Northern timetable plan for May 2018

[roversfan2001]

Was there S106 funding from the new development to be spent on public transport? If there was then the provision will have to remain until the funding runs out.

Without knowing what that means, I have discovered that £3.5m from Chorley Borough Council was used under a Section 106 agreement. Presuming a condition of that was the extra services, surely given the extra passengers (382k vs 304k) using Leyland then that warrants additional services too, based on the usage figures.

I haven't looked if there would be pathing issues however.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

 

[Ianno87]

Without knowing what that means, I have discovered that £3.5m from Chorley Borough Council was used under a Section 106 agreement. Presuming a condition of that was the extra services, surely given the extra passengers (382k vs 304k) using Leyland then that warrants additional services too, based on the usage figures.

I haven't looked if there would be pathing issues however.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

Depends where people are headed. A good chunk of Leylandians appear to make the short hop to Preston, whereas Buckshaw would probably be more Manchester-focused.

 

[roversfan2001]

Depends where people are headed. A good chunk of Leylandians appear to make the short hop to Preston, whereas Buckshaw would probably be more Manchester-focused.

As a local, I'd say both would have a large chunk of people heading to Preston, with Buckshaw having more heading to Chorley than Leyland. Obviously both would use Preston as the changing point for inter city services.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

 

[northwichcat]

Without knowing what that means, I have discovered that £3.5m from Chorley Borough Council was used under a Section 106 agreement. Presuming a condition of that was the extra services, surely given the extra passengers (382k vs 304k) using Leyland then that warrants additional services too, based on the usage figures.

I haven't looked if there would be pathing issues however.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

A S106 is where the developer provides funding for changes outside their development. It could include a new roundabout or traffic lights to prevent the development causing a traffic blackspot, it could include public transport to serve the new development or even something as simple as a new children's play area.

 

[scrapy]

Given we were told it would involve a full recast of South Manchester services a Crewe service having a different slot is hardly surprising. A retimed Crewe service might even be better for Crewe line passengers (Holmes Chapel Comprehensive aren't happy with the current times for one), yet you're saying it like Crewe passengers will get the short straw.

Yes Northbound the two Crewe to Manchester services will be exactly 30 mins apart from Sandbach and Holmes Chapel. Southbound they will leave Manchester approximately 30 min apart however the Styal line trains will have 15 min at Manchester Airport so will be approximately 15/45 min apart South of Wilmslow.

Passengers from Sandbach and Holmes Chapel using the service which goes via Manchester Airport will also have a reasonably timed connection (10min wait each way) onto the Alderley Edge to Wigan service effectively giving 2 trains per hour to stations via Stockport rather than just missing it as at present.

 

[RAPC]

As a local, I'd say both would have a large chunk of people heading to Preston, with Buckshaw having more heading to Chorley than Leyland. Obviously both would use Preston as the changing point for inter city services.

As a regular Leyland user, the peak flows are seemingly heavier in the Manchester direction in the morning, then Preston, then Wigan. On my services home (both Piccadilly and Victoria) in the peaks, I definitely see more for Buckshaw than Leyland though.

Buckshaw definitely used to get a lot more passengers than Leyland on the morning peaks, but it has been increasingly levelling out to a more even split for the past 4 or 5 months. One of the staff at Buckshaw made mention that the free parking was up for review later this year. If they did start charging, then I suspect that the Leylanders who drive to Buckshaw, will go back to Leyland.

 

[Francis]

I'll risk the wrath of responses on this one - whilst the Lancaster / Cumbria / Scotland is obviously a benefit, does a town the size of Chorley and with the usage its station has automatically warrant 4tph? (The same question goes for the Horwich and Buckshaw Parkways too.)
I always found it a bit odd that the Scottish traffic had stops inserted there, it struck me as the problem which blights CrossCountry, in having to utilise what should be an inter-city route as a regional or local stopper service.

Population of Chorley borough 2016 = 115,000
Population of Leyland South Ribble = 110,000
Population of Preston = 140,000
Population of Lancaster with Morecambe and Carnforth = 143,500
Population of Bolton metro borough = 283,000.
Why stop at Oxenholme (Kendal population 29,000) or Penrith (population 15,000 or Eden district Inc Appleby and Kirkby Stephen 53,000)?? Or even Carlisle pop 101,000??!

 

[anti-pacer]

Population of Chorley borough 2016 = 115,000
Population of Leyland South Ribble = 110,000
Population of Preston = 140,000
Population of Bolton metro borough = 300,000.
Why stop at Oxenholme or Penrith?? Or even Carlisle pop 101,000??!

Oxenholme has a connection to Windermere, the most popular area of the Lakes. Penrith is the access point to the North Lakes. I would imagine that at certain times of the year they are popular with tourist traffic. Also the choice of alternatives isn't as good up there as it is in Chorley.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Population of Chorley borough 2016 = 115,000
Population of Leyland South Ribble = 110,000
Population of Preston = 140,000
Population of Bolton metro borough = 283,000.
Why stop at Oxenholme (Kendal population 29,000) or Penrith (population 15,000 or Eden district Inc Appleby and Kirkby Stephen 53,000)?? Or even Carlisle pop 101,000??!

Chorley Borough is much more rural in nature than any of Leyland South Ribble, Preston or Bolton so that population is too widely dispersed to make Chorley an important stop for longer distance services. As for Oxenholme and Penrith there are plenty of trains that pass through those stations non-stop. Don't know why you would even question Carlisle: it's a significant regional centre as well as a junction of six rail routes. Lies, damned lies and statistics!!!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Population of Chorley borough 2016 = 115,000
Population of Leyland South Ribble = 110,000
Population of Preston = 140,000
Population of Bolton metro borough = 300,000.
Why stop at Oxenholme (Kendal population 29,000) or Penrith (population 15,000 or Eden Valley 53,000)?? Or even Carlisle pop 101,000??!

Well, if we do as you suggest at Penrith, it gets left with absolutely nothing (only about half of all VT services call there IIRC); and Oxenholme just its hourly Windermere shuttle, which would have minimal traffic owing to the now completely non-existent connections at Oxenholme. Carlisle and Preston both have hoards of connections that Chorley, and many hundreds of other stations, simply do not have.

Anyway, population does not correlate to a justification or baseline of service level (cf. Poole, Rochdale and Lincoln to the likes of Barnham and Markinch). A lot of rail service provision is based on geography, circumstance and, in all honesty, sometimes a slice of good fortune - see the likes of Diss and Alnmouth.

(As an aside, how many of those thousands in Chorley borough do not find it more convenient to gravitate to the likes of Preston, Blackburn or Wigan for rail services regardless of what Chorley station offers? The borough stretches well beyond Chorley town and practically to the outskirts of other, much larger settlements.)

3tph isn't bad for a town of Chorley's actual town size (35,000): this is equal to what the three-times-larger town of Blackburn just 10 miles up the road received until a few years ago, and, as I've pointed out, in relative parity to other rather much larger settlements. I can appreciate the annoyance of gaining then losing such an attractive service as Chorley did, but to be genuinely honest, does it need an hourly service to Lancaster, Cumbria and Scotland, especially when the existing service levels to Preston make connections so easy? Unfortunately, the Scottish TPE services are one of those sets always likely to be beset by overcrowding, and adding more calls for what would primary serve just local journeys does not aid this (as I've said before, a huge problem I think for CrossCountry services).

 

[Philip]

As far as the Bolton stop is concerned, I think this size of the town and the business of the station justifies having all Scotland services stop there, not just for set down and pick up. This is what happened under this previous TPE arrangement and under Virgin Cross Country. If some peak time Scottish services don't stop there then they should divert a couple of the Cumbria Northern Connects to call there instead of Wigan.

 

[Ianno87]

Population of Chorley borough 2016 = 115,000
Population of Leyland South Ribble = 110,000
Population of Preston = 140,000
Population of Lancaster with Morecambe and Carnforth = 143,500
Population of Bolton metro borough = 283,000.
Why stop at Oxenholme (Kendal population 29,000) or Penrith (population 15,000 or Eden district Inc Appleby and Kirkby Stephen 53,000)?? Or even Carlisle pop 101,000??!

Carlisle, Penrith and Oxenholme also act as railheads for (collectively) the whole of the Lake District and much of southern Scotland/borders area.

 

[northwichcat]

As far as the Bolton stop is concerned, I think this size of the town and the business of the station justifies having all Scotland services stop there, not just for set down and pick up. This is what happened under this previous TPE arrangement and under Virgin Cross Country. If some peak time Scottish services don't stop there then they should divert a couple of the Cumbria Northern Connects to call there instead of Wigan.

Bolton got an additional hourly Northern service to Manchester in exchange for losing the 2 hourly Virgin service. There aren't an infinite number of paths available so stopping the peak time Scottish might come at the price of not retaining the peak time Southport service.

Since the Scottish services transferred to TPE there have been issues with too many local passengers using the service, allowing Bolton to Manchester passengers to use those services will prevent the problem being solved. Bolton will retain regular Manchester services and have many more Scottish services than it had under Virgin, so why are being so grumpy about Bolton's improvements?

 

[Starmill]

Given how much complaining there was in 2013, I am expecting hordes of passengers from day one to be waiting at Bolton with their tickets to Edinburgh. I will be very disappointed if not!

 

[Philip]

Bolton got an additional hourly Northern service to Manchester in exchange for losing the 2 hourly Virgin service. There aren't an infinite number of paths available so stopping the peak time Scottish might come at the price of not retaining the peak time Southport service.

Since the Scottish services transferred to TPE there have been issues with too many local passengers using the service, allowing Bolton to Manchester passengers to use those services will prevent the problem being solved. Bolton will retain regular Manchester services and have many more Scottish services than it had under Virgin, so why are being so grumpy about Bolton's improvements?

Bolton is a large enough town with a big enough catchment area to warrant regular services to Lancaster, the Lakes and Scotland. You are forgetting that in addition to the 2-hourly Virgin Scotland service, there was a separate hourly service to Lancaster and beyond. Now it is an off peak hourly Scotland service with the likelihood of peak services not stopping there.

 

[L+Y]

Is the Ormskirk-Preston increase to hourly dropped? ISTR that was a franchise commitment.

Seems to be happening: see page 4 here.

 

[northwichcat]

Bolton is a large enough town with a big enough catchment area to warrant regular services to Lancaster, the Lakes and Scotland. You are forgetting that in addition to the 2-hourly Virgin Scotland service, there was a separate hourly service to Lancaster and beyond. Now it is an off peak hourly Scotland service with the likelihood of peak services not stopping there.

If there's demand for stations on the Barrow line from Bolton then arguing for an hourly Scottish service every hour is not a solution, as passengers will have to change whether or not there's a direct Scottish service.

 

[Philip]

If there's demand for stations on the Barrow line from Bolton then arguing for an hourly Scottish service every hour is not a solution, as passengers will have to change whether or not there's a direct Scottish service.

I didn't say the Barrow line specifically, but Lancaster and beyond. What about retaining the hourly direct link between Bolton and Lancaster, which at one point used to be three trains every two hours?

If track capacity is the issue then fair enough but otherwise it seems like a poor decision by Northern to run the hourly Cumbria service via the Chat Moss, especially since the Manchester-Bolton line will have a huge speed increase soon. If they really want to carry on serving Wigan, why not run it calling at Salford-Bolton-Wigan?

 

[Greybeard33]

I didn't say the Barrow line specifically, but Lancaster and beyond. What about retaining the hourly direct link between Bolton and Lancaster, which at one point used to be three trains every two hours?

If track capacity is the issue then fair enough but otherwise it seems like a poor decision by Northern to run the hourly Cumbria service via the Chat Moss, especially since the Manchester-Bolton line will have a huge speed increase soon. If they really want to carry on serving Wigan, why not run it calling at Salford-Bolton-Wigan?

Because Manchester to Wigan via Bolton is much slower than via the Chat Moss, and the Cumbria service is specified to be a fast Northern Connect. The routing is to retain fast services between Wigan and Manchester after the TPEs are rerouted. In any case the Bolton-Salford line will surely be at capacity in the May timetable.

Bolton will still have fast Northern services to/from Preston, with good connections to Lancaster and beyond. And are you sure that the TPEs will not stop at Bolton in the peaks, to pick up northbound/set down southbound? Even though this is not a requirement in the TSR?

 

[IanXC]

I have the impression that there is an equivalent TPE consultation going on at the moment too, but we have heard little of what this contains - anyone have any hints or clues as to what is going on with this?

 

[thealexweb]

Because Manchester to Wigan via Bolton is much slower than via the Chat Moss...

Looking at RTT, a Class 185 running Manchester Piccadilly - Bolton - Wigan NW - Preston takes around 50 minutes. A Class 185 running Manchester Piccadilly - Chat Moss - Wigan NW - Preston takes around 45 minutes. Once the Westhoughton route is upgraded this five minute gap will shrink. The Chat Moss route is just too long to stay competitive.

 

[Greybeard33]

Looking at RTT, a Class 185 running Manchester Piccadilly - Bolton - Wigan NW - Preston takes around 50 minutes. A Class 185 running Manchester Piccadilly - Chat Moss - Wigan NW - Preston takes around 45 minutes. Once the Westhoughton route is upgraded this five minute gap will shrink. The Chat Moss route is just too long to stay competitive.

I presume that, on RTT, you were looking at a service diverted via Westhoughton, so it did not stop at both Bolton and Wigan NW as Philip was suggesting?

Ordsall Lane to Wigan NW is 19mi 11ch via Bolton and 20mi 26ch via the Chat Moss, so not a huge difference. And is there any plan to increase the 60mph linespeed between Lostock and Wigan?

Through trains between Preston and Westhoughton have to use Platform 1 at Wigan NW in both directions. I imagine this would make pathing quite restrictive - plus the line between Wigan and Crow Nest Jn will be at its maximum signalled capacity with the 6tph each way already planned.

 

[Philip]

I presume that, on RTT, you were looking at a service diverted via Westhoughton, so it did not stop at both Bolton and Wigan NW as Philip was suggesting?

Ordsall Lane to Wigan NW is 19mi 11ch via Bolton and 20mi 26ch via the Chat Moss, so not a huge difference. And is there any plan to increase the 60mph linespeed between Lostock and Wigan?

Through trains between Preston and Westhoughton have to use Platform 1 at Wigan NW in both directions. I imagine this would make pathing quite restrictive - plus the line between Wigan and Crow Nest Jn will be at its maximum signalled capacity with the 6tph each way already planned.

Then perhaps an idea could be to swap the Alderley Edge to Wigan around with the Northern Connect so that the local EMU goes via Chat Moss and the Connect via Wigan, Westhaughton and Bolton. The Victoria to Wallgate could then run as an all stops service between Kearsley and Hindley or Ince and save having a skip-stopping pattern between two services.

 

[Greybeard33]

Then perhaps an idea could be to swap the Alderley Edge to Wigan around with the Northern Connect so that the local EMU goes via Chat Moss and the Connect via Wigan, Westhaughton and Bolton. The Victoria to Wallgate could then run as an all stops service between Kearsley and Hindley or Ince and save having a skip-stopping pattern between two services.

The Wallgate, Kirkby and Southport services will all run on the Atherton line, not via Westhoughton. The only services through Westhoughton will be Wigan NW to Alderley Edge and to Stalybridge, and they must both stop at Westhoughton to provide the required 2tph there.

The frequency between Bolton and Wigan is being reduced to 2tph make room for the extra services to Blackburn and Scotland on the Salford to Bolton line.

 

[mwmbwls]

Regarding the TPE services via Bolton is the situation now clear as to whether Bolton passengers will be able to board Manchester bound TPE trains and vice versa? Are pick up/ set down restrictions, if any, operational on a part or full day basis?

 

[mwmbwls]

Disley passengers heading for Buxton mostly have a wait of about 40 minutes at New Mills Central -- and 30 minutes wait on the return from Buxton. That should just about kill off most of the rail use, and boost loadings on the 199 bus service.

New Mills New Town?

The 199 bus runs every 30 minutes supplemented by the slightly faster TP Derby Manchester service that runs every two hours.

 

[Philip]

The Wallgate, Kirkby and Southport services will all run on the Atherton line, not via Westhoughton. The only services through Westhoughton will be Wigan NW to Alderley Edge and to Stalybridge, and they must both stop at Westhoughton to provide the required 2tph there.

The frequency between Bolton and Wigan is being reduced to 2tph make room for the extra services to Blackburn and Scotland on the Salford to Bolton line.

What I meant was to have the Alderley Edge to Wigan NW as the non-stop via Chat Moss and then the Man Airport to Cumbria service could take its place and call at Salford, Bolton, Westhaughton, Wigan NW, Preston etc. That way Wigan still retains its 'vitally important' Chat Moss route to Manchester but it also gives Bolton and Salford passengers better links to Preston, Lancaster and the Lakes.

 

[northwichcat]

I didn't say the Barrow line specifically, but Lancaster and beyond. What about retaining the hourly direct link between Bolton and Lancaster, which at one point used to be three trains every two hours?

But you did say 'and beyond' so is Preston such a bad interchange that people will be put off travelling if they have to change there instead of Lancaster?

I agree there used to be 3tp2h between Bolton and Lancaster but you'll also remember there were peak services which were portion workings with Blackpool services, meaning at peak times the through train wasn't necessarily faster than changing at off-peak times.

 

[thealexweb]

I presume that, on RTT, you were looking at a service diverted via Westhoughton, so it did not stop at both Bolton and Wigan NW as Philip was suggesting?

Ordsall Lane to Wigan NW is 19mi 11ch via Bolton and 20mi 26ch via the Chat Moss, so not a huge difference. And is there any plan to increase the 60mph linespeed between Lostock and Wigan?

Through trains between Preston and Westhoughton have to use Platform 1 at Wigan NW in both directions. I imagine this would make pathing quite restrictive - plus the line between Wigan and Crow Nest Jn will be at its maximum signalled capacity with the 6tph each way already planned.

The Westhoughton line service I looked at did stop at Bolton. And we have had few electrification projects that have not resulted in increased line speeds e.g. 100mph between Manchester and Bolton.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding the TPE services via Bolton is the situation now clear as to whether Bolton passengers will be able to board Manchester bound TPE trains and vice versa? Are pick up/ set down restrictions, if any, operational on a part or full day basis?

The franchise agreement specifically states that the Bolton call can only be made if it is pick-up or set-down only, so that Bolton passengers have the benefit of services to Cumbria and Scotland without the trains get crammed full of people travelling between Bolton and Manchester.