Manchester - Liverpool Electrification

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't expect them to be grateful, I expect them not to turn their noses up at it and endlessly bellyache about how hard done by they are.

If you look at the raison d'etre of this thread, the thread title is " Liverpool to Manchester Electrification". This matter seems to be totally forgotten in recent postings, which surely should be on a dedicated thread of their own and this thread should be left to infrastructural discussions on this subject of the thread, which is still in the "work in progress" stage.

For those forum members who wish to continue a discussion on the matter of the Class 319 units, there is already an established thread on the Traction and Rolling Stock forum that is titled "319 cascade to Northern".

 

[LouJ]

If you look at the raison d'etre of this thread, the thread title is " Liverpool to Manchester Electrification". This matter seems to be totally forgotten in recent postings, which surely should be on a dedicated thread of their own and this thread should be left to infrastructural discussions on this subject of the thread, which is still in the "work in progress" stage.

For those forum members who wish to continue a discussion on the matter of the Class 319 units, there is already an established thread on the Traction and Rolling Stock forum that is titled "319 cascade to Northern".

Well said. There are too many items of discussion that are not relevant to the threads. Can't people read or be bothered to look for the right place to post?

 

[Starmill]

It's not a matter of value, the problem is that the revenue on provincial services is not substantial so these services are subsidized to the order of 60% or more. The allocated resources are pretty much appropriate and should be sufficient at that level of income.

I can't disagree; so this means that the main cause of highly-subsidised operations are due to low passenger numbers and operational inefficient (shorter trains and diesel trains are less efficient and highly-subsidised routes tend to be both of those things). If it's " not a matter of value" then the problem of subsidy is not because fares are 'too cheap' or 'too expensive' in the South East.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can't disagree; so this means that the main cause of highly-subsidised operations are due to low passenger numbers and operational inefficient (shorter trains and diesel trains are less efficient and highly-subsidised routes tend to be both of those things). If it's " not a matter of value" then the problem of subsidy is not because fares are 'too cheap' or 'too expensive' in the South East.

Since this thread concerns any infrastructural works connected with the electrification of the line from Liverpool to Manchester, I am somewhat at a loss to know why both your posting and the one to which you have responded to have been made upon this particular thread...hock:

 

[Emyr]

Anyone got updates for the progress table?

 

[Philip C]

Since this thread concerns any infrastructural works connected with the electrification of the line from Liverpool to Manchester, I am somewhat at a loss to know why both your posting and the one to which you have responded to have been made upon this particular thread...hock:

Yes. This thread is for infrastructural works.... not for expressing concern about what other people are using it for. Or about commenting about other people commenting on other's people's use of the thread.

[Shoots self in foot and retires to sofa]

The problem, if a problem it be, is that contributors pick up on what has been said before and find no point in posting elsewhere without that context. Hence thread drift, which continues until the thread converges on what is already generally thought to have been said somewhere else and often, or the focus of battle moves on to other fields. Then without NEWS the thread dies and mortality overtakes words we thought immortal. Quite fascinating!

PS. If there are two Manchester - Liverpool slows per hour, and they are half an hour apart, must the non-stop service overtake en route (at Huyton)? What if the slows originate at Stalybridge? What are the implications of this for the speed/reliability of the services involved or is there more infrastructural capacity I've not taken into account? It all feels a bit tight to me, unless the fasts take an extended breather at Victoria as a permanent feature or the slows miss a few stops.

 

[edwin_m]

PS. If there are two Manchester - Liverpool slows per hour, and they are half an hour apart, must the non-stop service overtake en route (at Huyton)? What if the slows originate at Stalybridge? What are the implications of this for the speed/reliability of the services involved or is there more infrastructural capacity I've not taken into account? It all feels a bit tight to me, unless the fasts take an extended breather at Victoria as a permanent feature or the slows miss a few stops.

Interesting thought. On the CLC route the slows have to skip-stop to stay ahead of the fasts, though of course these are DMUs so the slows will be that much slower.

Starting the slows at Stalybridge is a bad idea operationally because they would then share more of their journey with the fasts, on what is effectively a double track route end to end, so there is more chance the fasts will catch up either as a feature of the timetable or when things are disrupted. Overtaking at Victoria is also bad, because the four available platforms will be quite pushed and the station is probably only workable by dedicating the southern pair to Liverpool etc services and the northern pair to Calder Valley and Wigan/Bolton. Even then the promised through trains between Calder Valley and the Airport will need to cross over between these pairs of tracks.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The problem, if a problem it be, is that contributors pick up on what has been said before and find no point in posting elsewhere without that context. Hence thread drift, which continues until the thread converges on what is already generally thought to have been said somewhere else and often, or the focus of battle moves on to other fields.

If you were to read the final paragraph of the posting that I made earlier today, you will find that I went to the trouble to state that there was already an existing thread titled "319 cascade to Northern" on the Traction and Rolling Stock forum, where such matters as traction could be discussed upon.

 

[muddythefish]

If you were to read the final paragraph of the posting that I made earlier today, you will find that I went to the trouble to state that there was already a pre-existing thread titled "319 cascade to Northern" on the Traction and Rolling Stock forum, where such matters as traction could be discussed upon.

How can a thread exist before it exists ? (see thread in General Discussion forum)

Meanwhile, back to Liverpool - Manchester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Meanwhile, back to Liverpool - Manchester.

This is exactly what I hope will now occur.

 

[Philip C]

If you were to read the final paragraph of the posting that I made earlier today, you will find that I went to the trouble to state that there was already a pre-existing thread titled "319 cascade to Northern" on the Traction and Rolling Stock forum, where such matters as traction could be discussed upon.

May I refer you to posting #1769 on this thread.

My comment was a mere whimsy. Most postings are based on what has gone before. Responding on another thread, in another forum area, breaks the line of argument and may lose many participants. Generally I would take what has gone before as licence to develop a point within the same thread. Threads have lives of their own, they evolve, they throw out strange limbs and that is a large part of their joy. They may need to be given direction from time to time but, please, not much.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

May I refer you to posting #1769 on this thread.

"Damascene moments in time" do in fact occur, when those afflicted by the enthusiasm of the moment causing them to lose all sense of forum thread propriety suddenly have the light of true knowledge shone upon them and are then found to be being repent of their past posting discrepancies...

"Blessed are the reformed posting forum members, for they shall see the light of truth descend upon them and their eyes will be opened to see the error of their past ways".

 

[londonmidland]

Any updates?

I've missed the frequent posts that were once relevant to the title of the thread and also the pictures.

 

[DJH1971]

Any updates?

I've missed the frequent posts that were once relevant to the title of the thread and also the pictures.

That's why this thread needs to get back to it's original focus.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

PS. If there are two Manchester - Liverpool slows per hour, and they are half an hour apart, must the non-stop service overtake en route (at Huyton)? What if the slows originate at Stalybridge? What are the implications of this for the speed/reliability of the services involved or is there more infrastructural capacity I've not taken into account? It all feels a bit tight to me, unless the fasts take an extended breather at Victoria as a permanent feature or the slows miss a few stops.

With current frequencies it's not a problem, on a good day anyway.
The line carries 7tph out of Liverpool at the moment (4 stoppers, 3 limited stop).
Three trains turn off at Huyton and another at Earlestown, with two joining at Earlestown/Parkside. Three of these five trains head for Piccadilly, leaving two for Victoria.
There is quite a bit of coal traffic Liverpool-WCML via Earlestown now, and maybe Port Salford to come.

The main problem is west of St Helens Jn with stations close together (the new ones really don't help).
The new layout at Huyton will allow overtaking westbound, but an equivalent eastbound facility will have to wait till the 4th track is in.
Trains can overtake at Victoria if there is a spare platform, and there is a loop at Earlestown West.

It isn't yet clear what future increase in frequencies there will be.
Maybe an extra Chester train on the eastern half, a Liverpool-Scotland portion on the western, and another TP Leeds service. Alliance? Who knows.
Class 319s should improve capacity with their faster acceleration and higher top speed.
The future problem will be negotiating the rats' nest at Ordsall Lane after the new chord goes in.
Luckily NR has just bought a Traffic Management System (TMS) for its ROCs, so we're OK!

 

[PDG1949]

With current frequencies it's not a problem, on a good day anyway.
The line carries 7tph out of Liverpool at the moment (4 stoppers, 3 limited stop).
Three trains turn off at Huyton and another at Earlestown, with two joining at Earlestown/Parkside. Three of these five trains head for Piccadilly, leaving two for Victoria.
There is quite a bit of coal traffic Liverpool-WCML via Earlestown now, and maybe Port Salford to come.

The main problem is west of St Helens Jn with stations close together (the new ones really don't help).
The new layout at Huyton will allow overtaking westbound, but an equivalent eastbound facility will have to wait till the 4th track is in.
Trains can overtake at Victoria if there is a spare platform, and there is a loop at Earlestown West.

It isn't yet clear what future increase in frequencies there will be.
Maybe an extra Chester train on the eastern half, a Liverpool-Scotland portion on the western, and another TP Leeds service. Alliance? Who knows.
Class 319s should improve capacity with their faster acceleration and higher top speed.
The future problem will be negotiating the rat's nest at Ordsall Lane after the new chord goes in.
Luckily NR has just bought some Traffic Management Software (TMS) for its ROCs!

Now maybe, haha, maybe, if St H Junction to StH Central were reinstated with east and west junctions in the vicinity of both stations (and perish the thought, electrified), a little more flexibility could be built into the system ? Ooops ! Big Pebble !

 

[driver_m]

What sort of journey time improvement are we expecting to see eventually for Liverpool-Preston trains?

I've looked in all the usual places for a figure, but can't find one.

The 90mph running is stretched another 3 miles towards liverpool from the commissioning of the new signalling at Huyton and there are also flashing yellows being put in so those improvements should save a few minutes.

 

[The Planner]

No timetable requires the third or fourth track at Huyton until after the whole job is finished. As for re-opening St Helens to Junction, we have done that one before and it isn't going to happen, what's left of the branch gets ripped out forever when St Helens is resignalled.

 

[PDG1949]

As for re-opening St Helens to Junction, we have done that one before and it isn't going to happen, what's left of the branch gets ripped out forever when St Helens is resignalled.

So when's that gonna be?

 

[The Planner]

Either this year or next i think.

 

[PDG1949]

Either this year or next i think.

Oh, come on, let's be a bit more specific - you appear to present yourself as 'The Planner'....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Either this year or next i think.

Oh dear, that's a bit nebulous considering you profess to be 'The Planner'..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Either this year or next i think.

Oh dear, that's a bit nebulous considering you profess to be 'The Planner'..

 

[OxtedL]

Not that kind of planning.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not that kind of planning.

Indeed so. Planning can cover an extremely wide range of topics and our respected personage with the username of "The Planner" has no rail connotations either attached to or implied by the use of this forum username.

My personal username is one that I use in the context of personal self-reflection and has categorically absolutely no connection whatsoever with one of the Polish generals who was involved with the fighting of the historical wars between Poland and Sweden; a historical matter that was so intimated to me in a PM received a couple of years ago by a fellow forum member....

 

[The Planner]

Blimey, three replies in one casting doubt on what I do, i am honoured! The date isn't tied down as far as I know as the last snippet I heard was that were doubts about what Pilkingtons were doing with their connection to the north of the station.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Blimey, three replies in one casting doubt on what I do, i am honoured! The date isn't tied down as far as I know as the last snippet I heard was that were doubts about what Pilkingtons were doing with their connection to the north of the station.

Am I right in thinking that the new Huyton interlocking will be run from St Helens initially, and then at some point go into Manchester ROC?

 

[Llama]

It will go into Manchester ROC from July, ie straight away.

 

[OxtedL]

Not that kind of planning.

Blimey, three replies in one casting doubt on what I do, i am honoured!

I meant that you weren't planning that specific project - which I am happy to be corrected on if wrong.

I have no idea what the other two thought you did...

 

[The Planner]

Ha ha, no, I meant the multiple single post earlier than yours.

 

[OxtedL]

Ha ha, no, I meant the multiple single post earlier than yours.

Ah, gotcha.

 

[driver_m]

No timetable requires the third or fourth track at Huyton until after the whole job is finished. As for re-opening St Helens to Junction, we have done that one before and it isn't going to happen, what's left of the branch gets ripped out forever when St Helens is resignalled.

Have merseytravel objected to these plans then? I thought it was on their wishlist to have it reinstated. Even if it is a fairly low priority taking it out would surely make it a lot harder to reinstate in the future.