Manchester-Southport: No 769s after all?

[thealexweb]

I've been told today from a very reliable source in Northerns planning team that Liverpool to Crewe will be split from hopefully December possibly May next year. It will return to being Piccadilly to Crewe and Liverpool to Stalybridge. The current Man Vic to Stalybridge will end. Liverpool to Stalybridge to be operated by 319 flex trains (class 769). Training of instructors at Lime St already underway, so not being left to last minute and drivers will maintain competency with empty stock moves to and from Wigan/Allerton in the meantime.

I therefore have doubts that the TFW service will be routed to Victoria as it would mean complete loss of any service to Oxford Rd or Piccadilly from Newton le Willows and I think TFW would struggle for paths through Vic and to Staly.

With Northern due to receive only eight Class 769s this would essentially require all eight to work. Would anyone care to speculate where this leaves the Manchester-Southport services which were due to swap over to the Class 769s shortly? This also leaves the Bolton line with 75mph 15Xs picking up the stops between Salford Crescent and Bolton on a congested 100mph electric route.

 

[WatcherZero]

Plans seem to be constantly changing, this change sounds like it might be part of the proposals to reduce the number of services using the Castlefield corridor by 2tph to improve reliability.

But to demonstrate how plans are evolving NR has just published its South East Manchester route study (covering Rose Hill/Marple and Hadfield Glossop) it states until Autumn 2019 the plan was to use Class 331 on the lines but they've now realised there isn't the stabling capacity for 4 car emu sets and so they will have to use three car class 323 instead (eventually increasing frequency to offset the reduction in seating and especially standing capacity).

 

[EastisECML]

Maybe that service could be extended beyond Stalybridge to boost the frequency of the TPE Manchester - Huddersfield stopper?

 

[Llama]

No chance of that, there are no viable paths. 769s are not very quick on rising gradients.

 

[VT 390]

Maybe that service could be extended beyond Stalybridge to boost the frequency of the TPE Manchester - Huddersfield stopper?

I think you would struggle to find a path where a stopping service would fit in.
Also would 8 769's be enough even if they could be timetabled.

 

[Glenn1969]

To be considered when the Transpennine Upgrade is finished and Vic- Stalybridge and Huddersfield-Leeds is electrified?

 

[Greybeard33]

May

With Northern due to receive only eight Class 769s this would essentially require all eight to work. Would anyone care to speculate where this leaves the Manchester-Southport services which were due to swap over to the Class 769s shortly? This also leaves the Bolton line with 75mph 15Xs picking up the stops between Salford Crescent and Bolton on a congested 100mph electric route.

Maybe the Southport - Alderley Edge service might be worked by 195s and pick up the stops between Bolton and Salford Crescent? The Southport - Stalybridge service, which currently makes those stops, might have to be cut back to Bolton, if its path through Victoria is transferred to the TfW N Wales service.

 

[VT 390]

May

Maybe the Southport - Alderley Edge service might be worked by 195s and pick up the stops between Bolton and Salford Crescent? The Southport - Stalybridge service, which currently makes those stops, might have to be cut back to Bolton, if its path through Victoria is transferred to the TfW N Wales service.

It would still be better to split the service as when there are plenty of EMU's available but limited DMU's it is a waste to run diesel train between Piccadilly and Alderney Edge, when it was originally proposed to use 769's it made sense but now it does not, especially as some services should be removed from the castlefield section.

 

[Glenn1969]

It would but they won't do it and upset the Southport rail lobbyists again so soon. This is why I think the N Wales service which only has contingent rights will be one of the ones to go

 

[VT 390]

It would but they won't do it and upset the Southport rail lobbyists again so soon. This is why I think the N Wales service which only has contingent rights will be one of the ones to go

I thought those rights for the TfW service were between Piccadilly and the Airport only?

As the Southport to Alderley Edge services were introduced with the plan of 769's operating them it really does not seam sensible to run this service now as a large part of the route is under wires and Southport passengers have more connections to Piccadilly (at Salford Crescent) than the Wales service would have if it were diverted. If there were enougth 769's I would say keep the Southport service as it is but so that Northern can make better usage of it's limited diesel trains I really think it would be better to divert the Southport to Victoria.

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming the 769s have been made to work, surely the answer is to get more conversions done?

(Again assuming they are now able to get them to work reliably)

 

[geoffk]

Can they not just split the Liverpool - Crewe as described but terminate at Victoria, and keep the Stalybridge shuttle, which goes from one of the bay platforms? Then when (eventually) Vic - Stalybridge is wired, join the two together. No need to use the 769s then.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It would but they won't do it and upset the Southport rail lobbyists again so soon. This is why I think the N Wales service which only has contingent rights will be one of the ones to go

It really is time this myth was busted. The rail lobbying from Southport itself was about wishing to see an end to Pacers being used on the line, nothing more. The Piccadilly question is about actual Manchester commuters: there are hardly any of these from Southport, with a few from Meols Cop, but the real volume only materialises from Burscough Bridge eastwards. Many of them have jobs on the south side of the city centre and there are also growing numbers commuting to work in Bolton. The apparent complexity of timetabling to accommodate these various needs can certainly be attributed to the Southport line but not so much to Southport itself.

I thought those rights for the TfW service were between Piccadilly and the Airport only?

As the Southport to Alderley Edge services were introduced with the plan of 769's operating them it really does not seam sensible to run this service now as a large part of the route is under wires and Southport passengers have more connections to Piccadilly (at Salford Crescent) than the Wales service would have if it were diverted. If there were enougth 769's I would say keep the Southport service as it is but so that Northern can make better usage of it's limited diesel trains I really think it would be better to divert the Southport to Victoria.

It's a strange anomaly that since the Windsor Link was opened in 1988/9 there has been a distinct reluctance to run services over it from the Atherton line thereby enforcing connections at Salford Crescent. This ought not to be a major problem though my points above cannot be completely ignored. However the timetable has never been what it might be and waits of 20 minutes and more have been a regular nuisance, made worse since the decluttering of the platform there has made it an even colder place to wait in winter. Of course there is an alternative namely provide a much higher frequency over the Ordsal chord allowing connections to be made at Victoria. However that is not going to happen any time soon. The other alternative is to allow Metrolink Zone 1 to be a genuine National Rail destination for through booking rather than effectively restricting it to Greater Manchester residents only. This would benefit many more passengers than just those from Burscough Bridge and Parbold.

As for the issue of diesels under the wires it's not going to be possible to do much more about it while there is still vociferous demand for through services and a reluctance to get on with much more electrification. Therefore we need to either order more 769s, assuming that design really is viable, or else order a decent sized batch of bi-modes from Stadler PDQ.

 

[Greybeard33]

Can they not just split the Liverpool - Crewe as described but terminate at Victoria, and keep the Stalybridge shuttle, which goes from one of the bay platforms? Then when (eventually) Vic - Stalybridge is wired, join the two together. No need to use the 769s then.

I presume Network Rail would object to the performance risk of 5 minute turnarounds in a Victoria through platform all day long. It would only need a TPE to be running a few minutes late to delay the departure of the westbound Northern service, likely causing knock-on delays to other services at Irwell Street and Ordsall Lane Junctions, which would impact the Castlefield corridor. A through Liverpool - Stalybridge service would give the signallers more options to mitigate disruption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe that service could be extended beyond Stalybridge to boost the frequency of the TPE Manchester - Huddersfield stopper?

Maybe we could stop trying to boost frequencies, as this is what is causing the punctuality/reliability problem?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other alternative is to allow Metrolink Zone 1 to be a genuine National Rail destination for through booking rather than effectively restricting it to Greater Manchester residents only. This would benefit many more passengers than just those from Burscough Bridge and Parbold.

Now they've got contactless is that really necessary? Through fares onto e.g. the Tube and Metrolink were mostly just to save people faffing about buying an extra ticket.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Now they've got contactless is that really necessary? Through fares onto e.g. the Tube and Metrolink were mostly just to save people faffing about buying an extra ticket.

You southern metropolitan types may be in love with contactless payment but us backward northerners are much less convinced [/sarcasm] What you're really saying is that all surface public transport should have pay-as-you-go fares available for all journeys. But this is Brexit Britain and such an idea is far too European to be acceptable. Not to mention it requires a fair degree of (inevitably) public sector co-ordination. The most practical solution in this instance is for TfGM to give up its empire building delusions and accept that Metrolink Zone 1 needs to form part of the national railway network for ticketing purposes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What you're really saying is that all surface public transport should have pay-as-you-go fares available for all journeys. But this is Brexit Britain and such an idea is far too European to be acceptable

Metrolink, which is the network under discussion, does now have contactless touch-in/touch out. So it already applies to this specific journey.

https://tfgm.com/tickets-and-passes/contactless

An aside: I do think this is a good model for all urban public transport, yes. How well it will work for longer distance is still debatable, but it does solve this particular problem. For instance, using tickets to London U1 as an example, they're usually just priced at London Terminals plus 4 quid. The only benefit of buying them is saving time, which if you can use contactless just doesn't apply any more.

 

[Greybeard33]

From the 769 thread, regarding the possible use of 769s on Liverpool - Stalybridge services:

Indeed. Surely this can't be the plan? It just doesn't make sense.

The point of the 769s ought to be to release DMUs for use elsewhere, something which is desperately needed to increase capacity on diesel-worked services. Using them on EMU services is nonsensical and the only thing it would potentially allow is the rest of the 319 fleet to be withdrawn earlier, before the additional 323s arrive.

Of course, another issue is that 319s struggle to keep to time on the Chat Moss stoppers and are regularly late. The 769s will be even worse in the acceleration department whereas the swifter 323s and 331s keep to time with ease.

It does make sense in the context of the need to remove services from the Castlefield corridor to improve reliability, until infrastructure enhancements can be built. The proposal is to split the Liverpool - Crewe service into separate Piccadilly - Crewe and Liverpool - Victoria services. But the suggestion is that the performance risk of terminating another service at Victoria would be unacceptable, hence it would be joined to the Victoria - Stalybridge stopper to make a through Liverpool - Stalybridge service. Victoria - Stalybridge is not yet electrified, so the Chat Moss stopper could not remain an EMU service. The 769s would be a better option than DMUs.

 

[Bevan Price]

From the 769 thread, regarding the possible use of 769s on Liverpool - Stalybridge services:

It does make sense in the context of the need to remove services from the Castlefield corridor to improve reliability, until infrastructure enhancements can be built. The proposal is to split the Liverpool - Crewe service into separate Piccadilly - Crewe and Liverpool - Victoria services. But the suggestion is that the performance risk of terminating another service at Victoria would be unacceptable, hence it would be joined to the Victoria - Stalybridge stopper to make a through Liverpool - Stalybridge service. Victoria - Stalybridge is not yet electrified, so the Chat Moss stopper could not remain an EMU service. The 769s would be a better option than DMUs.

Why could they not revert to previous practice on the Liverpool / Man. Vic. service where the 319 arriving at Man. Vic. retreated to the siding by the site of Manchester Exchange until it was time to return to Liverpool. That would be much more sensible than using dmus under the wires - especially as many of the dmus would probably be an inadequate 2 coaches.

 

[js1000]

Thank goodness Liverpool-Crewe and Southport-Alderley Edge experiments are being brought to an end if the OP's source is true. I have no reason to doubt as it is a believable solution. They should have never been extended through Castlefield in the first place - aired my concerns in 2017 and the May 2018 timetable only backed it up. I dread to see Northern's liabilities on those two routes since May 2018. It's damaged lucrative bread and butter commuter revenue in south Manchester due to the sheer unreliability that has resulted from the changes.

On the 769s, it's difficult to say where this fits in going forward given the Southport-Alderley Edge looks like it will be terminated. It seems to me as if the DfT have a finger in every pie at the moment. They own the 365s, the 323s are supposedly moving to Northern from WMT, TPE 185s going potentially off lease, talk of bi-mode 331s for Windermere-Manchester service etc.

 

[Jonny]

The highest priority for the 769s (if they get running on Northern) should be the Southport/Alderley Edge services; they will have a high proportion of running under electric power, especially if routed through (and changing over power source at) Bolton.

 

[Greybeard33]

Why could they not revert to previous practice on the Liverpool / Man. Vic. service where the 319 arriving at Man. Vic. retreated to the siding by the site of Manchester Exchange until it was time to return to Liverpool. That would be much more sensible than using dmus under the wires - especially as many of the dmus would probably be an inadequate 2 coaches.

The Chat Moss stopper used the Victoria reversing siding prior to the May 2018 timetable recast. At that time TPE had only 1tph through Victoria and over the Chat Moss line.

In the current timetable, the stopper has to fit between the 2tph TPE Chat Moss services. When it terminates at Victoria (as it already does for 2 hours in the evening) it has only 5 minutes turnaround time - not enough to shunt to the siding and back, so it reverses in Platform 3.

Running through to Stalybridge, using 769s instead of EMUs, would increase the recovery time and reduce the performance risk.