Should Northern scrap direct trains between Cumbria and Manchester?

[Cheshire Scot]

The only thing I would consider changing about them is that instead of running hourly 5 car trains it might be better to run two-hourly ten car trains splitting and joining at Carlisle or Carstairs, freeing up a two hourly path for something else e.g. better timed Windermeres.

Manchester Airport cannot accommodate ten car trains.

 

[MattRat]

The whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. They load well and form an important part of the railway network, not just serving beautiful but economically- lagging Cumbria, but providing many other journey opportunities too. These are and always have been busy services. I can think of absolutely no justification for the curtailing of these services.

I don't think it's completely ridiculous. It's clear the goal is to stop DMU use under a majority wire route, it's just that OP hasn't come to the right solution. I'm not going to pretend to have the right answer to the problem myself of course, but that doesn't stop me from making suggestions, and neither should it stop others, becuase I believe the cause is noble and I would hope we can find an answer together.

 

[Philip]

But not connecting Manchester Airport with one of the UK's premier tourist destinations and a couple of large student cities, one of them which has a very well regarded Management School internationally, therefore requiring decent amounts of space for luggage.

The whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. They load well and form an important part of the railway network, not just serving beautiful but economically- lagging Cumbria, but providing many other journey opportunities too. These are and always have been busy services. I can think of absolutely no justification for the curtailing of these services.

The idea isn't to get rid of the service completely, rather to allow more electric running by splitting most or all of the services at Lancaster; and combine the Lancaster-Manchester service with an existing Blackpool service, so as to save a path between Preston and Manchester.

One change at Lancaster won't be of great inconvenience for Barrow and Furness line passengers; nor Oxenholme for the people of Kendal and Windermere.

 

[Iskra]

I don't think it's completely ridiculous. It's clear the goal is to stop DMU use under a majority wire route, it's just that OP hasn't come to the right solution. I'm not going to pretend to have the right answer to the problem myself of course, but that doesn't stop me from making suggestions, and neither should it stop others, becuase I believe the cause is noble and I would hope we can find an answer together.

The idea isn't to get rid of the service completely, rather to allow more electric running by splitting most or all of the services at Lancaster; and combine the Lancaster-Manchester service with an existing Blackpool service, so as to save a path between Preston and Manchester.

One change at Lancaster won't be of great inconvenience for Barrow and Furness line passengers; nor Oxenholme for the people of Kendal and Windermere.

Then it's a rolling stock issue, not an issue with the rather sensible service. Change the rolling stock, not the service. Perfect bi-mode territory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And they did not take brand new trains with 2+2, tables, improved passenger information and armrests off of that service to get them there……..

Well, there is the precedent of the 700s replacing some very comfortable Electrostars...

 

[A0wen]

But not connecting Manchester Airport with one of the UK's premier tourist destinations and a couple of large student cities, one of them which has a very well regarded Management School internationally, therefore requiring decent amounts of space for luggage.

The whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. They load well and form an important part of the railway network, not just serving beautiful but economically- lagging Cumbria, but providing many other journey opportunities too. These are and always have been busy services. I can think of absolutely no justification for the curtailing of these services.

BIB - Nor can I. I was merely commenting on the fact that somebody mentioned 769s weren't suitable for a journey like that, yet as 319s they'd routinely done a longer journey.

 

[SuperNova]

All of them should go - I would withdraw all TPE services between NW England and Scotland, via both the WCML and the ECML.

An occasional service could be provided by Avanti WC, e.g. 1 morning train (afternoon on Sundays) from Manchester Piccadilly to Glasgow Central via Preston, with an evening return. There would still be 2 tph express trains between Preston and Scotland for connections.

What utter nonsense. Those services are full most days, especially Thursday - Sunday and have recovered extremely well loading wise despite Covid. And you want to scrap them for what?! And for a severely inferior service. Just nonsense.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think it's completely ridiculous. It's clear the goal is to stop DMU use under a majority wire route, it's just that OP hasn't come to the right solution. I'm not going to pretend to have the right answer to the problem myself of course, but that doesn't stop me from making suggestions, and neither should it stop others, becuase I believe the cause is noble and I would hope we can find an answer together.

Agreed - there's a genuine problem here

Northern haven't had a lot of spare DMUs but currently diesel trains do eighty two miles under the wires to get from Manchester Airport to Oxenholme - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C22379/2022-01-16/detailed

So changing the services would have the double benefits of freeing up more DMUs (at a time when there's a surplus of EMUs, e.g. 350/2s coming off lease elsewhere) and being better for the environment by removing some diesels from electrified lines

But these services have two markets that need considering - the "left behind" towns potentially losing their only service to a big city is tough to justify politically - and also the Mancunians wanting leisure trips to Cumbria can be sold as an economic lifeline to those towns (so it's a bit different to, say, Kirkby/ Ellesmere Port losing their direct Manchester service, given that Kirkby/Ellesmere Port retain a regular Liverpool service and there's not many Mancunians going for a day out in Kirkby/Ellesmere Port). As Manchester has more and more investment, the gap between it and the rest of "the north" grows wider, you could argue that the need for direct Manchester services is more important to a town like Barrow than ever.

There's also the operational problems - do we want the risks of splitting/joining services at Lancaster, given the problems you get if trains miss the tight slots through Castlefield, how do we accommodate some infrequent services on a timetable packed with simple clock face services (e.g. the Manchester Recovery attempted to keep half hourly services from most corridors - other than Southport of course, but Southport passengers are too important to be constrained by such things)

Over time the service pattern has changed a bit, e.g. Windermere going from a bi-hourly175/185 to Manchester to losing most of it's Manchester trains when the "Scottish" services were given to TPE ... but then those Scottish services have gone from a handful of trains a day in the BR era (some of which were two coach 158s) to a bi-hourly service with Voyagers to an hourly service provided by brand new five coach EMUs... so the need for direct Windermere/Barrow services is perhaps diminished since a lot of the intermediate places have a far superior service from the 397s than they did with the irregular 158s

If Northern had some bi-mode trains suited to middle distance journeys then, great, allocate them. But 769s are seen as more like a 150 (in terms of lines they are allocated to), there's essentially zero chance of some "Flirts", so where do people come down between "through journeys are most important, the economic need of Barrow/ Windermere matter most" and "the railway needs to be greener and more reliable and therefore build timetables around simple timetables that see as many trains running on electric power as possible, we can't give every little place a key slot through Castlefield"?

I like a problem like this, there's a clear "problem" to solve (rather than people concocting some supposed "need" to spend hundreds of millions of pounds linking two minor rural places), it shows the kind of priorities people have (I'm not knocking anyone's priorities here, I mean that there's no "right" answer, we are all just trying to balance up the competing needs... )

 

[MattRat]

Agreed - there's a genuine problem here

Northern haven't had a lot of spare DMUs but currently diesel trains do eighty two miles under the wires to get from Manchester Airport to Oxenholme - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C22379/2022-01-16/detailed

So changing the services would have the double benefits of freeing up more DMUs (at a time when there's a surplus of EMUs, e.g. 350/2s coming off lease elsewhere) and being better for the environment by removing some diesels from electrified lines

I like a problem like this, there's a clear "problem" to solve (rather than people concocting some supposed "need" to spend hundreds of millions of pounds linking two minor rural places), it shows the kind of priorities people have (I'm not knocking anyone's priorities here, I mean that there's no "right" answer, we are all just trying to balance up the competing needs... )

I see 3 possible 'solutions' myself, but there may be some I haven't considered, and I'm open to them as each one I've devised has a 'flaw' of some sort.

1) Use 769s. They exist, they are bi-mode. Only problem is it's uncertain whether we can ever rely on them to actually work, especially for the distance.
2) Electrify the route. Plenty of spare EMUs to go around as you said. Problem here is the electrifying part, due to cost or maybe physical problems, like bridges or tunnels.
3) Northern buys new bi-modes. Now, unless there are spare bi-modes available that I am unaware of, Northern will have to buy new ones. Hopefully they would be more reliable than the 769s, but, even if they are, procuring units is a costly and often long process, and I have a feeling these have stopped Northern from ordering new bi-modes already.

 

[Killingworth]

I see 3 possible 'solutions' myself, but there may be some I haven't considered, and I'm open to them as each one I've devised has a 'flaw' of some sort.

1) Use 769s. They exist, they are bi-mode. Only problem is it's uncertain whether we can ever rely on them to actually work, especially for the distance.
2) Electrify the route. Plenty of spare EMUs to go around as you said. Problem here is the electrifying part, due to cost or maybe physical problems, like bridges or tunnels.
3) Northern buys new bi-modes. Now, unless there are spare bi-modes available that I am unaware of, Northern will have to buy new ones. Hopefully they would be more reliable than the 769s, but, even if they are, procuring units is a costly and often long process, and I have a feeling these have stopped Northern from ordering new bi-modes already.

769s can run on electric to Oxenholme. From there to Windermere is about half the distance as from Wigan to Southport. As long as it doesn't fail out on the single track (!) or in Oxenholme station...... ah!

Northern are about to order some hybrid 195s with battery back up. Sounds ideal for this route if the battery is strong enough.

Electrifying the 9-10 miles must be the long term answer.

 

[Greybeard33]

769s can run on electric to Oxenholme. From there to Windermere is about half the distance as from Wigan to Southport. As long as it doesn't fail out on the single track (!) or in Oxenholme station...... ah!

Northern are about to order some hybrid 195s with battery back up. Sounds ideal for this route if the battery is strong enough.

Electrifying the 9-10 miles must be the long term answer.

According to the 769 thread, Network Rail has required the 769s to be restricted to 75mph, even under the wires. Therefore they could not fit in the WCML paths, which are timed for 100mph units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

769s can run on electric to Oxenholme. From there to Windermere is about half the distance as from Wigan to Southport. As long as it doesn't fail out on the single track (!) or in Oxenholme station...... ah!

Actually, Oxenholme has a dedicated branch platform so that would be "OK" too.

A 75mph limit (due to weight?) would be a problem, though.

 

[mike57]

Could the Class 88 be used with hauled stock to deliver Manchester - Windermere, it only has 1000hp ish on diesel but would that be enough to move 4/5 cars over the Windermere branch? TPE dont seem to be using all their Mk5s, to how easy would it be replace the 68 with an 88?. Until/if it gets electrified Windermere is always going to be an outlier, 10 miles diesel, the rest under wires. Barrow is a bit different, much further away from wires. Just as a matter of interest why wasn't Windermere electrified during WCML electrification, other examples of similar branch lines in East Anglia were.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could the Class 88 be used with hauled stock to deliver Manchester - Windermere, it only has 1000hp ish on diesel but would that be enough to move 4/5 cars over the Windermere branch? TPE dont seem to be using all their Mk5s, to how easy would it be replace the 68 with an 88?. Until/if it gets electrified Windermere is always going to be an outlier, 10 miles diesel, the rest under wires. Barrow is a bit different, much further away from wires. Just as a matter of interest why wasn't Windermere electrified during WCML electrification, other examples of similar branch lines in East Anglia were.

Earlier electrifications were fairly lavish, covering literally everything nearby, but later ones were done on the cheap - I think the Windermere branch platform was only done quite recently, for example.

(The latter isn't much use given that everything that serves it is a DMU, but I suppose it would allow a 331 to substitute if nothing at all else was available, which would just sit at Oxenholme for the duration)

 

[Bigman]

The odd one a day working Windermere - Lancaster - Leeds would not go amiss IMHO. Again, a 769 could do it being under the wires from Oxenholme to Lancaster and Skipton to Leeds. Opens up more tourist links.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The odd one a day working Windermere - Lancaster - Leeds would not go amiss IMHO. Again, a 769 could do it being under the wires from Oxenholme to Lancaster and Skipton to Leeds. Opens up more tourist links.

If it could be pathed, Windermere-Lancaster-Leeds would be a heck of a lot more use than Morecambe-Lancaster-Leeds, given today's tourism demands.

On the other hand Eden Project North could change all that...

 

[ScottGallagher]

Being realistic the wires simply aren't going to get anywhere near Barrow so Bi/tri/quad modes of whatever manufacturer will be the only option.

 

[SuperNova]

Could the Class 88 be used with hauled stock to deliver Manchester - Windermere, it only has 1000hp ish on diesel but would that be enough to move 4/5 cars over the Windermere branch? TPE dont seem to be using all their Mk5s, to how easy would it be replace the 68 with an 88?. Until/if it gets electrified Windermere is always going to be an outlier, 10 miles diesel, the rest under wires. Barrow is a bit different, much further away from wires. Just as a matter of interest why wasn't Windermere electrified during WCML electrification, other examples of similar branch lines in East Anglia were.

Mk5as will be switching to the Cleethorpes - Liverpool services. Not in use at the moment due to emergency timetable but were back in action for all of 3 weeks.

 

[Bevan Price]

Since there is little prospect of either the Barrow or Windermere lines being electrified anytime soon, could it be a smart idea for Northern to consider either removing the service completely, or alter it so that it becomes a portion working between Preston and Lancaster; a 331 off one of the Manchester-Blackpool services?

Having a DMU running all way from Manchester Airport to Carnforth/Oxenholme under wires isn't particularly good, so this would remove this problem. Also it'll save a bit of money for Northern without impacting on travel convenience too much and it'll free up another path along the Castlefield line. Bolton and Chorley won't actually lose a service compared to now as it still currently runs via Wigan.

The Oxenholme-Windermere shuttle could be operated by a 769 or 195, likewise the Lancaster to Barrow shuttle. Ideally a half hourly Lancaster to Manchester frequency would be retained by using a 331 off the Blackpool service, detaching at Preston. But if Lancaster isn't suitable for turning back then you can probably get away with an hourly Lancaster to Manchester frequency (the TPE Scotland).

Perhaps TPE themselves could use an 802 diagram and remove a couple of Scotland services to instead provide two direct services per day between Manchester and Windermere, running in the existing Scotland paths.

The first WCML southbound departure from Lancaster arrives from the south as e.c.s., and reverses in Platform 4.

 

[Meerkat]

Barrow is exactly the sort of place that needs direct links for socio-economic reasons.
Just buy in some bi-modes. Get them made in Britain and its a lovely thing to sell to the government - a relatively cheap project that is green, northern, and supports British jobs/innovation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Barrow is exactly the sort of place that needs direct links for socio-economic reasons.
Just buy in some bi-modes. Get them made in Britain and its a lovely thing to sell to the government - a relatively cheap project that is green, northern, and supports British jobs/innovation.

Yep. There is barely another regional route in the country that has a better case for bi-modes than Manchester Airport-Barrow/Windermere. The ideal would be a 6-car set each hour splitting/joining at Lancaster, if there was a way to path it, giving a perfect clockface service on both lines.

 

[mike57]

Yep. There is barely another regional route in the country that has a better case for bi-modes than Manchester Airport-Barrow/Windermere. The ideal would be a 6-car set each hour splitting/joining at Lancaster, if there was a way to path it, giving a perfect clockface service on both lines.

They wouldn't need the same sort of power as the current bi-mode 8XX units because as far as I am aware beyond Carnforth there is no capability for more than 75mph, and the Windermere branch is shorter and slower. So would they be 'Bi-Mode lite' or is it too much trouble to have another small sub fleet.

 

[Ken H]

They wouldn't need the same sort of power as the current bi-mode 8XX units because as far as I am aware beyond Carnforth there is no capability for more than 75mph, and the Windermere branch is shorter and slower. So would they be 'Bi-Mode lite' or is it too much trouble to have another small sub fleet.

Line from Carnforth to barrow is quite flat too. No long hills to grunt up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They wouldn't need the same sort of power as the current bi-mode 8XX units because as far as I am aware beyond Carnforth there is no capability for more than 75mph, and the Windermere branch is shorter and slower. So would they be 'Bi-Mode lite' or is it too much trouble to have another small sub fleet.

To be fair most Northern routes that would work with bi-modes would be perfectly fine with 100 or ideally 110mph under the wires and 75mph on diesel/battery (but ideally with good acceleration for frequent stops). Southport is the same. As, if Atherton was wired, is Kirkby.

 

[adamedwards]

At Oxenholme I think I am right the layout now allows for a down train to get off the main line and wait in the former Goods Loop whilst a train leaves platform three and crosses over to the up main line to Lancaster. The snag is passengers waiting to get off heading north, but better than the original layout.

To solve the OP problem I still think the most cost effective has to be simple wiring (as done brilliantly in Scotland to Paisley Canal) with a passing loop at Burneside organised so the same single platform is used (as at Penryn on the Falmouth branch). No need for special trains.

The ultimate would be that this could allow a once a day Pendolino in as a Lakes Express, but I think I just blew the fuses on my electrification, so perhaps not!

Barrow would need bimodes.

 

[mike57]

To be fair most Northern routes that would work with bi-modes would be perfectly fine with 100 or ideally 110mph under the wires and 75mph on diesel/battery (but ideally with good acceleration for frequent stops). Southport is the same. As, if Atherton was wired, is Kirkby.

Electric/diesel/battery maybe. Diesel has enough power for 75mph, but nothing in reserve. Small battery supplies additional acceleration away from stops/slows and allows regen braking. 110mph on electric would be good, if nothing else it would mean a genuine 100mph on streches that allow it.

 

[507020]

To be fair most Northern routes that would work with bi-modes would be perfectly fine with 100 or ideally 110mph under the wires and 75mph on diesel/battery (but ideally with good acceleration for frequent stops). Southport is the same. As, if Atherton was wired, is Kirkby.

If Southport and Kirkby were both run with 100mph EMUs this might create line capacity to run both via Bolton

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Southport and Kirkby were both run with 100mph EMUs this might create line capacity to run both via Bolton

Though I am not sure why you would do this - it is more efficient to extend one of the Athertons to Kirkby.

 

[507020]

Though I am not sure why you would do this - it is more efficient to extend one of the Athertons to Kirkby.

One of the Athertons already goes TO Kirkby so are you suggesting another one should go to Kirkby? I am expecting the Southports will both go via Kirkby during Westhoughton electrification

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the Athertons already goes via Kirkby so are you suggesting another one should go to Kirkby? I am expecting the Southports will both go via Kirkby during Westhoughton electrification

I think you've got Kirkby and Atherton backwards.

Yes, one of the Athertons extends to Kirkby. I'm pointing out that this situation is satisfactory (and long-established, having been the case for 30+ years) and thus running via Bolton is not necessary.