The proposed Eden Project North at Morecambe

[SouthernR]

Although the case might not be as good as it could, the fact that it was electrified until as recent as 1966* should mean that the bridge clearances are generally OK, - often the last weapon to spike any efforts to put wires up.

* Although that was the experimental 6.25kV 50Hz installation (and 6.5kV 25Hz since LNWR days), as the conversion from 6.25kV to full 25kV on the GEML Glasgow lines and Manchester approaches, was completed with minimal new civils work other than OLE components.

The existing (LNWR) Morecambe branch has never been electrified. It has 3 overbridges, one of which also crosses the branch to Heysham, which was electrified.

The station on the sea front was closed many years ago and the replacement is 400 yards further inland.

The station is about 300m from the EPN entrance, the old one was about 150m.

The planning application documents include a diagram showing an additional shuttle bus to Lancaster centre, but I can't find any text references.
Carnforth Town Council are suggesting a rail shuttle to Carnforth, which sounds like a non-starter.
I wondered about extending the Morecambe trains to a new station at Bailrigg, for Lancaster University and the proposed garden village.
Or even running direct trains between Windermere and Morecambe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Carnforth Town Council are suggesting a rail shuttle to Carnforth, which sounds like a non-starter.

Carnforth wouldn't be able to cope with the traffic, so that indeed makes no sense.

A shuttle bus to Lancaster (rather than to the M6 P&R site) appears to be wasting the railway!

I wondered about extending the Morecambe trains to a new station at Bailrigg, for Lancaster University and the proposed garden village.

Problem is you'd need an extra track on the WCML for them not to get in the way.

Or even running direct trains between Windermere and Morecambe.

TPE actually used to run that once daily as a stock positioner of some sort, if I recall.

 

[AM9]

It's a totally different route, which is now a cycle path (but where I suggested a tram from the P&R would be quite cool if too expensive). The "Greyhound Bridge", now a road bridge, is part of it.

The only commonality of route between that and the current route was about 1km at the Morecambe end.

There are three overbridges on the branch:
West End Road, - looks old enough to have been there when the OLE was installed
Lancaster Road, - maybe a bit tighjt but nothing serious on a low speed branch
Broadway, - same as Lancaster Road
The total length from the WCML junction to the old line junction is 3.1km, in pure electrification terms, quite an easy win to remove diesel under wires as far away as Manchester and for another 1.25 miles of single track wiring, a similar effect on trains to/from the north.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you've got a direct service from either of those two, electrify and be done. You can then also electrify any shuttles from Lancaster.

Battery trains could easily cope with shuttles to Lancaster. That might be the answer here.

And if our Northern operators and their treasury handlers had the commercial acumen to introduce some sort of group save offer, the railway would be better off to take advantage of that family market.

I suspect there will be some sort of train+entrance deal available. It’s the obvious thing to do for an ‘environmental’ attraction. And mentioned in the planning application.

Or rejuvenate the mail platform (at Preston) as was done at Leeds some decades ago.

Ah, but then this would be lumbered with that cost. And even then, the capacity limit of the junction comes into play. Out of interest - if you could have one thing, direct electric trains to Morecambe from Preston, or Fleetwood reopened, which would you have?

Why not do it properly and do both? It's only a short branch line

Electrification is certainly worth considering. But as I said, it’s almost the perfect trial site for battery trains.

 

[yorksrob]

Battery trains could easily cope with shuttles to Lancaster. That might be the answer here.

Batteries use scarce resources and have to be carted around using energy. We should use them sparingly where electrification isn't viable.

That's not the Morecambe line.

I suspect there will be some sort of train+entrance deal available. It’s the obvious thing to do for an ‘environmental’ attraction. And mentioned in the planning application.

Hardly innovation considering every train company does them. The Northern TOC's are in the dark ages.

Ah, but then this would be lumbered with that cost. And even then, the capacity limit of the junction comes into play. Out of interest - if you could have one thing, direct electric trains to Morecambe from Preston, or Fleetwood reopened, which would you have?

That's a strange question to ask. No one asked me "what would you rather have, Crossrail or IEP ?" The railway should be de-carbonising and serving new passenger markets.

I notice that the railway industry managed to electrify the Skipton/Ilkley and reinstate platform W at Leeds. Why is it now so enfeebled that it can't do a similar, smaller scale upgrade now !

 

[Bald Rick]

That's a strange question to ask. No one asked me "what would you rather have, Crossrail or IEP ?" The railway should be de-carbonising and serving new passenger markets.

that’s because they didn’t use the same piece of infrastructure. A new through service to Morecambe, and a new service to Fleetwood would, specifically Preston Fylde junction.

 

[yorksrob]

that’s because they didn’t use the same piece of infrastructure. A new through service to Morecambe, and a new service to Fleetwood would, specifically Preston Fylde junction.

Well, if it came to it, you could make connections at Lancaster as now. It would still be good to have a through service to Manchester or Liverpool.

 

[Bevan Price]

Morecambe is a different type of tourist destination to rural Cornwall, though - it is and probably always will be more of a day-trip destination, either a day-trip from the nearby North West cities, for locals from Lancaster* or as a stop-off on the way to/from the Lakes from down South. It is more comparable to Southport than Cornwall.

Obviously those stopping off will do so by car, and provided the security is good enough the M6 P&R will suit those people well. The railway isn't in a position to provide P&R because you specifically don't want that traffic in central Lancaster which is already horribly congested, and Bare is a residential area that doesn't want it either.

However, attracting day-trip traffic by train from the North West cities (and to a lesser extent Leeds) would be a positive thing to do, possibly involving some sort of all-inclusive "train plus attraction" ticketing, or the 2-for-1 thing you get/got in London.

* Before anyone says "but locals will use the bus", in my observation the train is mostly used by locals and people by and large aren't connecting onto other services.

The Lancaster / Morecambe buses can be painfully slow, allowing time for the all too frequent traffic queues (mainly) in summer, but having to spend lots of "waiting time" if traffic is quiet. Last time I used them, several years ago, it took almost 30 minutes, of which almost 15 minutes was "waiting time".

 

[30907]

Well, if it came to it, you could make connections at Lancaster as now. It would still be good to have a through service to Manchester or Liverpool.

Of the two, Liverpool would have the advantage of catering for Liverpool-Lancaster traffic as well, if we can squeeze another path through Preston.

 

[AM9]

Electrification is certainly worth considering. But as I said, it’s almost the perfect trial site for battery trains.

But the Eden project would be built well before even a trial battery train is allowed to slot in on the busy WCML. I know that the Harwich trial was tested years ago, but that:
ran from a bay platform and didn't need to go on the main line at all
was a modified EMU and ran on alive 25Kv ac line which was always there to power it in its native mode if it had a failure on the battery side
Running from Lancaster to the branch involves running for 3km on the main line and traversing both mainline tracks twice per visit to Lancaster over single lead crossovers/junctions. Surely that would be too risky for the experimental train to disrupt WCML services.

 

[MarkyT]

Battery trains could easily cope with shuttles to Lancaster. That might be the answer here.
...
Electrification is certainly worth considering. But as I said, it’s almost the perfect trial site for battery trains.

Indeed. Twin electric bays at north end of Lancaster* so ability to have one train on slow charging layover, and available for boarding, while the other is shuttling to Morecombe and back. Use OHLE to junction then battery. Fairly small battery required.

* weird wiring on #1 that makes buffer stop end unavailable to electric for approx 2 car lengths (https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/25/251/), but could probably be adjusted at moderate cost I guess.

Speculative idea: Bi-di on at least down line (suggested previously in another thread by edwin_m) and some parallel junctions at north station throat and branch junction for ability to weave trains around each other in various directions to cater for real-time running conditions.

Note: Battery-equipped EMUs should prove more reliable than standard EMUs. They could even plausibly run a limited number of journeys when the wires were completely isolated temporarily over the electrified section of the route, say following a fault, emergency or for some planned maintenance activity.

 

[yorksrob]

Of the two, Liverpool would have the advantage of catering for Liverpool-Lancaster traffic as well, if we can squeeze another path through Preston.

Yes, I could see that. Presumably an existing service could be extended from Wigan.

Indeed. Twin electric bays at north end of Lancaster* so ability to have one train on slow charging layover, and available for boarding, while the other is shuttling to Morecombe and back. Use OHLE to junction then battery. Fairly small battery required.

* weird wiring on #1 that makes buffer stop end unavailable to electric for approx 2 car lengths (https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/25/251/), but could probably be adjusted at moderate cost I guess.

Speculative idea: Bi-di on at least down line (suggested previously in another thread by edwin_m) and some parallel junctions at north station throat and branch junction for ability to weave trains around each other in various directions to cater for real-time running conditions.

Note: Battery-equipped EMUs should prove more reliable than standard EMUs. They could even plausibly run a limited number of journeys when the wires were completely isolated temporarily over the electrified section of the route, say following a fault, emergency or for some planned maintenance activity.

Those bay platforms also get a good collection of Leeds and Barrow services using them, so you'd have to be careful with capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

But the Eden project would be built well before even a trial battery train is allowed to slot in on the busy WCML. I know that the Harwich trial was tested years ago, but that:
ran from a bay platform and didn't need to go on the main line at all
was a modified EMU and ran on alive 25Kv ac line which was always there to power it in its native mode if it had a failure on the battery side
Running from Lancaster to the branch involves running for 3km on the main line and traversing both mainline tracks twice per visit to Lancaster over single lead crossovers/junctions. Surely that would be too risky for the experimental train to disrupt WCML services.

This would be for a trial site for a production train, which would also operate on the 25kV. There’s no more risk here than running any other new train (With the exception of pan up / pan down south of the junction).

I’m not saying it will happen, just that it is a perfect site for it.
.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would be for a trial site for a production train, which would also operate on the 25kV. There’s no more risk here than running any other new train (With the exception of pan up / pan down south of the junction).

I’m not saying it will happen, just that it is a perfect site for it.
.

Agreed, simple and self contained.

TBH I think a couple of 3-car battery 230s would be perfect if they are more reliable than the rather poor diesel version. In particular the Tube style interior layout, which would offer a seat for all in normal times but deal well with heavy loadings if there are a lot of visitors on a particular day/time.

In essence, it is sort of a vastly less posh and Northern version of the Windsor line, which would also suit the Tube style interior well for the same reasons.

 

[30907]

Yes, I could see that. Presumably an existing service could be extended from Wigan.

Or give St Helen's a 4th TPH if Lime Street can cope.

 

[muddythefish]

This would be for a trial site for a production train, which would also operate on the 25kV. There’s no more risk here than running any other new train (With the exception of pan up / pan down south of the junction).

I’m not saying it will happen, just that it is a perfect site for it.
.

I used to travel on Euston-Morecambe trains hauled by a Class 50 in BR days. With a "world-class" tourist site as a destination wouldn't an ambitious railway be seeking the return of these sorts of trains instead of a branch line shuttle?

 

[Bald Rick]

I used to travel on Euston-Morecambe trains hauled by a Class 50 in BR days. With a "world-class" tourist site as a destination wouldn't an ambitious railway be seeking the return of these sorts of trains instead of a branch line shuttle?

No, definitely not. That would be what a railway trying its best to go bust would do.

The site will be ticketed with specified arrival times; it’s expected that, typically, a few hundred people an hour will arrive from all directions. That doesn’t suit a train with 500 people from one direction, that would then sit doing nothing for half a day. And I’m not sure that 246 litres of 55 year old Diesel engine rocking up then idling away for 6 hours suits the mise-en-scene of an environmental attraction.

 

[yorksrob]

No, definitely not. That would be what a railway trying its best to go bust would do.

The site will be ticketed with specified arrival times; it’s expected that, typically, a few hundred people an hour will arrive from all directions. That doesn’t suit a train with 500 people from one direction, that would then sit doing nothing for half a day. And I’m not sure that 246 litres of 55 year old Diesel engine rocking up then idling away for 6 hours suits the mise-en-scene of an environmental attraction.

Get a class 87 then !

 

[6Gman]

I used to travel on Euston-Morecambe trains hauled by a Class 50 in BR days. With a "world-class" tourist site as a destination wouldn't an ambitious railway be seeking the return of these sorts of trains instead of a branch line shuttle?

When was there last a direct train from London to Morecambe other than the boat trains to Heysham?

And the boat trains to Heysham ran because there was still a market for "classic" travel to the island of Ireland, a market which scarcely exists today (lost to the car ferries and the discount air operators).

 

[JKF]

Won’t a fair proportion of the traffic come from people already holidaying in the area, such as at Blackpool or the lakes? These people aren’t going to be an easy target for train travel.

 

[DerekC]

Noting that the MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale is one David Morris - Conservative with a fairly small majority, I would have thought that funding for the scheme itself is very likely. He has Michael Gove on board, it seems - see below. I don't see any mention of railways, though.

https://www.davidmorris.org.uk/news/michael-gove-promises-help-deliver-eden-project-morecambe

During today's statement on Levelling Up Secretary of State for Michael Gove MP promised to help David Morris MP secure funding for Eden Project North following the planning application being successfully passed on Monday.

During the statement David Morris MP asked:

‘Madam Deputy Speaker the Eden Project North gained planning permission on Monday. Five long years, we got there in the end!

I’ll put it bluntly how can my Rt Hon Friend help the Eden Project North? The Sooner he helps me the sooner I can shut up about it and I can get on to the next project in my Constituency’

In response Michael Gove MP said:

‘The Eden Project North has two brilliant advocates my Hon Friend and the Prime Minister and I know I won’t be long in this job if I don’t deliver for both of them.’

 

[simonw]

Won’t a fair proportion of the traffic come from people already holidaying in the area, such as at Blackpool or the lakes? These people aren’t going to be an easy target for train travel.

This.

Much as I am a fan of railways, projects like this are not what the railway serves well. The railway should concentrate on doing what it does best, this was the message of Beechings report 60 years ago and remains the case today.

 

[yorksrob]

This.

Much as I am a fan of railways, projects like this are not what the railway serves well. The railway should concentrate on doing what it does best, this was the message of Beechings report 60 years ago and remains the case today.

Just because there will be many people holidaying in the region who are likely to attend, doesn't mean that there won't be more locally based day-trippers many of whom will find the train a good option.

Secondly, what relevance at all has the Beeching report to this case. No one is suggesting that the Morecambe line be closed. With the Eden Project on the station doorstep (something not the case in St Austell) the choice is how to make the best of the potential market.

 

[Ken H]

This.

Much as I am a fan of railways, projects like this are not what the railway serves well. The railway should concentrate on doing what it does best, this was the message of Beechings report 60 years ago and remains the case today.

If carting a reasonable number of people on a daily basis to a leisure facility on existing track is not 'what the railway does well', what is the railway for?

 

[simonw]

Just because there will be many people holidaying in the region who are likely to attend, doesn't mean that there won't be more locally based day-trippers many of whom will find the train a good option.

Secondly, what relevance at all has the Beeching report to this case. No one is suggesting that the Morecambe line be closed. With the Eden Project on the station doorstep (something not the case in St Austell) the choice is how to make the best of the potential market.

Yes some people will come by train but the overwhelming majority will come by coach or car. You may wish to travel everywhere by train, but the majority of the population are more concerned about convenience not the actual mode of transport and if coach or car are more suited they will take these as they do for the majority of their transport needs

The Beeching report was about the railway concentrating on what it does best, this is not operating a shuttle along a short branch line.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes some people will come by train but the overwhelming majority will come by coach or car. You may wish to travel everywhere by train, but the majority of the population are more concerned about convenience not the actual mode of transport and if coach or car are more suited they will take these as they do for the majority of their transport needs

The Beeching report was about the railway concentrating on what it does best, this is not operating a shuttle along a short branch line.

The whole mantra about the railway "concentrating on what it does best" has always been half-baked nonsense, as illustrated by the fact that such a network has never been politically acceptable.

In the case of Morecambe, it matters not that some people will come by car or coach. There will be plenty of individuals and families who choose the train for outings. The question is how the railway will maximize this. Extending some services from the metropolitan areas would be a potential way of doing this.

 

[simonw]

The whole mantra about the railway "concentrating on what it does best" has always been half-baked nonsense, as illustrated by the fact that such a network has never been politically acceptable.

In the case of Morecambe, it matters not that some people will come by car or coach. There will be plenty of individuals and families who choose the train for outings. The question is how the railway will maximize this. Extending some services from the metropolitan areas would be a potential way of doing this.

There will be a few families who might decide to go by train not plenty.

You are entitled to your view, oft expressed in this forum, that the railway should do things that it is not well suited to, but don't be surprised that the majority doesn't agree with you.

 

[yorksrob]

There will be a few families who might decide to go by train not plenty.

You are entitled to your view, oft expressed in this forum, that the railway should do things that it is not well suited to, but don't be surprised that the majority doesn't agree with you.

The majority clearly has agreed with me for the last sixty years at least, otherwise we wouldn't have the network that we have currently.

 

[simonw]

If carting a reasonable number of people on a daily basis to a leisure facility on existing track is not 'what the railway does well', what is the railway for?

From the figures quoted above your definition of 'a reasonable number ' is not the same as mine
As to what is the railway for, I would suggest that a modern railway is good at:

Moving people long distance at speed (usually city/town centre to city/town centre).

Providing access to town centres for (mainly) commuter traffic where it is more economical to do so than to provide the equivalent road facilities.

Moving bulk freight and containers where cost effective to do so.

 

[6Gman]

From the figures quoted above your definition of 'a reasonable number ' is not the same as mine
As to what is the railway for, I would suggest that a modern railway is good at:

Moving people long distance at speed (usually city/town centre to city/town centre).

Providing access to town centres for (mainly) commuter traffic where it is more economical to do so than to provide the equivalent road facilities.

Moving bulk freight and containers where cost effective to do so.

And branch lines can, in certain circumstances, contribute to that role.

Including feeding a proportion of people into attractions such as Eden Project North (EPN).

However the response on here to potential new growth is often a little optimistic, shall we say.

One of the problems with judging what will happen at EPN is that there doesn't really seem to be any reasonable comparison - the Cornish EP is in a very different area and not ideal by public transport; Chester Zoo has a bigger attendance and decent bus links to Chester station. EPN is within walking distance of a station.

My judgement is that the rail market will be useful (might mean the shuttle will justify a 3car vice a 2car or equivalent) but is unlikely to justify the more optimistic suggestions such as through trains to various locations.