What value do the through lines at Lancaster have?

[adamedwards]

If there were no through lines at Lancaster, there would be no need for approach control to the turnouts (40 mph going south in the cabride video I just watched) to the platforms off the main lines. That would speed up all the services which call there and I assume this is virtually every train.
The space freed up could then be used for an extra platform, or to ease the running in speeds for other platforms, further improving the speeds in and out of the station.

Now that gain may or may not be worth having and of course there could be a need to increase the speed through the plaforms for non-stopping freight.

I appreciate this is a bit 1980s in terms of track reductions, but if everything calls at the station anyway, the value of the loops must be limited?

Expert views from those who know appreciated.

 

[Peter0124]

Not all services call there (there's two TPE and an Avanti that skip) and the freight workings. However I agree that if things can be improved then they should.

 

[zwk500]

There's an awful lot of Freight and other workings that doesn't stop (light locos, charter workings, test, engineering, departmental etc), and the curves of the platforms could pose problems for the gauge clearance of container traffic at the platform edge. It's also unlikely that the money to completely rebuild the station to take advantage of any track rationalisation would be found. It's quite a sharp curve through Lancaster, but opportunities to cant the lines over would be restricted by the need for the stepping distance. Also the disruption to the WCML that would be caused by needing to take platforms out of service to straighten them out.

 

[Iskra]

- Through trains don't have to slow
- I have seen freights stopped on the mainlines, with stopping passenger trains undertaking Northbound on the platform line
- Operational flexibility

 

[Agent_Squash]

Not all services call there (there's two TPE and an Avanti that skip) and the freight workings. However I agree that if things can be improved then they should.

And, let's be honest - nothing should really be skipping Lancaster passenger wise. It's often just a bodge to make the timetabling work, and worsens connectivity (for example, passengers connecting to the Furness line from the North)

Reasonably there is no reason to get rid of the through lines however - it does provide a useful alternative/backup.

 

[zwk500]

- I have seen freights stopped on the mainlines, with stopping passenger trains undertaking Northbound on the platform line

Although the through lines aren't long enough for many freights to do this, which is a shame.

- Operational flexibility

The through lines don't give you anything you don't already have from Oubeck or Carnforth Loops.

 

[Iskra]

And, let's be honest - nothing should really be skipping Lancaster passenger wise. It's often just a bodge to make the timetabling work.

Reasonably there is no reason to get rid of the through lines however - it does provide a useful alternative/backup.

While I agree that everything should call at Lancaster, The Royal Scot up until 2003 didn't used to stop at Lancaster, so it isn't a recent timetable-bodge, there is a strong historic precedent. More recently, even Northern used to skip it sometimes, although I can no longer remember why.

 

[Starmill]

The through lines don't give you anything you don't already have from Oubeck or Carnforth Loops.

They do in the case of the passenger services which don't call at Lancaster.

 

[zwk500]

While I agree that everything should call at Lancaster, The Royal Scot up until 2003 didn't used to stop at Lancaster, so it isn't a recent timetable-bodge, there is a strong historic precedent. More recently, even Northern used to skip it sometimes, although I can no longer remember why.

Long-running bodges are still bodges! Although in the The Royal Scot's case it was presumably to give a headline journey time to Glasgow. Northern really shouldn't be skipping Lancaster on passenger services.

 

[Starmill]

Long-running bodges are still bodges! Although in the The Royal Scot's case it was presumably to give a headline journey time to Glasgow. Northern really shouldn't be skipping Lancaster on passenger services.

That's why Northern don't.

There wasn't enough time for them to call there when they had their 100 mile / hour rolling stock taken away from them which was the reason for not doing so, as it was impossible for the 75 mile / hour paths to keep time.

 

[zwk500]

That's why Northern don't.

There wasn't enough time for them to call there when they had their 100 mile / hour rolling stock taken away from them which was the reason for not doing so, as it was impossible for the 75 mile / hour paths to keep time.

Well, the solution to that would seem to be fairly obvious. Give Northern stock that does the job!

 

[Starmill]

Well, the solution to that would seem to be fairly obvious. Give Northern stock that does the job!

They have the correct rolling stock now that they have 195s in service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's also unlikely that the money to completely rebuild the station to take advantage of any track rationalisation would be found.

I think that as Lancaster station has Grade II listed status, there could well be problems encountered with a proposed rebuilding of the railway station.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Well, the solution to that would seem to be fairly obvious. Give Northern stock that does the job!

It was the Windermere services that skipped Lancaster until the 195s were introduced. Although don't recall if there was also some adjustment made to allow a good connection from a Lancaster service at Oxenholme.

With Northern introducing 6x195 on the Cumbria services in December, it's likely that demand to Manchester will increase with 2 long, well spaced tph. TPE would do well to take advantage of this with stopping all services - there really isn't a reason not to.

Avanti shouldn't really be skipping either, but there is a good connection northbound to the Northern at Preston from the fast. As a WCML station though the focus should really be on encouraging one train, intercity - so that a trek to the airport isn't considered an option.

 

[Iskra]

Long-running bodges are still bodges! Although in the The Royal Scot's case it was presumably to give a headline journey time to Glasgow. Northern really shouldn't be skipping Lancaster on passenger services.

Well it never stopped at Lancaster in its entire history so it wasn't a Virgin bodge either, just the provision of an express service London-Glasgow. The Mid Day Scot and The Caledonian also didn't call historically either.

I would prefer all trains to call at Lancaster, but it isn't a new thing for a select few trains to be express and I can see the logic behind that even if it isn't my personal preference- it isn't that big a place and Preston has surpassed it in administrative and railway importance.

 

[Starmill]

It was the Windermere services that skipped Lancaster until the 195s were introduced. Although don't recall if there was also some adjustment made to allow a good connection from a Lancaster service at Oxenholme.

With Northern introducing 6x195 on the Cumbria services in December, it's likely that demand to Manchester will increase with 2 long, well spaced tph. TPE would do well to take advantage of this with stopping all services - there really isn't a reason not to.

Avanti shouldn't really be skipping either, but there is a good connection northbound to the Northern at Preston from the fast. As a WCML station though the focus should really be on encouraging one train, intercity - so that a trek to the airport isn't considered an option.

All of the TPE Manchester services stop except the long standing 1010 from Manchester Airport. A few Liverpool ones don't and a few that aren't currently running, such as the 2212 from Edinburgh to Manchester Airport, which may or may not return.

As far as Avanti West Coast goes they've already acted since franchise start to add the Lancaster call to the 1030 London Euston to Glasgow Central. The 1330 does not stop but again this is because of a lack of time. You could say it may be able to call at Lancaster in place of Oxenholme Lake District as the Windermere service has a connection there instead so this would be preserved but that doesn't mean it is easy.

 

[The Planner]

ETCS will reduce the impact of approach control (ie: get rid of it)

 

[hexagon789]

Well it never stopped at Lancaster in its entire history so it wasn't a Virgin bodge either, just the provision of an express service London-Glasgow

Not quite true, the Royal Scot called at Lancaster in a number of 1980s timetables, beginning with May 1981.

Historically, Lancaster was usually omitted by Anglo-Scottish expresses though - the original 1974 Electric Scot timetable for instance, Lancaster had one call in one Anglo-Scottish London service and that was it. Otherwise the three-hourly Carlisle semi-fast and the Bristol/Birmingham or Manchester/Liverpool to Glasgow/Edinburgh provided its mainline services.

 

[Iskra]

Not quite true, the Royal Scot called at Lancaster in a number of 1980s timetables, beginning with May 1981.

Historically, Lancaster was usually omitted by Anglo-Scottish expresses though - the original 1974 Electric Scot timetable for instance, Lancaster had one call in one Anglo-Scottish London service and that was it. Otherwise the three-hourly Carlisle semi-fast and the Bristol/Birmingham or Manchester/Liverpool to Glasgow/Edinburgh provided its mainline services.

I knew someone was going to come up with an exception...

...but I'm glad you generally confirm that Lancaster Castle has not always been the centre of the railway universe on the Northern WCML which quite a few people seem to believe it is/was.

 

[Bertie the bus]

- I have seen freights stopped on the mainlines, with stopping passenger trains undertaking Northbound on the platform line

They do sometimes but there is no real need for them to. There are loops just to the north at Carnforth and just to the south at Oubeck.

With the very sparse amount of daytime freights on the northern section of the WCML it isn't as though Carnforth and Oubeck might be occupied and so a further opportunity to recess freight at Lancaster is needed.

 

[hexagon789]

I knew someone was going to come up with an exception...

Forgive me, but as they say - there's an exception to every rule!

...but I'm glad you generally confirm that Lancaster Castle has not always been the centre of the railway universe on the Northern WCML which quite a few people seem to believe it is/was.

Definitely, but then for quite a number of decades there were only two daytime London-Glasgow services anyway. Much easier to omit most stops on them and provide connections between Lancaster and Glasgow with connections than adding stops.

In steam days of course adding stops consumed much more time than with diesels and particularly electric traction.

Before it became nominally non-stop the Royal Scot (I sat nominally as, as you may be aware, the Royal Scot stopped just past Carlisle at Kingmoor to change engine crews as the LMS didn't use corridor tenders) the long-standing calls northbound were Rugby - for connections, Crewe - for connections and Carlisle both for the traffic and connections. Southbound it was similar but the Up service became non-stop Carlisle-Euston in summer quite early on.

 

[CW2]

There would need to be a risk assessment of running freight services through the platforms at 75moh or higher. The aerodynamic effect could be quite severe.

What would the benefits be? If a passenger service is scheduled to call at Lancaster, how much time is lost by the current approach control compared to an unconstrained approach to a stop? Would the time saving justify the costs, and the inevitable disruption during rebuilding/resignalling?

 

[zwk500]

There would need to be a risk assessment of running freight services through the platforms at 75moh or higher. The aerodynamic effect could be quite severe.

Freight is limited to 75mph in any event, although you are right risk assessments would be needed for all non-stop trains.

What would the benefits be? If a passenger service is scheduled to call at Lancaster, how much time is lost by the current approach control compared to an unconstrained approach to a stop?

A couple of minutes or so, depending on exactly which moves are being made. But depending on exactly how you reworked the layout, you may make other savings on pointwork, OLE systems, signalling etc.

Would the time saving justify the costs, and the inevitable disruption during rebuilding/resignalling?

Probably not, although if you went the whole hog and had a 4-platform layout with 2 side platforms and a central island, with bays for the Morecambe line in the central island, you'd eliminate a lot of potential conflicts whilst retaining the option for overtaking traffic. Obviously that would require a boatload of money and there probably isn't space for it between the Lune viaduct and existing boundaries.

 

[The Planner]

If there were no through lines at Lancaster, there would be no need for approach control to the turnouts (40 mph going south in the cabride video I just watched) to the platforms off the main lines. That would speed up all the services which call there and I assume this is virtually every train.
The space freed up could then be used for an extra platform, or to ease the running in speeds for other platforms, further improving the speeds in and out of the station.

Now that gain may or may not be worth having and of course there could be a need to increase the speed through the plaforms for non-stopping freight.

I appreciate this is a bit 1980s in terms of track reductions, but if everything calls at the station anyway, the value of the loops must be limited?

Expert views from those who know appreciated.

There would need to be a risk assessment of running freight services through the platforms at 75moh or higher. The aerodynamic effect could be quite severe.

What would the benefits be? If a passenger service is scheduled to call at Lancaster, how much time is lost by the current approach control compared to an unconstrained approach to a stop? Would the time saving justify the costs, and the inevitable disruption during rebuilding/resignalling?

Its 75mph through the station, and flashing yellows on the approaches. You might get 10-15 seconds on a good day. Lots of money and disruption for naff all really. Lancaster got remodelled to an extent within the last 8-9 years anyway.

 

[CW2]

Its 75mph through the station, and flashing yellows on the approaches. You might get 10-15 seconds on a good day. Lots of money and disruption for naff all really. Lancaster got remodelled to an extent within the last 8-9 years anyway.

West Coast Route Modernisation up to December 2008 looked closely at all aspects of the WCML infrastructure, and pretty much the only thing done at Lancaster was to install a turn-back facility on PN235 signal, so that trains terminating at Lancaster from the south no longer needed to go ECS to Carnforth to turn back south. Some adjustment of the timing of the flashing yellows on the approach to the station may also have been done - it's a bit hazy in my memory after the passage of time. Nothing more adventurous could be financially justified at the time. I don't expect the current financial climate has changed that decision.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And, let's be honest - nothing should really be skipping Lancaster passenger wise. It's often just a bodge to make the timetabling work, and worsens connectivity (for example, passengers connecting to the Furness line from the North)

Reasonably there is no reason to get rid of the through lines however - it does provide a useful alternative/backup.

Assuming a version of Golborne gets built, they may be needed for the 2tph HS2 Scottish service which won't stop as it's 400m long.

 

[The Planner]

West Coast Route Modernisation up to December 2008 looked closely at all aspects of the WCML infrastructure, and pretty much the only thing done at Lancaster was to install a turn-back facility on PN235 signal, so that trains terminating at Lancaster from the south no longer needed to go ECS to Carnforth to turn back south. Some adjustment of the timing of the flashing yellows on the approach to the station may also have been done - it's a bit hazy in my memory after the passage of time. Nothing more adventurous could be financially justified at the time. I don't expect the current financial climate has changed that decision.

The south end was re-modelled in 2013 which allowed down trains into 4 and 5. Up Goods was upgraded to passenger standard and the up crossover out of platform 3 was upgraded from 15 to 40mph.

 

[adamedwards]

Are some of the current not stopping at Lancaster trains so routed to ensure the route knowledge of the through lines?

My other thought (money being no limit in the speculative threads) is removing the up main would enable a new platform 3a, served by the track of the current down main (made reversible?) and platform 4 could then be a 6 car long north facing bay on the east side of the station, so 3a doesn't need a footbridge as it would flat access from 4. That then removes short local trains from 5. Putting a southbound main line train into 5 when needed then enables a local train to exit 4 northbound without conflicting, if there was an extra crossover.

Of course it's crazy money for I guess a limited benefit and my guess is HS2 means the through lines stay for that.

 

[The Planner]

Are some of the current not stopping at Lancaster trains so routed to ensure the route knowledge of the through lines?

My other thought (money being no limit in the speculative threads) is removing the up main would enable a new platform 3a, served by the track of the current down main (made reversible?) and platform 4 could then be a 6 car long north facing bay on the east side of the station, so 3a doesn't need a footbridge as it would flat access from 4. That then removes short local trains from 5. Putting a southbound main line train into 5 when needed then enables a local train to exit 4 northbound without conflicting, if there was an extra crossover.

Of course it's crazy money for I guess a limited benefit and my guess is HS2 means the through lines stay for that.

If any money gets spent on Lancaster it will be to facilitate HS2 turning back in platform 5.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If any money gets spent on Lancaster it will be to facilitate HS2 turning back in platform 5.

Won't a 200m set already be able to do that? The terminator can't be 400m as the other half is the second Liverpool.