WCML - Settle-Carlisle link?

[quantinghome]

There are a number of problems on the northern WCML and Settle-Carlisle:

- Constrained capacity on WCML due to mixed speed running.
- Settle-Carlisle is slow...
- and it doesn't serve Penrith.

So how about building a short link between the two from south of Penrith to north of Appleby. This will allow S-C passenger trains to run 20 minutes quicker and also serve Penrith. THEN, freight trains can use the S-C north of Appleby to Carlisle, essentially acting as a very long dynamic freight loop for the WCML.

Can someone with more knowledge than me explain why this is probably a bad idea?

 

[Purple Orange]

I think this will be addressed by high speed bypasses on the WCML. When HS2 is eventually running with phase 1, phase 2b is under construction and the scope of NPR is properly sorted out, I think we will see the next stage of High Speed Rail proposals in the UK. One of those might be for faster journeys to Scotland, which could happen on either the ECML or WCML.

 

[318266]

There are a number of problems on the northern WCML and Settle-Carlisle:

- Constrained capacity on WCML due to mixed speed running.
- Settle-Carlisle is slow...
- and it doesn't serve Penrith.

So how about building a short link between the two from south of Penrith to north of Appleby. This will allow S-C passenger trains to run 20 minutes quicker and also serve Penrith. THEN, freight trains can use the S-C north of Appleby to Carlisle, essentially acting as a very long dynamic freight loop for the WCML.

Can someone with more knowledge than me explain why this is probably a bad idea?

There are stations between Appleby and Carlisle that would be left unserved.

 

[The Planner]

So how about building a short link between the two from south of Penrith to north of Appleby. This will allow S-C passenger trains to run 20 minutes quicker and also serve Penrith. THEN, freight trains can use the S-C north of Appleby to Carlisle, essentially acting as a very long dynamic freight loop for the WCML.

Can someone with more knowledge than me explain why this is probably a bad idea?

Very long loop being the operative words. Its an extra 40 odd miles.

 

[quantinghome]

There are stations between Appleby and Carlisle that would be left unserved.

Yes, you could have a shuttle between Appleby and Carlisle for these. If you wanted - those stations have pretty low usage.

Very long loop being the operative words. Its an extra 40 odd miles.

I'm thinking the freight trains would use the WCML up to a few miles south of Penrith, then use the new link across to the S-C near Temple Sowerby. So only a few miles extra.

 

[Whistler40145]

Could the former line from Tebay towards Appleby not be reinstated and brought up to mainline standards?

 

[Gloster]

There used to be a line from Appleby to Penrith, which originally had a south facing junction at Clifton (south of Penrith). The curve to the south facing junction was removed in 1937, and the rest of the line closed just before Beeching. I think that there is a fair height difference where this line passes under the S&C just north of Appleby.

EDIT: It looks as though a fair amount of the formation has disappeared under the A66.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, you could have a shuttle between Appleby and Carlisle for these. If you wanted - those stations have pretty low usage.


I'm thinking the freight trains would use the WCML up to a few miles south of Penrith, then use the new link across to the S-C near Temple Sowerby. So only a few miles extra.

What sort of layout are you assuming here? flat triangle junctions on both the WCML and S&C?

 

[zwk500]

So how about building a short link between the two from south of Penrith to north of Appleby. This will allow S-C passenger trains to run 20 minutes quicker and also serve Penrith. THEN, freight trains can use the S-C north of Appleby to Carlisle, essentially acting as a very long dynamic freight loop for the WCML.
Can someone with more knowledge than me explain why this is probably a bad idea?

I'm thinking the freight trains would use the WCML up to a few miles south of Penrith, then use the new link across to the S-C near Temple Sowerby. So only a few miles extra.

I'm slightly confused about if you're proposing just a penrith-appleby link, or triangular junctions to allow northbound freight to loop off the WCML? I can't see why this money wouldn't be better spent increasing capacity on the Preston-Blackburn-Clitheroe-Hellifiel-S&C route, possibly with a change at farington junction to remove the conflict between freight from Wigan direction and the fast lines. Not that there's much of a problem anyway as you can regulate at Euxton Jn if needed.

Could the former line from Tebay towards Appleby not be reinstated and brought up to mainline standards?

You wouldn't reinstate then bring up to mainline standards, you'd rebuild the line from scratch, probably ignoring a fair amount of the formation. But also, why? Lancaster to Appleby must be a very small market, and if freight wants to divert it'll go via Blackburn.

 

[quantinghome]

What sort of layout are you assuming here? flat triangle junctions on both the WCML and S&C?

Yes. I'm not imagining there would be more than 2-3 tph using the link, but it would free the WCML from Penrith to Carlisle of slow moving freight, which may improve capacity. AND the added bonus is improving Leeds-Carlisle journey times, possible enough to get a direct Leeds-Glasgow service going.

But also, why? Lancaster to Appleby must be a very small market, and if freight wants to divert it'll go via Blackburn.

I'd not even considered Lancaster to Appleby as a market. It would helpful to have a direct Appleby-Penrith service. But that wouldn't be the main driver by any means.

I started this thinking that S-C was possibly a useful line to divert freight onto in order to drastically improve WCML capacity, but as others have said, it's a long diversion. So I wondered if there was any location to link the two together which would provide a long enough diversionary stretch to free up WCML capacity, and also provide other ancillary benefits.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I thought that the 'slow freight' issue was more to do with the steeper sections via Shap. What is to stop the predominantly intermodal freight trains running at close to 75mph between Penrith and Carlisle?

Presumably the 'extra' passenger trains diverted from the S&C would be relatively slow DMUs anyway. Not really clear that they would help the WCML capacity mix very much.

 

[zwk500]

Yes. I'm not imagining there would be more than 2-3 tph using the link, but it would free the WCML from Penrith to Carlisle of slow moving freight, which may improve capacity. AND the added bonus is improving Leeds-Carlisle journey times, possible enough to get a direct Leeds-Glasgow service going.

Leeds-Glasgow would be better served by headway upgrades on the S&C (and maybe a couple of speed upgrades)

I'd not even considered Lancaster to Appleby as a market. It would helpful to have a direct Appleby-Penrith service. But that wouldn't be the main driver by any means.

I started this thinking that S-C was possibly a useful line to divert freight onto in order to drastically improve WCML capacity, but as others have said, it's a long diversion. So I wondered if there was any location to link the two together which would provide a long enough diversionary stretch to free up WCML capacity, and also provide other ancillary benefits.

As has been discussed with other brand new lines, diverting freight rarely makes a business case. Slow lines on the uphill sections to allow dynamic passing would be a much better way to spend the money.

I thought that the 'slow freight' issue was more to do with the steeper sections via Shap.

It is, especially in the Down direction as there's fewer loops to use

What is to stop the predominantly intermodal freight trains running at close to 75mph between Penrith and Carlisle?

the 1600 dead tonnes behind the loco. Class 4 freight might be permitted at up to 75mph, but it rarely reaches it without favourable conditions.

Presumably the 'extra' passenger trains diverted from the S&C would be relatively slow DMUs anyway. Not really clear that they would help the WCML capacity mix very much.

They wouldn't, although with careful timing it's entirely possible they wouldn't hurt it either if they're only going penith-carlisle Carlisle.

 

[alistairlees]

There used to be a line from Appleby to Penrith, which originally had a south facing junction at Clifton (south of Penrith). The curve to the south facing junction was removed in 1937, and the rest of the line closed just before Beeching. I think that there is a fair height difference where this line passes under the S&C just north of Appleby.

EDIT: It looks as though a fair amount of the formation has disappeared under the A66.

Only a few hundred metres are affected by the A66

 

[HSTEd]

I thought that the 'slow freight' issue was more to do with the steeper sections via Shap. What is to stop the predominantly intermodal freight trains running at close to 75mph between Penrith and Carlisle?

The puny installed power of a Class 66 primarily.

 

[Hey 3]

Yes. I'm not imagining there would be more than 2-3 tph using the link, but it would free the WCML from Penrith to Carlisle of slow moving freight, which may improve capacity. AND the added bonus is improving Leeds-Carlisle journey times, possible enough to get a direct Leeds-Glasgow service going.


I'd not even considered Lancaster to Appleby as a market. It would helpful to have a direct Appleby-Penrith service. But that wouldn't be the main driver by any means.

I started this thinking that S-C was possibly a useful line to divert freight onto in order to drastically improve WCML capacity, but as others have said, it's a long diversion. So I wondered if there was any location to link the two together which would provide a long enough diversionary stretch to free up WCML capacity, and also provide other ancillary benefits.

Leeds-Glasgow would be better served as London-Glasgow via the ECML and Leeds.

 

[RT4038]

Only a few hundred metres are affected by the A66

There are two short sections subsumed into the A66, one by Crackenthorpe just outside Appleby, and another before Kirkby Thore. Between Temple Sowerby and Clifton Moor parts of the former line have been ploughed back into fields.

However, as we have been told countless times on this forum, reinstating a former line (in this case closed completely from Clifton Moor to Appleby in 1962, and Clifton Moor not that long afterwards) will be the same as building from new anyway. It was a bucolic branch line, completely unsuited to modern requirements.

 

[Bigman]

I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the old MR/LNWR line from Clapham through Ingleton to meet the WCML at Lowgill. Seems to be very little of this line that has been repurposed/built on.

 

[Hardcastle]

I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the old MR/LNWR line from Clapham through Ingleton to meet the WCML at Lowgill. Seems to be very little of this line that has been repurposed/built on.

If only it would serve Sedbergh Kirkby Lonsdale & Ingleton all honey spots.

 

[zwk500]

I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the old MR/LNWR line from Clapham through Ingleton to meet the WCML at Lowgill. Seems to be very little of this line that has been repurposed/built on.

Mainly because rebuilding old lines usually doesn't serve the travel needs of today, and because an old formation that hasn't seen track for 50+ years is of very limited help to any new lines.

 

[HSTEd]

I would honestly prefer some sort of enormous "Shap Base Tunnel" from the vicinity of Burneside to the vicinity of Penrith.
This has the advantage of allowing WCML trains to run to Kendal instead of only Oxenholme.

Way more expensive but it potentially allows the line over Shap to be abandoned entirely, or retained only for slow freights (with no passengers it doesn't matter how long it takes the train to reach the top).

 

[tbtc]

I'm slightly surprised that nobody has suggested a station at Center Parcs, which could be a major selling point of a scheme like this (not that I'm wholly backing the proposal, just that it's a good hook for those wanting to justify it)

There's probably more of a market from Leeds/ Skipton/ Settle/ Appleby etc to Penrith (and vice versa) than there is for Leeds/ Skipton/ Settle/ Appleby etc to Langwathby/ Lazonby & Kirkoswald/ Armathwaite, so I can see that argument (which leave a 150 shuttling from Appleby to Carlisle every couple of hours?)

Many reasons against it, including the fact that you'd be spending a lot of money whilst making electrified freight even less likely on the WML (given the need to divert via Armthwaite etc)

I can't see why this money wouldn't be better spent increasing capacity on the Preston-Blackburn-Clitheroe-Hellifiel-S&C route

Lancaster to Appleby must be a very small market, and if freight wants to divert it'll go via Blackburn.

Yeah, the Clitheroe line is the elephant in the room here - if it's so important to get diesel hauled freight off the WCML (and the slow climb at Shap) then surely you'd just divert it via Clitheroe - the S&C is double track with only a bi-hourly passenger train so there's surely a lot of capacity for WCML freights to be diverted

I thought that the 'slow freight' issue was more to do with the steeper sections via Shap

This is the problem - the problem with the freight is Shap - coming up with a plan that doesn't reduce the number of freight trains struggling up and over Shap isn't much help

Presumably the 'extra' passenger trains diverted from the S&C would be relatively slow DMUs anyway. Not really clear that they would help the WCML capacity mix very much.

Another problem, given the fact hat S&C passenger services are probably always going to be pathed at 75mph, given the fact that you can't 100% guarantee a 90mph/100mph unit would always be allocated

Leeds-Glasgow would be better served by headway upgrades on the S&C (and maybe a couple of speed upgrades)

Leeds-Glasgow would be better served as London-Glasgow via the ECML and Leeds.

If Leeds to Glasgow is so important then the easy thing to do do double the existing frequency would be just one extra Voyager (i.e. extending XC's existing Leeds - Edinburgh services that don't already extend to Glasgow)

But London - Leeds - Settle - Carlisle - Glasgow? Really?

 

[zwk500]

If Leeds to Glasgow is so important then the easy thing to do do double the existing frequency would be just one extra Voyager (i.e. extending XC's existing Leeds - Edinburgh services that don't already extend to Glasgow)

But London - Leeds - Settle - Carlisle - Glasgow? Really?

London-Leeds-Glasgow is not going to happen, but Leeds-Edinburgh-Glasgow does involve a dog-leg via Carstairs. If you could raise the S&C to 90mph ruling linespeed and guarantee a 6-car 185 every 2 hours (don't think it would need more than that) then it could offer a useful link. Problem is of course the cost of the interventions required on the S&C will be out of proportion to the benefits.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm slightly surprised that nobody has suggested a station at Center Parcs, which could be a major selling point of a scheme like this (not that I'm wholly backing the proposal, just that it's a good hook for those wanting to justify it)

Being one of the very few people to have travelled to Center Parcs in this country by train, I can advise that even if there was a station at the front door of the place, the number of people who would use the train to get there would be minimal. You just have to look at what is contained within the average Center Parcs customer’s car on arrival to work out why.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Being one of the very few people to have travelled to Center Parcs in this country by train, I can advise that even if there was a station at the front door of the place, the number of people who would use the train to get there would be minimal. You just have to look at what is contained within the average Center Parcs customer’s car on arrival to work out why.

Sorry, Rick, but I am going to have to disagree with you there. As a regular visitor to various Center Parcs for 'large villa family re-union' type breaks the 'station runs' to Brandon, Flitwick, Mansfield/Newark Northgate/Chesterfield or wherever are a key part of the formula. (Gate staff recognise this too.)

Obviously 'full cars' are typical of families with younger children but plenty of people seem to be quite happy to travel light and then eat out, hire equipment and so on. All they need is for another member of the party to pick them up. (Taxis and CP's own shuttles between Flitwick and Woburn are alternatives, of course.)

 

[daodao]

There are a number of problems on the northern WCML and Settle-Carlisle:

- Constrained capacity on WCML due to mixed speed running.
- Settle-Carlisle is slow...
- and it doesn't serve Penrith.

So how about building a short link between the two from south of Penrith to north of Appleby. This will allow S-C passenger trains to run 20 minutes quicker and also serve Penrith. THEN, freight trains can use the S-C north of Appleby to Carlisle, essentially acting as a very long dynamic freight loop for the WCML.

Can someone with more knowledge than me explain why this is probably a bad idea?

Solution looking for a problem.

As others have pointed out, the problem (if any) on the WCML is slower freight traffic over Shap summit, which requires flighting of faster passenger services to maximise line capacity. The way to address this is probably the use of more powerful (?electric) locomotives for freight traffic, and extra freight loops on the slower uphill stretches of line.

The S&C is now essentially redundant as an alternative through route; virtually none of the through freight paths (which are relatively few compared to the WCML) are currently being used, and the passenger service is sparse (4 trains per day each way).

IMO, a regular fast passenger service from Leeds to Glasgow via the little NW line and a new short single line curve to join the WCML just north of Carnforth would provide the connectivity from the West Riding to Penrith suggested as desirable by the OP. Bi-modes could be used to avoid diesels running under the wires; 2 trains would be needed to provide 3 tpd Mon-Sat, with 2 tpd on Sun (5 trains would be needed for a 2-hourly service). Such a service could also call at Oxenholme for bus/rail connections to Kendal and the southern Lake District.

The S&C could then be closed north of Arcow quarry, together with Clitheroe-Hellifield, saving significant maintenance costs, albeit with the loss of the rail-borne freight direct to Newbiggin Gypsum works - could this travel to Penrith by rail via the curve suggested above and then by lorry for the final few miles, while it lasts?

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, Rick, but I am going to have to disagree with you there. As a regular visitor to various Center Parcs for 'large villa family re-union' type breaks the 'station runs' to Brandon, Flitwick, Mansfield/Newark Northgate/Chesterfield or wherever are a key part of the formula. (Gate staff recognise this too.)

Obviously 'full cars' are typical of families with younger children but plenty of people seem to be quite happy to travel light and then eat out, hire equipment and so on. All they need is for another member of the party to pick them up. (Taxis and CP's own shuttles between Flitwick and Woburn are alternatives, of course.)

Fair enough. Both times I’ve done it (once Woburn from Flitwick, once Elveden from Brandon) I have asked the shuttle / taxi driver how many people do the run with them - typically a dozen each changeover. That compares with a couple of thousand people arriving by car. I agree that some more people will be travelling by train and being picked up, but the I suppose what we would need to know is how many more people would swap from car to train with a better link. I don’t think it would be many.

Personally I think CP could do a lot more to promote it as part of their green credentials. A key issue is that the the changeovers happen only twice a week (and that’s also when the army of cleaners roll in).

 

[quantinghome]

Solution looking for a problem.

As others have pointed out, the problem (if any) on the WCML is slower freight traffic over Shap summit, which requires flighting of faster passenger services to maximise line capacity. The way to address this is probably the use of more powerful (?electric) locomotives for freight traffic, and extra freight loops on the slower uphill stretches of line.

Fair enough. If it's not providing freight capacity where it's needed there's little point in it.

The S&C is now essentially redundant as an alternative through route; virtually none of the through freight paths (which are relatively few compared to the WCML) are currently being used, and the passenger service is sparse (4 trains per day each way).

IMO, a regular fast passenger service from Leeds to Glasgow via the little NW line and a new short single line curve to join the WCML just north of Carnforth would provide the connectivity from the West Riding to Penrith suggested as desirable by the OP. Bi-modes could be used to avoid diesels running under the wires; 2 trains would be needed to provide 3 tpd Mon-Sat, with 2 tpd on Sun (5 trains would be needed for a 2-hourly service). Such a service could also call at Oxenholme for bus/rail connections to Kendal and the southern Lake District.

The S&C could then be closed north of Arcow quarry, together with Clitheroe-Hellifield, saving significant maintenance costs, albeit with the loss of the rail-borne freight direct to Newbiggin Gypsum works - could this travel to Penrith by rail via the curve suggested above and then by lorry for the final few miles, while it lasts?

It's not particularly instructive to look at current usage during the pandemic. The line was reprieved when it only had 2 trains per day and the local stations were closed. In normal times the line sees much better use - 8 trains per day each way mostly with doubled-up 158 units.

The S&C line has never made money and never will. Nevertheless the losses incurred by the line are a tiny proportion of the overall subsidy needed for the current extent of passenger railways in the country. We're not making the best use of the asset as it stands and who knows how useful it may be in the future? Who would have predicted in the 1980s that it would have become a significant freight route?

 

[Hey 3]

Solution looking for a problem.

As others have pointed out, the problem (if any) on the WCML is slower freight traffic over Shap summit, which requires flighting of faster passenger services to maximise line capacity. The way to address this is probably the use of more powerful (?electric) locomotives for freight traffic, and extra freight loops on the slower uphill stretches of line.

The S&C is now essentially redundant as an alternative through route ; virtually none of the through freight paths (which are relatively few compared to the WCML) are currently being used, and the passenger service is sparse (4 trains per day each way).

IMO, a regular fast passenger service from Leeds to Glasgow via the little NW line and a new short single line curve to join the WCML just north of Carnforth would provide the connectivity from the West Riding to Penrith suggested as desirable by the OP. Bi-modes could be used to avoid diesels running under the wires; 2 trains would be needed to provide 3 tpd Mon-Sat, with 2 tpd on Sun (5 trains would be needed for a 2-hourly service). Such a service could also call at Oxenholme for bus/rail connections to Kendal and the southern Lake District.

The S&C could then be closed north of Arcow quarry, together with Clitheroe-Hellifield, saving significant maintenance costs, albeit with the loss of the rail-borne freight direct to Newbiggin Gypsum works - could this travel to Penrith by rail via the curve suggested above and then by lorry for the final few miles, while it lasts?

It is not redundant in times of disruption on the WCML and ECML(for diversions)

 

[zwk500]

Yeah, the Clitheroe line is the elephant in the room here - if it's so important to get diesel hauled freight off the WCML (and the slow climb at Shap) then surely you'd just divert it via Clitheroe - the S&C is double track with only a bi-hourly passenger train so there's surely a lot of capacity for WCML freights to be diverted

The S&C won't be too much of a problem (although the AB makes headway behind freight very long), but getting through Blackburn itself can be. But that's a different thread.

Fair enough. If it's not providing freight capacity where it's needed there's little point in it.

It also needs to be considered that the S&C is only W7, so you wouldn't be able to divert containers over it (or more specifically through it's tunnels and bridges) without a very costly rebuild. I'd hazard a guess that rebuilding the existing line via Clitheroe will be cheaper and gain more than building a brand new link between Penrith and Appleby and upgrading only the northern section of the S&C

The S&C line has never made money and never will. Nevertheless the losses incurred by the line are a tiny proportion of the overall subsidy needed for the current extent of passenger railways in the country. We're not making the best use of the asset as it stands and who knows how useful it may be in the future? Who would have predicted in the 1980s that it would have become a significant freight route?

If it never made money and never will, why are you proposing building a new link at vast expense? With the current demand, I think the current usage of the S&C is sensible, as it keeps maintenance costs down but preserves the asset so that it could readily be brought up to standard should the demand change. The viaducts and tunnels are being maintained, it's an active railway that has regular traffic.

It is not redundant in times of disruption on the WCML and ECML(for diversions)

If not then why does almost nothing use it in that capacity? Certainly passenger traffic (or even passengers, for that matter) barely other does (sleeper might a few weekends a year).

 

[daodao]

It is not redundant in times of disruption on the WCML and ECML(for diversions)

Maintenance of duplicate routes where that is the principal reason for keeping a line open is rarely cost-effective. In any case, as zwk500 has just pointed out, the S&C is now rarely used as a diversionary route even when the WCML is closed, for a variety of reasons. It is not a diversionary route for the ECML, although might be useful for some Leeds passengers if the ECML is closed.

@quantinghome:

While the S&C did become a significant through freight route following its closure reprieve in the 1980s, this use has largely ceased, and it is no longer a realistic justification for its retention.