Should the closed stations between Preston and Lancaster be reopened? ?

[SynthD]

How busy are the buses, and could they be hybrid or electric?

 

[eldomtom2]

Comments like this aren't very helpful but are entirely indicative of the whole problem on the railways IMHO. I think this thread pulls it out nicely - there clearly would be a benefit to intermediate stations between Preston and Lancaster but, due to cost and logistics, the railway is unable or unwilling to meet that requirement. Entrenched attitudes don't really help and, I really do feel, if there was a little 'how could we achieve this', rather than 'it is what it is', the overall offering could be better.

I have to agree - at least when it comes to this forum. There are a lot of posters who are very eager to explain to you why the current state of the railways is the ideal one. Some of them work in the industry but without actual surveys how representive their views are is unknown.

 

[zwk500]

I have to agree - at least when it comes to this forum. There are a lot of posters who are very eager to explain to you why the current state of the railways is the ideal one. Some of them work in the industry but without actual surveys how representive their views are is unknown.

This isn't accurate - you can find plenty of examples where posters who explain the realities also express frustration at the state of things.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How busy are the buses, and could they be hybrid or electric?

My impression from using them infrequently in recent years (much more often 10-20 years ago) is that the University buses are vary a lot depending on student activities... they can be completely packed out when people are arriving for lectures in the morning, or almost empty in the evening in the middle of the holidays. The Lancaster-Preston buses run half-hourly weekdays and I'd say are typically moderately busy. But the issue with those buses is that they are too slow to use for commuting the entire journey: About 80-90 minutes Preston-Lancaster, or 70-ish minutes Preston-University (only one an hour heading into the University itself. It's the Stagecoach 40/41 if anyone is interested enough to check). That compares with less than 20 minutes Preston-Lancaster on the train, some trains as little as 14 minutes - but not too helpful if your actual destination is the University.

Right now, if you want to commute Preston-University (and I'm sure a fair few people will do that) you'll almost certainly drive: There's no other sensible option.

 

[randyrippley]

I can remember in my student days (around 25 years ago) there was discussion about a new station in Garstang. It seems that this is always too disruptive of the main line services.

There's no suitable road access for a new station - just narrow lanes

 

[yorksrob]

There's no suitable road access for a new station - just narrow lanes

Yeah, it never seemed to be a starter.

That said, I stopped off in Garstang on the way from Lancaster one evening last year. Seemed lively enough.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Right now, if you want to commute Preston-University (and I'm sure a fair few people will do that) you'll almost certainly drive: There's no other sensible option.

You're possibly right, but obviously not everyone who works at or attends the university will be travelling up from Preston each day.

And for those that do, won't a train to Lancaster and then the bus for the final three miles or so still be possible?

 

[eldomtom2]

This isn't accurate - you can find plenty of examples where posters who explain the realities also express frustration at the state of things.

Well not really, since they tend to treat external factors like politics as immutable. "It would be nice, but it's not realistic" is definitely not a statement in support of something, and I'd argue it is definitely treating the status quo as at the very least the least worst option.

 

[Falcon1200]

To answer the question; No. Because the disadvantages (eg eating up WCML capacity, slowing long distance trains) outweigh any perceived advantages.

And;

There are also the constant stream of visitors to campus who seeing how poor is the bus route four service from the Station to campus, resort to taxis.

If the present traffic cannot even, apparently, support a decent bus service, the huge expense of providing a station, and trains to serve it, is surely unjustifiable. Which is not to say that the WCML should remain in aspic, a re-opened station at Beattock for one should be considered.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You're possibly right, but obviously not everyone who works at or attends the university will be travelling up from Preston each day.

Agreed, it'll only be a small minority, although would certainly be a bigger minority if you could do it by direct train in 20-30 minutes. But a small minority of 13000 students and 4000 staff still adds up to a lot of potential rail customers.

And for those that do, won't a train to Lancaster and then the bus for the final three miles or so still be possible?

It's possible, but not the kind of journey I'd like to make. Most of the University buses don't stop that close to Lancaster station. So you're looking at travelling from your home to Preston station, train to Lancaster on a service that is fast but irregular with some longish gaps between trains. Then a 10 minute walk to the bus stop at Common Garden Street. Once you're there, the University buses are very frequent, but on the return journey you have the added hassle of traffic congestion making the bus timings unreliable, so some risk of missing trains if you don't allow added time to wait at the station.

 

[randyrippley]

It wouldn't just be students on nights out, although you'd get some traffic from that. The real benefit of the station would be students and staff (remember there are lots of University staff too) commuting from Preston/etc. And you'd pick up some traffic from the large stream of visitors that any University tends to attract. Plus a station at Bailrigg would to some extent serve as a south parkway for Lancaster (admittedly somewhat restricted by congestion on the road through Galgate: Arguably, Galgate would be a better location for a Lancaster South Parkway station). (EDIT: I see @amywok has beaten me to make similar points)



The bus is however very slow. It's fine for students who live in Bowerham or further South, and reasonable for those who live in Lancaster City centre, but not for anywhere beyond. A long time ago, it was common for students to live in Skerton or Morecambe, but that has largely been killed by the slowness of the buses and road congestion. A Morecambe-Preston train that served Bailrigg would probably reopen Morecambe and add the area around Marsh to the places where University students and staff could reasonably live, which would help balance Lancaster's housing market better, and provide quite a few passengers for the railway, as well as giving a much needed economic boost to some deprived parts of Morecambe.

Nonsense

You're not going to get students or visitors walking up the hill from the railway in any number. (As an aside the only suitable Bailrigg site has been built on, you'd need to put the station on the Outhwaite sidings)

Students don't live in Morecambe any more: the town floods of 1977 and 1981 put paid to that. The former holiday bedsits they used to use are in the main now low grade multi-occupation flats with a high degree of deprivation.
Most live either on campus, or custom-built custom flats around the town centre from where its easier to catch a bus, rather than walk across the city for close to a mile uphill to catch a train, then ride for a mile and a half, then walk another half mile uphill from railway to campus. Simply stupid

Yeah, it never seemed to be a starter.

That said, I stopped off in Garstang on the way from Lancaster one evening last year. Seemed lively enough.

eight-pub town

 

[zwk500]

Well not really, since they tend to treat external factors like politics as immutable. "It would be nice, but it's not realistic" is definitely not a statement in support of something, and I'd argue it is definitely treating the status quo as at the very least the least worst option.

On the contrary, the statement 'it would be nice, but it's not realistic' displays a clear grasp of what can be done to improve upon the status quo, because the next phrase is 'to make a difference, you want to do <x>'. It may be frustrating at times to be told to manage expectations, but given some of the hints @Bald Rick has dropped over the years about the meaningful change they've delivered for the railway, it would be grossly unfair to accuse them of considering the status quo unshakeable.

 

[yorksrob]

eight-pub town
[/QUOTE]

Eight pubs ain't bad for a town in this day and age !

 

[randyrippley]

How busy are the buses, and could they be hybrid or electric?

Stagecoach used some of their ex-Manchester green liveried hybrids for a while but they didn't seem to have the guts to do the job. They were mainly kept off the main University service, possibly because of Hala Hill

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You're not going to get students or visitors walking up the hill from the railway in any number. (As an aside the only suitable Bailrigg site has been built on, you'd need to put the station on the Outhwaite sidings)

It's about a 10 minute walk from the center of campus to the point where the railway line passes the University. Admittedly maybe 15 minutes to the furthest points of the campus. In most parts of the country, a 10 minute walk to the station doesn't seem to stop people (including students) using trains.

Students don't live in Morecambe any more: the town floods of 1977 and 1981 put paid to that.

Really? Strange then that the town was still full of students around 1990, when I lived there (as a student). Maybe, sometime after then, students had a sudden fright of 'Hey, there were floods here 20 years ago. We should stop living here!'.

And, if your theory is correct, even more strange that the fact that parts of Lancaster city centre itself have flooded a couple of times since 2000 has apparently not put students off living there.

 

[Bevan Price]

The intermediate stations between Preston & Preston mostly closed long before Beeching/Marples. The last survivors were Garstang & Catterall (over a mile from Garstang) and Bay Horse (which seemed to serve little more than a hotel of that name. ) The other stations were Barton & Broughton, Brock, Scorton and Galgate, plus Oxheys which seemed to have had little more than a sparse market day service. Despite new housing near some former stations, I think the populations are much too low to support a rail service.

 

[randyrippley]

It's about a 10 minute walk from the center of campus to the point where the railway line passes the University. Admittedly maybe 15 minutes to the furthest points of the campus. In most parts of the country, a 10 minute walk to the station doesn't seem to stop people (including students) using trains.



Really? Strange then that the town was still full of students around 1990, when I lived there (as a student). Maybe, sometime after then, students had a sudden fright of 'Hey, there were floods here 20 years ago. We should stop living here!'.

And, if your theory is correct, even more strange that the fact that parts of Lancaster city centre itself have flooded a couple of times since 2000 has apparently not put students off living there.

The student flat blocks in the town centre were all designed to be flood resilient with accommodation above flood level and protected services. In addition the Mill Race was relined, and new storm flaps fitted. The post-2000 floods, even Storm Desmond were nowhere near as bad as due to the better protection. Back in 1977 there was no sea wall in Morecambe, the entire West End and much of Poulton was flooded and the buildings ruined with new plaster and cabling needed. I've forgotten how many students had to be evacuated into emergency accommodation, but it was a lot. Then in 1981 it happened again..........Perhaps a few went back, but it was never the same. One fall out from the 1977 flood was that we'd been negotiating to purchase the Yorkshire Brewer (aka Tivoli Gardens) pub as a student social centre, but after the first flood held back. It was a correct decision as there was no-one left in Morecambe to use it. Instead we took over the Sugar House in Lancaster as the student focus had moved there.

The intermediate stations between Preston & Preston mostly closed long before Beeching/Marples. The last survivors were Garstang & Catterall (over a mile from Garstang) and Bay Horse (which seemed to serve little more than a hotel of that name. ) The other stations were Barton & Broughton, Brock, Scorton and Galgate, plus Oxheys which seemed to have had little more than a sparse market day service. Despite new housing near some former stations, I think the populations are much too low to support a rail service.

Bay Horse served the village of Forton, more or less one street.
Remember that when built those stations primarily existed to shift coal and building stone in, and more importantly farming products out. I suspect Bay Horse also catered for shooting parties at the various Bowland grouse estates

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The student flat blocks in the town centre were all designed to be flood resilient with accommodation above flood level and protected services. In addition the Mill Race was relined, and new storm flaps fitted. The post-2000 floods, even Storm Desmond were nowhere near as bad as due to the better protection. Back in 1977 there was no sea wall in Morecambe, the entire West End and much of Poulton was flooded and the buildings ruined with new plaster and cabling needed. I've forgotten how many students had to be evacuated into emergency accommodation, but it was a lot. Then in 1981 it happened again..........Perhaps a few went back, but it was never the same. One fall out from the 1977 flood was that we'd been negotiating to purchase the Yorkshire Brewer (aka Tivoli Gardens) pub as a student social centre, but after the first flood held back. It was a correct decision as there was no-one left in Morecambe to use it. Instead we took over the Sugar House in Lancaster as the student focus had moved there.

Oh that's interesting. So that sounds like you were around there in the late 1970s and I was there about 10 years later. So putting all that with what I recall, it sounds like the student population fell in Morecambe after 1977/81 due to the floods, but by 1990ish it was still significant. (Maybe it went up again since by 1985 most students would have had no knowledge of the previous floods?). Then at some point since 1990, the Uni student population in Morecambe pretty much went what now seems to be virtually zero. I assume that's partly due to more accommodation available in Lancaster, and partly because as congestion in Lancaster has steadily got worse, travel times from Morecambe have become less and less attractive. I haven't lived in the area the entire time, so not too sure of timelines for that decline. Related but not quite the same thing, I recall around 1997-8 the Carleton nightclub in Morecambe was one of the main student clubbing venues - that's now closed down.

 

[amywok]

Lancaster University has around 17,000 students and offers 7,000 beds to students on campus. With around 3,500 staff that's over 13,000 staff travelling to campus although many don't travel every day and of course there are the 4 months of vacations.

Concentration of students towards the City Centre away from South Lancaster will accelerate as the new accommodation blocks open at Bulk Road, Wheatfield St, Dalton Sq, Moor Lane and Caton Court phase 2 all of which will put more pressure on the buses and congestion. So the need for a more sustainable and less congesting model of travel to campus will accelerate over the coming years.

 

[zwk500]

So the need for a more sustainable and less congesting model of travel to campus will accelerate over the coming years.

But given university travel patterns, a 10-minute interval electric bus is likely to fulfill this need better than the railway ever could. That's not to say a station will never be built at Bailrigg, but a train isn't always the best way to serve traffic within the same town.

 

[randyrippley]

Lancaster University has around 17,000 students and offers 7,000 beds to students on campus. With around 3,500 staff that's over 13,000 staff travelling to campus although many don't travel every day and of course there are the 4 months of vacations.

Concentration of students towards the City Centre away from South Lancaster will accelerate as the new accommodation blocks open at Bulk Road, Wheatfield St, Dalton Sq, Moor Lane and Caton Court phase 2 all of which will put more pressure on the buses and congestion. So the need for a more sustainable and less congesting model of travel to campus will accelerate over the coming years.

And whatever the answer is, it is not a mile walk uphill in the wrong direction to catch a two mile train ride followed by another half mile uphill walk.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the need for a more sustainable and less congesting model of travel to campus will accelerate over the coming years.

A regular electric bus service is the answer to that. Stopping trains on the main line at a new station south of Lancaster will create lots of congestion on the railway.

 

[William3000]

Is it because the intermediate stations are so rural that they can't even support a station?

There is a short section of 4 tracking by Lancaster university at Ballrigg. Could be potential for a station there but for students to use it, it would need a regular service. I can’t see long distance trains stopping there and for it to be attractive to students it would need to be at least half hourly

 

[zwk500]

There is a short section of 4 tracking by Lancaster university at Ballrigg. Could be potential for a station there but for students to use it, it would need a regular service. I can’t see long distance trains stopping there and for it to be attractive to students it would need to be at least half hourly

Believe that's Oxheys Goods loops. Would need a bit of work to upgrade it for passenger service, the turnout speeds are horrendous. It's also not 4-tracking, as it's just a loop, so passenger trains if being overtaken would need to dwell for a minimum of 6 minutes, and would likely be delaying the train behind while trotting into the loop. Oh, and you'd need to make sure freight wasn't using the loop at the same time as the passenger, which if it's a half-hourly service may be a problem.
4-tracking through to Lancaster involves 10 or so bridge rebuilds, substantial land take, and demolition. Similarly if you tried to extend southwards you'd have to take houses down in Galgate. That's a lot of money for a student hopper. The reasonable limit of a dynamic loop (Galgate Salford Road to Cinder/Uggle Lane overbridge) is about 3.5km or 2 miles, which would allow margins to be reduced slightly and turnout speeds of 60mph or so, but still it's a hell of a lot of money for extraordinarily marginal benefit.

Building Bailrigg on the 2-track and timing the stopper to recess at Lancaster would be by far the more sensible option.

 

[The Planner]

Believe that's Oxheys Goods loops. Would need a bit of work to upgrade it for passenger service, the turnout speeds are horrendous. It's also not 4-tracking, as it's just a loop, so passenger trains if being overtaken would need to dwell for a minimum of 6 minutes, and would likely be delaying the train behind while trotting into the loop. Oh, and you'd need to make sure freight wasn't using the loop at the same time as the passenger, which if it's a half-hourly service may be a problem.
4-tracking through to Lancaster involves 10 or so bridge rebuilds, substantial land take, and demolition. Similarly if you tried to extend southwards you'd have to take houses down in Galgate. That's a lot of money for a student hopper. The reasonable limit of a dynamic loop (Galgate Salford Road to Cinder/Uggle Lane overbridge) is about 3.5km or 2 miles, which would allow margins to be reduced slightly and turnout speeds of 60mph or so, but still it's a hell of a lot of money for extraordinarily marginal benefit.

Building Bailrigg on the 2-track and timing the stopper to recess at Lancaster would be by far the more sensible option.

Oxheys is on the up just north of Preston. Oubeck loops are by Lancaster and of no use at all to Intermodal as they are too short, you would use Lancaster P5 if you needed to recess one if you couldn't get it to Oxheys. Barton and Broughton going the other way.

 

[zwk500]

Oxheys is on the up just north of Preston. Oubeck loops are by Lancaster and of no use at all to Intermodal as they are too short, you would use Lancaster P5 if you needed to recess one if you couldn't get it to Oxheys. Barton and Broughton going the other way.

Ta, been a while since I'd looked at the loops up that way.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But given university travel patterns, a 10-minute interval electric bus is likely to fulfill this need better than the railway ever could. That's not to say a station will never be built at Bailrigg, but a train isn't always the best way to serve traffic within the same town.

I think for most students and staff living in Lancaster, that is correct. But with something like 16K students plus staff, most of whom will need to travel there most days, the minority who would like to come from further afield or who for whatever reason would be happy to use the train and walk from a station at Bailrigg would be more than sufficient to justify a station and a regular rail service. The problem is the work required - including 4-tracking - that would be required to provide the additional services.

4-tracking through to Lancaster involves 10 or so bridge rebuilds, substantial land take, and demolition. Similarly if you tried to extend southwards you'd have to take houses down in Galgate. That's a lot of money for a student hopper. The reasonable limit of a dynamic loop (Galgate Salford Road to Cinder/Uggle Lane overbridge) is about 3.5km or 2 miles, which would allow margins to be reduced slightly and turnout speeds of 60mph or so, but still it's a hell of a lot of money for extraordinarily marginal benefit.

Building Bailrigg on the 2-track and timing the stopper to recess at Lancaster would be by far the more sensible option.

I'm not convinced you'd need to 4-track through Lancaster itself: Pretty much everything stops there anyway so you're not likely to have expresses wanting to overtake commuter trains on the approaches to the station. And the station itself already has fast tracks that by-pass the platforms - although they seem to used mainly (and somewhat ironically) by slow moving freight. So I would expect that if you were to undertake this (huge) project) you could probably get away with just 4-tracking in the countryside between Lancaster and Preston, where it would be cheaper to do - and then some careful timetabling. Although I agree with you that Galgate is going to be a problem.

 

[zwk500]

I think for most students and staff living in Lancaster, that is correct. But with something like 16K students plus staff, most of whom will need to travel there most days, the minority who would like to come from further afield or who for whatever reason would be happy to use the train and walk from a station at Bailrigg would be more than sufficient to justify a station and a regular rail service. The problem is the work required - including 4-tracking - that would be required to provide the additional services.

A minority of the students are not going to pay the bills.

I'm not convinced you'd need to 4-track through Lancaster itself: Pretty much everything stops there anyway so you're not likely to have expresses wanting to overtake commuter trains on the approaches to the station. And the station itself already has fast tracks that by-pass the platforms - although they seem to used mainly (and somewhat ironically) by slow moving freight. So I would expect that if you were to undertake this (huge) project) you could probably get away with just 4-tracking in the countryside between Lancaster and Preston, where it would be cheaper to do - and then some careful timetabling.

If you're doing careful timetabling (and you'd need to), then given that you'd want the stoppers to connect into trains at Lancaster then the obvious answer is not to faff about with any 4-tracking anywhere and just time the stopper to arrive in Lancaster at a suitable time ahead of the express and to depart southbound at an equally suitable time southbound behind an express.
Any track work you did do would be to lengthen loops or improve turnout speeds so that freight could be held outside platforms to avoid trapping the stopper.

A 195 currently takes 17 minutes stop-stop between Preston and Lancaster including allowances. You can add 2-3 minutes for each station stop, so 1 additional station at Bailrigg would be a 20 minute journey time (2' for the station call and 1' extra for crossing to P5 at Lancaster), gives 10 minutes at each end to turn round. However Preston-Lancaster and that's it would be a very poor utilisation of the crew and stock.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have to agree - at least when it comes to this forum. There are a lot of posters who are very eager to explain to you why the current state of the railways is the ideal one. Some of them work in the industry but without actual surveys how representive their views are is unknown.

This isn't accurate - you can find plenty of examples where posters who explain the realities also express frustration at the state of things.

Indeed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A minority of the students are not going to pay the bills.

If even 5% of students plus staff used it for their normal commute, that's something like 800 people per day. Or 1600 entrances/exits at Bailrigg times 250 working days per year, which gives you a very respectful station usage of 400K/year. Yes I know, it'll be lower in the Uni holidays but on the other hand I haven't counted anything for weekend use, visitors, day trippers, etc. Consider also that many of the visitors will be coming from a long way away (students' friends and family visiting, academic visitors from other places, student open days, etc.) so there's the potential for a highish average fare income per passenger.

If you're doing careful timetabling (and you'd need to), then given that you'd want the stoppers to connect into trains at Lancaster then the obvious answer is not to faff about with any 4-tracking anywhere and just time the stopper to arrive in Lancaster at a suitable time ahead of the express and to depart southbound at an equally suitable time southbound behind an express.

Ahhhh... That sounds like the kind of perfect arrangement that I understand is quite normal for some countries on the continent, but somehow we almost never seem to be able to pull it off in the UK. We can dream... Seriously, it would be ideal, although I'd worry that anglo-Scottish services come from far enough away that getting significantly delayed is a very regular occurrence, and do you want those delays transferred to the (hypothetical) stopping commuter service.

Any track work you did do would be to lengthen loops or improve turnout speeds so that freight could be held outside platforms to avoid trapping the stopper.

Yeah, Southbound I would imagine you're talking, maybe some work on platform 5 - no major problems. Northbound is harder. You'd probably need to turn Platform 3 into an island platform, building another track through the taxi rank. That's serious building work.

A 195 currently takes 17 minutes stop-stop between Preston and Lancaster including allowances. You can add 2-3 minutes for each station stop, so 1 additional station at Bailrigg would be a 20 minute journey time (2' for the station call and 1' extra for crossing to P5 at Lancaster), gives 10 minutes at each end to turn round. However Preston-Lancaster and that's it would be a very poor utilisation of the crew and stock.

Agreed. That's partly why my suggestion was for a Preston-Morecambe service, with some other stops between Bailrigg and Preston (as a minimum, Preston Blackpool Road and Broughton Parkway). In principle, I'd prefer such a service to carry on further South, but that's a whole separate discussion. One minor advantage of doing it that way is you no longer have Morecambe services terminating at Lancaster, which makes rebuilding easier - less need for the terminating bays. Also you remove a conflicting move where the inbound service from Morecambe crosses the WCML tracks twice en route to Lancaster.