-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should Manchester-London go quarter-hourly?
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,891
In about 40 years, if they keep procrastinating
Which Manchester local services would you want to sacrifice to accommodate an extra London train per hour? Pathing issues at Stockport and lack of paths between there and Piccadilly have prevented Northern from meeting its franchise commitments - an extra Macclesfield stopper and a second mid-Cheshire line service. A fourth London service (via Birmingham) in place of Cross Country might work but you would then lose direct links to the south coast.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I think losing the direct XC service to the south coast would be the casualty, given it is faster to transfer through London anyway.
py_megapixel
Established Member
No. Absolutely not. I can't think of a worse waste of capacity in that area.
MAN-EUS is such that people will take the train most of the time anyway because it's cheaper and more convenient. The few that drive are not going to be lured over by an extra train per hour.
Once HS2 comes along such questions will be irrelevant anyway.
MAN-EUS is such that people will take the train most of the time anyway because it's cheaper and more convenient. The few that drive are not going to be lured over by an extra train per hour.
Once HS2 comes along such questions will be irrelevant anyway.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
True, only a couple of decades to wait though.
py_megapixel
Established Member
I don't think it's acceptable that the south Manchester commuter routes who were promised service upgrades at the start of the Northern franchise (i.e. half-hourly service to Chester and to Macclesfield) should have to wait for HS2 while people going to London and sucking out of the Manchester economy get priority on the current WCML.
Philip
On Moderation
HS2 might not even happen anyway and even if it does, it's a generation away.
My suggestion of removing the Alderley Edge stopper in the other thread didn't go down particularly well, but if another London or Birmingham path can be created by its removal, then it really should be scrapped.
My suggestion of removing the Alderley Edge stopper in the other thread didn't go down particularly well, but if another London or Birmingham path can be created by its removal, then it really should be scrapped.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,747
Why? Where is the demand for the 4th path, it certainly hasn't been there since the December 2008 timetable.
py_megapixel
Established Member
I still don't understand the point.
Why is serving London - which already has 3 trains per hour, and some on here say it doesn't even need that - more important than serving Greater Manchester's local stations?
As for Birmingham, you don't need extra paths for more capacity as the current paths have trains in them which are far too short. Doubling up the Bristol and Bournemouth services makes far more sense on today's crowded railway than running more of them...
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Oh I completely agree. The South Manchester commuter services are poor.
Why does Manchester need another London service and why should South Manchester commuters lose a highly used service? When one of the stoppers from Wilmslow is cancelled, the remaining trains are packed and standing before it gets to Cheadle Hulme, where people are then left behind at the station.
The fall out is that more people will drive, but that is the worst possible outcome. Our roads do not have infinite capacity and pollution levels need to be reduced.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,747
As an aside why has @Philip changed his mind from wanting to remove one this time last year?
London Trains
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,237
I dont think this is viable on the WCML. Maybe after HS2 Phases 1 and 2a this will be possible (with a 2tph via Stoke/2tph via Wilmslow split), with Birmingham also going to 4tph, but the problem here is that when/if HS2 Phase 2b happens, the paths will again cease to exist.
I'd have a HS2 Phase 1 + 2a service pattern of:
00 Glasgow (OOC, Bham Intl, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Motherwell)
03 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)
06 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
09 Blackpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Kirkham, Poulton)
12 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
15 Liverpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway)
18 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport)
21 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
24 Crewe (OOC, Bham Intl, extend to Chester if electrification happens)
27 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
30 Edinburgh (OOC, Bham Intl, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Haymarket)
33 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)
36 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
39 Blackpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Kirkham, Poulton)
42 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
45 Liverpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway)
48 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport)
51 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
54 Crewe (OOC, Bham Intl, extend to Chester if electrification happens)
57 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
The Manchesters via Wilmslow can move over to the Manchester branch of HS2 once it opens.
I'd have a HS2 Phase 1 + 2a service pattern of:
00 Glasgow (OOC, Bham Intl, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Motherwell)
03 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)
06 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
09 Blackpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Kirkham, Poulton)
12 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
15 Liverpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway)
18 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport)
21 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
24 Crewe (OOC, Bham Intl, extend to Chester if electrification happens)
27 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
30 Edinburgh (OOC, Bham Intl, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Haymarket)
33 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport)
36 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
39 Blackpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Kirkham, Poulton)
42 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
45 Liverpool (OOC, Bham Intl, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway)
48 Manchester (OOC, Bham Intl, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport)
51 Birmingham (OOC, Bham Intl)
54 Crewe (OOC, Bham Intl, extend to Chester if electrification happens)
57 SPARE PATH FOR RECOVERY
The Manchesters via Wilmslow can move over to the Manchester branch of HS2 once it opens.
What about people who use those services that don’t live south of Reading? Ie almost all of them?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Which of those are you going to give up when the branch to Leeds opens?
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,488
Of course running diesels under the wires from Birmingham to Manchester is silly but XC don't have any electric trains and the service was switched from the WCML franchise to the Cross Country franchise many years ago.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I suppose that would just affect Leamington Spa, Banbury & Oxford passengers? To be honest, I think the idea is a non starter.
As I understand, the three Manchester-London trains will all go via Wilmslow once phase 2a has opened, with only 1 train stopping. Therefore, what existing services are given up on the Crewe-Wilmslow-Stockport-Piccadilly line to accommodate 3 London services?
I’m fairly sure Birmingham to Manchester has never been in the WCML franchise, apart from the odd service (.including the one that runs today).
Well I think there is a strong consensus here that we don't need 4 tph Euston - Manchester at the expense of rewriting the WCML timetable and disadvantaging many other locations.
That's not to say that the base timetable is perfect. There's always room for improvement.
Here's one to consider:
Cease running Voyagers under the wires Birmingham to Manchester, so Cross Country concentrates on the North East - South/South West axis. Let TPE take over the Manchester - Birmingham fast trains, diverting services away from the over-served Manchester Airport and extending through to Birmingham New Street / International.
That way you get enhanced connectivity Scotland / North West to West Midlands, using modern electric rolling stock in place of tired Voyager DMUs, and it might solve some capacity issues in the Manchester area as well.
That's not to say that the base timetable is perfect. There's always room for improvement.
Here's one to consider:
Cease running Voyagers under the wires Birmingham to Manchester, so Cross Country concentrates on the North East - South/South West axis. Let TPE take over the Manchester - Birmingham fast trains, diverting services away from the over-served Manchester Airport and extending through to Birmingham New Street / International.
That way you get enhanced connectivity Scotland / North West to West Midlands, using modern electric rolling stock in place of tired Voyager DMUs, and it might solve some capacity issues in the Manchester area as well.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But then the solution to that is solving the giant wheeled problem that is XC, not substituting something for it and accepting that it will forever be rubbish.
The issue with splitting services at New St is platform capacity there. Also, a Birmingham to Scotland via Mancheter would probably be overtaken by the existing Birmingham to Scotland service, and therefore the additional connectivity is not much use.
I wouldn't expect every train to call at Birmingham International as you have listed here. HS2's headline journey times omit Birmingham International calls. Also if the services run as 400m trains then several of the stops on the current network cannot cope with that length.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Platform capacity at New Street is indeed an issue so I'd hope to turn round at International instead.
A TPE Scotland - Birmingham via Manchester service would be analagous to an LM Euston - Birmingham via Northampton. It wouldn't be the fastest service and might well get overtaken by a later express service, but would serve a lot of markets.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
But surely the connectivity between Brum & Scotland is not the gain. Brum passengers gain options, but nothing major, while Manchester could gain better reliability.
I guess only electrification or longer trains would do that?
The main constraint is north of Cheadle Hulme so I'd think it unlikely that anything would have to be lost south of there.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,747
I expect you would have to tack it on to an International stopper, you aren't getting any extras down there as previous attempts at long distance stoppers havent been successful as we know.
tbtc
Veteran Member
One advantage of the OP's suggestion is that four trains per hour might fit in with other services a bit better - e.g. at the moment the Stoke corridor has to try to accommodate a half hourly XC service but the two VT services have a roughly 20/40 gap.
So if you had four trains from Euston to Piccadilly, you could have a simpler half hourly service through Stoke, dovetailing better with the XC services. Plus a half hourly service via Crewe too, which could then remove that stop from the Euston - Liverpool service?
A fourth train per hour from Euston to New Street might similarly provide better spacing along the Coventry corridor (depending on the WMT services, of course) - I just feel that twenty minute services are a bit problematic since it's harder for other services to fit around (than something based on thirty minute intervals), or forces other services to become twenty minute frequencies too to fit in.
But it won't work, because it'd need the whole WCML timetable to be similarly recast, and I can't see that happening until HS2 either happens or is scrapped.
Maybe if you were starting the WCML timetable with a blank sheet of paper you'd have designed things a bit differently, maybe there's a trade off between giving Manchester a fourth service if that meant that every Manchester service had to pick up one additional stop (e.g. one per hour at Nuneaton, one per hour at Tamworth...) - but, as I say, it's not feasible as things currently are, so feels like a non-starter.
<crayola mode>Maybe a fourth Manchester service could mean Euston - One Trent Valley Station - Crewe - Warrington NW - Eccles - Piccadilly, to remove some Warrington pressure off the Scottish services and also provide a faster way of getting to Salford for all those BBC staff on expenses? </crayola mode>
So if you had four trains from Euston to Piccadilly, you could have a simpler half hourly service through Stoke, dovetailing better with the XC services. Plus a half hourly service via Crewe too, which could then remove that stop from the Euston - Liverpool service?
A fourth train per hour from Euston to New Street might similarly provide better spacing along the Coventry corridor (depending on the WMT services, of course) - I just feel that twenty minute services are a bit problematic since it's harder for other services to fit around (than something based on thirty minute intervals), or forces other services to become twenty minute frequencies too to fit in.
But it won't work, because it'd need the whole WCML timetable to be similarly recast, and I can't see that happening until HS2 either happens or is scrapped.
Maybe if you were starting the WCML timetable with a blank sheet of paper you'd have designed things a bit differently, maybe there's a trade off between giving Manchester a fourth service if that meant that every Manchester service had to pick up one additional stop (e.g. one per hour at Nuneaton, one per hour at Tamworth...) - but, as I say, it's not feasible as things currently are, so feels like a non-starter.
<crayola mode>Maybe a fourth Manchester service could mean Euston - One Trent Valley Station - Crewe - Warrington NW - Eccles - Piccadilly, to remove some Warrington pressure off the Scottish services and also provide a faster way of getting to Salford for all those BBC staff on expenses? </crayola mode>
Philip
On Moderation
It's a debate, I like to know the general consensus. That said, I find it amusing that my idea about reducing to half-hourly was strongly dismissed, yet now there are some suggesting it should be cut to that level. Besides, my main argument in that thread was whether there is any need for a direct service from Wilmslow, particularly with Macclesfield already served. Likewise, Crewe doesn't need three fast trains per hour to London - if Liverpool can get away with an hourly frequency, then Crewe does not need 3 per hour.
Some say (rightly or wrongly) that Manchester is the second city, so for that reason you could argue for Manchester-London having a greater London frequency than Birmingham.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,747
Why do you think the 3 trains at Crewe are purely for the population of Crewe?
py_megapixel
Established Member
This kind of thing is simply daft oneupmanship. Timetables should be written based on where the demand is, not the political status of the places concerned.
And yet, here we are, with everywhere demanding a direct link to everywhere else for purely political reasons...
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I think now that HS2 is being built, it will reach Piccadilly. I share your sentiment that nothing significant will happen until HS2 is fully operational and until then, everything is just tinkering around the edges, although throughput in Castlefield needs to be addressed now. I’d suggest sending all TfW and Southport services in to Victoria then terminate at another destination, e.g. Stalybridge or Bradford.
Philip
On Moderation
What else are they for?
- Status