Improving Commuter Services in to Manchester

[Purple Orange]

A dimly-lit and flickering light bulb moment.

Commuter frequencies in to Manchester are poor and are simply not fit for purpose for a city of it's size. Therefore, could TfW services become all-stop services north of Crewe or Wilmslow, and mirror the Northern commuter services? I understand that timings north of Wilmslow for TfW are similar to Northern stoppers, therefore why not stop?

Secondly, could this be rolled out elsewhere for long distance services that are not ‘proper’ intercity services?

 

[Iskra]

1) It would elongate these journeys, which would negatively impact long-distance passengers.
2) These trains are full as it as, without cramming more commuters on.

Manchester commuter lines need electrifying and 6 coach trains, not more already crowded 2/3 car DMU's stopping. If they can't be electrified then they need 4-6 car DMU formations in the peaks run by Northern. The Manchester commuter network is not TfW's problem.

And I'd argue Manchester has it better than many Northern-served cities as it is, having a lot of double units compared to other major Northern cities.

 

[Purple Orange]

Thanks for the response. A couple of thoughts in reply...

1. It shouldn’t increase journey times as the TfW and Northern stoppers have similar timings in to Piccadilly, so I see no reason as to why that would be an issue. Just to be clear, I am not proposing that these services become all stop services for the entirety of the journey.
2. The trains being full relates to your penultimate paragraph, but it doesn’t mean that these services should continue to bypass stations while crawling along on the approach to Stockport and Piccadilly.
3. Yes, Manchester needs more electrification, but that is not an issue on the WCML, where it is frequency and train length that is the problem.
4. I’m arguing from the perspective of a city of Manchester’s size, which is a lot bigger than the other northern cities. Plus, I don’t think it is really up for debate that Liverpool and Newcastle have far superior commuter networks in situ.

 

[30907]

Looking at RTT, working timetable times in from Stockport are very similar for non-stop DMU and EMU workings, and a stopping EMU is 3 minutes slower.
I imagine there would be a similar or possibly greater difference for Wilmslow-Stockport, but I can't quickly find stopping DMU timings.
Your premise doesn't therefore seem to be valid.

On your second question, yes there are outer suburban routes that make extra inner suburban stops in the peaks (the Catford Loop in London has several, presumably to balance train loadings and/or to even out running times.

 

[6Gman]

A dimly-lit and flickering light bulb moment.

Commuter frequencies in to Manchester are poor and are simply not fit for purpose for a city of it's size. Therefore, could TfW services become all-stop services north of Crewe or Wilmslow, and mirror the Northern commuter services? I understand that timings north of Wilmslow for TfW are similar to Northern stoppers, therefore why not stop?

Secondly, could this be rolled out elsewhere for long distance services that are not ‘proper’ intercity services?

The TfW services are already full (and beyond) in the peak with Stockport and Wilmslow passengers. Adding the other stations would lead to severe overcrowding.

 

[Purple Orange]

If adding more stops and possibly slowing down TfW by a whole 3 mins is not possible, it seems to me that the business case for HS2 is paramount or this line. Furthermore if overcrowding is an issue due to Stockport and Wilmslow passengers (which may I add a include great many Cheadle Hulme, Handforth and Alderley Edge passengers who then change), it tells me that the service pattern as it stands does not fit the current passenger distribution (including those who drive).

To put the question another way, if there was only 1 tph from Crewe to Manchester via Stockport (let’s assume it is the London service), what would be the best way to fill the rest of an off-peak hour? I’d say prioritise more all stop services over the Cardiff services, long distance passengers who should probably use XC.

This is getting a little ‘ranty’ on my part, but it is frustrating that there is good infrastructure being prioritised for the more occasional long distance passenger over the more regular short distance passenger, which if the tables were turned could reduce the volume of car journeys being made. Our train services continue to turn people away and they instead turn to the road. We can’t have this situation with the current climate emergency.

 

[The Planner]

The South Wales Manchester flow is worth a lot of £££, you wouldnt want to slow it down.

 

[Purple Orange]

But is that passengers from South Wales or passengers from Cheshire and Stockport that make it £££? And if it was slowed down. It would be a couple of mins, despite the timings north of Wilmslow being the same as the stoppers.

 

[_toommm_]

A dimly-lit and flickering light bulb moment.

Commuter frequencies in to Manchester are poor and are simply not fit for purpose for a city of it's size. Therefore, could TfW services become all-stop services north of Crewe or Wilmslow, and mirror the Northern commuter services? I understand that timings north of Wilmslow for TfW are similar to Northern stoppers, therefore why not stop?

Secondly, could this be rolled out elsewhere for long distance services that are not ‘proper’ intercity services?

Crewe to Manchester all stops isn't that badly served in the normal timetable really:

There's two an hour Crewe to Manchester (one all stops minus Chelford and Goostrey, but via Styal line; and one all stops via Stockport. Both very quick 323s). There's also the Alderley Edge to Wigan/Southport all-stops service which will get better once we've got 4-Car 769s as opposed to 2-Car 150s.

Cheadle Hulme also has another service to/from Macclesfield and Stoke.

 

[Purple Orange]

I suppose it is subjective, but for a city of Manchester’s size that is not a very good service level.

 

[6Gman]

To put the question another way, if there was only 1 tph from Crewe to Manchester via Stockport (let’s assume it is the London service), what would be the best way to fill the rest of an off-peak hour? I’d say prioritise more all stop services over the Cardiff services, long distance passengers who should probably use XC.

How do you get from Ludlow to Manchester using XC ? (Or numerous other journeys)

 

[6Gman]

If adding more stops and possibly slowing down TfW by a whole 3 mins is not possible,

Stopping TfW services at Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel, Cheadle Hulme, Handforth, Alderley Edge, Chelford, Goostrey, Holmes Chapel and Sandbach would cost a lot more than 3 minutes.

 

[6Gman]

If adding more stops and possibly slowing down TfW by a whole 3 mins is not possible, it seems to me that the business case for HS2 is paramount or this line. Furthermore if overcrowding is an issue due to Stockport and Wilmslow passengers (which may I add a include great many Cheadle Hulme, Handforth and Alderley Edge passengers who then change), it tells me that the service pattern as it stands does not fit the current passenger distribution (including those who drive).

I find that improbable. Why would people change at Stockport for Cheadle Hulme when they could have caught the same train from Manchester ?

 

[6Gman]

I suppose it is subjective, but for a city of Manchester’s size that is not a very good service level.

For a village the size of Goostrey it's a perfectly reasonable service level.

 

[markymark2000]

Stopping TfW services at Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel, Cheadle Hulme, Handforth, Alderley Edge, Chelford, Goostrey, Holmes Chapel and Sandbach would cost a lot more than 3 minutes.

Purely comparing timings on RTT it would add on 12 minutes. Then you need to work out the accel/decel difference between a 319 (which the service I checked was timed for) and a 175 and add that accordingly.

Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel shouldn't happen anyway as the TFW uses the fast line, not the slow lines so that discounts that.


I think I would say that while the line capacity is used quite a lot by longer distance services, many of the smaller stations don't justify the bigger services. The bigger stations are served by the longer distance trains. You won't please everyone. There simply isn't the track capacity to accommodate the extra services. Ideally, Manchester Picc would have loads more platforms and more approach tracks but it's not feasible. Almost nothing can be done to accommodate more services and slowing down any existing service will cause a lot of issues. That said, I would be interested to know what capacity is like on the 2 Avanti services which run through Wilmslow and arrive into Manchester at 07:46 and 08:46. Are these just dead weight. Especially when the 07:46 arrival only starts at Crewe. If removed (and a suitable ECS trip could be accomodated somehow), could that then be replaced by a Semi Fast service?

 

[Jozhua]

The existing frequencies would be better if they ran reliably so people could make connections and they were less crowded, so people could be sure to get on.

I doubt after what shall not be named, passengers will be enthralled to cram into packed coaches again.

UK rail growth will be unable to rely on crush loading anymore, rolling stock must be provided.

It would be reasonable to perhaps get some more CAF 195 orders in, due to them proving too short from day one to help with capacity.

I believe more 323's will be coming to Crewe/Manchester workings. Picking up some extra 319's might be worth it, to keep electrified capacity up, as well as converting some more to 769's for mixed routes, which can expand capacity/consistency on those lines, plus free up more 15X units for diesel routes.

Sure the 769's won't be shiny, or perticularly great, but we need all the capacity we can get for these routes, especially to comply with likely enforced/voluntary spacing between passengers.

 

[markymark2000]

The existing frequencies would be better if they ran reliably so people could make connections and they were less crowded, so people could be sure to get on.

I doubt after what shall not be named, passengers will be enthralled to cram into packed coaches again.

UK rail growth will be unable to rely on crush loading anymore, rolling stock must be provided.

It would be reasonable to perhaps get some more CAF 195 orders in, due to them proving too short from day one to help with capacity.

I believe more 323's will be coming to Crewe/Manchester workings. Picking up some extra 319's might be worth it, to keep electrified capacity up, as well as converting some more to 769's for mixed routes, which can expand capacity/consistency on those lines, plus free up more 15X units for diesel routes.

Sure the 769's won't be shiny, or perticularly great, but we need all the capacity we can get for these routes, especially to comply with likely enforced/voluntary spacing between passengers.

Are 195s all round amazing though? They must have some routes they are better on than others. 2 car 195s are helpful for routes which don't see loads of use. For example Leeds to Chester. Bar a few trips, the 2 cars can cope really well with the loads. The other advantage is coupling up with another unit to make a 4/5/6 as 4/5 cars will fit in more platforms than a 6 will. Not sure on specific examples but there will be some.

Will the 769s be that good for capacity? If it is standing in for a 2 car DMU, certainly it will be a capacity enhancement but against a 4 car 150, you will not gain much.

 

[jfollows]

That said, I would be interested to know what capacity is like on the 2 Avanti services which run through Wilmslow and arrive into Manchester at 07:46 and 08:46. Are these just dead weight. Especially when the 07:46 arrival only starts at Crewe. If removed (and a suitable ECS trip could be accomodated somehow), could that then be replaced by a Semi Fast service?

The 07:46 arrival starts from Crewe, but is worked by an empty stock working from Longsight to Crewe (5K05, https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C73378/2020-04-28/detailed). If I'm going to catch it, I check to see that the ECS has run; sometimes the ECS working and therefore the Crewe-Manchester working are both cancelled. The service was introduced a couple of years ago to fill a gap in the hourly service, and it probably helps to empty Longsight of an additional Pendolino early in the morning. It runs at a good time for an early appointment in Manchester for me, usually at the dentist, which I could really do with at the moment!
I tend to travel First Class, and for the 07:46 arrival this means that I perhaps share a carriage with one other person. It's not busy. The following train is unsurprisingly more busy, both because it's carrying passengers from an early start in London and because I see a lot of people waiting for it in Wilmslow. Even in First Class it's reasonably busy.

 

[Purple Orange]

I find that improbable. Why would people change at Stockport for Cheadle Hulme when they could have caught the same train from Manchester ?

I do this quite often. The XX:55 from Piccadilly to Euston gets you to Wilmslow where you can connect to the XX:16 at Wilmslow, which often beats the XX:01 Piccadilly to Cheadle Hulme and Handforth. The same works for the 17:38 from Piccadilly to Alderley Edge, which is often ridiculously delayed. Here it is often useful to jump on the slightly earlier XC or TfW service then change. You just need to be in the crowd that alights at Wilmslow and then crosses to the adjacent platform to see this in action.

PS, I agree a village the size of Goostrey may not need a more frequent service, which is why I proposed all stops north of Wilmslow.

 

[Purple Orange]

How do you get from Ludlow to Manchester using XC ? (Or numerous other journeys)

My thoughts were primarily those who are starting their journey in South Wales as opposed to Shropshire. By all means continue with a service on this line to Manchester, but with a few more stops at the Manchester end.

But either way, perhaps my TfW suggestion is not necessarily an answer to the fundamental question for South Manchester commuters which is about adding more services to Alderley Edge, Handforth, Cheadle Hulme, Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme stations (Bramhall too if it is possible).

 

[AM9]

Are 195s all round amazing though? They must have some routes they are better on than others. 2 car 195s are helpful for routes which don't see loads of use. For example Leeds to Chester. Bar a few trips, the 2 cars can cope really well with the loads. The other advantage is coupling up with another unit to make a 4/5/6 as 4/5 cars will fit in more platforms than a 6 will. Not sure on specific examples but there will be some.

Will the 769s be that good for capacity? If it is standing in for a 2 car DMU, certainly it will be a capacity enhancement but against a 4 car 150, you will not gain much.

I would hope that no more 195s are procured. UK rail does not need to commit to another 30 years of diesel operation on even more new trains. Maybe a 'class 295' (i.e. a DEMU version would be much more appropriate). At least 769s only put out CO2, NOxs and particulates when there aren't any wires. Any by the time that they are retired from service, (5-10 years?) much greener trains will be the norm for all new deployments, especially if the CLC is electrified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would hope that no more 195s are procured. UK rail does not need to commit to another 30 years of diesel operation on even more new trains. Maybe a 'class 295' (i.e. a DEMU version would be much more appropriate). At least 769s only put out CO2, NOxs and particulates when there aren't any wires. Any by the time that they are retired from service, (5-10 years?) much greener trains will be the norm for all new deployments, especially if the CLC is electrified.

I would suggest a small order of 195 centre coaches to extend them all to 3-car. These should be designed so they can be shuffled round if it is later decided than 2s and 4s are more useful, as Chiltern have done with their 16x over time. Beyond that I would look at the project to make battery 331s for Windermere and see where else something similar could be applied, or as you say possibly a "231" or "295" or whatever you'd call it.

 

[AM9]

I would suggest a small order of 195 centre coaches to extend them all to 3-car. These should be designed so they can be shuffled round if it is later decided than 2s and 4s are more useful, as Chiltern have done with their 16x over time. Beyond that I would look at the project to make battery 331s for Windermere and see where else something similar could be applied, or as you say possibly a "231" or "295" or whatever you'd call it.

So long as they are all trailers. There is no justification in perpetuating a 'dead end' traction technology like diesel mechanical or diesel hydraulic transmission.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So long as they are all trailers. There is no justification in perpetuating a 'dead end' traction technology like diesel mechanical or diesel hydraulic transmission.

I disagree. They should be diesel power cars to insert into existing units; if you want to use them as "dead" trailers later just remove the engine and keep as a spare for the remaining diesel-powered units.

I do think Northern should have ordered a fleet of bi-modes (no EMUs, just bi-modes) but that ship has sailed.

 

[AM9]

I disagree. They should be diesel power cars to insert into existing units; if you want to use them as "dead" trailers later just remove the engine and keep as a spare for the remaining diesel-powered units.

I do think Northern should have ordered a fleet of bi-modes (no EMUs, just bi-modes) but that ship has sailed.

But options on more cars haven't sailed, and with so many plaudits here saying how stunning their performance is, substituting a c.30T trailer for a 40T diesel mechanical one would make little difference to the actual performance in normal service, - except by not increasing diesel related pollution by up to 50%. There is a basic trailer design of a UK guage Civity, i.e. the 4-car 331 trailer. Of course it would need minor modification to the wiring and control configuration. Has a 3-car 195 run in service with one engine out of use yet?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But options on more cars havent sailed, and witrh so many plaudits here saying how stunning their performance is, substituting a c. 30T trailer for a 40T diesel mechanical one would make little difference to the actual performance in normal service, - except by not increasing diesel related pollution by up to 50%. There is a basic design of a UK guage Civity, i.e. the 4-car 331 trailer. Of course it would need minor modification to the wiring and control configuration. Has a 3-car 195 run in service with one engine out of use yet?

It's 2-car units I'm suggesting extending, not 3s. 2 is not useful for very much. Of course they could have specified gangways as WMT did, now that was a massive error.

 

[AM9]

It's 2-car units I'm suggesting extending, not 3s. 2 is not useful for very much. Of course they could have specified gangways as WMT did, now that was a massive error.

So am I, the 2-car units each have 390kW engines, and the insertion of a trailer which itself would be a variant of the class 331 TS, would probably be worth it to avoid any more diesel-only multiple unit cars being introduced.
Bar their initial bugs, the CAF Civity trains could eventually amount to quite a large fleet. Given that Manchester is ripe for more suburban and regional electrification, a flexible subsection of that fleet would soon pay off, - even ignoring the environmental benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So am I, the 2-car units each have 390kW engines, and the insertion of a trailer which itself would be a variant of the class 331 TS, would probably be worth it to avoid any more diesel-only multiple unit cars being introduced.

I fundamentally don't agree. The EMU like acceleration of these units is a big benefit, they're not excessively overpowered like 185s (which could handle a "dead" trailer) but we don't want to be slowing them down to Class 15x acceleration.

 

[AM9]

I fundamentally don't agree. The EMU like acceleration of these units is a big benefit, they're not excessively overpowered like 185s (which could handle a "dead" trailer) but we don't want to be slowing them down to Class 15x acceleration.

Well, on the CLC line, there won't be much point of super acceleration if their pathways are in between other more sedate DMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, on the CLC line, there won't be much point of super acceleration if their pathways are in between other more sedate DMUs.

While this is heading a bit OT, the CLC stoppers are an excellent case for using these units (you could easily shave upwards of 5 minutes off an all-stations run).