Is electrifying Windermere worth it?

[Agent_Squash]

I have seen Windermere very busy at times, although there is undoubtedly an element of seasonality there.

The Lakes line in winter could practically reduce to being a shuttle to Kendal - the bus service is frequent enough, and the demand drops enough.

In practice, I'd never say that was a good idea - 1tph is good for local connectivity, but it's a shame a loop can't go in at Burnside to allow 2tph during the summer months. Key issue that tourist demand (April - October) doesn't align with timetable changes.

 

[yorksrob]

The Lakes line in winter could practically reduce to being a shuttle to Kendal - the bus service is frequent enough, and the demand drops enough.

In practice, I'd never say that was a good idea - 1tph is good for local connectivity, but it's a shame a loop can't go in at Burnside to allow 2tph during the summer months. Key issue that tourist demand (April - October) doesn't align with timetable changes.

With electrification you could just shove another unit on the end (assuming the industry doesn't just scrap everything that's spare - which TBH they seem to be doing).

 

[zwk500]

In practice, I'd never say that was a good idea - 1tph is good for local connectivity, but it's a shame a loop can't go in at Burnside to allow 2tph during the summer months. Key issue that tourist demand (April - October) doesn't align with timetable changes.

There's nothing stopping trains being put into the timetable to only operate between certain dates. I'm fairly sure GWR have a 'summer' timetable for the west country that doesn't line up with the May change date.

The issue with a loop is the additional cost of the points, signals and interlocking versus the seasonality of its necessity.

 

[AndrewE]

The Lakes line in winter could practically reduce to being a shuttle to Kendal - the bus service is frequent enough, and the demand drops enough.

In practice, I'd never say that was a good idea - 1tph is good for local connectivity, but it's a shame a loop can't go in at Burnside to allow 2tph during the summer months. Key issue that tourist demand (April - October) doesn't align with timetable changes.

No thanks. The bus doesn't go from Kendal station, and takes 24 mins to get to Windermere. The train takes 9 and feeds into the bus at Windermere station.
I haven't used the bus S of Windermere, but if it is subject to anything like the traffic congestion which occurs N of there the that woukd be yet another nail in the coffin of public transport.

 

[nw1]

The Lakes line in winter could practically reduce to being a shuttle to Kendal - the bus service is frequent enough, and the demand drops enough.

In practice, I'd never say that was a good idea - 1tph is good for local connectivity, but it's a shame a loop can't go in at Burnside to allow 2tph during the summer months. Key issue that tourist demand (April - October) doesn't align with timetable changes.

Also a shuttle to Kendal would be very inefficient (unless you were to run it several times an hour) as it would be spending most of the hour waiting at either end.

I guess an hourly Takt-style shuttle timetable with alternate trains missing Burneside and Staveley (so one round trip misses them in one direction, but not the other) would not work? I guess not, as otherwise someone would have thought of this long ago - presumably the main line connections do not work out. Still, it is impressive how in Germany, Switzerland etc they seem to (IMX) run branch shuttles on a Takt pattern to meet mainline services.

 

[adamedwards]

The shuttle surely should be a tram train from the centre of Kendal and then following the 599 bus route to Bowness, Ambleside and Grasmere. Transport for Wales would then have to run it. I'll put my crayons away now!

 

[Ken H]

Also a shuttle to Kendal would be very inefficient (unless you were to run it several times an hour) as it would be spending most of the hour waiting at either end.

Kendal Stn is a fair way from the main shopping street. If i was going to kendal i would get a bus from Oxenholme. 41 I Think. Bus stn is reasonably close to Stricklandgate.

 

[zwk500]

Also a shuttle to Kendal would be very inefficient (unless you were to run it several times an hour) as it would be spending most of the hour waiting at either end.

I guess an hourly Takt-style shuttle timetable with alternate trains missing Burneside and Staveley (so one round trip misses them in one direction, but not the other) would not work? I guess not, as otherwise someone would have thought of this long ago - presumably the main line connections do not work out. Still, it is impressive how in Germany, Switzerland etc they seem to (IMX) run branch shuttles on a Takt pattern to meet mainline services.

The Oxenholme-Windermere return journey is booked to take 41 minutes based on today's timings on RTT (11.17 to 11.58) so there's no reason the timings couldn't be made to work, although if you wanted to run through trains you'd need to put the unit somewhere for the hour that the through train takes up. Dumping it in the loop would either tie a driver up in the cab with his feet up, or need the unit securing and the driver walking back to Oxenholme so realistically you'd want to put in a bay (or a crossover to allow Platform 2 to access the Branch).

I believe that in Germany and Switzerland they do make sure their infrastructure fully supports their takt patterns, unlike in the UK where for various reasons the prevailing attitude seems to be 'work with what you've got' until it's unavoidably broken.

 

[Ken H]

The Oxenholme-Windermere return journey is booked to take 41 minutes based on today's timings on RTT (11.17 to 11.58) so there's no reason the timings couldn't be made to work, although if you wanted to run through trains you'd need to put the unit somewhere for the hour that the through train takes up. Dumping it in the loop would either tie a driver up in the cab with his feet up, or need the unit securing and the driver walking back to Oxenholme so realistically you'd want to put in a bay (or a crossover to allow Platform 2 to access the Branch).

I believe that in Germany and Switzerland they do make sure their infrastructure fully supports their takt patterns, unlike in the UK where for various reasons the prevailing attitude seems to be 'work with what you've got' until it's unavoidably broken.

Surely if a through train is to go on the branch, the branch train should be a through train to lancaster or further south?

 

[Howardh]

I would have thought it would be perfect for a battery operated train, run as a shuttle, charged up while standing at either end? Only issue would be having enough power to return to depot - wherever that is; but a converted ex-tube stock? Or even a converted old pacer!
20' journey time, 10' recharging, so an hourly shuttle.

 

[Ken H]

I would have thought it would be perfect for a battery operated train, run as a shuttle, charged up while standing at either end? Only issue would be having enough power to return to depot - wherever that is; but a converted ex-tube stock? Or even a converted old pacer!
20' journey time, 10' recharging, so an hourly shuttle.

Developing a special train woukd cost a shedload of cash. Why not just put up simplified knitting and run a standard train?

 

[Agent_Squash]

I would have thought it would be perfect for a battery operated train, run as a shuttle, charged up while standing at either end? Only issue would be having enough power to return to depot - wherever that is; but a converted ex-tube stock? Or even a converted old pacer!
20' journey time, 10' recharging, so an hourly shuttle.

Windermere won’t be getting converted old stock - it is a regional express route in the North West, and also the gateway to England’s largest tourist area…

The depot is at Newton Heath - so you wouldn’t get there with a battery powered D-Train. It would also probably cost more to procure a micro-fleet than to electrify the line in the first place.

Furthermore, the line has had 175s, 185s and 195s in the last 20 years - iirc the one place Arriva wanted to send the 769s was Windermere, but they were told no by the DfT!

I guess an hourly Takt-style shuttle timetable with alternate trains missing Burneside and Staveley (so one round trip misses them in one direction, but not the other) would not work? I guess not, as otherwise someone would have thought of this long ago - presumably the main line connections do not work out. Still, it is impressive how in Germany, Switzerland etc they seem to (IMX) run branch shuttles on a Takt pattern to meet mainline services.

Ever since the COVID timetable removals some of the connections have been really dodgy anyway. Leaving Windermere at 17:00 you have to wait at Oxenholme until 18:12 for the TPE!

 

[CdBrux]

Yes it eliminates huge diesel under the wires running.

Given we've learnt upthread that Windermere and Barrow services are interlinked then this is true (and bi-mode would be) but with implications, so what are the implications of needing different rolling stock for Windermere and Barrow services?

Certainly the German-speaking countries seem to be particularly keen on electrifying relatively minor lines. A case in point, kind-of related to Windermere in the sense of being in a mountainous tourist area: not only is the secondary Munich-Garmisch-Innsbruck route electrified (an equivalent line in the UK probably wouldn't be) but also the branch at Garmisch through Ehrwald to Reutte in Tirol and even the small branch to Oberammergau.

and the lines beyond the end of the s-bahn at Holzkirchen to Bayrischzell, Tegernsee and Lenggries are not

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Given we've learnt upthread that Windermere and Barrow services are interlinked then this is true (and bi-mode would be) but with implications, so what are the implications of needing different rolling stock for Windermere and Barrow services?

331 and 195 coupled and split/rejoin at Lancaster?

 

[zwk500]

Surely if a through train is to go on the branch, the branch train should be a through train to lancaster or further south?

If you can fit it in, yes. But running the train onto the main line may not be as simple as first appears, especially if running to Lancaster and back breaks a neat Takt pattern.

 

[Agent_Squash]

331 and 195 coupled and split/rejoin at Lancaster?

Don’t think 331s and 195s can couple in service except for emergencies iirc

 

[MattRat]

I would have thought it would be perfect for a battery operated train, run as a shuttle, charged up while standing at either end? Only issue would be having enough power to return to depot - wherever that is; but a converted ex-tube stock? Or even a converted old pacer!
20' journey time, 10' recharging, so an hourly shuttle.

And it can't just be electrified because?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The shuttle surely should be a tram train from the centre of Kendal and then following the 599 bus route to Bowness, Ambleside and Grasmere. Transport for Wales would then have to run it. I'll put my crayons away now!

Given the problems caused by cars in the National Park I have very much wondered, indeed, if the wires that are proposed to go up should actually be 750VDC ones, and the line converted to a tramway down the road to Bowness at least, or even Ambleside. It would cost, but it would take a LOT of cars off the road if connections were good.

OK, you would lose through trains to Manchester, but you would probably get more connectional traffic (e.g. from London) due to going where people want to go. The town of Windermere is nice enough but it is only a minor destination.

That would then allow for an hourly Barrow.

 

[CdBrux]

331 and 195 coupled and split/rejoin at Lancaster?

Don’t think 331s and 195s can couple in service except for emergencies iirc

and here we are maybe seeing that it's not quite as simple as "just electrify it"

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And so we get into the situation where "there is no point doing this unless that gets done as well". Wire Windermere and convert to electric operation. Worry about Barrow later.

 

[zwk500]

and here we are maybe seeing that it's not quite as simple as "just electrify it"

splitting the diagrams is perfectly possible.

 

[Ken H]

Given the problems caused by cars in the National Park I have very much wondered, indeed, if the wires that are proposed to go up should actually be 750VDC ones, and the line converted to a tramway down the road to Bowness at least, or even Ambleside. It would cost, but it would take a LOT of cars off the road if connections were good.

OK, you would lose through trains to Manchester, but you would probably get more connectional traffic (e.g. from London) due to going where people want to go. The town of Windermere is nice enough but it is only a minor destination.

That would then allow for an hourly Barrow.

Windermere station is also a major bus station. the 555 Lancaster - Keswick bus stops there. But there are many other buses from there. Its not a station in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Killingworth]

Given the problems caused by cars in the National Park I have very much wondered, indeed, if the wires that are proposed to go up should actually be 750VDC ones, and the line converted to a tramway down the road to Bowness at least, or even Ambleside. It would cost, but it would take a LOT of cars off the road if connections were good.

Professor Joad might well have said "it all depends on what you mean by a LOT."

It would certainly cost a LOT of money and generate a LOT of protests - anything new in National Parks is almost guaranteed to trigger a nerve for some, or several, pro-active lobbying groups!

However taking a LOT of cars off the Lake District roads if connections were good is where it falls down. The Lake District is not all that big in area but communications are slow. The 555 bus up through Kendal and Ambleside to Keswick is good, as is the X5 from Workington to Penrith but most of the others are relatively infrequent and don't tempt many motorists out of their cars.

I only lived in the area for a year, and a long time ago, but I can't imagine many of the cars loaded with masses of kit being removed by a tram/train for such a short additional distance, nor can I imagine many local people using it either. If measures were introduced to charge or licence motoring in the National Park, with reductions for local residents, that might reduce numbers considerably - and lose a lot of trade for local businesses.

Back to simply electrifying the current line and promoting the current services, although a loop to allow half hourly at peak times would be good. .

 

[Ken H]

how long a train can use the branch? I would assume that is set by the length of the platforms at Oxenholme and Windermere. I would assume Staveley and Burneside can be operated by SDO.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

how long a train can use the branch? I would assume that is set by the length of the platforms at Oxenholme and Windermere. I would assume Staveley and Burneside can be operated by SDO.

Oxenholme (platform 3) can apparently accommodate 7 car trains, Kendal and Burneside can take 4 car trains, Staveley just 2 car trains and Windermere 8 car trains.

 

[The Planner]

Oxenholme (platform 3) can apparently accommodate 7 car trains, Kendal and Burneside can take 4 car trains, Staveley just 2 car trains and Windermere 8 car trains.

144m at Windermere, Staveley 71m, Burneside 92m, Kendal 92m, Oxenholme 142m. Don't go off what the Quail says, its often wrong.
If a 195 is 24m long then its 3 cars at best unless ASDO is used.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

144m at Windermere, Staveley 71m, Burneside 92m, Kendal 92m, Oxenholme 142m. Don't go off what the Quail says, its often wrong.
If a 195 is 24m long then its 3 cars at best unless ASDO is used.

Thanks for clarifying. If that info is from the relevant/up-to-date Sectional Appendix, it'll undoubtedly be more accurate.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

144m at Windermere, Staveley 71m, Burneside 92m, Kendal 92m, Oxenholme 142m. Don't go off what the Quail says, its often wrong.
If a 195 is 24m long then its 3 cars at best unless ASDO is used.

Some of the length at the Carnforth end of the Oxenholme platform is outside the signal - not sure if the SA length includes this area or not.
At the Kendal end the waiting room allegedly deems that part of the platform sub standard width (but presumably still useable but with insufficient width for a wheelchair ramp should that door be in that area of the platform).

 

[The Planner]

Some of the length at the Carnforth end of the Oxenholme platform is outside the signal - not sure if the SA length includes this area or not.
At the Kendal end the waiting room allegedly deems that part of the platform sub standard width (but presumably still useable but with insufficient width for a wheelchair ramp should that door be in that area of the platform).

Planning rules show the same thing, so either both are wrong or both are right!

 

[zwk500]

Some of the length at the Carnforth end of the Oxenholme platform is outside the signal - not sure if the SA length includes this area or not.
At the Kendal end the waiting room allegedly deems that part of the platform sub standard width (but presumably still useable but with insufficient width for a wheelchair ramp should that door be in that area of the platform).

It does say 'Usable length', so in theory if a portion of platform is not reachable it should be excluded from the stated value for that direction. Accuracy is, of course, another matter.