Should Manchester-London go quarter-hourly?

[Starmill]

What else are they for?

People who drive to Crewe and people changing trains at Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What else are they for?

Connections. In case you'd not noticed, it's a major connectional hub. I suspect more people change there than start/end journeys there.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

What else are they for?

Well Crewe is a major interchange I’m going to guess, they are for connections at Crewe

 

[tbtc]

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

Hull's population is almost the same as York and Doncaster combined, but only has a London service every couple of hours whilst both York and Doncaster have several per hour.

Sunderland's population is significantly larger than that of Durham, but Durham's London service outclasses the one that Sunderland gets.

That's just the way it is - some places are on the main line, some places are on the fringes - some places have big business/university demand, some places don't - some routes justify First Class, some don't - trying to allocate London frequencies based on population size isn't going to work!

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.

Agree entirely with you - I want HS2 to happen but the danger is that, as it keeps getting postponed/delayed, we are missing out on tackling serious problems in the here and now - e.g. there's no will to sort out the clear issue of Manchester - Birmingham being at the mercy of Voyagers, since "HS2 will fix that in the medium to long term, so why spend money on it right now". There's a danger that HS2 becomes like "bionic duckweed" - a medium to long term answer to things that justifies doing nothing about it today - much like my attitude to DIY!

 

[yorksrob]

That's just the way it is - some places are on the main line, some places are on the fringes - some places have big business/university demand, some places don't - some routes justify First Class, some don't - trying to allocate London frequencies based on population size isn't going to work!



Agree entirely with you - I want HS2 to happen but the danger is that, as it keeps getting postponed/delayed, we are missing out on tackling serious problems in the here and now - e.g. there's no will to sort out the clear issue of Manchester - Birmingham being at the mercy of Voyagers, since "HS2 will fix that in the medium to long term, so why spend money on it right now". There's a danger that HS2 becomes like "bionic duckweed" - a medium to long term answer to things that justifies doing nothing about it today - much like my attitude to DIY!

Now there's something that we agree on !

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but in the intervening period between your half hourly suggestion and 15 min frequency suggestion, there has been a global health crisis that has decimated long distance rail travel in this country.

Had you suggested a 15 mi frequency last year, and a half hourly frequency now, both might have been more warmly welcomed.

 

[43096]

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.

Tell a Mancunian that Birmingham is the second city and you should get the response “Why, what happened to London?”.

 

[class26]

Tell a Mancunian that Birmingham is the second city and you should get the response “Why, what happened to London?”.

Mancunians seem to think that if they keep saying it is the 2nd city enough times it will be believe by the rest of the country.

 

[Acfb]

I think 3tph EUS-MAN should probably be left alone or even reduced to 2tph.

I think on balance they should cut the XC Manchester-Bristol/Exeter service and force those passengers to change at Birmingham as was recently mentioned by someone in order to try and free up paths for local passengers in Poynton and Bramhall etc.

I think direct trains from Manchester to Oxford are somewhat more justified even if not that many passengers are travelling all the way to Bournemouth.

 

[RT4038]

I think 3tph EUS-MAN should probably be left alone or even reduced to 2tph.

I think on balance they should cut the XC Manchester-Bristol/Exeter service and force those passengers to change at Birmingham as was recently mentioned by someone in order to try and free up paths for local passengers in Poynton and Bramhall etc.

I think direct trains from Manchester to Oxford are somewhat more justified (and that service doesn't have to reverse at Birmingham) even if not that many passengers are travelling all the way to Bournemouth.

I don't think a Manchester-Bristol/Exeter service has to reverse in Birmingham either? (Departs Birmingham facing London and travels via Camp Hill to King's Norton)

 

[The Planner]

I think 3tph EUS-MAN should probably be left alone or even reduced to 2tph.

I think on balance they should cut the XC Manchester-Bristol/Exeter service and force those passengers to change at Birmingham as was recently mentioned by someone in order to try and free up paths for local passengers in Poynton and Bramhall etc.

I think direct trains from Manchester to Oxford are somewhat more justified (and that service doesn't have to reverse at Birmingham) even if not that many passengers are travelling all the way to Bournemouth.

So you are suggesting that Brum to Manchester becomes 1tph for XC? No chance.

 

[Purple Orange]

Cutting London & Birmingham services is just as nuts as adding a 4th London service, given the constraints on the lines in question.

The thing I’m perplexed about, is why? What gain is made by increasing or decreasing the intercity services between these three cities?

Increasing doesn’t give much.

Decreasing can allow another stopper service between Macclesfield and Piccadilly, but that can also be achieved by diverting TfW to Victoria via Warrington and moving a XC on to the Crewe line.

 

[Starmill]

Mancunians seem to think that if they keep saying it is the 2nd city enough times it will be believe by the rest of the country.

I would say that most of us who have actually thought about the matter would conclude that it's an irrelevance, and that the real problem is that there is no 'second city' - overheating of the largest city has seen to that very effectively. There's London and there's everywhere else. Doesn't mean a lot to put ranks on everywhere else.

 

[LOL The Irony]

A TPE Scotland - Birmingham via Manchester service would be analagous to an LM Euston - Birmingham via Northampton.

That feels like it'd be better under Avanti.

 

[py_megapixel]

That feels like it'd be better under Avanti.

Pendolinos through Castlefield with their notoriously long dwell times sounds like a nightmare. If it was going with Avanti it'd probably have to be IETs.
(That said, the Pendos are cleared for that route, as they're occasionally diverted that way, but I don't think they ever stop on the corridor)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pendolinos through Castlefield with their notoriously long dwell times sounds like a nightmare. If it was going with Avanti it'd probably have to be IETs.
(That said, the Pendos are cleared for that route, as they're occasionally diverted that way, but I don't think they ever stop on the corridor)

IETs would be no better - both are end-doored.

There was a case of Pendolinos departing from P14 and running via Parkside recently, I believe, it was a nightmare.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Pendolinos through Castlefield with their notoriously long dwell times sounds like a nightmare. If it was going with Avanti it'd probably have to be IETs.
(That said, the Pendos are cleared for that route, as they're occasionally diverted that way, but I don't think they ever stop on the corridor)

And the only trains in the TPE fleet with doors at quarters or thirds are the 185's.

 

[py_megapixel]

IETs would be no better - both are end-doored.

Pendolinos are worse than IETs though because they have a very slow door closing sequence and a folding step to hold things up. They also accelerate significantly more slowly which, while not strictly dwell-time related, is important for timekeeping in the corridor.

And the only trains in the TPE fleet with doors at quarters or thirds are the 185's.

See above, but also, I see no reason that such a service couldn't be operated by Desiros. Obviously electric ones (diesel would be daft as it is entirely under the wires) but there's plenty of those to go around (off-lease 350s and 360s)

 

[Ianno87]

There was a case of Pendolinos departing from P14 and running via Parkside recently, I believe, it was a nightmare.

Basically only works during planning engineering works if you force a large gap for it and do pick up/set down only at Piccadilly.

 

[LOL The Irony]

They also accelerate significantly more slowly which, while not strictly dwell-time related, is important for timekeeping in the corridor.

Pendolino's are usually run in eco mode and have pretty close acceleration to iet's when it's switched off, or so I've heard on here.

 

[py_megapixel]

Pendolino's are usually run in eco mode and have pretty close acceleration to iet's when it's switched off, or so I've heard on here.

I hadn't realised that was a thing, but it still doesn't mean they would be the best choice for that particular service.

 

[The Planner]

IETs would be no better - both are end-doored.

There was a case of Pendolinos departing from P14 and running via Parkside recently, I believe, it was a nightmare.

Happened during the Acton Grange block last year, disagree it was a nightmare as feedback was ok.

 

[Purple Orange]

If TPE operated a Brum-Manc-Scotland service it would be with an IET or a 397.

 

[Starmill]

Pendolinos are worse than IETs though because they have a very slow door closing sequence and a folding step to hold things up. They also accelerate significantly more slowly which, while not strictly dwell-time related, is important for timekeeping in the corridor.

Against which a 390 has a slightly easier step up from a standard platform height, and more space in its vestibules because they're not on a tapered end?

I'd suggest it's much of a muchness and that both aren't intended to minimise on dwell times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2020 ==

Happened during the Acton Grange block last year, disagree it was a nightmare as feedback was ok.

It diverted West Midlands - Scotland traffic onto XC Manchester services with interchange at Stockport, and it also caused some traffic to double-back from Manchester to Stockport to join northbound Avanti services. Both appeared to be effects which hadn't been forseen. However that's not generally to disprove your statement at all.

 

[jfollows]

Happened during the Acton Grange block last year, disagree it was a nightmare as feedback was ok.

I think it was mixed, it worked when everything else was also running to time, but once just about anything ran late the service fell apart. I didn't have extensive experience, but I went from Manchester Victoria, got held up on the Ordsall Chord, saw the 390 waiting in the queue, got to Piccadilly, changed over the footbridge to a 390 to Stockport, and then waited on the platform for the first 390 I'd seen to arrive to take me to Wilmslow.

I got to see the 390 on diversion three times, once waiting in the queue for Deansgate, once arriving at Piccadilly as I was departing, and once at Stockport when I finally got on it. It was packed and since I was only going to Wilmslow I didn't care.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Against which a 390 has a slightly easier step up from a standard platform height, and more space in its vestibules because they're not on a tapered end?

I'd suggest it's much of a muchness and that both aren't intended to minimise on dwell times.

Agreed. Really, 13/14 should be kept to units with wide double doors at about thirds as far as is possible. The absolute ideal would be for everything to be operated using the CAF units, so door positions could be marked on the platform.

 

[The Planner]

Against which a 390 has a slightly easier step up from a standard platform height, and more space in its vestibules because they're not on a tapered end?

I'd suggest it's much of a muchness and that both aren't intended to minimise on dwell times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2020 ==


It diverted West Midlands - Scotland traffic onto XC Manchester services with interchange at Stockport, and it also caused some traffic to double-back from Manchester to Stockport to join northbound Avanti services. Both appeared to be effects which hadn't been forseen. However that's not generally to disprove your statement at all.

A lot of that tends to be quirks of the journey planning systems that the industry doesn't see until they are uploaded. You can fudge them to an extent but it isnt that easy.

 

[py_megapixel]

Agreed. Really, 13/14 should be kept to units with wide double doors at about thirds as far as is possible. The absolute ideal would be for everything to be operated using the CAF units, so door positions could be marked on the platform.

Indeed. I think it was ridiculous that TPE were allowed to order end-door rolling stock. In my opinion what should have been ordered, assuming Siemens are able to build it, is additional Desiro centre cars to allow the extension of the existing 350s and 185s to 6 or 7 carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. I think it was ridiculous that TPE were allowed to order end-door rolling stock. In my opinion what should have been ordered, assuming Siemens are able to build it, is additional Desiro centre cars to allow the extension of the existing 350s and 185s to 6 or 7 carriages.

To be fair the only TPE services that need to go through there are the ones using the Ordsall Chord. These need to be diagrammed as pairs of 185s, which solves the issue. Everything else goes into the main shed or just through Vic.

If Northern managed to get rid of their random unit generator and diagram everything through there as either 150, 170 or 195 (or EMU, all of which have doors at thirds), and EMR either moved to the main trainshed or used 170s, that'd be it sorted.

Edit: oh, forgot the Scottish services, but that's only one an hour, it should cope.

 

[Purple Orange]

I’m quite happy with the IET and 397 units - I’ve not experienced the Mk5a units yet. However I agree with those that state that TPE should be taken away from Castlefield Corridor.