We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[peters]

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

Did it not also cause an issue whereby TfW Rail just decided they weren't going to bother with running the peak time extras between Chester and Manchester, when the Northern franchise had been planned on the basis of those services continuing?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

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.

Northern should arguably have had enough fleet for the second Mid Cheshire. If that's the case, it's just a case of an internal cascade.

If Northern therefore run a, say, Leeds - Llandudno with TfW crew operating it west of Chester; and TfW run a Bangor - Piccadilly via Mid Cheshire with mostly Northern crew east of Chester, it might just about work. But that's almost impossible to imagine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2021 ==

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.

Extremely sensible. If the Coast runs hourly from Llandudno and hourly from Bangor, with the two Northern services a 7-8 minute connection both ways, that would be lovely...

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

The Coast is going to be recast anyway - I believe the end game is hourly of each of Liverpool-Llandudno, Manchester-Bangor and Cardiff-Holyhead plus the Avantis. If there are going to be 2tph of Chester-Leeds, then I guess one of those is going to connect reasonably at least.

 

[Ianno87]

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.

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.

Although the options presented are quite clever in spelling out all the possibilities for the TfW service, and resulting consequences on other services:

1) What if it was kept via Castlefield
2) What if it went via Victoria
3) If you still desperately want to get to Piccadilly, here's the alternative to Castlefield (via Northwich)

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Who would provide Helsby & Frodsham Runcorn East services if TFW stopped travelling that way to Manchester? Would their only service be the halton curve Liverpool service? Would they have to travel back to Chester first to be able to get to Warrington or Manchester?

I cant see that going down well after only just getting an increase in service.

 

[Ianno87]

Who would provide Helsby & Frodsham Runcorn East services if TFW stopped travelling that way to Manchester? Would their only service be the halton curve Liverpool service? Would they have to travel back to Chester first to be able to get to Warrington or Manchester?

I cant see that going down well after only just getting an increase in service.

I'd presume the Chester-Leeds service would make the stops instead, keeping 2tph (plus the Liverpool service)

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I'd presume the Chester-Leeds service would make the stops instead, keeping 2tph (plus the Liverpool service)

Well, in theory the Northern service is already fast from Chester to Bank Quay, so the ‘new’ one would just need to make intermediate stops.

The Halton service is also all stops.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well, in theory the Northern service is already fast from Chester to Bank Quay, so the ‘new’ one would just need to make intermediate stops.

The Halton service is also all stops.

The report says that an aim is:

A move towards repeating 30 minute and 60 minute service patterns, to standardise operations and make train service patterns simpler for passengers, particularly when they need to interchange to complete their journey.

That implies that the two Chester - Victoria services would have the same stopping patterns, i.e. both serve all the intermediate stations between Chester and Warrington 30 minutes apart.

 

[Glenn1969]

I admit I would prefer it if a Calder Valley service could be sent round Ordsall to improve our connections to inter city services at Piccadilly and Manchester City Centre. It was going to go to the Airport but doesn't have to

I would think hard about diverting Scarborough or Hull via this route if you want to keep 2x Newcastle tph on the TPE route

 

[JonathanH]

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.

We do need to recognise, across the railway network, that the railway is increasingly going to have to look towards 'local' 'blue collar' commuters as its base load rather than those who used to travel longer distances and who won't be going to offices any more. This is a good reason to favour short distance journeys and more stopping services over faster longer distance services.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The report says that an aim is:

That implies that the two Chester - Victoria services would have the same stopping patterns, i.e. both serve all the intermediate stations between Chester and Warrington 30 minutes apart.

I don’t think it implies that, just that the key flows will see standardisation. So the path will be half-hourly between say Newton le Willows, Victoria and Rochdale but then the ends can have minor modifications to match capacity.

 

[Greybeard33]

One feature of Option C that seems to me to be operationally problematic is that it has 3tph terminating at Oxford Road in the peaks. These comprise two CLC stoppers and a Southport via Atherton extra. Assuming that these would reverse in Platform 5 and 3, they would all block the western throat of the station on departure, potentially causing delays to eastbound through services. This compromises the timetable resilience to delays.

Furthermore, the Chat Moss stopper is diverted to Victoria in the peaks. Unless this connects at Victoria with the hourly Redcar - Airport service, commuters from Chat Moss stations would have no easy way to access connections at Piccadilly for onward journeys to the south or southeast. The only options might be walk or tram from Victoria to Piccadilly, or double back via Salford Crescent - three changes!

The Southport - Oxford Road service is presumably an attempt to defuse user group opposition to the loss of the Southport - Alderley Edge, but I think that this part of Option C needs more work.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

One feature of Option C that seems to me to be operationally problematic is that it has 3tph terminating at Oxford Road in the peaks. These comprise two CLC stoppers and a Southport via Atherton extra. Assuming that these would reverse in Platform 5 and 3, they would all block the western throat of the station on departure, potentially causing delays to eastbound through services. This compromises the timetable resilience to delays.

Furthermore, the Chat Moss stopper is diverted to Victoria in the peaks. Unless this connects at Victoria with the hourly Redcar - Airport service, commuters from Chat Moss stations would have no easy way to access connections at Piccadilly for onward journeys to the south or southeast. The only options might be walk or tram from Victoria to Piccadilly, or double back via Salford Crescent - three changes!

The Southport - Oxford Road service is presumably an attempt to defuse user group opposition to the loss of the Southport - Alderley Edge, but I think that this part of Option C needs more work.

Agreed. Assuming you are running faster trains via Atherton in C, which I believe creates a whopping 6tph from Wallgate to Manchester at peak and therefore seriously should remove hatred from Wigan folk to all this, then these improved journey times should arguably be balanced by connections at Salford Crescent if Southport folk want to get to Piccadilly and maybe Stockport by using the Blackpool trains. Make said peak fast services the two Southport trains and extend them to Stalybridge and then the busiest stations and Southport have comprehensive linkage to the east and Huddersfield, as well as two TPE long distance destinations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Southport - Oxford Road service is presumably an attempt to defuse user group opposition to the loss of the Southport - Alderley Edge, but I think that this part of Option C needs more work.

As I've mentioned upthread, I'd fix this by swapping one of the Southports with the Chat Moss stopper (possibly even that being the only Southport, i.e. dropping to a longer train at 1tph). The established pattern for years has been that Chat Moss stoppers go to Vic, so by sending that one to Oxford Road you're double-annoying people.

 

[Ianno87]

As I've mentioned upthread, I'd fix this by swapping one of the Southports with the Chat Moss stopper (possibly even that being the only Southport, i.e. dropping to a longer train at 1tph). The established pattern for years has been that Chat Moss stoppers go to Vic, so by sending that one to Oxford Road you're double-annoying people.

Might be as simple as that doesn't work in a timetable, as it involves inherently more conflicts. Hence not being proposed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might be as simple as that doesn't work in a timetable, as it involves inherently more conflicts. Hence not being proposed.

Could be. But I get the feeling it's more about "tidiness" of the same station for all departures for a given destination, and not considering that, very unusually, I suspect (from my past experience of the area) Sandgrounders would genuinely prefer 1tph (as long as it was a maximum-length train) to Castlefield over 2tph to Vic.

At least, to be fair, they are getting Vic via Bolton rather than via Atherton, which is more useful and less pig-ugly. (I know you don't plan timetables based on scenery, but the route via Bolton is really quite pretty and interesting in places, whereas Atherton is just a continuous parade of ugly urban decay).

 

[Greybeard33]

As I've mentioned upthread, I'd fix this by swapping one of the Southports with the Chat Moss stopper (possibly even that being the only Southport, i.e. dropping to a longer train at 1tph). The established pattern for years has been that Chat Moss stoppers go to Vic, so by sending that one to Oxford Road you're double-annoying people.

The established pattern since May 2018 has been for the Chat Moss stopper to go through Castlefield to the Airport, with only a few peak services going to Victoria.

Airport City and Stockport are both big employment centres. Why should residents of, e.g., St Helens and Newton-le-Willows be denied rail access to them, just to save Southport residents the inconvenience of a quick change at Bolton or Salford Crescent?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The established pattern since May 2018 has been for the Chat Moss stopper to go through Castlefield to the Airport, with only a few peak services going to Victoria.

I sit corrected.

Airport City and Stockport are both big employment centres. Why should residents of, e.g., St Helens and Newton-le-Willows be denied rail access to them, just to save Southport residents the inconvenience of a quick change at Bolton or Salford Crescent?

You can as well say that the other way round.

 

[Greybeard33]

You can as well say that the other way round.

No, someone on the Chat Moss stopper to Victoria cannot change at Salford Crescent to get to Piccadilly, unless they double back from Victoria. They either have to trek across the city centre or wait up to an hour at Victoria for the TPE Ordsall Chord service.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

No, someone on the Chat Moss stopper to Victoria cannot change at Salford Crescent to get to Piccadilly, unless they double back from Victoria. They either have to trek across the city centre or wait up to an hour at Victoria for the TPE Ordsall Chord service.

Agreed. If we are going to have 2tph from Blackpool via Bolton to Piccadilly and then Hazel Grove or Alderley Edge, that could realistically work with the Windermere / Cumbria and Scotland to Airport to give 4tph from Bolton and 2tph from Salford towards Piccadilly; so Southport etc get a connection. I agree the Chat Moss stopper should be to Piccadilly, not least as it will partially assist Earlestown and Newton le Willows in compensating for the loss of the TfW.

 

[Killingworth]

Just had confirmation that the proposed Liverpool-Cleethorpes would be operated by TPE and not Northern in Options B and C as shown in the graphic maps on pages 15 and 17. I gather the pdf online is being corrected.

Revised version attached, also correcting colours in TfN logo! This may not be online until Monday.

TPE would then be able to use some of the spare 185s.

 

[scrapy]

The Chat Moss pre 2018 had a semi fast to Oxford Rd, Picc and the airport as well as the TFW from Earlestown and Newton. Under proposal C the stopper would be the only remaining service to Oxford Rd as the TPE and Chester to Leeds would all go to Victoria so I would suggest not swapping it with the Southport service. Would also mean electric throughout whereas would need to be bimode or diesel if sent to Stalybridge

 

[Ianno87]

Would also mean electric throughout whereas would need to be bimode or diesel if sent to Stalybridge

Although I can't remember what the latest plan is for wiring Manchester-Stalybridge. Use of bi-modes may not need to be for a long period after 2022 if wires are relatively forthcoming.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What train length could have been accommodated on the former platform 6 at Manchester Oxford Road railway station?

 

[Jack Hay]

What train length could have been accommodated on the former platform 6 at Manchester Oxford Road railway station?

6 of the old MSJ&A electric coaches could be accomodated, but they would block the access to the adjacent platform whilst there. Incidentally the vanished platform was numbered 5 and the present 5 was 4, etc. But it is convenient to call it '6' in discussions nowadays! To enable more reversals at Oxford Road, the former crossover connecting P3 to the down line nees to be re-instated, then it can act as a 'centre turnback road'. But Network Rail won't get that done by 2022.

 

[tpjm]

• 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. I would prefer the 2 tph TPE services not running to Liverpool to be diverted to Piccadilly platforms 1-3 and to terminate there.

Where do you propose the second stopping service is platformed at Huddersfield? The whole point of MRTF is to improve central Manchester to minimise the spread of delay across the north/country. I really wish closet-train planners wouldn’t try to rewrite the entire timetable when they clearly don’t understand the full situation.

 

[daodao]

Where do you propose the second stopping service is platformed at Huddersfield? The whole point of MRTF is to improve central Manchester to minimise the spread of delay across the north/country. I really wish closet-train planners wouldn’t try to rewrite the entire timetable when they clearly don’t understand the full situation.

IMO, the Hull service should be a fast service between Manchester and Leeds and replace between these points one of the existing fast TPE services that runs to Newcastle; I would also axe the extension to Edinburgh. This does not increase the number of passenger trains via Standedge over that which is proposed. There would be, in addition to 2 stopping services, 4 TPE services via Standedge, e.g.

• Liverpool-Newcastle and Liverpool-Middlesbrough, each 1 tph run by bimodes, calling only at Victoria and Huddersfield between Liverpool and Leeds
• Manchester-Scarborough and Manchester-Hull, each 1 tph run by dmus, calling at Stalybridge/Huddersfield/Dewsbury between Manchester and Leeds

This is not radically different from the proposals in the consultation, and I would not be particularly concerned about swapping the eastern termini around, although it would be best if a direct link is preserved between Liverpool and Newcastle.

I welcome the MRTF proposals as a step forward, and of the 3 options proposed in this consultation, I prefer option C, as it seems simpler and more resilient overall. However, I have concerns (as mentioned in earlier posts) about:

• using the Castlefield line for TPE Standedge long-distance trains, and also for the long-distance WCML services from Lancaster and beyond, as this is likely to continue to cause serious adverse effects on the reliability of the network as a whole. I would prefer the TPE trains starting at Manchester to depart from Piccadilly platforms 1-4, but the MRTF proposes that they continue to use the Ordsall curve and run to the Airport.
• some of the changes proposed to services on the south side of Manchester, in particular running all the Crewe stoppers via the Airport, and diverting the North Wales service via Altrincham, however personally useful that might be, because it makes these services slower, less resilient and less useful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester-Scarborough and Manchester-Hull, each 1 tph run by dmus, calling at Stalybridge/Huddersfield/Dewsbury between Manchester and Leeds
This is not radically different from the proposals in the consultation, and I would not be particularly concerned about swapping the eastern termini around, although it would be best if a direct link is preserved between Liverpool and Newcastle.

I'd do some skip stopping or have them all call at all TPE stations, so the core can have a consistent 15 minute interval.

 

[northernchris]

IMO, the Hull service should be a fast service between Manchester and Leeds and replace between these points one of the existing fast TPE services that runs to Newcastle; I would also axe the extension to Edinburgh. This does not increase the number of passenger trains via Standedge over that which is proposed. There would be, in addition to 2 stopping services, 4 TPE services via Standedge, e.g.

• Liverpool-Newcastle and Liverpool-Middlesbrough, each 1 tph run by bimodes, calling only at Victoria and Huddersfield between Liverpool and Leeds
• Manchester-Scarborough and Manchester-Hull, each 1 tph run by dmus, calling at Stalybridge/Huddersfield/Dewsbury between Manchester and Leeds

This is not radically different from the proposals in the consultation, and I would not be particularly concerned about swapping the eastern termini around, although it would be best if a direct link is preserved between Liverpool and Newcastle.

I welcome the MRTF proposals as a step forward, and of the 3 options proposed in this consultation, I prefer option C, as it seems simpler and more resilient overall. However, I have concerns (as mentioned in earlier posts) about:

• using the Castlefield line for TPE Standedge long-distance trains, and also for the long-distance WCML services from Lancaster and beyond, as this is likely to continue to cause serious adverse effects on the reliability of the network as a whole. I would prefer the TPE trains starting at Manchester to depart from Piccadilly platforms 1-4, but the MRTF proposes that they continue to use the Ordsall curve and run to the Airport.
• some of the changes proposed to services on the south side of Manchester, in particular running all the Crewe stoppers via the Airport, and diverting the North Wales service via Altrincham, however personally useful that might be, because it makes these services slower, less resilient and less useful.

The 802s receive maintenance at Edinburgh though, so it makes sense to have 1 service per hour extend from Newcastle. It's only 4 extra stops on the Hull service, and under the current timetable (which admittedly will be more reliable as less services are running) it has quite a bit of dwell built in, especially at Leeds and Huddersfield so the overall increase in journey time would barely be noticeable. Under option C it's likely that other routes will also see increase in journey times, such as the Atherton and Bolton lines, so it's now up to those responsible for the consultation to sell the benefits of slightly longer journey times against a more reliable service

 

[JonathanH]

The 802s receive maintenance at Edinburgh though, so it makes sense to have 1 service per hour extend from Newcastle. It's only 4 extra stops on the Hull service, and under the current timetable (which admittedly will be more reliable as less services are running) it has quite a bit of dwell built in, especially at Leeds and Huddersfield so the overall increase in journey time would barely be noticeable. Under option C it's likely that other routes will also see increase in journey times, such as the Atherton and Bolton lines, so it's now up to those responsible for the consultation to sell the benefits of slightly longer journey times against a more reliable service

How many 802s actually receive maintenance at Craigentinny each day? Presumably not a lot - my recollection of the full diagrams was 2 Craigentinny starters, 2 Doncaster, 4 Edge Hill, 6 Heaton and 1 York. Isn't it just a change in balance of the work for LNER and TPE at Bounds Green, Doncaster and Craigentinny (eg one pair of LNER units going to Craigentinny instead of Doncaster) and then no need for 802s to go to Craigentinny at all.