Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it would originally have been Manchester Victoria to Liverpool Exchange as it was the L&YR route. Manchester Exchange was LNWR and it's Liverpool trains went to Lime Street.

The route from Hindley to Liverpool was part of the route taken by the Liverpool and Bury Railway in 1845. In 1846, that railway merged with the Manchester and Leeds Railway and this was then one of the companies that amalgamated to form the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.

 

[47802]

Mid June is the new estimate for 319361's movement North, according to Tony Miles. Northern's MD say 319361 is leased to them now, but they're sub-leasing it back to FCC.

Oh I bet he's desperate to get hold of his new old clapped out train. There's an article today on the BBC new website about too much Transport money going to London at the expense of the rest of the UK, yeh too right.

 

[Emyr]

The route from Hindley to Liverpool was part of the route taken by the Liverpool and Bury Railway in 1845. In 1846, that railway merged with the Manchester and Leeds Railway and this was then one of the companies that amalgamated to form the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.

This forum needs more maps and graphical representations...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Is there a proposal to electrify Manchester to Wigan via Atherton? I know the via Bolton route is being done eventually, but if NR does the via Atherton route, then there might be a case for retaining some 319 shoe gear - add some knitting from Kirby to Wigan and you can run a through train Manchester-Hunts Cross (the old Exchange-Exchange route). I believe that the link tunnel (unlike the loop tunnel) has adequate clearances.

There is the small matter of rebuilding a platform at Kirkby, demolishing the passenger walkway to the current 'Northern' platform and reconnecting the tracks, not to mention figuring out how you can get four times as many trains into Manchester and what can be done about the reduced capacity of the peak time services between Kirkby and Liverpool Central (I don't think they currently go to Hunts Cross).

 

[158722]

There is the small matter of rebuilding a platform at Kirkby, demolishing the passenger walkway to the current 'Northern' platform and reconnecting the tracks, not to mention figuring out how you can get four times as many trains into Manchester and what can be done about the reduced capacity of the peak time services between Kirkby and Liverpool Central (I don't think they currently go to Hunts Cross).

I'm sure those small issues could be overcome easily and as for capacity, there is no suggestion that all trains would go all the way through.

Thinking more radically, I'd go the other way - convert the Northern line to overhead as opposed to third rail, reinstate the Burscough curves, wire from Southport to Ormskirk and Wigan, Kirkby to Wigan as well plus the Atherton route. A huge range expanded through services for Liverpool and North Lancashire...

Naturally, no chance of that happening given there is nothing like an integrated transport for the region, just a series of fragmented 'networks' looking after their own plots...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Oh I bet he's desperate to get hold of his new old clapped out train. There's an article today on the BBC new website about too much Transport money going to London at the expense of the rest of the UK, yeh too right.

That's because there is more demand for public transport in the South East. There is plenty of money being spent on rail infrastructure in the North West so I don't see what your problem is.

 

[Class377/5]

That's because there is more demand for public transport in the South East. There is plenty of money being spent on rail infrastructure in the North West so I don't see what your problem is.

Indeed but in the BBC report the public money the difference isn't quite as big as the headlines claim.

Mrs Ellman said: "Even on the government's figures, transport spending per head in London is more than twice that in the English regions."

The main difference is how much business' are willing to chip in and the ability of a single over riding organization to raise loans to cover it vs the multiple smaller groups in the north.

 

[northwichcat]

That's because there is more demand for public transport in the South East.

I don't think anyone sensible would say it should be exactly the same level in every area but the London average is 500 times the North East, which is excessive. (BBC News article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27675069)

Seat occupancy level in the Northern franchise area is only 4% lower than the average for London and the South East. TPE's seat occupancy level was 22% higher then the average for London and the South East, with only London Overground being the only TOC with a higher seat occupancy level (although that was before the 350/4s were introduced.) Obviously the design of LO trains assumes most passengers stand.

This should have made TPE extra capacity one of the top priorities for the UK as a whole and it looks like it was one of the top priorities, until Chiltern signed a deal for the 170/3s and DfT didn't start looking for a proper solution to the problem.

 

[Starmill]

That's because there is more demand for public transport in the South East. There is plenty of money being spent on rail infrastructure in the North West so I don't see what your problem is.

Unfortunately, it is precisely this attitude that is his, my and lots and lots of other people's *ahem* "problem".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is the small matter of rebuilding a platform at Kirkby, demolishing the passenger walkway to the current 'Northern' platform and reconnecting the tracks, not to mention figuring out how you can get four times as many trains into Manchester and what can be done about the reduced capacity of the peak time services between Kirkby and Liverpool Central..... (I don't think they currently go to Hunts Cross).

Hunts Cross is indeed the southern terminus of the Merseyrail Northern Line from Southport.

I think that both the Kirkby and the Ormskirk Merseyrail services are more likely to have Liverpool Central as their city-based terminal station.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hunts Cross is indeed the southern terminus of the Merseyrail Northern Line from Southport.

I think that both the Kirkby and the Ormskirk Merseyrail services are more likely to have Liverpool Central as their city-based terminal station.

That is the current service pattern, and was back when I lived in the area (though when I first lived there, Central-Hunts Cross was only 2tph). Obviously Kirkby would need more work than Ormskirk to re-connect the two 'stubs' but the Kirkby-Wigan line is at least mostly double track unlike the Ormskirk-Preston line. I'd have thought that if the lines at Kirkby were rejoined, the sensible pattern would be 2tph continue to turn back* with 2tph running through to the bay at Wallgate. No extra services being squeezed into Central that way.
For Liverpool-Ormskirk-Preston, unless extra loops are added you probably wouldn't want to run more than 1tph North of Burscough Junction- and if the curves were re-instated you could extend 2 of the other 3 trains per hour on to Southport- though there may only be room for one without disrupting the Manchester services.

*= At least until the much-needed but rather expensive branch to Skelmersdale ever gets built!

 

[Wavertreelad]

No proposals to electrify Atherton, Wigan-Kirkby or Wigan-Southport. Wigan-Kirkby is set to become a self-contained shuttle service.

Although extending the Merseyrail network to Skelmersdale and possibly Wigan remains on the most recent list of projects that Merseytravel is looking to take forward in it's 30 year plan due to be presented tomorrow to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

 

[Starmill]

That is the current service pattern, and was back when I lived in the area (though when I first lived there, Central-Hunts Cross was only 2tph). Obviously Kirkby would need more work than Ormskirk to re-connect the two 'stubs' but the Kirkby-Wigan line is at least mostly double track unlike the Ormskirk-Preston line. I'd have thought that if the lines at Kirkby were rejoined, the sensible pattern would be 2tph continue to turn back* with 2tph running through to the bay at Wallgate. No extra services being squeezed into Central that way.

*= At least until the much-needed but rather expensive branch to Skelmersdale ever gets built!

I think this could offer quite a considerably better service than what is there today. Passenger numbers at Pemberton, for example, have doubled since 2006. Even with it's terrible access (stairs only) and absolutely no evening service and no trains on sundays Orrell now has 116,000 passengers a year. Imagine what could be done with this line if it had a regular 2tph 7 days a week and a first/last train times similar to that of Kirkby (weekdays: first train to Liverpool 0548 last train from Liverpool 2355).

 

[W230]

Unfortunately, it is precisely this attitude that is his, my and lots and lots of other people's *ahem* "problem".

But then London could use the argument that only 5% of the taxes collected there stay there, the other 95% returning to the UK coffers (to help impoverished northerner TOCs service their Pacers my guess...)

Maybe the government should let London keep the taxes it raises. It could finance it's own public transport and the DFT could pay for the rest of the UK. But i'm sure people would still argue "it isn't fair" and round and round we continue.

The truth of the matter is, that while London receives by far the greatest amount of transport subsidy, it is needed most there and UK economy benefits from this. Choke London and you damage ol' Blighty (this is normally where someone demands a new underground for Manchester)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is normally where someone demands a new underground for Manchester.

If such an underground did ever exist in Manchester, all it would ever see would be the trams of the Manchester Metrolink system...

 

[Wavertreelad]

But then London could use the argument that only 5% of the taxes collected there stay there, the other 95% returning to the UK coffers (to help impoverished northerner TOCs service their Pacers my guess...)

Maybe the government should let London keep the taxes it raises. It could finance it's own public transport and the DFT could pay for the rest of the UK. But i'm sure people would still argue "it isn't fair" and round and round we continue.

The truth of the matter is, that while London receives by far the greatest amount of transport subsidy, it is needed most there and UK economy benefits from this. Choke London and you damage ol' Blighty (this is normally where someone demands a new underground for Manchester)

The potential problem of course is that the cost of doing business in London will rise to such an extent that despite the best infrastructure in the world, companies will move their businesses to other locations, not necessarily in the UK. It is therefore in the interests of the government to invest in the infrastructure of other parts of the UK to ensure other key locations are "connected" to global industry to minimise the risk of this happening. Unfortunately, successive governments for many years have never planned further than the next election, so hence the current mess.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The potential problem of course is that the cost of doing business in London will rise to such an extent that despite the best infrastructure in the world, companies will move their businesses to other locations, not necessarily in the UK. It is therefore in the interests of the government to invest in the infrastructure of other parts of the UK to ensure other key locations are "connected" to global industry to minimise the risk of this happening. Unfortunately, successive governments for many years have never planned further than the next election, so hence the current mess.

Indeed. Go to Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands (even France to a lesser extent) and you'll see that almost every significant city has a substantial metro/tramway/light rail/S-Bahn system- and in Germany in particular the economy is far less concentrated in the capital. Basically, London is full and bursting at the seams- we need to invest in places like Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds to take the pressure off. That would also make the likely flows on HS2 a bit more balanced!

 

[W230]

Indeed. Go to Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands (even France to a lesser extent) and you'll see that almost every significant city has a substantial metro/tramway/light rail/S-Bahn system- and in Germany in particular the economy is far less concentrated in the capital. Basically, London is full and bursting at the seams- we need to invest in places like Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds to take the pressure off. That would also make the likely flows on HS2 a bit more balanced!

I agree - my post was a bit tongue in cheek - but these arguments always seem to centre round London versus rest of the UK as if there's no ability to work together.

Not sure if anyone saw the London v rest of the UK on BBC2 a few weeks back but it made very interesting viewing and makes the point that where the UK is different to say Germany/Belgium/Netherlands is that it has a capital city far and away larger than the next most populous cities. The other three countries you mention do not and so it is far easier to spread the wealth in those than it is in London. I believe in France that Paris has a similar draw although as a much larger country it is less pronounced.

I agree that London is bursting at the seams but i think it will always be like that. As much as capacity is increased it gets taken up straight away but the problem is that it is a victim of its own success and with no other city anywhere near in terms of size it continues sucking the rest of the country dry! You can invest all the money you want trying to make say Birmingham rival London but it just won't ever be a success!

But i digress... I for one will miss the 319s once they've gone. But i only drive them - I dont have to suffer them as a passenger!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Unfortunately, it is precisely this attitude that is his, my and lots and lots of other people's *ahem* "problem".

Ok, look at the number of people heading into London every day compared to every other city and town in the country. We have 12 car trains running into the capital and yet they are full. That kind of demand doesn't exist else where, even in Manchester and Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The potential problem of course is that the cost of doing business in London will rise to such an extent that despite the best infrastructure in the world, companies will move their businesses to other locations, not necessarily in the UK. It is therefore in the interests of the government to invest in the infrastructure of other parts of the UK to ensure other key locations are "connected" to global industry to minimise the risk of this happening. Unfortunately, successive governments for many years have never planned further than the next election, so hence the current mess.

In all fairness London isn't any more expensive than it's rivals however it does need improved transport links. Crossrail, a third runway at Heathrow and hopefully Crossrail 2 will along way to achieveing this. Whilst I would agree that we need improve public transport in our regional capitals you cannot force companies to move their headquarters from London, let alone their employees.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have felt it worthwhile to notify certain forum members who have seemed to have inadvertently began making postings of a Class 319 rolling stock matter on the "Liverpool to Manchester Electrification" thread on the "Stations and Infrastructure" forum by making a posting on there to assure them of the existence of this particular thread on this particular forum.

 

[Bantamzen]

Ok, look at the number of people heading into London every day compared to every other city and town in the country. We have 12 car trains running into the capital and yet they are full. That kind of demand doesn't exist else where, even in Manchester and Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In all fairness London isn't any more expensive than it's rivals however it does need improved transport links. Crossrail, a third runway at Heathrow and hopefully Crossrail 2 will along way to achieveing this. Whilst I would agree that we need improve public transport in our regional capitals you cannot force companies to move their headquarters from London, let alone their employees.

I think what you've proved there is that as a country we need to look away from from London & encourage businesses to spread out across the country instead of ramming themselves into one single centre. How many more tunnels can you possibly build under the capital before that gets too full as well, and how many more planes can you possibly ram into the skies above London before chaos ensues? Events over recent years such as inclement weather, tube strikes etc have shown just how vulnerable London really is. It doesn't take much at all to bring the place to a complete standstill. So what if something really devastating happens like a storm surge that overwhelms the barrier & swamps the place?

Having all our financial eggs in one basket is asking for trouble, so the time is now right to invest much more the infrastructure around the country as part of a policy of relocating some of our business elsewhere. This should include much more rail infrastructure to allow both higher density commuter & regional / inter-city traffic, as well as HS2 and beyond, all complete with proper links to HS1 & Europe. Sadly the current government's mindset is far from this, and I suspect that future governments will be equally blinkered.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Of course in a free market you cannot force businesses to relocate, but you can encourage them but it is equally important those businesses located outside the M25 are also given the support to grow and help sustain their existing local economies. There are many factors that had lead to London developing as it has done over many decades but perhaps more so in the last forty or fifty years and this is something that can only addressed by central government. Unfortunately, we live in a world were society now expects everything to happen at the touch of a button, but the London problem cannot and will not be solved overnight. The NW electrification and follow on schemes, with the second hand 319's is a start based on what the business can afford. They may not please everybody, but I suspect the majority of paying public will be more than happy to see the 319's even if they only have initially a clean up and new logos, that's if they notice the difference in the first place.

 

[Starmill]

Ok, look at the number of people heading into London every day compared to every other city and town in the country. We have 12 car trains running into the capital and yet they are full. That kind of demand doesn't exist else where, even in Manchester and Birmingham.

And why do you think that is? I shall endeavor to explain:

But then London could use the argument that only 5% of the taxes collected there stay there, the other 95% returning to the UK coffers (to help impoverished northerner TOCs service their Pacers my guess...)

Maybe the government should let London keep the taxes it raises. It could finance it's own public transport and the DFT could pay for the rest of the UK. But i'm sure people would still argue "it isn't fair" and round and round we continue.

The truth of the matter is, that while London receives by far the greatest amount of transport subsidy, it is needed most there and UK economy benefits from this. Choke London and you damage ol' Blighty (this is normally where someone demands a new underground for Manchester)

I'm afriad it's this sort of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place; Economists call it 'overheating'. If too much economic activity takes place in too small an area it can have damaging effects. If you try to cram too much into one region of the country it will increase land values and overcrowd all of the other services available (water, electricity, healthcare, education, TRANSPORT etc.) such that it starts to be come more inefficient as a result of this. Lets not even talk about Land Values or supply of housing in London The marginal cost of increasing the supply of these things after demand has grown to outstrip them will continue to rise because all of the 'easy' capacity has been taken up already.

That's why Crossrail is essentially such a misguided project. If that same amount of money were spent trying to disperse economic activity throughout the country and encourage balanced and even economic growth (which is, let us not forget, because they seem to have, the Government's mandate) then all of the people who will be taking up Crossrail's new capacity could be taking up the empty seats (i.e. spare capacity, with absolutely no marginal cost of provision whatsoever) in the other parts of the country. And that's without the cost of having to dig all those new tunnels. Our lop-sided economy is definitely costing us here.

If we build Crossrail and Crossrail 2 and things go on as now, they will simply fill up. What then? How much money do we commit to trying to keep the same provision of service? Spending public money is one way to try to balance the economy in this situation, and although I like it as an excellent transport system and an enthusiast, Crossrail makes me very sad to see the result of government policy and funding both being used to re-enforce the dominance of London over other places.

 

[Wolfie]

I don't think anyone sensible would say it should be exactly the same level in every area but the London average is 500 times the North East, which is excessive. (BBC News article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27675069)

Seat occupancy level in the Northern franchise area is only 4% lower than the average for London and the South East. TPE's seat occupancy level was 22% higher then the average for London and the South East, with only London Overground being the only TOC with a higher seat occupancy level (although that was before the 350/4s were introduced.) Obviously the design of LO trains assumes most passengers stand.

This should have made TPE extra capacity one of the top priorities for the UK as a whole and it looks like it was one of the top priorities, until Chiltern signed a deal for the 170/3s and DfT didn't start looking for a proper solution to the problem.

There is a counter-arguement which is that London gets the lowest level of public transport subsidy of any part of the UK. "Baroness Kramer said the per-passenger-mile subsidy is about 31p for the rail network outside London compared with less than 5p in the capital". Perhaps if other areas (yes, Northern Rail et al I mean you!) actually covered (or even got near to it!) their costs there might be more investment there!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...sixth-of-regional-rail-subsidies-9477098.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately, it is precisely this attitude that is his, my and lots and lots of other people's *ahem* "problem".

Given I, and most people in London and the South East, pay much higher fares (doubtless due to getting less subsidy) than many of those elsewhere don't expect us to be overjoyed when the green eyes or the begging bowl come out yet again.....

 

[ianhr]

If such an underground did ever exist in Manchester, all it would ever see would be the trams of the Manchester Metrolink system...

Well a worthwhile start might be to link the E.Didisbury/Altrincham lines to the Bury/Oldham lines by a shortish tunnel under the city centre and upgrade them to higher capacity fast segregated metro like the Tyne & Wear system. Later perhaps an east-west line: Glossop/Marple (?) to the Atherton line (?). Street tramway & electrified suburban surface lines would probably be adequate for the rest given integrated ticketing and good interchanges.

What Manchester desperately needs is more CAPACITY after the disastrous downgrading of the BR period: the loss of Central, stripping out track/platforms from Salford/Man Vic and trying to send everything over the MSJA line through Piccadilly Platforms 13/14 + the under utilisation of existing electrification. The Ordsall chord is really a only half-baked cheapskate scheme and there will be serious congestion at all of it's very closely spaced flat junctions.

 

[Starmill]

Given I, and most people in London and the South East, pay much higher fares (doubtless due to getting less subsidy) than many of those elsewhere don't expect us to be overjoyed when the green eyes or the begging bowl come out yet again.....

I'm afraid we've done this recently elsewhere. Fares have an effect on subsidy but operational efficiency and passenger numbers matter more. Fares aren't any cheaper up here anyway if you travel main routes.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1812363&postcount=1833

 

[edwin_m]

What Manchester desperately needs is more CAPACITY after the disastrous downgrading of the BR period: the loss of Central, stripping out track/platforms from Salford/Man Vic and trying to send everything over the MSJA line through Piccadilly Platforms 13/14 + the under utilisation of existing electrification. The Ordsall chord is really a only half-baked cheapskate scheme and there will be serious congestion at all of it's very closely spaced flat junctions.

But capacity is ultimately about numbers of passengers not numbers of trains.

Very few local services around Manchester or any other city outside the south-east load to more than four coaches in the peak. Doubling the length of all of them would double capacity at far less cost (extra trains, depot space and some platform lengthening) than providing the infrastructure to run twice as many trains. Whereas most trains in the south-east are at their maximum practicable length in the peak.

Rather than being a reason the North is badly off, this is actually a good thing as most of its transport problems are more easy to solve. Replacing two-car DMUs by three- or four-car EMUs might be a good place to start...

The Northern Hub includes not only the Ordsall Chord but also providing a platform 15/16 at Piccadilly and other work at Oxford Road to solve one of the problems you mention.

 

[W230]

That's why Crossrail is essentially such a misguided project. If that same amount of money were spent trying to disperse economic activity throughout the country and encourage balanced and even economic growth (which is, let us not forget, because they seem to have, the Government's mandate) then all of the people who will be taking up Crossrail's new capacity could be taking up the empty seats...

So essentially the government should have spent £6bn making London less attractive for business? :?

Wonder what the cost-benefit allowance of that would be to the taxpayer!

I completely agree with the point you're trying to make but the only way you can do it is by making London as unattractive as possible a place to live/work then, as I can't see you can transform the rest of the country to have the same draw to employees as well as business. For example, London encourages many skilled people in from all over the world. For many it's not just about the job but about living in London too. How do you encourage these skilled workers to go work in, say, Middlesbrough? Or Burnley? While some cities (Manchester in particular) are developing a strong draw of their own - you then have the same problem (on a smaller scale in another city).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How do you encourage these skilled workers to go work in, say, Middlesbrough? Or Burnley?

A certain conspiracy theory says the "London-centric" powers-that-be are the leading supporters of the Class 142 Pacer fleet in the Northern areas afflicted by these monstrosities, when these items are shown to be the type of rail travel such skilled workers to which you allude are threatened with, when London has a ban placed upon these elderly railbuses operating in the area of "The Beautiful South" so as not to offend the sensibilities of these skilled workers when they decide that London offers a better option.

Of course, noting what you say about Burnley, there is the matter of the current hiatus that will forever be referred to in the annals of rail history of the proposed East Lancashire to Manchester service via the Copy Pit Line (thanks to the Todmorden Chord), where the said railway line now exists without any trains to actually run the service (Remember the old song about "A pub with no beer")..

 

[ianhr]

But capacity is ultimately about numbers of passengers not numbers of trains.

Very few local services around Manchester or any other city outside the south-east load to more than four coaches in the peak. Doubling the length of all of them would double capacity at far less cost (extra trains, depot space and some platform lengthening) than providing the infrastructure to run twice as many trains. Whereas most trains in the south-east are at their maximum practicable length in the peak.

Rather than being a reason the North is badly off, this is actually a good thing as most of its transport problems are more easy to solve. Replacing two-car DMUs by three- or four-car EMUs might be a good place to start...

Oh I agree with you totally! but all the TOCs in the North seem to be obsessed with running absurdly short AND overcrowded trains at ever increasing frequency, rather than fewer longer trains with greater reliability and more seats. TPE has been a disaster ever since the withdrawal of the long loco hauled sets ~1990. What have TPE just done now that they have a little more rolling stock? ......just add a fifth 3-car train between Leeds and Manchester rather than lengthening existing diagrams.

I thought that I was alone on here in arguing this, as most people seem to think that the only thing that attracts passengers is frequency rather than comfort and reliability.

Having said all that the TOCs are not entirely to blame as BR policy in it's dying years was to strip out every millimetre of surplus capacity that it could identify in the North of England, including shortening platforms which has made it more difficult to reintroduce even 4 or 6 car trains!