Chester to Manchester - Northern Hub

[merlodlliw]

As far as I can see Abergele and Pensarn railway station is the only station the Welsh side with the same service frequency as Frodsham and Helsby. Abergele is similar in size to Frodsham but Abergele and Pensarn gets much less rail usage.

Of course if you give stations like Flint a more frequent service and a greater range of destinations then it'll get more rail usage as people will railhead to Flint station rather than people from Flint railheading to other stations.

Its really Pensarn Station a couple of miles out of Abergele town centre,Many in the area go to Rhyl which as a more frequent service, I agree more trains serving destinations people actually want , more will use the stations as a railhead, such as Flint & Wrexham.

 

[Greybeard33]

It's worth noting an overnight service operating via Altrincham has done Chester-Piccadilly non-stop in 65 minutes, based on the Northern Rail timetable that wouldn't look to be possible (as Northern's service is 20 minutes slower than that) but removing the stops, running at a quiet time and using a 100mph train instead of a 75mph one makes it possible.

Today (18 March) Northern's 09:17 Piccadilly to Chester service departed 25 late and skipped the minor stops to make up time. It arrived at Chester only 7 late, a journey time of 70 minutes! I believe it stopped at Stockport, Altrincham, Hale, Knutsford, Northwich and Greenbank. This shows what could be done with a semi-fast service on the Mid-Cheshire.

 

[northwichcat]

Today (18 March) Northern's 09:17 Piccadilly to Chester service departed 25 late and skipped the minor stops to make up time. It arrived at Chester only 7 late, a journey time of 70 minutes! I believe it stopped at Stockport, Altrincham, Hale, Knutsford, Northwich and Greenbank. This shows what could be done with a semi-fast service on the Mid-Cheshire.

I wonder why Northern decided to do that today when a couple of weeks ago when there were signalling problems and a Chester-Manchester train was 50 minutes late from Greenbank it still stopped at all stations even though the next Chester-Manchester train was only 5 minutes late.

Just looking at that train it was reported arriving at Stockport at 09:51 but wasn't dispatched until 09:57 meaning had it run at a time when it didn't have to wait to cross the northbound lines it could have been done in 64 minutes. Maybe it could have been done in an hour had it been operated by a 100mph 172 with a good path?

I don't suppose you know what type of traction ran the service? I know it's booked for 150+142 but it may not have run as such especially if the delay was down to a unit problem.

 

[6Gman]

I used to meet the Manchester Club( 430pm from Exchange then Vic) at Chester & on many occasions it arrived a few minutes early, I agree the timetable on the Up probably did say 56 minutes, but arrived a little earlier.
I remember the steam was switched to Old Trans Penine diesel stock, but returned to steam which was more reliable after a few problems, a well known North Wales driver,forget his name,drove the down when it returned to steam.
When I met the train for news at Rhyl,you could set your watch by it,under the Vale Road bridge at 6pm Monday to Friday.
I am sure a 175 three car could do the run stopping at Warrington only in 40 minutes.

Tommy Gill? It's usually Tommy Gill!

 

[kieron]

There's plenty of people unemployed in the Warrington area and I imagine a lot of them don't have cars so would rely on a train or bus to get to any potential job.

If you don't have a car, Warrington Bank Quay isn't a particularly well situated station. And, if you don't have a car but can drive, and work somewhere like Manchester Airport, acquiring a car is likely to be a fairly high priority.

That said, I'd expect every train along this route to stop at Warrington Bank Quay, not least because it gives access to the WCML from all of the stations outside central Manchester.

I don't know how they decide whether or not a train should call at a station, though. Going from 1tph to 2 is a big jump for any station, though.

The problem has been during disruption/engineering works when ATW have not diverted trains to Manchester such as when the Chester-Earlestown line has been open (and they've terminated trains there instead of diverting) or when ATW have been refused paths through Stockport the alternative trains have been unable to cope with loadings.

While it would be nice if Arriva would use the unit saved by not running to Mancheter to reinforce the South Wales-Manchester trains from Crewe, it doesn't make a case for using diesels on Chester-Warrington-Manchester in some future where the route has been electrified just so that they can divert via Knutsford, though.

Perhaps the planners would be more optimistic about a passenger service's timings, though.

Shouldn't make any difference, the passenger time would be the same as an ECS if it had the same schedule.

But the schedule is what I was comparing. The fact that both trains beat the schedule by a minute or two is neither here nor there. I was actually wondering about the schedule being made a bit slower than it could have been to save fuel.

However, Runcorn East is quite a busy station and Halton would grumble if it was omitted.
Frodsham and Helsby don't generate much traffic considering their size (nothing like as much as the Welsh stations on the route for instance).

Where do you get the data for this? The 2012-3 station usage estimates give Runcorn East as having 15% more traffic then Frodsham, which in turn has 60% more traffic than Helsby (I imagine Runcorn residents would use either Runcorn East or Frodsham when travelling on that line).

 

[northwichcat]

If you don't have a car, Warrington Bank Quay isn't a particularly well situated station. And, if you don't have a car but can drive, and work somewhere like Manchester Airport, acquiring a car is likely to be a fairly high priority.

Warrington does have an excellent bus network though so getting to the main stations from the suburbs should be fairly easy.

I don't know how they decide whether or not a train should call at a station, though. Going from 1tph to 2 is a big jump for any station, though.

Presumably they'll look at usage figures and how demand changes across the day.

While it would be nice if Arriva would use the unit saved by not running to Mancheter to reinforce the South Wales-Manchester trains from Crewe, it doesn't make a case for using diesels on Chester-Warrington-Manchester in some future where the route has been electrified just so that they can divert via Knutsford, though.

We can say with some certainty that the existing franchise won't be running any electric services between Manchester and North Wales so what Arriva think may or may not work might not be relevant.

AFAIK a good enough business case for wiring the North Wales Coast hasn't been proven and to do so will likely need more than just the hourly Manchester-North Wales services and occasional London-North Wales services to switch to electric- overheads between Bangor and Holyhead would get very little use. I think the WG are going to have to give up their pet Holyhead-Cardiff service if they want the North Wales Coast to be electrified.

 

[The Planner]

But the schedule is what I was comparing. The fact that both trains beat the schedule by a minute or two is neither here nor there. I was actually wondering about the schedule being made a bit slower than it could have been to save fuel.

Nope, you wouldn't do that. The time it takes is the time it takes, we don't add time in to schedules for reasons such as that. If a TOC put in allowances in a WTT schedule which we deemed unneccessary then we would take them out.

 

[transmanche]

I think the WG are going to have to give up their pet Holyhead-Cardiff service if they want the North Wales Coast to be electrified.

Bi-modes?

 

[northwichcat]

Bi-modes?

I think bi-modes are good for lines which are mainly electrified to to allow diversions off fully electrified lines during engineering works but running Chester-Wrexham-Cardiff on diesel seems an excessive non-electrified distance to use bi-mode for.

 

[transmanche]

I think bi-modes are good for lines which are mainly electrified to to allow diversions off fully electrified lines during engineering works but running Chester-Wrexham-Cardiff on diesel seems an excessive non-electrified distance to use bi-mode for.

It's about 20 miles more than the distance from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and 25 miles less than the distance from Edinburgh to Inverness.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Where do you get the data for this? The 2012-3 station usage estimates give Runcorn East as having 15% more traffic then Frodsham, which in turn has 60% more traffic than Helsby (I imagine Runcorn residents would use either Runcorn East or Frodsham when travelling on that line).

I was using the same data.
All I'm saying is if you had to pick one station it would be Runcorn East.
It is indeed the strongest of the three (if you trust the data).
There is very little traffic, at least off-peak, at Helsby and Frodsham.
This is odd given the good service to Manchester (I'm aware there might be more traffic to Liverpool if a service existed).

 

[northwichcat]

It's about 20 miles more than the distance from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and 25 miles less than the distance from Edinburgh to Inverness.

Aren't we talking about occasional London to Aberdeen/Inverness trains that will switch to diesel at Edinburgh meaning there's over 400 miles of overheads to use before switching to diesel? It's a bit different to a fairly regular service using something like 80 miles of electrics and then running for 200 miles on diesel.

 

[transmanche]

Aren't we talking about occasional London to Aberdeen/Inverness trains that will switch to diesel at Edinburgh meaning there's over 400 miles of overheads to use before switching to diesel? It's a bit different to a fairly regular service using something like 80 miles of electrics and then running for 200 miles on diesel.

You complained that journey was too far for a bi-mode to do on diesel. But when shown that other routes will require just as much bi-mode mileage on diesel, you suddenly shift the goalposts...

In fact it's just under 150 miles from Chester to Cardiff - not 200. And I forgot that the Newport to Cardiff section will be electrified as part of the GWML electrification; so in total about 135 miles of diesel running and about 100 miles of electric running (or almost 150 miles if any services are extended to Swansea).

Sounds like a perfect route to use bi-mode trains.

 

[northwichcat]

You complained that journey was too far for a bi-mode to do on diesel. But when shown that other routes will require just as much bi-mode mileage on diesel, you suddenly shift the goalposts...

I started the sentence saying "I think bi-modes are good for lines which are mainly electrified" before going on to say that Chester-Cardiff seemed an excessive non-electrified distance.

Sounds like a perfect route to use bi-mode trains.

We need to justify the huge cost of electrification first and saying it's only viable if bi-mode trains are introduced means the franchise will have both a micro-fleet of bi-mode and a micro-fleet of regional EMUs which doesn't sound ideal for keeping fleet maintenance and crew training costs low.

 

[transmanche]

We need to justify the huge cost of electrification first and saying it's only viable if bi-mode trains are introduced means the franchise will have both a micro-fleet of bi-mode and a micro-fleet of regional EMUs which doesn't sound ideal for keeping fleet maintenance and crew training costs low.

That depends on the nature of the stock used. Look at the class 800/801 for example: same stock, one electric and one-bimode, and relatively easy to convert from bi-mode to full electric.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As things stand the row over who pays the Valleys wires will mean North Wales coast goes further down the priorities list so talk of bi mode is very premature.

 

[edwin_m]

A bi-mode needs to have a certain proportion of its journey on electric power to produce enough cost savings to justify the extra weight, cost and general complication. My gut feeling is that electric to Chester and diesel to Llandudno or Holyhead wouldn't be enough - otherwise they would be buying bi-modes for Devon and Cornwall to use the electrification as far as Newbury.

 

[merlodlliw]

Tommy Gill? It's usually Tommy Gill!

Thats the man, Tommy Gill,brought back to steam , after the DMU Manchester/Llandudno Club Trans Penine diesel trial & failure ,what a driver,thanks for the reminder 6Gman
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As things stand the row over who pays the Valleys wires will mean North Wales coast goes further down the priorities list so talk of bi mode is very premature.

Its all over the Welsh media,what a cock up,
Secretary of State for Wales says,the deal was Welsh Gov fund the Valleys electrics(Metro), UK Gov fund the Great Western electrics.
First Minister says UK Gov fund the lot.
I agree North Wales drops down the list

 

[thealexweb]

Thats the man, Tommy Gill,brought back to steam , after the DMU Manchester/Llandudno Club Trans Penine diesel trial & failure ,what a driver,thanks for the reminder 6Gman
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Its all over the Welsh media,what a cock up,
Secretary of State for Wales says,the deal was Welsh Gov fund the Valleys electrics(Metro), UK Gov fund the Great Western electrics.
First Minister says UK Gov fund the lot.
I agree North Wales drops down the list

If what you say is true this really is the fault of Welsh Government. I hate this fractured UK we have where the devolved administrations just blame the central UK Government for everything.

 

[Greybeard33]

Just looking at that train it was reported arriving at Stockport at 09:51 but wasn't dispatched until 09:57 meaning had it run at a time when it didn't have to wait to cross the northbound lines it could have been done in 64 minutes. Maybe it could have been done in an hour had it been operated by a 100mph 172 with a good path?

I don't suppose you know what type of traction ran the service? I know it's booked for 150+142 but it may not have run as such especially if the delay was down to a unit problem.

I know that the return service (11:04 from Chester, which departed 14 late) was a single 150 as usual, but do not know if it had the usual 142 attached outbound. The 6 minute delay at Stockport (at the platform, not at Edgeley Junction) does not appear to have been caused by any conflicting movements, and the turnround at Chester took 26 minutes - perhaps suggesting a problem with the second unit or coupling?

 

[krus_aragon]

If what you say is true this really is the fault of Welsh Government. I hate this fractured UK we have where the devolved administrations just blame the central UK Government for everything.

The WG's fault for lobbying for the Valleys to be wired, or the WG's fault for not paying for it? As I recall, the announcements that the valleys would be wired etc. came from Westminster. If it's Cardiff Bay that has to pay for it, why did they have to get the politicians in Westminster to announce it?

The WG's been paying for small infrastructure improvements out of its capital budget over the years, but Westminster said re:HS2 (pre-Crewe extension) that because responsibility over rail infrastructure isn't devolved, there wouldn't be any proportionally equivalent (Barnett formula) money coming to Wales as a result. Now Westminster seems to be saying "Responsibility for the passenger franchise has been devolved to you, so you can pay for all the infrastructure too". But surely, if rail infrastructure is now devolved, the Barnett formula should be applied to othe projects such as HS2?

 

[merlodlliw]

The WG's fault for lobbying for the Valleys to be wired, or the WG's fault for not paying for it? As I recall, the announcements that the valleys would be wired etc. came from Westminster. If it's Cardiff Bay that has to pay for it, why did they have to get the politicians in Westminster to announce it?

The WG's been paying for small infrastructure improvements out of its capital budget over the years, but Westminster said re:HS2 (pre-Crewe extension) that because responsibility over rail infrastructure isn't devolved, there wouldn't be any proportionally equivalent (Barnett formula) money coming to Wales as a result. Now Westminster seems to be saying "Responsibility for the passenger franchise has been devolved to you, so you can pay for all the infrastructure too". But surely, if rail infrastructure is now devolved, the Barnett formula should be applied to othe projects such as HS2?

We have devolved Government,nothing I/we can do about it,but deals are done behind closed doors,I disagree with WG paying for SMALL improvements
out of its capitol budget,Gowerton redouble was was over £40M plus huge amounts on roads, I just wonder about the Wrexham redouble,If UK Gov was spending the money,I doubt it would have been half a job, or in fact not a job,as it is one WG Minister has decided,Wrexham can have half a job,without any consultation or thought for the future requirements of North Wales largest town which sees the North West as a local commute. All this clouds North Wales bid for electrics.
My opinion of course.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The WG's fault for lobbying for the Valleys to be wired, or the WG's fault for not paying for it? As I recall, the announcements that the valleys would be wired etc. came from Westminster. If it's Cardiff Bay that has to pay for it, why did they have to get the politicians in Westminster to announce it?

The WG's been paying for small infrastructure improvements out of its capital budget over the years, but Westminster said re:HS2 (pre-Crewe extension) that because responsibility over rail infrastructure isn't devolved, there wouldn't be any proportionally equivalent (Barnett formula) money coming to Wales as a result. Now Westminster seems to be saying "Responsibility for the passenger franchise has been devolved to you, so you can pay for all the infrastructure too". But surely, if rail infrastructure is now devolved, the Barnett formula should be applied to othe projects such as HS2?

Looking further into this it would appear that the physical infastrstrcture work is agreed in Network Rails Regulsttory Asset Base for control period 5 i.e their borrowing will pay for it. A further complication is that the work would appear to straddle two control periods with of course nothing in CP6 yet agreed. However with seemingly many other things on the railway the issue of rolling stock is hanging in the air.

Could it be that WG are being expected to either fund any rolling stock or recoup the funding via the wales and border franchise agreement? Is this all because There's a misunderstanding that NR cannot deliver a full package and it involves other parties? I.e the industry structure and continued fragmentation confuses. does the Bay think that Westminster agreed a full integrated package, whereas in fact it was just the NR element?

 

[northwichcat]

The WG's fault for lobbying for the Valleys to be wired, or the WG's fault for not paying for it? As I recall, the announcements that the valleys would be wired etc. came from Westminster. If it's Cardiff Bay that has to pay for it, why did they have to get the politicians in Westminster to announce it?

Valley Lines electrification was a post-2019 project and was announced before Network Rail's budget for CP6 was decided on so it must have been agreed assuming Network Rail would not fund it.

But surely, if rail infrastructure is now devolved, the Barnett formula should be applied to other projects such as HS2?

I think rail infrastructure for local projects is partly devolved as frequently local councils or PTEs part fund local projects e.g. the Todmorden curve project to introduce a Burnley-Manchester service has included funding from Lancashire County Council. However, Intercity rail certainly isn't devolved and HS2 would come under the Intercity category.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The NR CP5 Enhancements plan (Dec 2013) says this about Valleys Electrification (p89):

Key Assumptions:
 The business case is centred on efficiencies from an electric fleet as well as growth in demand from customers.
 GWMLE scheme will deliver the OHLE between Cardiff and Bridgend.
 The scheme is funded through RAB borrowing and a facility charge will be paid by the Wales & Borders franchise.

I have yet to see what all the fuss is about.
The method of funding is exactly the same as the other electrification schemes.
In any case the WG does NOT fund the W&B franchise.
It's DfT money transferred to Cardiff to manage.

 

[northwichcat]

The method of funding is exactly the same as the other electrification schemes.
In any case the WG does NOT fund the W&B franchise.
It's DfT money transferred to Cardiff to manage.

I can see something key at the bottom of P89

The funder has set a target date to commission between October 2018 and December 2019; and has requested an alternative delivery profile if it is more cost efficient.

So it's saying an external party have agreed to fund it without saying exactly who. Saying December 2019 as a possible completion date also doesn't confirm it as a CP5 project, which would need to be completed by 4th April 2019.

 

[snowball]

Surely electrification projects are too big and ongoing to expect them to be completed neatly in time for the end of a CP. For example, MML electrification is a substantially CP5 project but won't be completed in CP5.

 

[northwichcat]

Surely electrification projects are too big and ongoing to expect them to be completed neatly in time for the end of a CP. For example, MML electrification is a substantially CP5 project but won't be completed in CP5.

Aren't larger projects normally split in to phases like North West electrification:
Phase 1 - Eastern end of Chat Moss
Phase 2 - Western end of Chat Moss
Phase 3 - Other North West electrification

 

[frodshamfella]

Certainly, omitting a few stops would help - Helsby & Frodsham on the Llandudno trains if a local shuttle from Chester to Manchester were ever introduced [giving 2tph on that section].

Also cutting-out Earlestown or Newton Le-Willows. It's very slow, calling at both, In my experience very few passengers from North Wales and Chester alight there, and both are also served by Northern trains to Manchester.

Also, perhaps, diverting these trains back to Manchester Victoria. Again, in my experience, the section from Ordsall Lane to Piccadilly is very slow, often with a stand for signals at Deansgate and a crawl from there on.

With these changes, some reduction in journey-time should be possible, for I agree that in these days, 1 Hour to cover the 40 or so miles is not acceptable.

I live close to Frodsham, the hourly service is very poor on the North Wales route for the amount of passengers using it. What I would like to see would
be the option to travel direct into Liverpool directly via Halton Curve, and therefore an increased service along the line. Fingers Crossed !

 

[merlodlliw]

I live close to Frodsham, the hourly service is very poor on the North Wales route for the amount of passengers using it. What I would like to see would
be the option to travel direct into Liverpool directly via Halton Curve, and therefore an increased service along the line. Fingers Crossed !

Both of these items are listed for discussion in the Senedd next week,Halton Curve & overcrowding between Chester & Manchester.

Bob