New fourth platform at Manchester Airport station.

[northwichcat]

I think there is a strong possibility that the ATW service will end up in Victoria come December 2017. It depends on what TPE and Northern want to do but the original proposals under the Hub put it back to Victoria and I think that is where Dft want it to go.

With the Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds service starting in December 2017, diverting the North Wales service to Victoria would mean all Chester-Manchester services via Warrington would be from Victoria and all Chester-Manchester services via Altrincham would be from Piccadilly. Although, that would mean no direct Chester services from Oxford Road, unless Mid-Cheshire services are extended beyond Piccadilly.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think there is a strong possibility that the ATW service will end up in Victoria come December 2017. It depends on what TPE and Northern want to do but the original proposals under the Hub put it back to Victoria and I think that is where Dft want it to go.

Are not extra services that terminate at Manchester Victoria after arriving from the west something that are seen to be avoided whilst only four through platforms are available there when coming through that direction?

 

[Viscount702]

Are not extra services that terminate at Manchester Victoria after arriving from the west something that are seen to be avoided whilst only four through platforms are available there when coming through that direction?

Yes but the Northern ITT says that ATW trains terminating at Victoria have to be catered for if they are not permitted to go the Airport because TPE and Northern have used all the paths to the Airport.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So what do you do when the chord opens, TPE or whoever starts running the Calder Valley services and can't get into the Airport as ATW are there? Apart from the fact that DfT would start asking questions as the benefits of the Hub aren't being realised and not getting the return on the investment.

Network Rail has said in the past that ATW reversing at Mayfield causes more congestion than running through to the Airport.
The only problem was lack of capacity at the Airport.
Now there is a 4th platform that argument falls away.
I think ATW has a good case to be let in. Northern and TPE can't hog all the paths.
ATW only has rights up to the end of the W&B franchise in 2018 anyway.
Leaving the new capacity unused until the Ordsall Chord and the South Junction route is improved is just daft.
I understand the TPE performance issue though. The TP North 5th path has a lot to answer for.
That's another NR own goal, along with the electrification delay.

 

[berneyarms]

There really needs to be a decision made about what is going where and be done with it.

I agree with The Planner that if the intention is for ATW to go to Victoria in two years, then there would be no point in extending the Piccadilly services to the Airport, as the railway would just look very stupid in removing an important direct connection such as that.

But this kind of humming and hawing, with investments being made and no clear indication of what the long term intention is for them leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[The Planner]

Network Rail has said in the past that ATW reversing at Mayfield causes more congestion than running through to the Airport.
The only problem was lack of capacity at the Airport.
Now there is a 4th platform that argument falls away.
I think ATW has a good case to be let in. Northern and TPE can't hog all the paths.
ATW only has rights up to the end of the W&B franchise in 2018 anyway.
Leaving the new capacity unused until the Ordsall Chord and the South Junction route is improved is just daft.
I understand the TPE performance issue though. The TP North 5th path has a lot to answer for.
That's another NR own goal, along with the electrification delay.

Call it what you want, but if it went to the DfT/ORR I know which way they would decide.

 

[Class 170101]

So what do you do when the chord opens, TPE or whoever starts running the Calder Valley services and can't get into the Airport as ATW are there? Apart from the fact that DfT would start asking questions as the benefits of the Hub aren't being realised and not getting the return on the investment.

But ATW will still have rights between Ordsall Chord and Manchester Piccadilly so how does an extension forward to the Airport change that?

 

[northwichcat]

There really needs to be a decision made about what is going where and be done with it.

Looking at the Northern ITT they are required to run the following services as a minimum from December 2017:
- Hourly Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stopper
- 8 trains a day from Airport to Barrow
- 2 trains a day from Airport to Windermere.
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Chat Moss service
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Warrington service
- Hourly Airport to Blackpool service
- Additionally an hourly stopper unless the Chat Moss service acts as a second stopper - I think it will act as the second stopper

TPE are required to provide:
- Hourly Airport to Scotland service
- Half-hourly Airport to York service
- Hourly Airport to Cleethorpes service

Plus additionally Northern will have to provide an hourly Airport-Leeds via Bradford service from December 2019.

So it's very likely if a path is found for ATW now that they would be told they can only have it until December 2017.

 

[Class 170101]

Network Rail has said in the past that ATW reversing at Mayfield causes more congestion than running through to the Airport.
The only problem was lack of capacity at the Airport.
Now there is a 4th platform that argument falls away.
I think ATW has a good case to be let in. Northern and TPE can't hog all the paths.
ATW only has rights up to the end of the W&B franchise in 2018 anyway.
Leaving the new capacity unused until the Ordsall Chord and the South Junction route is improved is just daft.
I understand the TPE performance issue though. The TP North 5th path has a lot to answer for.
That's another NR own goal, along with the electrification delay.

Agree on all counts. Looks like NR just trying to protect their performance figures to the dis-benefit of passengers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the 1960's, I remember travelling from the bay platform 1 at Manchester Exchange station to Holyhead.

EDIT....Sorry, wrong thread

 

[Class 170101]

Looking at the Northern ITT they are required to run the following services as a minimum from December 2017:
- Hourly Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stopper
- 8 trains a day from Airport to Barrow
- 2 trains a day from Airport to Windermere.
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Chat Moss service
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Warrington service
- Hourly Airport to Blackpool service
- Additionally an hourly stopper unless the Chat Moss service acts as a second stopper - I think it will act as the second stopper

TPE are required to provide:
- Hourly Airport to Scotland service
- Half-hourly Airport to York service
- Hourly Airport to Cleethorpes service

Plus additionally Northern will have to provide an hourly Airport-Leeds via Bradford service from December 2019.

So it's very likely if a path is found for ATW now that they would be told they can only have it until December 2017.

If the Chat Moss acts as the second stopper that you suggest surely that opens up a slot to the Airport. Whether ATW could make use of it however. Also are two Chat Moss services needed to the Airport anyway?

 

[northwichcat]

If the Chat Moss acts as the second stopper that you suggest surely that opens up a slot to the Airport.

No because of the requirement for a new Airport-Liverpool via Warrington service and the enhanced Airport-Cumbria services.

Also are two Chat Moss services needed to the Airport anyway?

Only one would run via Chat Moss. Although, it's looking like it will become a stopping service between Manchester and Liverpool once the Airport-Liverpool via Warrington service starts instead of a semi-fast as it is at present. There isn't a Warrington station between Manchester and Liverpool on Chat Moss.

 

[berneyarms]

Looking at the Northern ITT they are required to run the following services as a minimum from December 2017:
- Hourly Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stopper
- 8 trains a day from Airport to Barrow
- 2 trains a day from Airport to Windermere.
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Chat Moss service
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Warrington service
- Hourly Airport to Blackpool service
- Additionally an hourly stopper unless the Chat Moss service acts as a second stopper - I think it will act as the second stopper

TPE are required to provide:
- Hourly Airport to Scotland service
- Half-hourly Airport to York service
- Hourly Airport to Cleethorpes service

Plus additionally Northern will have to provide an hourly Airport-Leeds via Bradford service from December 2019.

So it's very likely if a path is found for ATW now that they would be told they can only have it until December 2017.

So assuming the Chat Moss service is the stopper that means that the service level post December 2017 between Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly will be:

2 stopping services an hour
3 fast Northern services an hour with a fourth from December 2019
4 fast TPE services an hour

 

[edwin_m]

But ATW will still have rights between Ordsall Chord and Manchester Piccadilly so how does an extension forward to the Airport change that?

ATW franchise only runs until 2018 if I recall correctly. So it's just a case of putting any Northern Hub related changes into the spec for the replacement.

 

[northwichcat]

So assuming the Chat Moss service is the stopper that means that the service level post December 2017 between Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly will be:

2 stopping services an hour
3 fast Northern services an hour with a fourth from December 2019
4 fast TPE services an hour

There would be some hours where there's 1 less Northern services if bidders opt to run the minimum requirement to Cumbria (10 services per day is one most hours not every hour.) There's also the option of the 2 Windermere services being portion working with Blackpool services (it wouldn't work with Barrow due to Barrow not getting electrified) which could be partly where the flexibility to leave some paths for North Wales services comes in.

 

[lejog]

Calder Valley aren't, they are an output of the hub.

True.

Looking at the Northern ITT they are required to run the following services as a minimum from December 2017:
- Hourly Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stopper
- 8 trains a day from Airport to Barrow
- 2 trains a day from Airport to Windermere.
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Chat Moss service
- Hourly Airport to Liverpool via Warrington service
- Hourly Airport to Blackpool service
- Additionally an hourly stopper unless the Chat Moss service acts as a second stopper - I think it will act as the second stopper

TPE are required to provide:
- Hourly Airport to Scotland service
- Half-hourly Airport to York service
- Hourly Airport to Cleethorpes service

Plus additionally Northern will have to provide an hourly Airport-Leeds via Bradford service from December 2019.

So it's very likely if a path is found for ATW now that they would be told they can only have it until December 2017.

But from memory it seems to me that Preston with (approx) 3tph to the Airport has done rather better than the 1tph required by the Hub, while Chester and Southport (each also due 1tph) have missed out.

In Hub terms, routing the ATW train to Victoria, actually worsens Chester's position with regards to other Hub connectivity requirements (single change to other main routes, to Metrolink destinations etc.) although these are still met by having the slower service to Piccadilly.

 

[BantamMenace]

ATW would benefit from the western access to MIA so they could arrive from the rest and run through into the shed at Piccadilly or run in a loop fashion back to Chester via N-L-W.

 

[northwichcat]

But from memory it seems to me that Preston with (approx) 3tph to the Airport has done rather better than the 1tph required by the Hub, while Chester and Southport (each also due 1tph) have missed out.

You're wrong about 1tph between Preston and the Airport. (It has been 2tph since the late 1990s.)

Ten tph from Manchester and beyond, two tph from
Crewe and beyond:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle
and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and one
from Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-onTrent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/6485_ManchesterHubRailStudy.pdf

However, this later document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3643/illustrative-options.pdf revised Airport requirements to be simply "Services from Manchester Airport revised to match current patterns of demand."

Chester may still get a Manchester Airport service post-2017 it's only been ruled out in the short term. I think there's very little chance of regular Southport-Airport services continuing though.

 

[Viscount702]

To add to the Problem East Yorkshire Council want the Hull train to run to the Airport and have the support of Manchester City Council

 

[northwichcat]

In Hub terms, routing the ATW train to Victoria, actually worsens Chester's position with regards to other Hub connectivity requirements (single change to other main routes, to Metrolink destinations etc.) although these are still met by having the slower service to Piccadilly.

Why?

If you're going to London/Birmingham it's faster to change at Warrington Bank Quay.

If you're going to West/North/East Yorkshire or the North East the fast services are being moved to Victoria.

If you're going to South Yorkshire from Chester the fastest journey option is using the Northern service to Stockport (which is supposed become a semi-fast service in December 2017 so will get even faster.)

Metrolink connections to places on the Altrincham/Airport line from Chester would be reached fastest by joining Metrolink at Altrincham opposed to in Manchester.

Metrolink connections to places on the Bury/Rochdale lines would improve by sending Chester services to Victoria.

Salford Quays is the problem Metrolink destination but if it's important then stopping Chester-Victoria trains at Eccles would provide better journey times than going via Piccadilly (as you'd currently need to.)

There's also poorer links to the Eithad Stadium but then are those used much on non-match days?

 

[BantamMenace]

To add to the Problem East Yorkshire Council want the Hull train to run to the Airport and have the support of Manchester City Council

This could be a portion joining the Cleethorpes train at Doncaster, it wouldn't be via Leeds but it'd serve a purpose of giving Hull a connection to the Airport via Sheffield.

 

[lejog]

You're wrong about 1tph between Preston and the Airport. (It has been 2tph since the late 1990s.)

Ten tph from Manchester and beyond, two tph from
Crewe and beyond:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle
and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and one
from Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-onTrent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/6485_ManchesterHubRailStudy.pdf

We are talking at cross purposes here. You are quoting part 2 if the Manchester Hub study, which forms Network Rail's planned solution to meet the requirements set in Part 1 by the Northern Way. I'm talking about the requirement set by Part 1, which only requires 1tph on the Preston corridor.

The requirement is for direct services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor)…

Neither of us are right or wrong because we are talking about different things. (However I did say in my post "required by the Hub", I thought it was plain I was talking about requirements).

Hopefully we can both agree that Preston has come out better off than Chester or Southport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, this later document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3643/illustrative-options.pdf revised Airport requirements to be simply "Services from Manchester Airport revised to match current patterns of demand."

It did not revise any requirements in any form whatsoever, it was just the DfT putting their big boot in attempting to impose new solutions to the benefit of the rail industry that ignored requirements that would "drive the economic growth of the North" (See p4 of the study document you linked to to see how these requirements were derived).

 

[northwichcat]

We are talking at cross purposes here. You are quoting part 2 if the Manchester Hub study, which forms Network Rail's planned solution to meet the requirements set in Part 1 by the Northern Way. I'm talking about the requirement set by Part 1, which only requires 1tph on the Preston corridor.

The only relevant information is:

- provide direct journeys from Bradford, Halifax and
the Calder Valley to Manchester Airport and
destinations west of Manchester
- provide direct services from Chester to destinations
beyond Manchester

So Chester-Airport service isn't confirmed in the early part, only a Chester to beyond Manchester service so the Chester-Bradford-Leeds service meets that requirement. While Bradford-Airport is confirmed in 2019.

The early part also refers to the improvements being made, not changes to existing services. As I said Preston-Airport has been 2tph since the late 90s. Can you give a reference to where it was proposed cutting it back to 1tph? I'm sure there would have been outrage from the Bolton and Preston areas if that was ever even mooted.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

People talk about requirements and solutions as if they were immutable.
Even after the consultation, the Northern/TPE ITTs to me only define a baseline (ie level playing field) for the bidders to be compared.
Six months on, and under a new government with new priorities and funding constraints, and considering 3 disparate bids for each franchise, who knows what will actually be contracted.

 

[northwichcat]

People talk about requirements and solutions as if they were immutable.
Even after the consultation, the Northern/TPE ITTs to me only define a baseline (ie level playing field) for the bidders to be compared.
Six months on, and under a new government with new priorities and funding constraints, and considering 3 disparate bids for each franchise, who knows what will actually be contracted.

Of course the ITT specifies the minimum requirements not the exact specification for everything. Up here we're not used to things being offered above the minimum requirements but it's possible for bidders to offer something above the minimum to make their bids more attractive.

There's also some flexibility allowed. For instance, the ITT requires new trains to be built and 'Regional Express' standard trains. The 'Regional Express' trains could be new stock or they could be refurbished cascaded stock.

 

[lejog]

The only relevant information is:



So Chester-Airport service isn't confirmed in the early part, only a Chester to beyond Manchester service so the Chester-Bradford-Leeds service meets that requirement. While Bradford-Airport is confirmed in 2019.

The early part also refers to the improvements being made, not changes to existing services. As I said Preston-Airport has been 2tph since the late 90s. Can you give a reference to where it was proposed cutting it back to 1tph? I'm sure there would have been outrage from the Bolton and Preston areas if that was ever even mooted.

As I said we are talking completely at odds here. I can only repeat that I'm talking about the Phase 1 of the study (to which I had some input) which identified conditional outputs (aka requirements) which would benefit the Northern economy. You may find this at http://www.northernwaytransportcompact.com/The_Northern_Hub.html

1. Objectives
2. Economics Study and Transport Modelling and Benefit Assessment (probably heavy going)
3. Conditional Output Statement
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People talk about requirements and solutions as if they were immutable.
Even after the consultation, the Northern/TPE ITTs to me only define a baseline (ie level playing field) for the bidders to be compared.
Six months on, and under a new government with new priorities and funding constraints, and considering 3 disparate bids for each franchise, who knows what will actually be contracted.

I totally agree with this, it sometimes seems I've spent half my life negotiating contract changes. Of course both requirements and solutions change over time.

However having worked on the requirements for the Northern Hub, I know of no changes that have been made to these requirements (to be clear I mean the conditional outputs from Phase 1 of the Study, Phase 2 is the solution). Any edicts made by DfT/Network Rail that change the contents of Phase 2 Study are changes to the solution, not the requirements.

There is a whole branch of project management and control called Requirements Tracking, which should ensure that when the solution changes that it still meets the requirement. If its not in GRIP it ought to be. In this case it should allow the taxpayer to see that the economic benefit to be provided as a result of the public investment signed off against the Hub is still present.

A simple update of the table in Figure 6.4 in the Phase 2 Study, showing the degree of compliance of Network Rail's solution against the requirements would suffice.

 

[northwichcat]

As I said we are talking completely at odds here. I can only repeat that I'm talking about the Phase 1 of the study (to which I had some input) which identified conditional outputs (aka requirements) which would benefit the Northern economy. You may find this at http://www.northernwaytransportcompact.com/The_Northern_Hub.html

1. Objectives
2. Economics Study and Transport Modelling and Benefit Assessment (probably heavy going)
3. Conditional Output Statement

Doing a scan on those documents for the term 'Preston' doesn't bring up anything relevant to your claim. It talks about Manchester-Preston services being overcrowded so more capacity being needed, it also talks about journey time improvements and the possibility of having portion working. However, no where does it mention reducing the frequency of Preston-Airport to 1tph which is what you've claimed and the only thing I'm objecting to.

If your claim is valid (I'd be extremely surprised if it is as how would the local councils have missed it and not raised an objection) then can you provide a relevant reference, not just say it's somewhere in those 10 lengthy pdfs when nothing of relevance is there.

 

[lejog]

Doing a scan on those documents for the term 'Preston' doesn't bring up anything relevant to your claim. It talks about Manchester-Preston services being overcrowded so more capacity being needed, it also talks about journey time improvements and the possibility of having portion working. However, no where does it mention reducing the frequency of Preston-Airport to 1tph which is what you've claimed and the only thing I'm objecting to.

If your claim is valid (I'd be extremely surprised if it is as how would the local councils have missed it and not raised an objection) then can you provide a relevant reference, not just say it's somewhere in those 10 lengthy pdfs when nothing of relevance is there.

Can I ask what relevance you are referring to? I didn't understand a word of post #53 and don't understand a word of this one either. All I've said of Manchester to Preston services is

But from memory it seems to me that Preston with (approx) 3tph to the Airport has done rather better than the 1tph required by the Hub,

and my memory was correct, the conditional output for the Hub was for 1 tph for all major corridors except 2 to Leeds. Of course its okay for this requirement to be exceeded. Where have I said anything about withdrawing services?

 

[northwichcat]

and my memory was correct, the conditional output for the Hub was for 1 tph for all major corridors except 2 to Leeds. Of course its okay for this requirement to be exceeded. Where have I said anything about withdrawing services?

Based on what evidence? You only seem to be writing from memory and using your own memory to prove that your memory was correct! :roll:

All I've said of Manchester to Preston services is

Your quote is exactly what I'm referring to. You said Preston-Airport was only spec'd at 1tph but have provided no evidence for that. I've tried numerous times to ask you to provide proof of that and you've just wrote a load of rubbish in response about me referring to a later document and then repeated your claim in double dutch the second time.

As far as I'm concerned Preston to the Airport was always envisaged to be 2tph as no evidence has been provided to prove anything else. Case closed.

 

[lejog]

Why?

If you're going to London/Birmingham it's faster to change at Warrington Bank Quay.

If you're going to West/North/East Yorkshire or the North East the fast services are being moved to Victoria.

If you're going to South Yorkshire from Chester the fastest journey option is using the Northern service to Stockport (which is supposed become a semi-fast service in December 2017 so will get even faster.)

Metrolink connections to places on the Altrincham/Airport line from Chester would be reached fastest by joining Metrolink at Altrincham opposed to in Manchester.

Metrolink connections to places on the Bury/Rochdale lines would improve by sending Chester services to Victoria.

Salford Quays is the problem Metrolink destination but if it's important then stopping Chester-Victoria trains at Eccles would provide better journey times than going via Piccadilly (as you'd currently need to.)

There's also poorer links to the Eithad Stadium but then are those used much on non-match days?

Again, I'll refer you to the conditional outputs regarding connectivity of Phase 1 of the Study (which were based on economic modelling rather than a random list of destinations). As I said since Chester still has a service to Piccadilly, the franchise specs provide a solution that still meets most of the conditional outputs except the one to the airport .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Based on what evidence? You only seem to be writing from memory and using your own memory to prove that your memory was correct! :roll:



Your quote is exactly what I'm referring to. You said Preston-Airport was only spec'd at 1tph but have provided no evidence for that. I've tried numerous times to ask you to provide proof of that and you've just wrote a load of rubbish in response about me referring to a later document and then repeated your claim in double dutch the second time.

As far as I'm concerned Preston to the Airport was always envisaged to be 2tph as no evidence has been provided to prove anything else. Case closed.

The requirement is for direct services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor)…

This is a conditional output from Phase 1 of the Study and is shown as the requirement for Airport Connectivy on p64 of the Phase 2 study.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Case closed.

A little rich coming from someone who it appears didn't even know until an hour ago where the requirements for the hub were defined.