Should Manchester-London go quarter-hourly?

[py_megapixel]

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.

To do so would entirely defeat the purpose of the Ordsall Chord, other than the as-yet non-existent Airport to Bradford service.
Plus I'd rather be on a Desiro than an IET any day...

 

[Bletchleyite]

To do so would entirely defeat the purpose of the Ordsall Chord, other than the as-yet non-existent Airport to Bradford service.
Plus I'd rather be on a Desiro than an IET any day...

Does the Chord have a point?

You could instead run a Northern service of some sort that way.

 

[py_megapixel]

Does the Chord have a point?

Well it would do, if they'd built the entire project (inc. an extra two tracks through the corridor) rather than just the flashy headline bit.

You could instead run a Northern service of some sort that way.

Yes, though I don't think the track particularly cares whether the train on it is operated by FTPE or NT. The capacity isn't there whatever happens.

 

[Purple Orange]

To do so would entirely defeat the purpose of the Ordsall Chord, other than the as-yet non-existent Airport to Bradford service.
Plus I'd rather be on a Desiro than an IET any day...

Not unless the chord is dedicated to local/regional airport & south Manchester services.

 

[randyrippley]

If Manchester-London went quarter-hourly, why not extend them via Castlefield, two to Blackpool, one to Glasgow, one to Edinburgh.
Stop the TPE Manchester - Scotland and Northern Blackpool-Piccadilly services, instead terminating everything from the East heading North in the terminal platforms at Piccadilly.
Frees up platform space in the main trainshed and reduces the number of trains through the through platfom, though they'd be longer

 

[Starmill]

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.

Indeed and the key point is that what train planners usually do is try to control where people will based on their expectations of people who know railways, whereas people who have experience in fares and online journey planning software can see where people will go and work around that. The two could work together better by far than they do. How many railway passengers nowadays don't consult an online journey planner even once before travelling, not many! To put it another way it's not usually a quirk of journey planning, it's that revised works plans need to take some inputs from journey planners in addition to vice versa.

 

[Bald Rick]

If Manchester-London went quarter-hourly, why not extend them via Castlefield, two to Blackpool, one to Glasgow, one to Edinburgh.
Stop the TPE Manchester - Scotland and Northern Blackpool-Piccadilly services, instead terminating everything from the East heading North in the terminal platforms at Piccadilly.
Frees up platform space in the main trainshed and reduces the number of trains through the through platfom, though they'd be longer

you missed the emoji off your post

 

[randyrippley]

you missed the emoji off your post

shush...........don't give it away

 

[43096]

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.

That must be the first time someone has used “CAF” and “absolute ideal” in the same sentence.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Well, there is a very good reason it can't - punctuality and reliability.

This should absolutely not happen. HS2 is there to allow places like Watford to be reconnected.

If you don't agree, see the mess LNR made by doing that sort of thing and think again. No, no, a million times no.

Also the demand is not there for 4tph. If anything, dropping to 2 is more likely now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==



That could be done by terminating one of the Manchester bound XCs at Wolves and putting an EMU on from Intl instead, though. There's no shortage of those. Pairs of 350/2s with the seats swapped for something decent would be perfect, for example.

A rare time I agree.

The really radical idea would be to have the Reading / Southampton service go to Liverpool (5/221) and the Bournemouth service stick with Piccadilly (8/220).

Flight a service in 3 mins behind (e.g. XX00 Manchester Voyager, XX03 Liverpool 350 and vice versa) and have CrossCountry run pairs of 350s to Liverpool and Manchester, taking WMT out of the arrangement. Both services can start at International, and put in a few local stops.

That way, Smethwick Galton gets a half-hourly connecting service for various points in the Mids to Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe (etc); with the 8/350s being the ones that take advantage of better acceleration and fast door times to add in some smaller stops (Winsford, Congleton, Cheadle Hulme and Penkridge spring to mind), with the Voyager services being real Intercity services.

In every case, it is a capacity uplift. One assumes you could also TUPE some WMT drivers over and therefore have no major issues with crewing or changeover.

 

[The Planner]

A rare time I agree.

The really radical idea would be to have the Reading / Southampton service go to Liverpool (5/221) and the Bournemouth service stick with Piccadilly (8/220).

Flight a service in 3 mins behind (e.g. XX00 Manchester Voyager, XX03 Liverpool 350 and vice versa) and have CrossCountry run pairs of 350s to Liverpool and Manchester, taking WMT out of the arrangement. Both services can start at International, and put in a few local stops.

That way, Smethwick Galton gets a half-hourly connecting service for various points in the Mids to Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe (etc); with the 8/350s being the ones that take advantage of better acceleration and fast door times to add in some smaller stops (Winsford, Congleton, Cheadle Hulme and Penkridge spring to mind), with the Voyager services being real Intercity services.

In every case, it is a capacity uplift. One assumes you could also TUPE some WMT drivers over and therefore have no major issues with crewing or changeover.

Nothing extra is starting at International as I have mentioned elsewhere, unless you are tagging them on to the locals. What are you doing with the Newcastle path? you cannot just leave 1tph from Brum to the NE.

 

[Purple Orange]

Nobody has been able to say why Manchester and London need an additional service.

1. If it is to meaningfully serve the Manchester-London market it would need to be a 4th Avanti, taking 2 hours like the others and using a pendolino or IET. Another existing service needs to be dumped in order to make way for this one.
2. Lose one of the Manchester XC services to either the south coast or south west, extend a Birmingham Avanti service to Manchester. The XC south coast service seems most logical to go.
3. Divert the XC south cost service to Paddington, running it as a bi-mode IET (Manc-Brum-Reading-Paddington).
4. If it is to be a LNW style service, extend the Crewe 350 via Wilmslow and terminate the TfW service at Crewe or send it Victoria via Warrington.
5. Extend a LNW Euston-Brum service to Manchester, losing the TfW service from Crewe but a path through Wolverhampton would need to be found.

Option 3, 4 & 5 do not serve the Manchester-London market at all and it primarily just serves passengers going to either Brum or Crewe who are already catered for. There could be people who are willing to use option 3, but that service would primarily serve Reading-Paddington on the London leg which would also need to be run in place of another service. There could be a market for option 1 or option 2, but then what happens to the passenger flows for the service that is lost?

I can only see a 4th service either stitching together several shorter markets (like XC do) or meaning another market needs to lose out.

 

[packermac]

When I first noticed this thread I assumed it was an old one reactivated.
Why in the current climate of the Treasury asking the DfT why the railway costs so much to run would they want to add more trains? The more likely question being asked is why are so many being run in the first place and in a situation where if travel is not actively discouraged, it is certainly not encouraged, especially to areas with high infection rates.

 

[Purple Orange]

When I first noticed this thread I assumed it was an old one reactivated.
Why in the current climate of the Treasury asking the DfT why the railway costs so much to run would they want to add more trains? The more likely question being asked is why are so many being run in the first place and in a situation where if travel is not actively discouraged, it is certainly not encouraged, especially to areas with high infection rates.

Because there has been increasing passenger demand for such services. The railway is more popular than ever before and rhetoric network helps facilitate the flow of the economy.

To add regarding the pandemic, services have been reduced on many lines but we can't conclude that this service level will be satisfactory 12 months from now.

 

[Howardh]

Frankly I'm surprised the route hasn't been cut back to half-hourly, at least off-peak. This is from my own experience of catching those trains as recently as last week.

I'm glad it hasn't!

 

[The Planner]

Frankly I'm surprised the route hasn't been cut back to half-hourly, at least off-peak. This is from my own experience of catching those trains as recently as last week.

I'm glad it hasn't!

Massive re-write to do that, make it a 20 40 split, nothing changes.

 

[Howardh]

Massive re-write to do that, make it a 20 40 split, nothing changes.

I would imagine due to other services on the line that's what they would do, and as speculation could they do 20 Manchester>Stockport>Crewe>Euston and the 40 Manchester>Stockport>Macclesfield>Stoke>Milton Keynes>Watford>Euston ie. the former more-or-less non-stop and the latter stopping?
Either way, I prefer the current timetable but I would understand if it were reduced.

 

[Bald Rick]

Frankly I'm surprised the route hasn't been cut back to half-hourly, at least off-peak. This is from my own experience of catching those trains as recently as last week.

I'm glad it hasn't!

You save very little money unless the resources being used are stood down - ie sent off lease / made redundant.

 

[London Trains]

Massive re-write to do that, make it a 20 40 split, nothing changes.

It would not be as bad as you make it out to be.

On the WCML, just switch the :10 Chester and :20 Manchester paths. They both call at Milton Keynes so this shouldn't be an issue.

Between Stoke and Stockport, pathing does not seem to be an issue. If looking at RTT, just imagine the path of the :20 from Euston but 10 minutes earlier. It will be 5 minutes in front of the south coast XC, and will have no effect on the Northern stopper, since this runs in the opposite half hour (after the XC).

Between Stockport and Piccadilly, it seems to fit in between the Alderley Edge to Southport in front and the XC behind. The Hazel Grove to Blackpool should not affect it since it calls at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel.

 

[Ianno87]

It would not be as bad as you make it out to be.

On the WCML, just switch the :10 Chester and :20 Manchester paths. They both call at Milton Keynes so this shouldn't be an issue.

...there goes the turnround time at Chester.

How does the Up Direction Work?

 

[Bald Rick]

It would not be as bad as you make it out to be.

On the WCML, just switch the :10 Chester and :20 Manchester paths. They both call at Milton Keynes so this shouldn't be an issue.

Between Stoke and Stockport, pathing does not seem to be an issue. If looking at RTT, just imagine the path of the :20 from Euston but 10 minutes earlier. It will be 5 minutes in front of the south coast XC, and will have no effect on the Northern stopper, since this runs in the opposite half hour (after the XC).

Yep it is that easy.

Oh wait.

Clash at Stone, clash at Stoke, clash at Piccadilly, etc...

 

[The Ham]

Because there has been increasing passenger demand for such services. The railway is more popular than ever before and rhetoric network helps facilitate the flow of the economy.

To add regarding the pandemic, services have been reduced on many lines but we can't conclude that this service level will be satisfactory 12 months from now.

Whilst there's been a +75% growth on London/North West rail passengers leading to ~12 million doing so in 2019 Vs 2009 there's been a similar increase for London/West Midlands but having started from a higher base there's ~14 million doing so.

It's why cutting Birmingham services to provide Manchester services isn't a great idea.

It's also why HS2 is needed, as at phase 1 opening it was expected that growth from 2009 would be +50%.

To get to 150 passengers for every 100 in 2009 would mean a 15% fall from the 2019 175 passengers. As such, within the next few years, even if there's a 20% to 25% fall in passenger numbers to 2021 then at opening of Phase 1 passenger numbers are likely to be broadly where expected with a few years of low growth.

However a 25% fall would be huge, given that commuting (which makes up 50% of rail use on the WCML) has fallen by 50% (50% fall in 50% of the overall use is a fall of 25%) and there's quite a few who are working from home do time who don't want to do so that much, so it's lower than would be normal.

 

[London Trains]

...there goes the turnround time at Chester.

How does the Up Direction Work?

From Piccadilly, retime the XC to Bournemouth 1 min later, and run the service at :25 (the via Wilmslow is at :55). Looking at RTT, at least in the COVID timetable, it would all fit between Piccadilly and Stockport, between the Cleethorpes service in front and the XC behind it. It is again on the opposite side of the hour from the Stoke stopper, so will not affect it.

On the WCML, the path genuinely seems to work, arriving at Euston between :20 and :30, just after the LNWR service that runs on the fasts has. In fact, in some hours the paths seems to be used by one of the Manchester services themselves, showing that it works.

 

[Bald Rick]

From Piccadilly, retime the XC to Bournemouth 1 min later, and run the service at :25 (the via Wilmslow is at :55). Looking at RTT, at least in the COVID timetable, it would all fit between Piccadilly and Stockport, between the Cleethorpes service in front and the XC behind it. It is again on the opposite side of the hour from the Stoke stopper, so will not affect it.

On the WCML, the path genuinely seems to work, arriving at Euston between :20 and :30, just after the LNWR service that runs on the fasts has. In fact, in some hours the paths seems to be used by one of the Manchester services themselves, showing that it works.

Can I ask, do you actually work in train planning?

 

[iainbhx]

A rare time I agree.

The really radical idea would be to have the Reading / Southampton service go to Liverpool (5/221) and the Bournemouth service stick with Piccadilly (8/220).

Flight a service in 3 mins behind (e.g. XX00 Manchester Voyager, XX03 Liverpool 350 and vice versa) and have CrossCountry run pairs of 350s to Liverpool and Manchester, taking WMT out of the arrangement. Both services can start at International, and put in a few local stops.

That way, Smethwick Galton gets a half-hourly connecting service for various points in the Mids to Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe (etc); with the 8/350s being the ones that take advantage of better acceleration and fast door times to add in some smaller stops (Winsford, Congleton, Cheadle Hulme and Penkridge spring to mind), with the Voyager services being real Intercity services.

In every case, it is a capacity uplift. One assumes you could also TUPE some WMT drivers over and therefore have no major issues with crewing or changeover.

Whilst Smevvick Galton Bridge could do with better connections than once an hour, like Penkridge, it won't hold eight coaches and so with the doubled LNR services you have to be in the front four to use the station which isn't ideal. It's OK at the moment with them being half empty, but if we get back to the old loadings...

 

[Ianno87]

From Piccadilly, retime the XC to Bournemouth 1 min later, and run the service at :25 (the via Wilmslow is at :55). Looking at RTT, at least in the COVID timetable, it would all fit between Piccadilly and Stockport, between the Cleethorpes service in front and the XC behind it. It is again on the opposite side of the hour from the Stoke stopper, so will not affect it.

You can't have an xx25 Pendolino and an xx28 Voyager off Manchester call consecutively in the same platform at Stockport. You need at least about 4.5 minutes separation at least (1.5 dwell plus 3 minute reoccupation)

 

[DavidGrain]

When you talk about re-timing the XC from Machester to Bournemouth, this has repercussions at Birmingham and south of there. The Manchester trains and the Yorkshire trains alternate between the South Coast and the South West giving a 30 minute service south from Birmingham.

 

[The Planner]

It would not be as bad as you make it out to be.

On the WCML, just switch the :10 Chester and :20 Manchester paths. They both call at Milton Keynes so this shouldn't be an issue.

Between Stoke and Stockport, pathing does not seem to be an issue. If looking at RTT, just imagine the path of the :20 from Euston but 10 minutes earlier. It will be 5 minutes in front of the south coast XC, and will have no effect on the Northern stopper, since this runs in the opposite half hour (after the XC).

Between Stockport and Piccadilly, it seems to fit in between the Alderley Edge to Southport in front and the XC behind. The Hazel Grove to Blackpool should not affect it since it calls at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel.

What are you doing with the EMR Derby Crewe that you catch up at Kidsgrove? based on your assumption you would assume the now xx.10 Manchester is at Stoke at xy.39 and Kidsgrove at xy.46? The EMR is there at xx.45. Running in the up at xx.25 means retiming a Class 4 at Colwich as you get there at xx.14. Keeping on going you would get to Rugby Trent Valley at xx.38 which clashes with the Anglo Scot via the West Mids which also stops at MK like your xx.25 is. That is hotly pursued by the Glasgow via the Trent Valley which also runs you down.

 

[Philip]

When you talk about re-timing the XC from Machester to Bournemouth, this has repercussions at Birmingham and south of there. The Manchester trains and the Yorkshire trains alternate between the South Coast and the South West giving a 30 minute service south from Birmingham.

One minute isn't going to make much difference, and that minute can be made up by shortening the lengthy dwell at Wolverhampton.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2020 ==

You can't have an xx25 Pendolino and an xx28 Voyager off Manchester call consecutively in the same platform at Stockport. You need at least about 4.5 minutes separation at least (1.5 dwell plus 3 minute reoccupation)

One of them could use platform 1?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2020 ==

What are you doing with the EMR Derby Crewe that you catch up at Kidsgrove? based on your assumption you would assume the now xx.10 Manchester is at Stoke at xy.39 and Kidsgrove at xy.46? The EMR is there at xx.45. Running in the up at xx.25 means retiming a Class 4 at Colwich as you get there at xx.14. Keeping on going you would get to Rugby Trent Valley at xx.38 which clashes with the Anglo Scot via the West Mids which also stops at MK like your xx.25 is. That is hotly pursued by the Glasgow via the Trent Valley which also runs you down.

The EMR could wait in the Harecastle loop, which I've just discovered exists from the other thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

One minute isn't going to make much difference, and that minute can be made up by shortening the lengthy dwell at Wolverhampton.

1 minute can make all the difference.

The EMR could wait in the Harecastle loop, which I've just discovered exists from the other thread.

1) only in the southbound direction, it doesn’t exist northbound
2) Harecastle Loop is a goods loop only, ie not for passenger trains
3) delaying a Crewe bound EMR by more than 6/7 mins will cause a problem on the single line from Alsager to Crewe.