Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[Class 170101]

I think that Middlesbrough and the Scarborough routes should be re-mapped to Northern as suggested as I don't think these routes will be wired for a while. Hull to Selby I believe will almost certainly be wired and therefore stay with TPE.

However I disagree with the proposed splitting of the Norwich to Liverpool service at Nottingham and in my opinion the service should be re-mapped to the Cross Country franchise.

As for Transpennine North West I might be tempted to have a Windermere and Blackpool service join / divide at Preston before heading to Manchester but leave Barrow solely in the hands of Northern.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for Transpennine North West I might be tempted to have a Windermere and Blackpool service join / divide at Preston before heading to Manchester but leave Barrow solely in the hands of Northern.

The 0929 Manchester Airport to Blackpool/Windermere is a six-coach Class 185 which splits at Preston. The Blackpool portion is the lead portion of that service.

 

[Class 170101]

The 0929 Manchester Airport to Blackpool/Windermere is a six-coach Class 185 which splits at Preston. The Blackpool portion is the lead portion of that service.

How about as an all day standard pattern?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How about as an all day standard pattern?

Would Windermere require such an intensive service pattern as that ?

 

[thealexweb]

Would Windermere require such an intensive service pattern as that ?

A good option would be an eight car 319 running Manchester Airport to Preston (via Bolton) splitting with one half always going to Blackpool North with the other half going to either Windermere (providing the electrification of the branch goes ahead) or Lancaster (linking in with Barrow stopper?).

 

[Class 170101]

A good option would be an eight car 319 running Manchester Airport to Preston (via Bolton) splitting with one half always going to Blackpool North with the other half going to either Windermere (providing the electrification of the branch goes ahead) or Lancaster (linking in with Barrow stopper?).

Is Windermere not hourly from Oxenholme? I thought it was.

 

[Philip]

An alternative idea for TPE North West could be introducing an hourly service from Barrow to Manchester and then continuing on to Sheffield and Nottingham or being more adventurous to Derby via Manchester Airport, Crewe and Stoke. This would utilise a few more 185s, would provide extra capacity between Manchester and Bolton and Preston and would improve connections between the East Midlands and the North West above Manchester.

Blackpool services can run separately from the Airport with some trains being doubled formed as a portion train with the other half going to Windermere like it is now.

 

[thealexweb]

Is Windermere not hourly from Oxenholme? I thought it was.

It is indeed. Every other one could continue to Manchester Airport though, inline with the governments aims.

 

[YorkshireBear]

For South TPE the consultation includes a proposal to transfer Doncaster-Cleethorpes from TPE to Northern, either by running what sounds like a similar service, but only as far as Sheffield (which sounds OK), or by adding it to the Northern Scunthorpe stopper... which would presumably increase the journey time significantly, and result in only 1 train per hour between Scunthorpe and Doncaster!

My consultation response said the same thing, must be a Northern Service to Sheffield with the same as now calling pattern. Extending to Manchester does seem a luxury that can be removed.

 

[northwichcat]

Network Rail have apparently said Alliance can run 6 return workings between Leeds and Euston via Victoria and Warrington (as discussed in the other thread.) I wonder how this affects North TPE and how the local stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield will be served.

 

[Morgsie]

What is happening with the Stoke-On-Trent to Manchester Piccadilly stopper service?

I have read previously there was talk of transferring this service to London Midland and extending to Birmingham

 

[David Barrett]

Yes, as part of Northern's Sheffield to Scunthorpe. Something that is unclear is that Northern DON-SCU already takes 15mins longer than the TPE equivilent due to 4-5 minor station stops, so they'll either need to drop those stops (making some small villages very unhappy) or add 15mins each way into the schedule, which presumably costs extra stock.

An extra 15mins may also tip the balance for people going south from Cleethorpes/Grimsby deciding whether to go via Doncaster or take EMT via Newark. At the moment the journey times are very similar but that extra 15mins will take it over the 3hr mark. I usually take TPE at the moment because the 185s are manifestly nicer than EMTs 153s, but if the 185s go elsewhere and there's a clear time saving then EMT will probably see more of my cash.

Indeed, and add the additional time for connections at Doncaster/Sheffield for those making through journeys to/from the North West then the petrolium companies and M62 service areas might just see some more of North and North East Lincolnshire resident's cash.

The whole thing makes the removal of Habrough stops from certian South Trans Pennine services some years ago to save two miniutes on the overall journey seem hollow.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have split out a vast number of posts that were solely discussing the practicalities of Northern Rail DOO and various other staffing issues into a thread here. Please can we focus discussion on this thread onto other elements of the consultation. It's a large document and there's a lot to discuss other than the DOO proposals.

 

[northwichcat]

What is happening with the Stoke-On-Trent to Manchester Piccadilly stopper service?

I have read previously there was talk of transferring this service to London Midland and extending to Birmingham

I posted a reply to your message but it got moved to the other thread.

That'll likely be part of the LM franchise consultation, given it would be done alongside other LM changes and would affect XC services. Stoke-Stone or Stone-Birmingham isn't really something that should be covered by Northern Rail consultation.

 

[Class 170101]

I think the biggest risk of moving this route to LM may be a loss of route focus. Its a long way from Birmingham.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Would the changes envisaged for the Cleethorpes area have any detrimental effect on the "day-tripper" trade that relies on rail ?

Scunthorpe-Doncaster is already with Northern? The consultation says:


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think it would indeed - if we recall the uproar during the Hatfield landslip I think its apparent that there will be a large number of people in Cleethorpes who'll (when they find out!) be very vocal about maintaining a link at least as far as Sheffield - and an 'express' one at that. Think of holiday makes on the all stops Sheffield-Cleethorpes, you just wouldn't would you!

I'm not certain of the numbers but I do wonder whether this change; the proposed transfer of 1tph Doncaster-Hull to TPE, and the idea of terminating the Cleethorpes at Doncaster is all about trying to remove the number of crossing moves at Doncaster, and the 'overcapacity' on express services between Doncaster and Sheffield.

I read it as, if the mainline transfers to Northern, Barton would stay as is; if the mainline stays with TPE then Barton would go to EMT. I think its an effort to reduce the number of operators in that area, it'd certainly be easier for EMT to swap stock in via the Lincoln-Grimsby service, than it is for Northern (unless they get the mainline too). I can't see it resulting in any change from it being manned by Cleethorpes depot either way.

We are infomed that the Sheffield Midland - Cleethorpes Via Brigg & Sheffeld Midland to Lincoln Central Lines will remain within Northern Rail's/Rail North remit

As for Cleethorpes we have been told that in future if the Barton line remains as a Northern Rail route that Cleethorpes could see crews based their in the near future, they would then work the Scunthorpe/Doncaster/Sheffield, Barton and " improved " Brigg line services

 

[Norb]

Does this mean that Chorley will lose the possibility of seat reservations and first class accommodation completely?

 

[mwmbwls]

I think the biggest risk of moving this route to LM may be a loss of route focus. Its a long way from Birmingham.

But a similar distance to the existing LM service from Birmingham to Liverpool

 

[Philip C]

But a similar distance to the existing LM service from Birmingham to Liverpool

Just how many more unco-ordinated TOCs can be operated into Piccadilly from Stockport? It is already six (Northern, Virgin, Cross-Country, TPEx, East Midlands and Arriva Wales) without adding London Midland. EMT may not be there too much longer, but this plethora of operators, each with its own imperatives and place in the pecking order, is inimical to the operation of an efficient service meeting passenger needs over common sections.

When the franchises were initially set up they were largely based on the allocation of mainline services from each London terminal to single operators possibly with more local services being run by another operator. Scotland was given to the Scots and Wales to the Welsh; what was left for some regional areas, South Manchester being a prime example, was a kaleidoscope of liveries and a service that is a hodge-podge. Adding LM to the mix will hardly help and could seriously undermine the running of Manchester based peak extras unless they either run far beyond their economic justification (unlikely as they'd get under Virgin's feet) or are operated by Northern (thus making its operations more peak orientated).

 

[northwichcat]

Cheshire & Warrington Local Transport Body's report on the Mid-Cheshire line with respect to what the franchise specification for the line should be: http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.u...ESHIRE LINE - LTB Report - 23 June 2014 2.pdf

Interesting to note that TfGM think just 50,000 journeys per annum is enough to justify a half-hourly service, on that basis Hope (Derbyshire) would have a half-hourly service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cheshire & Warrington Local Transport Body's report on the Mid-Cheshire line with respect to what the franchise specification for the line should be: http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.u...ESHIRE LINE - LTB Report - 23 June 2014 2.pdf

Don't they proof read these documents before release.

4.5 and 4.7 both make reference to PLUMEY...

 

[Greybeard33]

Cheshire & Warrington Local Transport Body's report on the Mid-Cheshire line with respect to what the franchise specification for the line should be: http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.u...ESHIRE LINE - LTB Report - 23 June 2014 2.pdf

Interesting to note that TfGM think just 50,000 journeys per annum is enough to justify a half-hourly service, on that basis Hope (Derbyshire) would have a half-hourly service.

Hmm. There seems to be some selective quoting in the LTB report. The TfGM Policy document in fact suggests

as an aspiration for fast journey times

a frequency of 2tph for stations with patronage of 50,000 to 500,000 trips per annum, but it qualifies this by saying:

This is only a starting point and the practicality of this will be partly dependent on costs.

This in the context of reducing frequency at stations with low patronage to speed up the service; TfGM also suggests an infrequent service, less than 1tph and based on the busiest times of day, for stations with patronage of less than 25,000 trips p.a., which would include Ashley, Mobberley, Plumley and Lostock Gralam.

Considering the competiton for paths through Stockport, a more realistic short-term objective might be strengthening of the 1tph service; Network Rail already has plans for platform extensions so that all stations along the line can accomodate 4*24m carriages. I doubt that the Cheshire and Warrington LTB can match TfGM's subsidy payments for additional half-empty two-car Pacers.

I find it curious that the LTB report asserts that:

the largest peak flow is currently away from Manchester in the morning and correspondingly towards Manchester in the evening peak

and that:

This happens because the route into Manchester is indirect (via Stockport), leading to slow journey times.

I can accept that the two most heavily loaded services of the day (albeit only for a small part of the route) are usually those carrying Altrincham/Hale students to/from Knutsford Academy, but the overall commuter flow into Manchester, including those who change to Metrolink at Altrincham, is surely greater than that in the opposite direction? If not, the morning peak Chester-Stockport extras ought to operate Stockport-Chester instead, and vice-versa in the evening.

 

[northwichcat]

Considering the competiton for paths through Stockport, a more realistic short-term objective might be strengthening of the 1tph service; Network Rail already has plans for platform extensions so that all stations along the line can accomodate 4*24m carriages. I doubt that the Cheshire and Warrington LTB can match TfGM's subsidy payments for additional half-empty two-car Pacers.

I don't think offering a half-hourly service will result in 2 cars being sufficient for all services, especially when special events are on.

I think the platform lengthening proposal relates to the RUS relating to future rolling stock where the Mid-Cheshire line and Hope Valley line were identified as suitable lines to cascade regional stock like the 170s down to. All the platforms on the line are long enough to take 4 car 150s, the only problem being at Mouldsworth where there's a visibility issue opposed to a platform length problem.

I find it curious that the LTB report asserts that: and that: I can accept that the two most heavily loaded services of the day (albeit only for a small part of the route) are usually those carrying Altrincham/Hale students to/from Knutsford Academy, but the overall commuter flow into Manchester, including those who change to Metrolink at Altrincham, is surely greater than that in the opposite direction? If not, the morning peak Chester-Stockport extras ought to operate Stockport-Chester instead, and vice-versa in the evening.

Well you could argue Greenbank-Chester is quieter than Knutsford-Altrincham in either direction at peak times. You're probably aware MCRUA proposed an easy fix to crowding between Knutsford and Altrincham in the evening would be to turn around the 16:58 Stockport-Chester at Greenbank and run it back to Stockport again, no extra unit or crew required.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think the platform lengthening proposal relates to the RUS relating to future rolling stock where the Mid-Cheshire line and Hope Valley line were identified as suitable lines to cascade regional stock like the 170s down to. All the platforms on the line are long enough to take 4 car 150s, the only problem being at Mouldsworth where there's a visibility issue opposed to a platform length problem.

Even in advance of a cascade the lengthening will enable 150+156 combos to be used, giving more diagramming flexibility. According to the Sectional Appendix, Mouldsworth Up, Delamere Up and Greenbank Up are all only 77m, barely long enough for a 4-car 150, and several others are only a few metres longer. Mouldsworth Down is only 55m.

Well you could argue Greenbank-Chester is quieter than Knutsford-Altrincham in either direction at peak times. You're probably aware MCRUA proposed an easy fix to crowding between Knutsford and Altrincham in the evening would be to turn around the 16:58 Stockport-Chester at Greenbank and run it back to Stockport again, no extra unit or crew required.

I had missed that proposal, but it is a good idea. It should reduce costs (shorter diagram) as well as generating more revenue. Unfortunately, the complementary proposal for an 07:58 Stockport to Greenbank service would need an extra unit and crew, because the units from the 06:33 Chester to Stockport form the 08:36 Hazel Grove to Preston.

Would any signalling changes be needed to enable reversals at Hartford CLC Junction?

 

[northwichcat]

Even in advance of a cascade the lengthening will enable 150+156 combos to be used, giving more diagramming flexibility. According to the Sectional Appendix, Mouldsworth Up, Delamere Up and Greenbank Up are all only 77m, barely long enough for a 4-car 150, and several others are only a few metres longer. Mouldsworth Down is only 55m.
I had missed that proposal, but it is a good idea. It should reduce costs (shorter diagram) as well as generating more revenue. Unfortunately, the complementary proposal for an 07:58 Stockport to Greenbank service would need an extra unit and crew, because the units from the 06:33 Chester to Stockport form the 08:36 Hazel Grove to Preston.

Would any signalling changes be needed to enable reversals at Hartford CLC Junction?

You may recall when we had the St-Annes to Greenbank service the reverse working was Northwich to Blackpool. Apparently it would have been possible to do a Greenbank to Blackpool return working but would have required a double reversal to move between the Chester and Manchester bound platforms at Greenbank and with the poor punctuality of the St-Annes to Greenbank service Northern weren't keen on that idea. They couldn't pick up Manchester passengers from the Chester bound platform due to the type of signal.

 

[Greybeard33]

You may recall when we had the St-Annes to Greenbank service the reverse working was Northwich to Blackpool. Apparently it would have been possible to do a Greenbank to Blackpool return working but would have required a double reversal to move between the Chester and Manchester bound platforms at Greenbank and with the poor punctuality of the St-Annes to Greenbank service Northern weren't keen on that idea. They couldn't pick up Manchester passengers from the Chester bound platform due to the type of signal.

Ah, so the reversing move would involve "wrong road" running for 9 chains from the Greenbank Down platform back to the trailing crossover at Hartford West Junction, then back wrong road into the Greenbank Up platform. The proposed evening service would have only 8 minutes at Greenbank for this double reversal. I doubt that this would allow sufficient recovery time. Most diagrams have a 14 minute layover at Chester, arriving and departing from the same platform. However, recovery time could be increased by skipping stops at the minor stations.

 

[northwichcat]

Ah, so the reversing move would involve "wrong road" running for 9 chains from the Greenbank Down platform back to the trailing crossover at Hartford West Junction, then back wrong road into the Greenbank Up platform. The proposed evening service would have only 8 minutes at Greenbank for this double reversal. I doubt that this would allow sufficient recovery time. Most diagrams have a 14 minute layover at Chester, arriving and departing from the same platform. However, recovery time could be increased by skipping stops at the minor stations.

There is a proposal to move the turnback facility so that only a single reversal will be required but I don't know when that is due to happen.

One other snag with the proposal is it's based on the current arrival time of 17:47. If the train was to terminate at Greenbank you can be pretty sure Northern will add a couple of minutes extra recovery time in, so the return working would likely have to start at Northwich or run a bit later.

14 minutes at Chester is longer than what is required to turn the train around. Some hours it's not just switching ends, it involves the crew switching to another train at the adjacent platform or two trains being joined or split. It was under 10 minutes a few years back but it was decided if the unit is going to sit at Manchester Piccadilly for almost an hour, they might as well extend the time at Chester which would reduce the chance of Manchester bound trains being late due to a late incoming service.

 

[Class 170101]

Reducing services at stations may actually wipe out what demand there is on the basis that the station isn't actually viable to use.

 

[David Barrett]

Reducing services at stations may actually wipe out what demand there is on the basis that the station isn't actually viable to use.

Precisely, noting that there is an assurance in the consultation Andrex as to there being no intention of closures................in this particular franchise period.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Precisely, noting that there is an assurance in the consultation Andrex as to there being no intention of closures................in this particular franchise period.

Forgive my lack of knowledge of certain railway terms, but what exactly is a "Consultation Andrex"....