Reduced wire height as per Paisley Canal solution?
Or a neutral section through the bridge - which would still require the station to be moved further west to avoid stalling of a departing train, and perhaps only permit departure on a green signal to ensure no departure with cautious driving towards a possible red.

 

[adamedwards]

Could the track bed be lowered under the bridge?

As the route used to be double track and in most places the track is under the centre of the arch, my hope is this would not be a problem. But I am not an engineer.

And I agree it would be a high profile quick win; an eco green service to a National Park so Grant Shapps and Michael Portillo can turn up in green jackets for the video. (I cynically think the biggest issue is the whole area is now LibDem and the Govt will want to reward a Tory Red Wall seat/council as proof of levelling up. Wires to Blyth and Ashington may therefore happen first!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the route used to be double track and in most places the track is under the centre of the arch, my hope is this would not be a problem. But I am not an engineer.

The bridge has had to be shored up where the other two tracks went, so I think this could be complex. I think this was done for the larger weight lorry introduction rather than because it was in poor condition, though.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Wigan Wallgate bridge poses a significant complication. I do believe it should be electrified, but it'll require some very expensive work* to get there. It may prove cheaper just to use battery fitted EMUs which would charge between Manchester and the junction for North Western once Westhoughton is wired.

* Either purchase everything sitting on the bridge, demolish and replace, a lengthy closure for a structural rebuild (it's already "shored up") to allow the trackbed to be lowered, or rebuilding the station slightly further west so it is possible to coast under it with power off and pantograph down.

Once you get past Wigan, the rest of the route doesn't look like particularly challenging terrain. Not that many bridges, simple layouts.

 

[snowball]

It appears to be only the southernmost part of the bridge under Wallgate that's propped, possibly under the shops facing the station entrance (which may be owned by Network Rail??). But the whole bridge may lack electrification clearance. See the first 30 seconds of this cab video.

However this discussion belongs in another thread.

 

[Agent_Squash]

(I cynically think the biggest issue is the whole area is now LibDem and the Govt will want to reward a Tory Red Wall seat/council as proof of levelling up. Wires to Blyth and Ashington may therefore happen first!)

This is what I think is happening too - I suspect they’ll propose to do the Furness line first as that’s about to become (apart from Arnside, Silverdale and Carnforth) entirely under a marginal Tory seat.

 

[Jozhua]

Single track and only half the distance in the National Park, and even that not in the most scenic part.

On a cost per mile project to gain a much greater electric hauled distance with through trains this really should be at the top of a priority list.

Yeah - I don't think there is any project with as much benefit out there!

Clearly it makes sense to electrify it. Clearances are generous, it would remove a comparatively short section of non-electrified rail from a heavily used tourist route, meaning no need for diesel/awkward bi-mode sub fleets. It could be worked from the general pool of electric units and strengthened potentially as needed.

It's single track, so a line of stanchions would be little more obtrusive visually than a line of telegraph poles.

People objecting to this really need to have words with themselves.

The battery idea has been floated, but that makes zero sense - the cost of implementing a battery sub-fleet would almost certainly be higher than electrifying.

 

[Iskra]

A few years ago, I would have said definitely electrify. Now, however I think bi-modes should be ordered for Windermere and the Furness lines, with a cascade of stock to replace some 15X stock.

Electrification should focus on more important rump routes first IMO, such as the TP core, Calder Valley etc.

 

[adamedwards]

Disagree. Fuel and engines or batteries carried from Manchester Airport to Oxenholme which then needs a small microfleet. Cue trains cancelled and replaced by buses when no trains available. It is a simple very short line. Get it done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Disagree. Fuel and engines or batteries carried from Manchester Airport to Oxenholme which then needs a small microfleet. Cue trains cancelled and replaced by buses when no trains available. It is a simple very short line. Get it done.

To be fair unless you do Barrow (or truncate that to Lancaster and do Windermere from the Airport hourly instead) there's still going to be a need for bi-modes, and Windermere and Barrow interwork. I'm starting to think sticking 3-4 more 80x onto the forthcoming TPE order and having them operated by TPE as they were a while back would be the best way; the quality improvement would get more people travelling in the added capacity.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

To be fair unless you do Barrow (or truncate that to Lancaster and do Windermere from the Airport hourly instead) there's still going to be a need for bi-modes, and Windermere and Barrow interwork. I'm starting to think sticking 3-4 more 80x onto the forthcoming TPE order and having them operated by TPE as they were a while back would be the best way; the quality improvement would get more people travelling in the added capacity.

Given Barrow is probably less likely to be wired than Windermere (at least in the shorter term), then to cater for interworking a bi-mode fleet could be the answer although potentially having a bi-mode fleet would also weaken the case for wires to Windermere.

Even if some Barrow services turned at Lancaster (and potentially some at Preston adding 21 miles each way under the wires) there would still I think be sufficient Furness business to justify several through trains to Manchester each day.

Whilst it would no doubt be possible to pull together some sort of Barrow only and Windermere only unit diagrams, that would fall down when amended timetables due to Engineering works are in place for which interworking would be the logical solution hence a fleet to serve both routes makes sense in any circumstances.

Whilst class 80x would cater for higher passenger numbers there could be some platform length issues even with SDO - I think the branch platform at Oxenholme is tight for a cl397, and cl80x is about 12metres longer (unless you go for the shorter vehicle MML version).

 

[AndrewE]

To be fair unless you do Barrow (or truncate that to Lancaster and do Windermere from the Airport hourly instead) there's still going to be a need for bi-modes, and Windermere and Barrow interwork. .

Interworking is only the outcome of the current timetable and the unit diagramming. Either could be changed to keep the all-electric Windermeres shuttling and the bimodal Barrows doing their diesel bit west of Carnforth.

 

[yorksrob]

Just because Windermere and Barrow are currently inter-worked, doesn't strike me as a good enough reason not to go ahead with a quick win electrification.

Rump routes are fine, however they would likely involve some diesels working over them. Windermere would remove diesels from an already electrified rump route. Perhaps Windermere electrification could be tacked onto a larger electrification scheme.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if some Barrow services turned at Lancaster (and potentially some at Preston adding 21 miles each way under the wires) there would still I think be sufficient Furness business to justify several through trains to Manchester each day.

The timetable I'd go for would be two-hourly to each, with the other hour containing a shuttle with the same 80x (Windermere) or a local service from Lancaster to Carlisle using a 156 timed to connect with the Windermere (Barrow). That's roughly what it was when TPE were last involved.

Just because Windermere and Barrow are currently inter-worked, doesn't strike me as a good enough reason not to go ahead with a quick win electrification.

Rump routes are fine, however they would likely involve some diesels working over them. Windermere would remove diesels from an already electrified rump route. Perhaps Windermere electrification could be tacked onto a larger electrification scheme.

I'd still do it with moving them to TPE. 80x can of course run on the wires! Barrow should be wired too but that won't be soon.

 

[Howardh]

Do the supports of the overhead lines have to be grey? In somewhere like the Lakes I'd want them painted green or some kind of vegetation camoflauge if they ever happened. Round here they have had to make mobile phone masts look a bit like trees to fit in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the supports of the overhead lines have to be grey? In somewhere like the Lakes I'd want them painted green or some kind of vegetation camoflauge if they ever happened. Round here they have had to make mobile phone masts look a bit like trees to fit in.

The line doesn't spend an awful lot of time running through the very scenic bits, and an electrified single track railway is much less ugly than the large dual carriageway that more or less parallels it, but yes, you can paint them any colour you like. Almost all German ones are a sort of pastel green.

 

[yorksrob]

The timetable I'd go for would be two-hourly to each, with the other hour containing a shuttle with the same 80x (Windermere) or a local service from Lancaster to Carlisle using a 156 timed to connect with the Windermere (Barrow). That's roughly what it was when TPE were last involved.



I'd still do it with moving them to TPE. 80x can of course run on the wires! Barrow should be wired too but that won't be soon.

Barrow is similar to the Southport line. Worthwhile electrification at some stage but not a quick win.

 

[Howardh]

The line doesn't spend an awful lot of time running through the very scenic bits, but yes, you can paint them any colour you like. Almost all German ones are a sort of pastel green.

Thanks, I hope that's taken in to consideration if we ever get electrification across the Pennines.

 

[Ken H]

Barrow is similar to the Southport line. Worthwhile electrification at some stage but not a quick win.

TBH, the WCML over Shap is pretty unobtrusive. But if they do Windermere with trolley wire it will be even more unobtrusive. And it would no need any switchgear - just an isolator at Oxenholme.
Would it need return conductors? There is no signaling* to interfere with. And I dont think sheep are bothered about a little stray current!

* Is there a fixed distant at Windermere with AWS? And is there TPWS approaching the dead end to stop a train visiting Booths? Does that warrant return conductors?

 

[MattRat]

Just out of curiosity to those against Windermere electrification, if not something as simple as Windermere, then what? Seems like a case of being against any new electrification at all, and then people wonder why the railways are in such a dire state.....

 

[Killingworth]

A mere 10 miles The Swiss wouldn't even consider operating such a line as anything but electric. Same goes for the Norwegians. Both operate amid some of the very finest scenery.

 

[RailWonderer]

Yeah - I don't think there is any project with as much benefit out there!

The battery idea has been floated, but that makes zero sense - the cost of implementing a battery sub-fleet would almost certainly be higher than electrifying.

Would it really? TfW have a bi-mode subfleet of 769s and electrification is certainly expensive, epecially as it often goes dealyed and overbudget as with the GWML and even the MML. BMU 195s would be the answer, and would be mechanically mostly similar to the existing 195s and would require no more than a conversion course and some expanded maintenance competance.

 

[Trainbike46]

Not all electrification projects have equal risk of delay or overspend though. As a general idea, the larger and more complex a project is, the more chances there are for overspend or delay. This line is very short and simple, so there's relatively little that can go wrong. There's also some risk for scope creep, but if that's kept at bay, this should be a relatively cheap electrification project

Battery trains are more expensive to buy, have more parts that can break (=higher maintenance cost) and are heavier (possible impact on track access costs and energy use). Sometimes they are the right choice, but not here. So that just brings us back here:

Just out of curiosity to those against Windermere electrification, if not something as simple as Windermere, then what? Seems like a case of being against any new electrification at all, and then people wonder why the railways are in such a dire state.....

 

[Some guy]

Its needing electrifying for years. A 4 car 331 would be perfect for this service with DOO

 

[Ken H]

Not all electrification projects have equal risk of delay or overspend though. As a general idea, the larger and more complex a project is, the more chances there are for overspend or delay. This line is very short and simple, so there's relatively little that can go wrong. There's also some risk for scope creep, but if that's kept at bay, this should be a relatively cheap electrification project

There is little risk with Windermere. No mines, known geology, no complex junctions. You could close it for a few weeks in Feb and get the job done quick. And as its single track no complicated cantilevers. So no very deep piles. Dunno what a pile will do if it hits bedrock, mind.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Its needing electrifying for years. A 4 car 331 would be perfect for this service with DOO

The RMT would just love that (not)!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The RMT would just love that (not)!

This thread isn't the place for a DOO debate, but even if the driver did operate the service there are unstaffed stations so in practice someone would need to be on board to sell tickets and provide assistance. So you're going to want a second member of staff whether they happen to work the doors or not.

 

[Falcon1200]

Electrification should focus on more important rump routes first IMO, such as the TP core, Calder Valley etc.

Given how short and simple the Windermere branch is, wiring it should not and would not detract from any other routes being done.