December 2018 timetable changes (some now confirmed scrapped) - contagion spreads

[Grinner]

Announcement on the ScotRail services mentioned up the thread.

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-sc...ches-another-milestone-timetable-improvements

More services

• New half hourly Edinburgh to Glasgow service (via Cumbernauld and Falkirk Grahamston) using brand new class 385 trains.
• Extended Edinburgh to Arbroath services, providing close to an hourly local service for Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, and Carnoustie.
• New hourly Aberdeen to Montrose service, providing a minimum of an hourly service at Laurencekirk, Stonehaven, and Portlethen.
• Nine additional services between Inverness and Elgin, giving close to an hourly all-day service for Nairn, Forres and Elgin.

 

[Kite159]

Hopefully they will have enough stock to run the additional services

 

[Starmill]

I note the following, sorry if it has alreayd been posted:

0625 York to Glasgow Central starts back from Leeds at 0531
0616 from Leeds to Southampton Central no longer serves Leeds or Wakefield Westgate, but starts from York instead at 0620

 

[Starmill]

OH! I have just realsied that the 2355 service from Manchester Piccadilly to Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green is reinstated from 10th December onwards. This service was withdrawn and now serves only Manchester Airport in May, which made the final service to some of these stations much earleir. I have been complaining about it ever since.

It's excellent to see some of the feedback being taken into account here by Northern, and some of the smaller negative changes being undone to help give people a better overall timetable. As the stopping ervice at 2334 which replaced the 2355 is still in the timetable, these stations have better evening service than ever before. A small thing to some but splendid news, not least because it shows some customer / stakeholder feedback is being acted on in a concrete way. A very well done!!

 

[Class 170101]

I note the following, sorry if it has alreayd been posted:

0625 York to Glasgow Central starts back from Leeds at 0531
0616 from Leeds to Southampton Central no longer serves Leeds or Wakefield Westgate, but starts from York instead at 0620

A long dwell at York to detach units for the York to Southampton train by the looks of it.

 

[Segedunum]

One change I see is the intended introduction of a 1Y19 0825 Newcastle-London on a Sunday, calls at Durham, Darlington, York, Newark, Grantham, Peterborough and Stevenage en route. I can imagine it'll be well used as the 0755 and 0855 are often quite busy.

Also a new 1N09 0922 London to Newcastle, which forms the 1315 back south. At present the 1315 runs off Heaton.

 

[imagination]

• New hourly Aberdeen to Montrose service, providing a minimum of an hourly service at Laurencekirk, Stonehaven, and Portlethen.

(my bold)

Quite a turnaround for a station that not long ago was basically only served by a handful of peak time trains for commuters to Aberdeen.

 

[WatcherZero]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-4-Performance-Update.pdf

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Train-Service-Planning.pdf


Lot to digest at a detailed level on individual routes. But in a more general sense, Northern performance is back to pre-timetable level though they are shortforming a lot because of not having enough stock. TPE performance still abysmal, they are adding an extra train to Manchester Airport diagrams to increase layover but now recognised they don't have enough rolling stock on order to meet their franchise obligations. TPE and Northern will however be back to Franchise bid spec by the end of next year (though TPE seeing some ommissions from obligations) and we will see further enhancements beyond the franchise requirements both off the franchises own backs and from a TfTN slush fund for service enhancements financed from the franchises which has narrowed 200 potential above franchise bid-spec enhancements down to a shortlist of 2 TPE and 70 Northern enhancements.

Capacity crunch has arrived with not enough paths between Stockport and Manchester and over the Castlefield Corridor to meet franchise bid obligations as well as having to restrict through services across the Pennines beyond Manchester/Leeds as they are spreading the effects of delays like a virus between the regions.

 

[Greybeard33]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-4-Performance-Update.pdf

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Train-Service-Planning.pdf


Lot to digest at a detailed level on individual routes. But in a more general sense, Northern performance is back to pre-timetable level though they are shortforming a lot because of not having enough stock. TPE performance still abysmal, they are adding an extra train to Manchester Airport diagrams to increase layover but now recognised they don't have enough rolling stock on order to meet their franchise obligations. TPE and Northern will however be back to Franchise bid spec by the end of next year (though TPE seeing some ommissions from obligations) and we will see further enhancements beyond the franchise requirements both off the franchises own backs and from a TfTN slush fund for service enhancements financed from the franchises which has narrowed 200 potential above franchise bid-spec enhancements down to a shortlist of 2 TPE and 70 Northern enhancements.

Capacity crunch has arrived with not enough paths between Stockport and Manchester and over the Castlefield Corridor to meet franchise bid obligations as well as having to restrict through services across the Pennines beyond Manchester/Leeds as they are spreading the effects of delays like a virus between the regions.

From the Rail North Train Service Planning committee paper linked above:

3. Upcoming Timetable Changes:
December 2018
(snip)
3.2 For TransPennine Express (TPE) the December 2018 timetable will continue the Train Service Requirement 2 (TSR2) structure as implemented in May 2018. However, the Leeds to Manchester stopping service will be split at Huddersfield, to resolve some of the delays resulting from tight planning margins. In addition, turnround times at Manchester Airport will be extended through the insertion of an extra train unit into the circuits.
[No 3.3!]
3.4 The main changes being made to Northern’s timetable in December 2018 involve the split of Leeds to York stopping services from a through train to Manchester Victoria; this will reduce the amount of delay ‘imported’ across the Pennines following delay incidents.

May 2019
3.5 Following consultation with Transport for the North, TPE have now bid the May 2019 timetable to Network Rail, to include the Liverpool to Glasgow services using brand new Nova 2 trains.

3.6 The timetable bid includes the following amendments to the Train Service Requirement as contracted:
a) Continuation of existing stopping pattern on ECML
b) Continuation of existing Manchester to Scotland services
c) Continuation of existing Sunday services at Manchester Airport
d) Continuation of split Leeds – Manchester service at Huddersfield
e) Continuation of extended turnrounds at Manchester Airport

3.7 Northern’s May 2019 timetable closely resembles that originally consulted through Transport for the North and bid to operate in May 2018. This was designed to fulfil their TSR2 requirements. However, a number of changes have been made, as follows:
a) The fixes to the May 18 timetable that are being developed as part of the December 18 timetable, in conjunction with Network Rail’s project team tasked with improving performance. These changes include:

o An hourly Blackpool – Hazel Grove service (incorporating the Piccadilly – Hazel Grove) rather than Blackpool – Macclesfield. The likely consequence is that Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton and Macclesfield will not get the second Macclesfield train per hour that the TSR specifies. However, Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel should get their TSR quantum, and the service should operate more reliably than running to Macclesfield.
o Northern have not been able to bid the second Greenbank to Manchester train due to pathing issues between Stockport and Manchester. They have bid to provide a second train per hour between Altrincham and Chester, benefiting the core section of route and enabling interchange with Metrolink.​

b) An increase in Southport – South Manchester through services (3 trains in each peak instead of 2).
c) Sheffield to Retford services extended to Gainsborough Central.
d) Increase in Davenport / Woodsmoor peak calls.
e) Other changes, including those implemented in the December 2018 timetable. More detail is expected shortly.

3.8 Whilst the May 2019 timetables have already been bid by train operators, the industry is also considering options that could help reduce the performance risks associated with increased train frequency (including on the Castlefield Corridor). Analysis as supplied by Network Rail has been shared with Transport for the North lead officers and a further verbal update will be provided at the meeting.

December 2019
3.9 TPE’s December 2019 timetable is expected to involve the introduction of new rolling stock and the extension of Liverpool to Newcastle services to Edinburgh.
3.10 Whilst TPE have consulted on the implementation of performance related timetable changes prior to December 2019, the permanent implementation of split services and longer turnround times would require extra rolling stock and / or changes to the capacity metrics in the Franchise Agreement. As part of the service development work already underway, Transport for the North is beginning work with TPE to explore the timetable options available from December 2019, to improve performance and ensure that adequate passenger capacity is provided.
3.11 For Northern, December 2019 was expected to involve a number of new services (particularly for the Northern Connect routes). The industry is currently working through the issues and Transport for the North members will be consulted in detail once more information is available.

So, of the promised Northern Hub dividend of four additional hourly Northern services between Piccadilly and Stockport, paths can be found for only one of them, the second Buxton service already implemented. The other three specified in the TSR, to Macclesfield, Greenbank and Hazel Grove, have fallen by the wayside. Another Network Rail Fail?

TPE's splitting of the Picc - Leeds stopper will require an additional 185 to be retained long term. And the interworking of Middlesbrough and Newcastle services at Manchester Airport, to increase turnround times, clashes with the plan to use Mk5A sets on the Middlesbroughs and 802s on the Newcastles.

 

[thealexweb]

After buying a car for the first time in ages I was open to going back to rail at some point but the plans for my local station keep being cut back. Thats Blackpool North to Macclesfield/Stoke-On-Trent(weekends) plans dead.

 

[northwichcat]

From the Rail North Train Service Planning committee paper linked above:




So, of the promised Northern Hub dividend of four additional hourly Northern services between Piccadilly and Stockport, paths can be found for only one of them, the second Buxton service already implemented. The other three specified in the TSR, to Macclesfield, Greenbank and Hazel Grove, have fallen by the wayside. Another Network Rail Fail?

TPE's splitting of the Picc - Leeds stopper will require an additional 185 to be retained long term. And the interworking of Middlesbrough and Newcastle services at Manchester Airport, to increase turnround times, clashes with the plan to use Mk5A sets on the Middlesbroughs and 802s on the Newcastles.

It's worth noting off-peak usage at stations between Middlewood and Buxton is very low so questions should be asked about the provision of 3tph to Hazel Grove and 2tph to Buxton. Maybe dropping the Hazel Grove service in favour of Hazel Grove calls on TPE/EMT services (once they've been strengthened to 6 carriages) or dropping the extra Buxton services apart from the peak time extras should be considered?

Also if Northern can run 2tph between Altrincham and Stockport in the morning peak then why is Chester to Stockport all day not possible?

And why does Chester to Altrincham have to wait until May 2019 opposed to starting in December 2018 given it'll be easy to path without affecting any other operator's services?

 

[Esker-pades]

It's worth noting off-peak usage at stations between Middlewood and Buxton is very low so questions should be asked about the provision of 3tph to Hazel Grove and 2tph to Buxton. Maybe dropping the Hazel Grove service in favour of Hazel Grove calls on TPE/EMT services (once they've been strengthened to 6 carriages) or dropping the extra Buxton services apart from the peak time extras should be considered?

Also if Northern can run 2tph between Altrincham and Stockport in the morning peak then why is Chester to Stockport all day not possible?

And why does Chester to Altrincham have to wait until May 2019 opposed to starting in December 2018 given it'll be easy to path without affecting any other operator's services?

I disagree. Buxton needs the extra services.

Disley, New Mills Newtown and Whaley Bridge have annual figures well above 100k, which easily justifies 2tph.

 

[northwichcat]

I disagree. Buxton needs the extra services.

Disley, New Mills Newtown and Whaley Bridge have annual figures well above 100k, which easily justifies 2tph.

The total usage of all stations between Middlewood and Buxton is lower than the combined usage of just two stations on the Mid-Cheshire line - Knutsford gets over 500,000 from an hourly service, not many stations in the country achieve such a high level of usage from just 1tph. 2tph to Buxton is a nice to have but in the circumstances 3tph to Hazel Grove and 2tph need to be reviewed as it's not an effective use of the limited paths.

The Buxton line gets a lot of passengers going to Manchester in the morning peak and a lot going away from Manchester in the evening peak but off-peak in school holidays the trains are carting around fresh air (the same can be said about the Alderley Edge services.)

 

[Esker-pades]

The total usage of all stations between Middlewood and Buxton is lower than the combined usage of just two stations on the Mid-Cheshire line - Knutsford gets over 500,000 from an hourly service, not many stations in the country achieve such a high level of usage from just 1tph. 2tph to Buxton is a nice to have but in the circumstances 3tph to Hazel Grove and 2tph need to be reviewed as it's not an effective use of the limited paths.

The Buxton line gets a lot of passengers going to Manchester in the morning peak and a lot going away from Manchester in the evening peak and off-peak in school holidays the trains are carting around fresh air (the same can be said about the Alderley Edge services.)

The poor service on the Mid-Chesire line doesn't mean that Buxton shouldn't get 2tph.

 

[northwichcat]

The poor service on the Mid-Chesire line doesn't mean that Buxton shouldn't get 2tph.

There's a limited number of paths so the lines with the most passengers should get priority for paths. 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove wasn't even a requirement in the ITT, it was just something Arriva decided to include in their bid.

I did suggest originally two alternatives - the one you seem to have ignored is dropping the Hazel Grove only service and adding Hazel Grove calls on South TPE and EMT services, ensuring those services get strengthened to 6 carriages. That would mean 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove - which would still give the Buxton line much better provision than other routes with similar passenger numbers.

 

[Esker-pades]

There's a limited number of paths so the lines with the most passengers should get priority for paths. 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove wasn't even a requirement in the ITT, it was just something Arriva decided to include in their bid.

I did suggest originally two alternatives - the one you seem to have ignored is dropping the Hazel Grove only service and adding Hazel Grove calls on South TPE and EMT services, ensuring those services get strengthened to 6 carriages. That would mean 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove - which would still give the Buxton line much better provision than other routes with similar passenger numbers.

So, your solution is to change the XX:11 Buxton to Mid-Cheshire, extend the XX:24 Hazel Grove to Buxton and stop either the XX:19 Cleethorpes or XX:42 Norwich or both at Hazel Grove?

 

[Greybeard33]

There's a limited number of paths so the lines with the most passengers should get priority for paths. 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove wasn't even a requirement in the ITT, it was just something Arriva decided to include in their bid.

I did suggest originally two alternatives - the one you seem to have ignored is dropping the Hazel Grove only service and adding Hazel Grove calls on South TPE and EMT services, ensuring those services get strengthened to 6 carriages. That would mean 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove - which would still give the Buxton line much better provision than other routes with similar passenger numbers.

The Hazel Grove terminator is now planned to be extended to Blackpool North and be EMU operated. Northern does not have enough DMUs to operate a Buxton to Blackpool service.

Stockport reversals are difficult to path because the shunt move blocks both fast lines. In the morning peak there are fewer northbound expresses than in the standard hour.

Mid-Cheshire line paths are constrained by the single line sections through Cheadle and Navigation Road. Buxton paths can be more easily matched to WCML paths.

 

[LOL The Irony]

An hourly Blackpool – Hazel Grove service (incorporating the Piccadilly – Hazel Grove) rather than Blackpool – Macclesfield. The likely consequence is that Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton and Macclesfield will not get the second Macclesfield train per hour that the TSR specifies. However, Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel should get their TSR quantum, and the service should operate more reliably than running to Macclesfield.

Translation: Every cloud has a sliver lining... Right?

Northern have not been able to bid the second Greenbank to Manchester train due to pathing issues between Stockport and Manchester. They have bid to provide a second train per hour between Altrincham and Chester, benefiting the core section of route and enabling interchange with Metrolink.

We want to use a train, not a tram. And hasn't the ticket that allowed Metrolink travel been removed? Also most of the "core section" passengers want to go to Manchester. At this point, it seems like TfN are doing something with TfGM. Tell me to get my tin foil hat but I still stand by it.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Mid-Cheshire line paths are constrained by the single line sections through Cheadle and Navigation Road.

There's enough space there for 2 tracks and there clearly were 2 tracks at one point. So why was it single tracked?

 

[Killingworth]

There's a limited number of paths so the lines with the most passengers should get priority for paths. 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove wasn't even a requirement in the ITT, it was just something Arriva decided to include in their bid.

I did suggest originally two alternatives - the one you seem to have ignored is dropping the Hazel Grove only service and adding Hazel Grove calls on South TPE and EMT services, ensuring those services get strengthened to 6 carriages. That would mean 2tph to Buxton and 4tph to Hazel Grove - which would still give the Buxton line much better provision than other routes with similar passenger numbers.

Adding any extra calls to South Pennine services would fly contrary to the desire to get a 30 minute journey time between Sheffield and Manchester - cue hollow laughter from all sides. Even getting a reliable 45-50 minute journey time is a challenge at present.

Along the way there are also active calls for (more) stops at Dore & Totley, Hope and Chinley as well as Hazel Grove! TPE and East Midlands aren't keen on any of them, but would consider if they have capacity, would gain extra revenue, and it wouldn't extend the whole journey time - not easy criteria to comply with, especially the critical last! Reliable pathing is absolutely crucial if delays aren't to knock on across the nation..

I note Buxton line stations are getting 2 tph and the magic 100,000 figure is mentioned. Both Chinley and Dore & Totley trigger on that score, but neither gets better than 1 tph from Northern, and with some skip stopping gaps of 90 minutes or more occur. Dore gets a better commuter service to and from Manchester than to Sheffield, 4 miles away with 2 gaps out of Sheffield of 2 hours and one of 2 hours 33 minutes. Rail users into town often don't bother trying to get a train home (takes 7 minutes), preferring taxi, bus (takes 25 minutes) or pick up from Sheffield by car. With 2 tph to Sheffield D & T would very quickly exceed 250k. Dream on! (Even Darnall on the other side of town gets a regular 1 tph with only 15,000 pa.)

 

[northwichcat]

The Hazel Grove terminator is now planned to be extended to Blackpool North and be EMU operated. Northern does not have enough DMUs to operate a Buxton to Blackpool service.

Not that long ago the plan was Blackpool to Macclesfield EMU. I'm sure they could rework it again so that electric services go somewhere else after Blackpool-Stockport.

 

[northwichcat]

We want to use a train, not a tram. And hasn't the ticket that allowed Metrolink travel been removed? Also most of the "core section" passengers want to go to Manchester. At this point, it seems like TfN are doing something with TfGM. Tell me to get my tin foil hat but I still stand by it.

You can buy a Knutsford to Metrolink City ticket (valid via Sale) but it costs more than Knutsford to Manchester (valid via Stockport) and is not interchangeable between routes.

I think the Sunday only provision of allowing tickets issued to stations between Navigation Road and Mouldsworth on Metrolink services between Manchester and Altrincham remains but it is only on Sundays and doesn't even apply on other days during engineering works or industrial action.

 

[LOL The Irony]

You can buy a Knutsford to Metrolink City ticket (valid via Sale) but it costs more than Knutsford to Manchester (valid via Stockport) and is not interchangeable between routes.

I think the Sunday only provision of allowing tickets issued to stations between Navigation Road and Mouldsworth on Metrolink services between Manchester and Altrincham remains but it is only on Sundays and doesn't even apply on other days during engineering works or industrial action.

I thought so. Does someone want to tell TfN that this is the more expensive option for passengers?

 

[northwichcat]

Adding any extra calls to South Pennine services would fly contrary to the desire to get a 30 minute journey time between Sheffield and Manchester - cue hollow laughter from all sides. Even getting a reliable 45-50 minute journey time is a challenge at present.

Along the way there are also active calls for (more) stops at Dore & Totley, Hope and Chinley as well as Hazel Grove! TPE and East Midlands aren't keen on any of them, but would consider if they have capacity, would gain extra revenue, and it wouldn't extend the whole journey time - not easy criteria to comply with, especially the critical last! Reliable pathing is absolutely crucial if delays aren't to knock on across the nation..

I note Buxton line stations are getting 2 tph and the magic 100,000 figure is mentioned. Both Chinley and Dore & Totley trigger on that score, but neither gets better than 1 tph from Northern, and with some skip stopping gaps of 90 minutes or more occur. Dore gets a better commuter service to and from Manchester than to Sheffield, 4 miles away with 2 gaps out of Sheffield of 2 hours and one of 2 hours 33 minutes. Rail users into town often don't bother trying to get a train home (takes 7 minutes), preferring taxi, bus (takes 25 minutes) or pick up from Sheffield by car. With 2 tph to Sheffield D & T would very quickly exceed 250k. Dream on! (Even Darnall on the other side of town gets a regular 1 tph with only 15,000 pa.)

TfGM say 250,000 annual usage for 2tph to Manchester. However, that's for Greater Manchester stations not ones in Cheshire, Derbyshire or Lancashire. It also ignores instances where there's a lot of peak time usage and not much off-peak usage. Personally I think Buxton's usage justifies 3tph at peak times and 1tph at off-peak times, more than it justifies 2tph all day.

Hazel Grove is a bit different to stations like Dore & Totley, Hope and Chinley as there's less seasonal usage at Hazel Grove and a much higher level of usage. With the train having to do a low speed through Hazel Grove anyway adding an additional call shouldn't affect the timings by more than 2 minutes - in fact the EMT service is timed to take as long between Hazel Grove and Stockport as some of the Northern services.

 

[northwichcat]

There's enough space there for 2 tracks and there clearly were 2 tracks at one point. So why was it single tracked?

It was a freight only line when the motorway was built, so at the time there seemed to be no reason why a double track line needed to cross the motorway. Of course they didn't know the Sale line would be closed to trains with them instead being diverted via Northenden.

Still, a direct train to Manchester with a 5 minute wait at Edgely Junction is better than a service which terminates at Altrincham.

 

[nr758123]

That's outrageous, especially when they run four fast trains per hour. Put two extra stops on each one.

Before the May timetable change, TPE were quite clear about putting in stop orders at times of disruption. Instead, they are content to leave three hour gaps with no service, and refer to considering putting in replacement buses when that happens.

There were other things that they didn't mention before the timetable change, such as turning trains round at Stalybridge if they are running more than 11 minutes late at Huddersfield. They issued glossy leaflets promising better reliability, and delivered the exact opposite.

Now they have briefed stakeholders (MPs and others) on the splitting of the Manchester-Leeds service at Huddersfield, but forgot to mention that the December changes also involved four fewer trains calling at Mossley in the morning peak, and one fewer in the evening peak. That's outrageous too.

 

[Killingworth]

TfGM say 250,000 annual usage for 2tph to Manchester. However, that's for Greater Manchester stations not ones in Cheshire, Derbyshire or Lancashire. It also ignores instances where there's a lot of peak time usage and not much off-peak usage. Personally I think Buxton's usage justifies 3tph at peak times and 1tph at off-peak times, more than it justifies 2tph all day.

Hazel Grove is a bit different to stations like Dore & Totley, Hope and Chinley as there's less seasonal usage at Hazel Grove and a much higher level of usage. With the train having to do a low speed through Hazel Grove anyway adding an additional call shouldn't affect the timings by more than 2 minutes - in fact the EMT service is timed to take as long between Hazel Grove and Stockport as some of the Northern services.

There's a common misconception that a lightly used service can be axed because not many are using it. In truth the use of the busy trains may also require those lightly used services to be there to offer a wide range of return options. As an example, I wanted to go from Dore & Totley to a meeting in New Mills for a 9.30, or 10.00, start. The 9.21 departure gets me to New Mills at 10.02 with a 10 minute walk to venue, so bound to be late. The previous train leaves D & T at 7.20 to arrive 8.03. OK, we retimed that meeting for 10.30, but previously I'd taken the car, losing rail 2 journeys.

In my younger days I'd attend London meetings and spend time in the pub with friends to avoid rush hour trains before catching the penultimate train of the day from St Pancras to Chesterfield (or Kings Cross to Brough) home. I knew there was a later train and once in a while I'd catch it, with lots of space to myself. That reserve meant I could stay longer. If it hadn't been there I'd have left friends earlier or joined a packed rush hour train.

Strange to find that if I stayed in Sheffield for a drink before returning to Dore & Totley, if I missed the 20.14 I'd have to wait for the 22.47! The stopping service up the Hope Valley to New Mills is a nightmare to follow, so people use other options.

Those 2 minutes add up. Until the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme adds a second platform at Dore (and increases the current one to 6 car length) TPEs very busy 6 car 7.14 will take nearer 3 minutes to load than the minute scheduled, Monday - Thursday. It used to have only 3 cars on Fridays so users avoided that as it was guaranteed standing all the way to Manchester. They're still avoiding it now even though it usually gets 6.

 

[northwichcat]

Those 2 minutes add up. Until the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme adds a second platform at Dore (and increases the current one to 6 car length) TPEs very busy 6 car 7.14 will take nearer 3 minutes to load than the minute scheduled, Monday - Thursday. It used to have only 3 cars on Fridays so users avoided that as it was guaranteed standing all the way to Manchester. They're still avoiding it now even though it usually gets 6.

Hope Valley infrastructure improvements should mean it'll become possible for Northern to be the only operator serving stations like Dore and Chinley with smaller stations getting an improved service despite no EMT/TPE calls. There are services terminating at New Mills Central which can be extended to provide additional services at Hope Valley stations once the enhancements are done.

 

[Killingworth]

Hope Valley infrastructure improvements should mean it'll become possible for Northern to be the only operator serving stations like Dore and Chinley with smaller stations getting an improved service despite no EMT/TPE calls. There are services terminating at New Mills Central which can be extended to provide additional services at Hope Valley stations once the enhancements are done.

Axing the hourly TPE Manchester commuter service at Dore would go down like a lead balloon!! It's used a lot for the airport, too. If it ran through to Meadowhall and the east during the daytime it would pick up even more traffic.

Any changes to the Chinley - Stockport services would go down badly with commuters from there too.

 

[northwichcat]

So it seems all we are getting from building the Ordsall Chord to relieve congestion around Piccadilly is:
1. Additional hourly Buxton service.
2. All day North Wales/Chester to Airport service, rather than just an off-peak service.

Seems a lot of money to spend if that's the outcome!