Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Jack Hay]

I fear that the Option C diversion of the TfW service via Northwich increases performance risk between Piccadilly and Stockport. Network Rail previously refused a path for a second Northern Mid Cheshire line service (Piccadilly - Greenbank) on the grounds of unacceptable performance risk, taking account of the single track sections at Cheadle and Navigation Road. Yet a similar path is apparently considered ok for TfW?

Option C also retains the peak extras between Chester and Stockport, resulting in 3tph (+ freight) on the Mid Cheshire in the peaks - even more ambitious.

I favour Option C overall, but maybe this aspect needs more work?

The single line sections were not, in fact. the reason given by Network Rail for refusing the committed second hourly train on the Mid Cheshire. The reason they gave was that they could not path it between Stockport and Piccadilly. The single line sections could be accommodated. and Northern's timetable planners had produced a workable timetable that acommodated the single lines and were in the process of tweaking the timetable (to improve calling patterns etc) when Network Rail threw in their objection. So the removal of some other movements such as Cleethorpes-Airport should make this possible. Also, the current Northern service uses the slow lines northbound from Stockport which requires a crossing movement at Slade Lane to keep on the down slow, and another crossing move to enter the main station at Piccadilly. I think it likely that the down TfW service will use the fast line (because none of them will call at Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme) which simplifies operation in the Piccadilly approaches. I am not sure that you are right about the Stockport-Chester rush hour extras; I think it unlikely that they will survive if the TfW service starts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==

0533 Airport-Llandudno (0548 from Pic).

Very likely that in a concession world the DfT will be able to decide routes and stopping patterns across operators, but not for "foreign" trains run by WG/TfW!

DfT does control routes and stopping patterns for TfW operations in England, because the Welsh Assembly has no authority in England.

 

[Amstel]

The document should show which train services are electric and which are diesel.
We all know electrics are faster and better for the environment, especially through the centre of Manchester.
So it's absurd to have only diesels on the electrified line to Hazel Grove, in options 2 and 3.
(Or maybe the occasional peak only Wigan North Western service will will be electric just to check the wires are still there, but in that case the South Manchester to North Manchester connection of Stockport to Bolton is lost).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who do you suggest pays for that? Either the Railway takes less money or Metrolink has to carry passengers for free. Didn't you, in another thread, advocate removing just this facility from NR tickets in London because you prefer to walk or catch the bus?

To be fair the reason I advocated it wasn't because I prefer to take the bus (I'd be happy if the bus was included; really the transfer should effectively be a single-use Zone 1 Travelcard rather than just a Tube ticket), but because LU has an acceptance problem with e-tickets due to the cost of modifying the barriers. Metrolink has no such issue as it is not barriered; allowing their inspectors to verify e-tickets just involves providing them an app on the mobile phones they no doubt already have.

I suppose to be fair with contactless it's not that much of an issue to have to pay for it. But I guess it would fall on the railway to fund, partly on the money it saves by the improved punctuality of option C.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==

So it's absurd to have only diesels on the electrified line to Hazel Grove, in options 2 and 3.

This is basically made for Class 769s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

DfT does control routes and stopping patterns for TfW operations in England, because the Welsh Assembly has no authority in England.

True and not true.
There is joint consultation on cross-border services, and WG (as opposed to the TOC) will make its views on services known to the DfT/ORR.
It affects the funding agreements for the franchises (as was) and the commercial viability of the operation.
There are similar debates over GWR/Avanti/XC cross-border services.
TfW also (at present) operates some stations in England including Chester/Shrewsbury/Hereford, not to mention Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn East etc.

 

[daodao]

The single line sections were not, in fact. the reason given by Network Rail for refusing the committed second hourly train on the Mid Cheshire. The reason they gave was that they could not path it between Stockport and Piccadilly. The single line sections could be accommodated. and Northern's timetable planners had produced a workable timetable that acommodated the single lines and were in the process of tweaking the timetable (to improve calling patterns etc) when Network Rail threw in their objection. So the removal of some other movements such as Cleethorpes-Airport should make this possible. Also, the current Northern service uses the slow lines northbound from Stockport which requires a crossing movement at Slade Lane to keep on the down slow, and another crossing move to enter the main station at Piccadilly. I think it likely that the down TfW service will use the fast line (because none of them will call at Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme) which simplifies operation in the Piccadilly approaches. I am not sure that you are right about the Stockport-Chester rush hour extras; I think it unlikely that they will survive if the TfW service starts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==


DfT does control routes and stopping patterns for TfW operations in England, because the Welsh Assembly has no authority in England.

There is another single track section several miles long west of the WCML on the CLC line, between Mickle Trafford junction and Mouldsworth station, which could also affect the resilience of train services from North Wales to Manchester via this route.

 

[Philip]

So North Wales, Chester and surrounding areas on the Wirral, Runcorn, Frodsham, Helsby all lose the Airport/Oxford road but it's fine for Redcar to keep it?

That's going to be a very hard sell to local councils.

A lot of commuters fill them trains every single day and night in normal times. Even with the Northern service taking some strain they were still full to bursting.

The passenger counts will fall through the floor if it has to go around the houses through the Mid Cheshire line.

But in option C, Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby will all have a uniform half-hourly service to Manchester, which is an improvement on the current. Until a few years ago, these stations didn't even have an Airport service. The need for Leeds and Huddersfield to retain direct Airport links is greater than the stations you mention.

I don't see why Southport needs to retain good connections to the Castlefield corridor/Airport even if it means compromising other services - half hourly to Victoria and Stalybridge is fine. If Bolton and Salford don't provide good Piccadilly connections, then there is the option of Victoria either via Ordsall or the tram.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see why Southport needs to retain good connections to the Castlefield corridor/Airport even if it means compromising other services - half hourly to Victoria and Stalybridge is fine. If Bolton and Salford don't provide good Piccadilly connections, then there is the option of Victoria either via Ordsall or the tram.

Because people have built their life up around the post-Windsor Link service.

I can accept the need to send it to Victoria, but good connections at Bolton or Salford Crescent (ideally the latter) are absolutely essential. Ordsall or the tram add about half an hour onto the journey, which isn't going to be acceptable for a commute.

Option C proposes a Takt-style service, which is good, but all aspects of the Takt are required - quality connections are just as important as the clockface timetable. You can only really ignore that when you're running a very high frequency service like Metrolink or Merseyrail - it just doesn't work properly with half-hourly services unless the connections are properly planned.

 

[desiro350]

I don't see why Southport needs to retain good connections to the Castlefield corridor/Airport even if it means compromising other services - half hourly to Victoria and Stalybridge is fine. If Bolton and Salford don't provide good Piccadilly connections, then there is the option of Victoria either via Ordsall or the tram.

It doesn't.

The need for an all day service to Piccadilly was massively exaggerated by Opsta in 2019; there was no reduction in passenger numbers from stations west of Wigan as a result of the through service being reduced to peak hours only in May 2018. For the lines through Wallgate, option C would work, although it would be better to revert it to pre December 2019 with the Leeds/Blackburn services running to Southport and the slower Stalybridge services starting at Wigan, with Southport-Castlefield in the peaks. A 65 minute end to end journey time (as was the case with the Leeds workings before they were cut back), which is up to 10 minutes faster than the current timetable would be far more useful in my opinion.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There has been very little mention of freight and the consultation document hardly makes any reference either (beyond an indication that a regular hourly freight path each way through Castlefield will continue.

I am far from clear how the proposed service pattern on the Styal Line, crossing moves at Wilmslow and revised timings north of Sandbach generally would affect freight, e.g. needing regular looping at Chelford.

I am also surprised by the limited consideration of freight patterns via Altrincham. This seems to have gained several flows over the years with at least three 'new' ones. (These comprise stone for HS2 from various sources around Peak Forest/Hindlow to Washwood Heath and Small Heath, together with cement from Tunstead to Westbury in lieu of previous supplies from Aberthaw.) Routeings can vary but via the Middlewich Line seems to be quite popular. With numerous single line sections on all freight routes high levels of punctuality will not be easy to achieve. The Stockport-Altrincham section seems like a really weak point to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The need for an all day service to Piccadilly was massively exaggerated by Opsta in 2019; there was no reduction in passenger numbers from stations west of Wigan as a result of the through service being reduced to peak hours only in May 2018.

Passenger numbers reduction doesn't mean you've not considerably inconvenienced people, though. If there's no better alternative, they will just put up with it.

 

[Ianno87]

Passenger numbers reduction doesn't mean you've not considerably inconvenienced people, though. If there's no better alternative, they will just put up with it.

Or perhaps the silent people in all this have actually benefitted and prefer a Victoria service (or have no particular preference one way or the other) and the local "user group" is not really representing all actual, real users. Only what its own members think.

 

[Greybeard33]

The single line sections were not, in fact. the reason given by Network Rail for refusing the committed second hourly train on the Mid Cheshire. The reason they gave was that they could not path it between Stockport and Piccadilly.

So the removal of some other movements such as Cleethorpes-Airport should make this possible.

I am not convinced. In the baseline, the Cleethorpes to Airport is the only service from Piccadilly main shed (Platform 9 or 10) to the Airport. Option C replaces this with two Northern services from the main shed to the Airport. This increases potential conflicts in Piccadilly throat. Moves from the down slow to the main shed have to cross the path of moves from P13 to the up slow. Option C does not appear to remove any other cross throat moves.

Also, the current Northern service uses the slow lines northbound from Stockport which requires a crossing movement at Slade Lane to keep on the down slow, and another crossing move to enter the main station at Piccadilly. I think it likely that the down TfW service will use the fast line (because none of them will call at Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme) which simplifies operation in the Piccadilly approaches.

Only a couple of peak Northern services ex-Chester call at Levenshulme. The others use the down slow to avoid conflict with a XC service on the down fast - such conflicts could equally affect the TfW. All the southbound services to Chester use the up fast.

I am not sure that you are right about the Stockport-Chester rush hour extras; I think it unlikely that they will survive if the TfW service starts.

You are correct. I misread the document.

 

[Ianno87]

I am not convinced. In the baseline, the Cleethorpes to Airport is the only service from Piccadilly main shed (Platform 9 or 10) to the Airport. Option C replaces this with two Northern services from the main shed to the Airport. This increases potential conflicts in Piccadilly throat.

But the two Northern services can be timed to fit - they don't have to also meet a particular path from/to Stockport (or beyond) as well as the path to/from the Airport.

 

[Efini92]

I think the "obsessed" thing is a bit unfair - travel patterns have built up since the Windsor Link in the 1980s to places like the university. I think if you asked Sandgrounders if they'd prefer 1tph to Castlefield or 2 to Vic they'd go for the former. So with maxed-out train lengths all day, I'd propose operating Southport to Oxford Road hourly, swapping the Chat Moss local back to Vic which is also its long term home so people are used to it. Perhaps a second Southport could operate to Wigan Wallgate bay only.

It should just be timed so it connects with a service from Bolton towards Piccadilly.
Terminating at oxford road is a good idea, they just need more space. Putting the old platform 5 back in would allow for more dwell time, However I believe the term plans for the station is to remove the bay platforms all together.

 

[scrapy]

I don't understand why, in option C, stations like Sandbach and Holmes Chapel have to loose their direct service to Manchester via Stockport! Is it not possible to extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe instead? Hopefully this is an unintended consequence that a proper consultation will fix.

Presumably it's about having an even service. If the services via the airport and Stockport are both 30 minutes apart then the having one via Stockport and one via the airport continue to Crewe would mean an uneven spacing South of Alderley similar to the uneven spacing on the current TPE Newcastle services due to wanting direct services to both Liverpool and Manchester Airport. There may also be pathing issues for example the current southbound Alderley has the Avanti right behind it so couldn't continue south as a stopping service without holding that up.

 

[Greybeard33]

But the two Northern services can be timed to fit - they don't have to also meet a particular path from/to Stockport (or beyond) as well as the path to/from the Airport.

The two Option C Northern services go to Crewe, so have to be timed to meet their WCML paths at Wilmslow as well as the paths to/from the Airport. Pre-Covid, the Cleethorpes service was timed so that its paths fitted in a gap between the other Airport services. If it was badly delayed in the Hope Valley, the Airport extension was culled to enable recovery.

The Option C Cleethorpes to Liverpool will have to cross the path of Airport services ex-P13, to get to P14.

Without seeing the details of the proposed Option C timetable, it is unclear if the junction conflicts south of Piccadilly will be better or worse, even without the additional TfW service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It should just be timed so it connects with a service from Bolton towards Piccadilly.
Terminating at oxford road is a good idea, they just need more space. Putting the old platform 5 back in would allow for more dwell time, However I believe the term plans for the station is to remove the bay platforms all together.

I believe the long-term plan is to have two through platforms and a central terminating (probably full-length) bay.

 

[Killingworth]

If the map is correctly labelled, it shows Liverpool to Cleethorpes being transferred to Northern in Options B and C. Interesting...

It's wrong and a corrected version of the pdf will be loaded, presumably on Monday. Correct version showing TPE as operator attached.

 

[The Planner]

There has been very little mention of freight and the consultation document hardly makes any reference either (beyond an indication that a regular hourly freight path each way through Castlefield will continue.

I am far from clear how the proposed service pattern on the Styal Line, crossing moves at Wilmslow and revised timings north of Sandbach generally would affect freight, e.g. needing regular looping at Chelford.

I am also surprised by the limited consideration of freight patterns via Altrincham. This seems to have gained several flows over the years with at least three 'new' ones. (These comprise stone for HS2 from various sources around Peak Forest/Hindlow to Washwood Heath and Small Heath, together with cement from Tunstead to Westbury in lieu of previous supplies from Aberthaw.) Routeings can vary but via the Middlewich Line seems to be quite popular. With numerous single line sections on all freight routes high levels of punctuality will not be easy to achieve. The Stockport-Altrincham section seems like a really weak point to me.

I agree about Altrincham, i did mention earlier (or on a similar thread) that there is a fair bit of freight knocking about. Disadvantage them and they won't take it lying down.

 

[Ianno87]

The two Option C Northern services go to Crewe, so have to be timed to meet their WCML paths at Wilmslow as well as the paths to/from the Airport. Pre-Covid, the Cleethorpes service was timed so that its paths fitted in a gap between the other Airport services. If it was badly delayed in the Hope Valley, the Airport extension was culled to enable recovery.

The Cleethorpes path is fundamentally fixed in the time it must cross the ECML at Doncaster.

The Option C Cleethorpes to Liverpool will have to cross the path of Airport services ex-P13, to get to P14.

But still less constraining than combining that with a reversal at Picc and a platform at Airport. It merely joins into an existing Liverpool path instead as it crosses.

 

[Fokx]

I’m still surprised they’ve not decided to move the Manchester to Huddersfield local stopping service to the Manchester Victoria bays additionally calling at Ashton along the way freeing up paths from Piccadilly 1-4 and the electrified lines to Guide Bridge

You could still have the Hull to Pic stopping at all stations with the two alternating half-hourly Manchester bound one to Pic and one to Vic

 

[tbtc]

And that's why it won't be accepted by the Welsh government.

North Wales loses its regular quick route into central Manchester, and tfgm gains.

Have fun explaining that at the Welsh government. The constraints at Chester also appear to be ignored. If these trains aren't running through to the coast then simply put the space isn't there.

A option to run services through to Leeds via Victoria would be sellable. But it would have to be branded tfw. No way are they going to hand over one of its major paying routes to northern. And the dft can't force it.

This wouldn't be a problem if we had a British Rail.

But it is a problem these days.

As you've said, "Wales" won't be happy with the service being diverted at the Manchester end, but then "Wales" won't be happy with an "English" TOC running a service west of the border (if that were the price to be paid to retain a faster service into Manchester).

How much of a voice should "Wales" have in how a service is routes through Manchester though? I don't expect that TfGM were the ones making the decision on whether the hourly Manchester service was to be diverted from Llandudno to Bangor - that was a Welsh decision on how to route the service west of the border, so should the same apply to decisions made east of the border? Or does Wales get more rights over where it's services go at the Manchester end than any English authorities do over the Welsh end of services?

I hope the well reasoned arguments submitted in response to the consultation aren't eclipsed by responses saying things like I travel once a year to the airport so I want option B, when option B will have a negative impact on some people who work at the airport and who commute there 5 days a week

Agreed - I think there's far too much focus on here about the "nice to have" stuff, the kind of "once a year" travellers like you mention.

But it might be easier for a local MP/ newspaper to whip up an outrage/petition and get that minority of passengers making more "noise" than ought to be representative of their actual numbers.

I don't understand why, in option C, stations like Sandbach and Holmes Chapel have to loose their direct service to Manchester via Stockport! Is it not possible to extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe instead? Hopefully this is an unintended consequence that a proper consultation will fix.

I think the idea for option C is a consistent service. For instance, currently from Sandbach one service to Crewe departs 17 minutes after the other and if one train goes via Styal and the other goes via Stockport then you're not going to get a consistent service for most people. Looking at the current timetable catching the airport stopper from Sandbach to Wilmslow and then changing to the TfW Rail service for Piccadilly, is actually quicker than catching the direct stopping service from Sandbach to Piccadilly!

I actually misread B initially, I thought it involved removing the direct Wilmslow to airport link but it involves both Crewe services going via Styal with only one serving the airport.

The Alderley Edge bit is the one that I found a bit confusing in the plans - I'm all for simplifying things but this felt like a cut to an established service that didn't *need* to be made - maybe the plan is to put the stops in the TfW service (so that the local stops between Crewe and Alderley Edge retain a service to Stockport)?

Although you could argue that is satisfied by simply starting/ending first/last trains at Edinburgh (although train crew would also need consideration)

That's how "Cross Country" services were in BR days - only running beyond Newcastle to get to/from Craigentinny (AFAICR)

Bradford and Blackburn were also promised direct airport services. The reality is whichever proposal goes ahead there's going to be a large number of people who can claim they were promised something and it hasn't been delivered.

While the people from North Wales you refer to shouldn't be discriminated against, it doesn't mean they automatically get what they were promised when the good people of Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Lancashire don't get what they were promised!

This is the problem - five years ago we were promising everything to everyone - we'll look back at the ambition for Northern's hourly Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Bradford - Rochdale - Victoria - Piccadilly - Airport diagrams and wonder what people were smoking... there simply isn't room for all of these "wishlist" things - that means my city (Sheffield) losing out but I think we all have to make sacrifices.

Look at how optimistic the franchise bids look in retrospect - the idea that removing the "Guide Bridge - Castlefield" routing of the hourly Scarborough - Liverpool service (crossing the whole Piccadilly throat) would mean there was space to for an extra Buxton service, and extra Congleton service and an extra Knutsford service... there simply isn't space for everyone to have everything.

Is there anything that can be done by 2022 to improve Vic to Picc links so that most of the grumbling about 'my train goes to the wrong Manchester station' would be solved? I'm thinking trams, buses and not needing an extra ticket and so on.

My concern about option C is that we'll end up with Southports having a 29 minute connection into the ex-Blackpools, and then the loss of the direct Castlefield service becomes a massive issue.

...a "massive issue" for a tiny number of people though.

I don't see why Southport needs to retain good connections to the Castlefield corridor/Airport even if it means compromising other services - half hourly to Victoria and Stalybridge is fine. If Bolton and Salford don't provide good Piccadilly connections, then there is the option of Victoria either via Ordsall or the tram.

Agreed - plenty of other places have had their services changed over the years (e.g. the local Chat Moss stations saw their trains diverted from Victoria to Piccadilly when extended through to Crewe and people seemed to survive despite "building up their lives" around services to/from Victoria) - really not sure why Southport passengers are so precious/ important

Because people have built their life up around the post-Windsor Link service

Is this about one person that you know?

Fair enough if you have a family member who does that exact commute, but otherwise I really don't see the fixation. Especially as you've suggested several other routes be diverted/ chopped, in the interests of meeting some Germanic definition - e.g. you were recently suggesting that the service from Nottingham/ Sheffield be diverted via the single track Denton line so it would serve Victoria instead of Piccadilly (with a time penalty for bending back west through Denton) but presumably it was okay for people who've "built their lives" around that service to lose their service to Piccadilly/ Castlefield?

Your argument appears to be that "we should replace the mess of hourly services with a neater network that focuses on simpler timetables and try to remove a few services away from Castlefield... other than your childhood line (which must be kept as it was in the 1980s)"?

Passenger numbers reduction doesn't mean you've not considerably inconvenienced people, though. If there's no better alternative, they will just put up with it.

If your argument is that "there'll be no reduction in passengers if Southport loses its Castlefield service, but some people might tut a little" then that's not going to make much difference to the decision makers.

We don't have enough paths through all of the bottlenecks to keep everyone happy with their ideal destination - and some places are more important then others (e.g. a six coach EMU from Blackpool is more deserving of a scarce path than a shorter DMU from Southport)

 

[43074]

The Alderley Edge bit is the one that I found a bit confusing in the plans - I'm all for simplifying things but this felt like a cut to an established service that didn't *need* to be made - maybe the plan is to put the stops in the TfW service (so that the local stops between Crewe and Alderley Edge retain a service to Stockport)?

I suspect the idea to have the 2tph from Alderley Edge is to do with pathing on the two track section from Crewe.

In the Manchester direction both the TfW and Avanti service are within about 15 minutes of one another leaving Crewe, so it would allow a semi-fast from Crewe (say fast between Holmes Chapel and Alderley Edge as now) to be caught up in the Wilmslow area then go via Styal, and also allows a train starting forward from Alderley Edge to run between the two fasts, therefore reducing the extent to which bunching of trains is needed to make everything fit, in turn allowing a more even interval service for every station on the route.

 

[Philip]

Regarding option B, could it present an issue having an additional train having to cross the whole Piccadilly/Longsight throat to get from platform 13 to the Stockport up line?

Currently there are three per hour doing this: Liverpool-Norwich, Southport-Alderley and Blackpool-Hazel Grove.

This becomes four per hour with option B:
Liverpool-Nottingham, Liverpool-Cleethorpes and 2 x Blackpool-Alderley Edge.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Cleethorpes path is fundamentally fixed in the time it must cross the ECML at Doncaster.

But still less constraining than combining that with a reversal at Picc and a platform at Airport. It merely joins into an existing Liverpool path instead as it crosses.

Well, the Cleethorpes to Airport paths did work within all the constraints. They had a reasonable reversal time at Piccadilly and a platform at the Airport (though only half a platform some hours).

But what I was missing is that Option C removes the Hazel Grove path in off peak hours, so after adding the TfW there are still the same number of paths between Piccadilly and Stockport as in the baseline. In the peaks the Blackpool - Hazel Grove extras presumably replace the baseline Piccadilly - Hazel Grove extras, so again no increase in Stockport paths.

On the Airport line Option C has 8tph off peak (6 Castlefield, 2 main shed), versus 9tph in the baseline (8 Castlefield, 1 main shed). And Option C removes one Airport path in the peaks, down to only 7tph.

So I now accept that Option C is unlikely to increase performance risk south of Piccadilly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==

Regarding option B, could it present an issue having an additional train having to cross the whole Piccadilly/Longsight throat to get from platform 13 to the Stockport up line?

Currently there are three per hour doing this: Liverpool-Norwich, Southport-Alderley and Blackpool-Hazel Grove.

This becomes four per hour with option B:
Liverpool-Nottingham, Liverpool-Cleethorpes and 2 x Blackpool-Alderley Edge.

Option C has an advantage over Option B in this respect, in that the Blackpool services go to the Airport instead of Alderley Edge. That leaves only the two Liverpool services going from P13 to Stockport, plus the Blackpool - Hazel Grove peak-only extra.

 

[peters]

I am not sure that you are right about the Stockport-Chester rush hour extras; I think it unlikely that they will survive if the TfW service starts.


DfT does control routes and stopping patterns for TfW operations in England, because the Welsh Assembly has no authority in England.

Only a couple of peak Northern services ex-Chester call at Levenshulme. The others use the down slow to avoid conflict with a XC service on the down fast - such conflicts could equally affect the TfW. All the southbound services to Chester use the up fast.

You are correct. I misread the document.

Presuming the Northern standard pattern remains the same, maybe a solution could be along the lines of:

Chester direction:
05:41 Piccadilly to Chester (instead of 06:13)
06:41 Piccadilly to Chester (instead of 07:09)
07:34 Navigation Road to Greenbank/Chester (runs at same time as current 07:09 from Piccadilly, if Greenbank then runs to Stockport later on)
07:41 Piccadilly to Chester
08:33 Navigation Road to Chester (instead of from Stockport)
08:41 Piccadilly to Chester

Manchester direction:
05:56 Chester to Piccadilly
06:21 Chester to Navigation Road (instead of Stockport)
06:51 Chester to Piccadilly
07:15 Chester to Navigation Road (instead of Stockport)
08:02 Chester to Piccadilly

Alongside the express services proposed.

That way it reduces the number of Northern movements going through the single line sections and going through Stockport but retains services at Hale and Greenbank at the times scholars use them. It would mean some people would have to change at Altrincham but some of those would have to change anyway with peak time extras only going to Stockport.

True and not true.
There is joint consultation on cross-border services, and WG (as opposed to the TOC) will make its views on services known to the DfT/ORR.
It affects the funding agreements for the franchises (as was) and the commercial viability of the operation.
There are similar debates over GWR/Avanti/XC cross-border services.
TfW also (at present) operates some stations in England including Chester/Shrewsbury/Hereford, not to mention Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn East etc.

Maybe the WG and TfW Rail would prefer Northern to take over management of Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East? They probably aren't a lucrative business opportunity in the way that interchanges can be.

Given TfW Rail recently ceased operations of the peak time extras between Chester and Piccadilly and replacement Northern services have taken their place, presumably the agreements you refer to have already been amended to suit the needs of the TfW Rail and the WG? Possibly it also meant TfW Rail's costs increased if they were running fewer services but they still had the same number of trains.

 

[Jack Hay]

There is another single track section several miles long west of the WCML on the CLC line, between Mickle Trafford junction and Mouldsworth station, which could also affect the resilience of train services from North Wales to Manchester via this route.

That is the section from Mickle Trafford to Mouldsworth Junction, west of Mouldsworth station, which is just over 4 miles long. Fortunately, it has no freight traffic at all, so is only used by 1tph in each direction today, increasing to 2tph if 'Option C' is adopted. That would not be a high level of line occupancy.

 

[daodao]

That is the section from Mickle Trafford to Mouldsworth Junction, west of Mouldsworth station, which is just over 4 miles long. Fortunately, it has no freight traffic at all, so is only used by 1tph in each direction today, increasing to 2tph if 'Option C' is adopted. That would not be a high level of line occupancy.

On its own, this wouldn't be a major issue, but it may have a knock on effect on the problematic Altrincham-Stockport section. Despite the potential local benefit, I would prefer that the North Wales service should continue to run to Victoria, alternating with a 1 tph Northern service from Leeds to Chester and with the same calling pattern, to give a 30 minute interval service on the route via Warrington BQ.

 

[Ianno87]

Well, the Cleethorpes to Airport paths did work within all the constraints. They had a reasonable reversal time at Piccadilly and a platform at the Airport (though only half a platform some hours).

They "worked", yes. But have consequences and compromises to other services that must then fit around them.

 

[peters]

On its own, this wouldn't be a major issue, but it may have a knock on effect on the problematic Altrincham-Stockport section. Despite the potential local benefit, I would prefer that the North Wales service should continue to run to Victoria, alternating with a 1 tph Northern service from Leeds to Chester and with the same calling pattern, to give a 30 minute interval service on the route via Warrington BQ.

If you want a 30 minute interval service it would make sense one service to only run between Chester and Manchester. They can't exactly write a timetable for Leeds based around what time trains run along the North Wales Coast. While, if a Leeds to Chester train sits at Victoria for 15 minutes, so that it leaves exactly 30 minutes after a Llandudno train, then it loses the time benefit of having a direct train.