We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Killingworth]

Speaking from Sheffield switching away from TPE to Northern is a big NO, NO!

As it is we have one train an hour to Manchester offering first class and catering (or we did until Covid). First class ticket sales are low because there's no first on the alternative hourly East Midlands fast or Northern stopping services. Until last March when 6 cars finally arrived you couldn't be sure of getting a seat in first class even with a season ticket, and none in standard either.

I hope the wrong crayon has been used for operators. The good rail using citizens of Sheffield will not take that well. For years we've been reasonably happy with the long floated prospect of all the fasts going to TPE.

 

[nr758123]

However, a few things I would change:

• Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper retained but moved to Northern.

I like the idea, in both options B & C, that the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield get a half-hourly service. I don't really care which company operates it.

 

[The Planner]

I hate how things take so long. Still, it’s better than the current situation

That is the process, and with COVID it is already agreed that no big changes are manageable this year. Factor in that this will be considered significant change, therefore you are mandated to propose that at D-55, so in the case of May 22 that is the 24th of April. Even if it wasn't considered major change, all the TOCs would have to have this in a position to bid by the 6th of March for the Dec 21 timetable, not really realistic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Speaking from Sheffield switching away from TPE to Northern is a big NO, NO!

As it is we have one train an hour to Manchester offering first class and catering (or we did until Covid). First class ticket sales are low because there's no first on the alternative hourly East Midlands fast or Northern stopping services. Until last March when 6 cars finally arrived you couldn't be sure of getting a seat in first class even with a season ticket, and none in standard either.

I hope the wrong crayon has been used for operators. The good rail using citizens of Sheffield will not take that well. For years we've been reasonably happy with the long floated prospect of all the fasts going to TPE.

Perhaps you as a First Class passenger, but what everyone else is screaming for is more Standard seats on a service that had (!) a severe overcrowding problem, so a 3-car 195 would definitely be favoured over a 3-car 185.

 

[Ianno87]

That is the process, and with COVID it is already agreed that no big changes are manageable this year. Factor in that this will be considered significant change, therefore you are mandated to propose that at D-55, so in the case of May 22 that is the 24th of April. Even if it wasn't considered major change, all the TOCs would have to have this in a position to bid by the 6th of March for the Dec 21 timetable, not really realistic.

The report does actually say May 22 "at the earliest". I.e. it may actually be later this that it is all implemented (unless some incremental stuff could be done before then)

 

[Killingworth]

Perhaps you as a First Class passenger, but what everyone else is screaming for is more Standard seats on a service that had (!) a severe overcrowding problem, so a 3-car 195 would definitely be favoured over a 3-car 185.

Aa it happens I'm not, but I know those who are. However a 6 coach 185 may be what's actually planned and whoever did the graphics made a mistake.

It's a consultation at present. Losing the airport direct services will not be popular in either Liverpool or Sheffield. Sadly Sheffield's airport link is harder to operate than Liverpool's. Feedback I've seen suggests users on the east side are resigned to using cars. The poor reliability of that service has been so poor that most already do.

Overcrowding isn't an issue on the majority of trains now. It will probably be next May before we can better assess long-term capacity needs.

 

[Ianno87]

It's a consultation at present. Losing the airport direct services will not be popular in either Liverpool or Sheffield. Sadly Sheffield's airport link is harder to operate than Liverpool's. Feedback I've seen suggests users on the east side are resigned to using cars. The poor reliability of that service has been so poor that most already do.

The report makes it clear- there is a choice between direct connections for absolutely everybody and the performance of the railway. And passengers like both.

 

[Killingworth]

The report makes it clear- there is a choice between direct connections for absolutely everybody and the performance of the railway. And passengers like both.

Of course, that's been obvious for a long time. I say that as a user of a station that has been in the worst 100 in the country for punctuality in recent years. Liverpool-Norwich won't improve very much by splitting at Nottingham.

A significant number travelling from Sheffield to the Airport already use either Northern or EMR and change. For occasional travellers that doesn't seem an issue and pricing plays a part. A frequent, regular and reliable shuttle from Piccadilly would/will make severing the direct links from everywhere more acceptable.

Last time I travelled to the airport I was on the 5.09 from Sheffield. Not many aboard but I think almost all of us went through. Quite a lot commute to airport related jobs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One interesting question with regard to Liverpool and Ringway is exactly how many people stay on a Liverpool-Airport service past Picc? With Liverpool having Speke anyway with a good easyJet service to many destinations most Scousers will just use that. And holidaymakers with luggage will be more likely to drive or take a taxi.

 

[JonathanH]

Of course, that's been obvious for a long time. I say that as a user of a station that has been in the worst 100 in the country for punctuality in recent years. Liverpool-Norwich won't improve very much by splitting at Nottingham.

I do wonder if the Sheffield to Manchester flow would be better served by a self-contained shuttle. 2tph from Sheffield via Stockport to the main shed at Manchester.

Liverpool can run 2tph via Warrington to the Airport. That and 2tph Blackpool form all of the fast services on the Airport branch. No through workings from Stockport to Castlefield.

Then link the Cleethorpes to Sheffield and Sheffield to Nottingham sections at Sheffield. If that is too much of a double back, swap Cleethorpes for Hull on the Nottingham connection and have Cleethorpes services terminate at Sheffield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool does not need 2tph to Manchester Airport.

There's an obsession on here with running everything from Castlefield down that way, one that appears not to be shared by the DfT.

 

[markymark2000]

Liverpool does not need 2tph to Manchester Airport.

There's an obsession on here with running everything from Castlefield down that way, one that appears not to be shared by the DfT.

My comments which I am about to put forward is that 1 train per hour (either from Liverpool or Chester via Bank Quay) should run to Piccadilly and the Airport. This is so that Earlestown and Newton have a service as well as the longer distance passengers. If either one diverts, this then means there is an alternative for those using the intermediate stations (Chester - Bank Quay or Liverpool to St Helens Jct) can then use Newton (as now a vastly improved interchange) to switch services. Not that there is a specific flow but more ease the inconvenience for passengers. You don't want to annoy and discourage lots of passengers. The proposals in option C for example would leave nothing from Earlestown or Newton to Piccadilly or the Airport. For passengers say at Frodsham who want to go to Piccadilly, that would be a direct service changed to needing 2 changes (Change at Newton le Willows and Oxford Road).

 

[4-SUB 4732]

- We are being asked if we'd like local services via Marsden to run into Piccadilly every 30 minutes, suggesting people connect onto these potentially already busy trains at peak time from Huddersfield off Victoria terminating trains (Newcastle, Redcar).

- Surely we should send the Huddersfield stopper and Hull into Manchester Victoria, with the explicit intention of running them to Airport via Ordsall off peak? This being because they then end up being suitable trains for the route, and more importantly at peak they terminate in platforms right next to their intended tracks between Victoria and Miles Platting? On top of that, the Redcar and Newcastle services drop into Piccadilly platforms 1-4 and terminate, causing a marvellous situation whereby passengers from York, Leeds and Huddersfield who want fast trains to Manchester and Airport end up changing at Piccadilly?

Or am I going a bit mad?

 

[Greybeard33]

The proposals in option C for example would leave nothing from Earlestown or Newton to Piccadilly or the Airport. For passengers say at Frodsham who want to go to Piccadilly, that would be a direct service changed to needing 2 changes (Change at Newton le Willows and Oxford Road).

Alternatively they can stay on the direct 2tph to Victoria (only 1 mile from Piccadilly) and walk or take a tram to their final city centre destination. Or change to a TPE service at Victoria for the Airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==

- We are being asked if we'd like local services via Marsden to run into Piccadilly every 30 minutes, suggesting people connect onto these potentially already busy trains at peak time from Huddersfield off Victoria terminating trains (Newcastle, Redcar).

- Surely we should send the Huddersfield stopper and Hull into Manchester Victoria, with the explicit intention of running them to Airport via Ordsall off peak? This being because they then end up being suitable trains for the route, and more importantly at peak they terminate in platforms right next to their intended tracks between Victoria and Miles Platting? On top of that, the Redcar and Newcastle services drop into Piccadilly platforms 1-4 and terminate, causing a marvellous situation whereby passengers from York, Leeds and Huddersfield who want fast trains to Manchester and Airport end up changing at Piccadilly?

Or am I going a bit mad?

Then the fast trains between Manchester and Leeds would be split between Victoria and Piccadilly (2tph each), instead of the clockface 4tph at Victoria of Option C.

At Piccadilly it is a long walk between P1-4 and the platforms used by Airport trains, P11/12/13/14, at opposite sides of the station. Option C gives York, Leeds and Huddersfield passengers direct services to Piccadilly and the Airport via the Ordsall Chord.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Alternatively they can stay on the direct 2tph to Victoria (only 1 mile from Piccadilly) and walk or take a tram to their final city centre destination. Or change to a TPE service at Victoria for the Airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==


Then the fast trains between Manchester and Leeds would be split between Victoria and Piccadilly (2tph each), instead of the clockface 4tph at Victoria of Option C.

At Piccadilly it is a long walk between P1-4 and the platforms used by Airport trains, P11/12/13/14, at opposite sides of the station. Option C gives York, Leeds and Huddersfield passengers direct services to Piccadilly and the Airport via the Ordsall Chord.

Well there is at least service 'variety'. One can argue it's all well and good having people go between Leeds and Victoria every 15 minutes, but that doesn't help folk trying to get to South Manchester who potentially have to cram onto the local train at Huddersfield, to change again at Piccadilly. If, however, you split the fast services you achieve excellent service variety with little issue.

York and Leeds has a half-hourly fast service to Victoria and Liverpool; half-hourly to Piccadilly.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well there is at least service 'variety'. One can argue it's all well and good having people go between Leeds and Victoria every 15 minutes, but that doesn't help folk trying to get to South Manchester who potentially have to cram onto the local train at Huddersfield, to change again at Piccadilly. If, however, you split the fast services you achieve excellent service variety with little issue.

York and Leeds has a half-hourly fast service to Victoria and Liverpool; half-hourly to Piccadilly.

The biggest flows between Manchester and Leeds are city centre to city centre. It is convenient for passengers to know that they should always go to Victoria for a "turn up and go" frequency, rather than have to work out which station will have the earlier train, then maybe just miss it and have to wait half an hour.

For South Manchester Option C provides 3tph off peak direct from Leeds to Piccadilly (from Redcar, Newcastle and Hull) dropping to 2tph in the peaks, so it would not be necessary to change at Huddersfield.

 

[daodao]

Option C is clearly a significant improvement over the current mess, and simplifies operations considerably, which should lead to a more reliable service. However, there are some downsides, in particular:

• The Mid Cheshire line probably can't accommodate a really fast service with reliable operation, because of additional freight traffic and several single track sections. Diverting the N Wales service via this route is likely to lengthen the journey time and also destroys potential connections at Warrington BQ for Lancashire and Scotland. I don't see why it cannot run to M/c Victoria via Warrington BQ in lieu of one of the Leeds to Chester trains.
• Diverting all trains from stations between Chelford and Sandbach to run via the Airport lengthens journey times from these places to central Manchester and removes potential connections at Stockport to Sheffield services. The Styal line trains could terminate at Wilmslow instead.
• There is insignificant improvement to the stopping services on the CLC line via Warrington Central and some stations on this line will see a service reduction. The stopping service really ought to be half hourly, at least within the Merseyside and Greater Manchester conurbations.
• The service to Hull should be semi-fast, and run as one of the 4 main Trans-Pennine services not calling at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with a separate half hourly stopping service from Manchester to Huddersfield.
• There is still a desire to run long distance services from Lancaster and beyond, and York and beyond through to the Airport. Other than the sensible suggestion of a half hourly fast service from Liverpool to Sheffield, which should all be run by Northern Rail with EMR withdrawing from this route, longer distance trains need to be removed from the Castlefield line.
• Some electrified lines will almost exclusively be served by diesel trains, in particular M/c Victoria, the Ordsall curve, and Stockport to Hazel Grove.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The biggest flows between Manchester and Leeds are city centre to city centre. It is convenient for passengers to know that they should always go to Victoria for a "turn up and go" frequency, rather than have to work out which station will have the earlier train, then maybe just miss it and have to wait half an hour.

For South Manchester Option C provides 3tph off peak direct from Leeds to Piccadilly (from Redcar, Newcastle and Hull) dropping to 2tph in the peaks, so it would not be necessary to change at Huddersfield.

Even a half-hourly frequency is perfectly acceptable.

Regarding the splitting of fast services, this will be likely to aid reliability (the local trains will drop straight into a terminus platform at Victoria, the fast trains will get good recovery time at Piccadilly in turnaround and not import delays to Ordsall and Castlefield); and Piccadilly is a big draw for the universities, hospitals and significant wider connectivity. Victoria is good for the Arena, shopping centre and Salford.

Realistically, I would prefer if I lived in Leeds, Huddersfield or York to have the variety of service. It would make far more sense. That, and if you live in places like Marsden and Greenfield you will be able to jump out at Stalybridge straight onto a train to Piccadilly. Same can be made to work in reverse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==

Option C is clearly a significant improvement over the current mess, and simplifies operations considerably, which should lead to a more reliable service. However, there are some downsides, in particular:

• The Mid Cheshire line probably can't accommodate a really fast service with reliable operation, because of additional freight traffic and several single track sections. Diverting the N Wales service via this route is likely to lengthen the journey time and also destroys potential connections at Warrington BQ for Lancashire and Scotland. I don't see why it cannot run to M/c Victoria via Warrington BQ in lieu of one of the Leeds to Chester trains.
• Diverting all trains from stations between Chelford and Sandbach to run via the Airport lengthens journey times from these places to central Manchester and removes potential connections at Stockport to Sheffield services. The Styal line trains could terminate at Wilmslow instead.
• There is insignificant improvement to the stopping services on the CLC line via Warrington Central and some stations on this line will see a service reduction. The stopping service really ought to be half hourly, at least within the Merseyside and Greater Manchester conurbations.
• The service to Hull should be semi-fast, and run as one of the 4 main Trans-Pennine services not calling at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with a separate half hourly stopping service from Manchester to Huddersfield.
• There is still a desire to run long distance services from Lancaster and beyond, and York and beyond through to the Airport. Other than the sensible suggestion of a half hourly fast service from Liverpool to Sheffield, which should all be run by Northern Rail with EMR withdrawing from this route, longer distance trains need to be removed from the Castlefield line.
• Some electrified lines will almost exclusively be served by diesel trains, in particular M/c Victoria, the Ordsall curve, and Stockport to Hazel Grove.

I don't know if we could 'demand' the TransPennine route via Standedge be 'clean' of freight etc during the day. If that was the case, you could make 6tph out of Manchester? You'd have to decide for Newcastle not to get 2tph, or cut Scarborough. As you'd need 4tph only Manchester - Leeds, sprinkling the Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers in.

 

[daodao]

Even a half-hourly frequency is perfectly acceptable.

Regarding the splitting of fast services, this will be likely to aid reliability (the local trains will drop straight into a terminus platform at Victoria, the fast trains will get good recovery time at Piccadilly in turnaround and not import delays to Ordsall and Castlefield); and Piccadilly is a big draw for the universities, hospitals and significant wider connectivity. Victoria is good for the Arena, shopping centre and Salford.

Realistically, I would prefer if I lived in Leeds, Huddersfield or York to have the variety of service. It would make far more sense. That, and if you live in places like Marsden and Greenfield you will be able to jump out at Stalybridge straight onto a train to Piccadilly. Same can be made to work in reverse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==



I don't know if we could 'demand' the TransPennine route via Standedge be 'clean' of freight etc during the day. If that was the case, you could make 6tph out of Manchester? You'd have to decide for Newcastle not to get 2tph, or cut Scarborough. As you'd need 4tph only Manchester - Leeds, sprinkling the Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers in.

I would cut the Edinburgh service and just run 1 tph to Newcastle only.

 

[Greybeard33]

There is insignificant improvement to the stopping services on the CLC line via Warrington Central and some stations on this line will see a service reduction. The stopping service really ought to be half hourly, at least within the Merseyside and Greater Manchester conurbations.

Option C says the CLC stopping service would be 2tph between Warrington and Liverpool. Between Warrington and Oxford Road it would be 2tph peak, 1tph off peak. But the 2tph semi-fasts would call at Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood, which are the only stations east of Warrington that have more than 1tph now. So no station would see a service reduction, even off peak, and several stations would have much improved frequencies (e.g. Trafford Park, Humphrey Park, Chassen Road, Glazebook).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would cut the Edinburgh service and just run 1 tph to Newcastle only.

Yes.

There are 4 north TPE branches, so 1tph to each. At the other end, 2 to Picc (either via the white elephant and on to the Airport or ideally just into P1/2) and 2 to Liverpool via Vic. I'd go for the Newcastle and Scarborough to Liverpool as they're more likely destinations from there, but it's fairly moot.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Mid Cheshire line probably can't accommodate a really fast service with reliable operation, because of additional freight traffic and several single track sections. Diverting the N Wales service via this route is likely to lengthen the journey time and also destroys potential connections at Warrington BQ for Lancashire and Scotland. I don't see why it cannot run to M/c Victoria via Warrington BQ in lieu of one of the Leeds to Chester trains.

Because the report says it assumes no infrastructure enhancements, so no turnback siding east of Victoria. Also I suspect the N Wales service could not be timed to be exactly 30 minutes from the Leeds to Chester, to give the desired 2tph Takt timetable.

 

[Ianno87]

• Some electrified lines will almost exclusively be served by diesel trains, in particular M/c Victoria, the Ordsall curve, and Stockport to Hazel Grove.

Bi-modes....

 

[daodao]

Bi-modes....

I didn't think that Northern currently have any bi-modes.

 

[Ianno87]

I didn't think that Northern currently have any bi-modes.

They will have 769s

 

[daodao]

...so where else do Scotland trains go? No space for them at Victoria.

There is one relatively straightforward piece of infrastructure that I would build, namely a couple of turnback sidings east of Victoria, at least one of which should be electrified, for the Scotland and North Wales services. One doesn't want long distance trains with end doors and lots of passengers with baggage calling at Oxford Road or Piccadilly platforms 13 and 14.

 

[Ianno87]

There is one relatively straightforward piece of infrastructure that I would build, namely a couple of turnback sidings east of Victoria, at least one of which should be electrified.

That doesn't help stabilise the timetable right now.

 

[daodao]

That doesn't help stabilise the timetable right now.

It shouldn't take more than 12 months to build sidings on railway land.

 

[James90012]

The North Wales issue feels particularly political and a result of DfT and TfN having no explicit accountability for rail services in Wales.

Perhaps TfW should push for extension of one of the Leeds-Chester services through to Llandudno - subsidise accordingly - alongside a Northwich TfW service - although pointless politics would likely come into that too.

I would hope that there would be a review of the real benefits of slowing down this many services in the Option C proposal, if in practice it generates extra demand that's great but I do think they should come with a health warning that if the ridership does not materialise the calls could be removed again.

 

[Greybeard33]

The North Wales issue feels particularly political and a result of DfT and TfN having no explicit accountability for rail services in Wales.

Perhaps TfW should push for extension of one of the Leeds-Chester services through to Llandudno - subsidise accordingly - alongside a Northwich TfW service - although pointless politics would likely come into that too.

TfW was not represented on the Taskforce, whereas TfN and TfGM were.

Maybe another solution would be a recast of the Coast timetable to give quick, reliable hourly connections to/from the Leeds service at Chester.