Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[LittleAH]

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

This is what I would do. You could then have the Newcastle service running into Pic trainshed rather than terminating at Vic.

 

[Greybeard33]

You think a resignalling would cost less than shortening the single track towards Mickle Trafford?

But surely the main issue is the two closely spaced single track sections at Cheadle and Navigation Road, with the double track between Sharston Junction and Deansgate Junction effectively being just a dynamic loop. Here a late running westbound service can delay an eastbound and cause it to miss its path on the WCML at Stockport.

Redoubling Cheadle would require two underbridges to be widened, while redoubling Navigation Road would require binning the Metrolink Altrincham line. Ain't going to happen.

 

[Rail Ranger]

If the Metrolink Altrincham line became tram-train then Metrolink could share track with heavy rail trains between Deansgate Junction and Altrincham. You could reinstate the pre-July 1991 track layout which would eliminate the single line section at Navigation Road although you would then need to path Metrolink services between heavy rail trains.

 

[Greybeard33]

If the Metrolink Altrincham line became tram-train then Metrolink could share track with heavy rail trains between Deansgate Junction and Altrincham. You could reinstate the pre-July 1991 track layout which would eliminate the single line section at Navigation Road although you would then need to path Metrolink services between heavy rail trains.

The consultation document states:

43. Work is also progressing on developing infrastructure interventions for the longer term. Given the long lead time for railway enhancement projects, none will be available to address the current performance issues by 2022. That is why this work is focussed on improving the timetable structure to deliver better performance.

 

[LOL The Irony]

There was apparently an issue with a level crossing being closed for too long each hour on that section that prevented Northern running an Altrincham to Chester service (when the planned Piccadilly to Greenbank) got binned. I don't see how that issue would be any different if TFW went hourly over the route.

There's a new excuse every time. It could go ahead, then it couldn't due to a lack of paths and now it's that one level crossing, which Network Rail supposedly have/are doing work on to enable the services to run.

If the Metrolink Altrincham line became tram-train then Metrolink could share track with heavy rail trains between Deansgate Junction and Altrincham. You could reinstate the pre-July 1991 track layout which would eliminate the single line section at Navigation Road although you would then need to path Metrolink services between heavy rail trains.

That's possible, although what do you do when 25kv AC comes along when Metrolink is 750v DC?

 

[Ianno87]

If the Metrolink Altrincham line became tram-train then Metrolink could share track with heavy rail trains between Deansgate Junction and Altrincham. You could reinstate the pre-July 1991 track layout which would eliminate the single line section at Navigation Road although you would then need to path Metrolink services between heavy rail trains.

Good luck getting any heavy rail service to reliably fit between trams 6 minutes apart. The parallel single lines are probably the highest capacity solution.

 

[peters]

As my colleagues have alluded to, the Welsh government will protest very loudly about both the longer journey time for North Wales - Manchester services and the fact they won't serve the Airport any more. But they won't be the only ones. We've seen how vocal the Southport lot are about losing Piccadilly services, and I bet there will be a lot of people in South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire upset about losing their airport link as well. I'm not saying I agree with them (I Don't!) but I worry that the uproar would be enough to derail the plans.

What power would the relevant English rail parties have if option C was prevented because of the Welsh Government refusing to compromise/have any route changes made to the North Wales service? Could TfW potentially lose track access rights into Manchester from the Chester routes if the WAG don't cooperate?

I do think this could be the major stumbling block for options B or C, unless the WAG can be overruled. The Crewe-Manchester passenger group may be vociferous about the loss of Stockport services on the southern half of the line.

Someone has informed me that the access rights allowing TfW Rail to serve the airport were only valid for a few years, I don't know if there's information in the public domain which can verify that.

I was actually also wondering whether if the WG don't play ball whether it could end up with North Wales services terminating at Chester.

I also just had a look at the times on RTT for the 06:41 Llandudno to Manchester, that train is stopped at Chester for 7 minutes to allow it to gain coaches, it then takes 11 minutes to get from Ordsall Lane junction to Piccadilly, resulting in the journey time from Flint to Piccadilly being 90 minutes. It's not exactly an attractive commuter service from North Wales to Manchester. In fact, it's quicker to get between Flint and Liverpool, with a change, than it is to get that direct train to Manchester.

 

[Jack Hay]

What's special about that level crossing? The one at Navigation Road is down more than it's up with 20 trams passing through each hour, as well as passenger and freight trains.

That was a misunderstanding. The issue was with farm workers crossings that needed extra protection, according to Network Rail's risk analysis, if more passenger trains were to run. (Oddly that wasn't needed if more freight trains ran.) The crossing upgrades are in hand (most are done already). Nothing to do with Navigation Road.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

This is what I would do. You could then have the Newcastle service running into Pic trainshed rather than terminating at Vic.

It’s a bit ugly. If you’re having two stoppers, better to have them both to one or other.

 

[Jack Hay]

You think a resignalling would cost less than shortening the single track towards Mickle Trafford?

No, you misunderstood me. I think you had said something like, it would be cheaper to sort out the single lines than resignal it all. We'd been talking about the Altrincham-Stockport section, and I had said, my timetabling acquaintance found the biggest constraint was not the single lines but the long block section Plumley West-Mobberley. You could fix the long block section, if needs be, with IBs (intermediate block signals for anyone unaware) which is inexpensive. I agree that NR would probably prefer not to do that but to wait for a full re-signalling, which was planned for 2019 but got cancelled. As I said previously, the single lines are a nuisance but no more so than all the junctions on the Warrington BQ current route which introduce just as much delay risk. So, my challenge was to ask how you might sort out the Altrincham-Stockport single lines cheaper than putting in IBs! I doubt those single lines can be sorted easily, but they aren't such a big problem as to prevent the service going ahead - I know because Northern timetabled it without great difficulty. Luckily at the Mickle Trafford end, that stretch of single line, although longer, is not busy.

 

[peters]

Option C is effectively pre-May 2018 from what I can tell.

Option A is quite attractive however. Curtail the 2no. Crewe/Alderley Edge services at Piccadilly rather than continuing through Manchester to Liverpool and Southport while retaining a high level of connectivity to and from Manchester Airport.

I'm tempted by Option A as a starting point. I don't see why we should rollback entirely to Option C first without trying Option A first and seeing if that delivers punctuality improvements.

Definitely not. Option C includes a whole load of improvements and changes to services going towards Cheshire and Merseyside which haven't existed before or haven't existed for a very long time. (Some of them are listed in the text, not shown on the graphics.) I think Liverpool to Oxford Road existed as a through service in the early 00s and option C breaks it up, while option A keeps it as a through service.

Looking again at the document that is also the way DfT see it as they say on Page 13

"The options offer increasing levels of intervention compared with the December 2019 timetable pattern of services (the “No Change” option) with Option A involving the least change, and Option C the most. "

 

[Philip]

To make the North Wales service in option C a bit more attractive, how about firstly extending to the Airport and if cuts need to be made elsewhere to allow for this to happen, then scrap the second Manchester-Airport-Crewe; extend one of the Manchester-Alderley Edge stoppers to Crewe (giving southern Crewe line stations a direct link to Stockport in the process) and then either the TfW or one of the Blackpool services could act as the second Airport line stopping service.

To further increase the appeal of the TfW plan, perhaps it could call at Northwich and Knutsford only to save some journey time? Altrincham and Stockport already well served by other trains/trams.

 

[Glenn1969]

Or if North Wales want an Airport service extend the Chester- Crewe shuttle at both ends?

 

[Ianno87]

Or if North Wales want an Airport service extend the Chester- Crewe shuttle at both ends?

Trouble at Crewe is that only Platform 6 can access both the Chester and Manchester routes, which would be one heck of a timetable constraint.

 

[LittleAH]

It’s a bit ugly. If you’re having two stoppers, better to have them both to one or other.

Why? There's only two stoppers in the peak. By having one to Vic and one to Pic you're providing coverage for both sides of Manchester, plus it's better for those who want to travel onto Salford Central etc.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Why? There's only two stoppers in the peak. By having one to Vic and one to Pic you're providing coverage for both sides of Manchester, plus it's better for those who want to travel onto Salford Central etc.

The whole point of this is to simplify things, and to make people have a focal point. As has been explained, better to be stood in central Manchester and know to go to Oxford Road / Picc or Victoria, than have to work out which station you need by researching train times.

I would argue if you're going to do it, send both stoppers into Victoria bay (makes most sense) and then drop two fast TPE trains into Piccadilly as that provides fast, frequent connections to Piccadilly and Victoria from Huddersfield and Leeds at least. If you therefore end up at Victoria or Piccadilly going to Huddersfield or Leeds you're definitely going to get a train within 29 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole point of this is to simplify things, and to make people have a focal point.

Is it? I thought the core point was to make Castlefield punctual and reliable.

 

[Fokx]

It’s a bit ugly. If you’re having two stoppers, better to have them both to one or other.

Why? There's only two stoppers in the peak. By having one to Vic and one to Pic you're providing coverage for both sides of Manchester, plus it's better for those who want to travel onto Salford Central etc.

I second this. Geographically you have to remember that the railway flows around the employment areas of Manchester. Piccadilly is great for the Northern Quarter/Anacoats area of the city, but Victoria is much more suitable for NOMA, Arndale, Spinningfields and Blackfriars, and offers greater frequency connections to other areas not served by Piccadilly

 

[YorksLad12]

The whole point of this is to simplify things, and to make people have a focal point. As has been explained, better to be stood in central Manchester and know to go to Oxford Road / Picc or Victoria, than have to work out which station you need by researching train times.

I would argue if you're going to do it, send both stoppers into Victoria bay (makes most sense) and then drop two fast TPE trains into Piccadilly as that provides fast, frequent connections to Piccadilly and Victoria from Huddersfield and Leeds at least. If you therefore end up at Victoria or Piccadilly going to Huddersfield or Leeds you're definitely going to get a train within 29 minutes.

Doesn't that make it what we used to have? All of the TPE services going to or through Pic?

 

[Ianno87]

Is it? I thought the core point was to make Castlefield punctual and reliable.

Simplification helps that by balancing passenger loads across services running to the same place at 30 minute intervals.

For example, the current stoppers between Bolton and Preston (1 to Vic, 1 to Pic) run at 15/45 intervals in one direction, not exactly great for spreading passengers evenly between trains.

 

[Fokx]

The whole point of this is to simplify things, and to make people have a focal point. As has been explained, better to be stood in central Manchester and know to go to Oxford Road / Picc or Victoria, than have to work out which station you need by researching train times.

No it isn’t. The whole point is to improve things for passengers.

Diverting one of the stoppers to Piccadilly does this greatly. You unlock a whole new list of easily changeable destinations including express to Liverpool (which I’ve personally had many passengers do over lockdown by changing for Redcar to Victoria and fast to Liverpool), you’re closer to the ‘heart’ of the city with being seconds from the cities main arena, shopping centre and food options, and you’d still have the option to go to Piccadilly half an hour later should you wish to do so to, retaining your connections to the South, Scotland and Wales, Employment areas in the east of the city, and local interchanges with trams and coaches etc

Remember that a half-hourly stopper currently doesn’t exist (except in peaks) and that this alone would be an improvement for passengers.

 

[LittleAH]

The whole point of this is to simplify things, and to make people have a focal point. As has been explained, better to be stood in central Manchester and know to go to Oxford Road / Picc or Victoria, than have to work out which station you need by researching train times.

I would argue if you're going to do it, send both stoppers into Victoria bay (makes most sense) and then drop two fast TPE trains into Piccadilly as that provides fast, frequent connections to Piccadilly and Victoria from Huddersfield and Leeds at least. If you therefore end up at Victoria or Piccadilly going to Huddersfield or Leeds you're definitely going to get a train within 29 minutes.

I'm talking about peak times. Option C in the MRTF has peak Newcastle services terminating at Victoria. What use is that for those wanting onward connections at Piccadilly or going to the Airport? Ideally, if this service is being curtailed in Manchester, it should be curtailed at Piccadilly. The problem is there's not enough free paths for this service between Guide Bridge and Pic - to achieve this, you could take the Huddersfield stopper out and reroute to Victoria, at peak time only, to provide journey opportunities for commuters wanting to travel to Salford Central.

As is seen within the consultation, there will still be peak paths for trains from Liverpool and Wigan. So how is having peak stoppers from Huddersfield doing that same thing any different? It certainly will help those that will be back commuting in 2022 and beyond by having options.

I second this. Geographically you have to remember that the railway flows around the employment areas of Manchester. Piccadilly is great for the Northern Quarter/Anacoats area of the city, but Victoria is much more suitable for NOMA, Arndale, Spinningfields and Blackfriars, and offers greater frequency connections to other areas not served by Piccadilly

Certainly from my experience, there's been complaints from some passengers about moving the stopper into Pic, especially those who went through to Salford. Some from Greenfield/Mossley have had to change at Stalybridge and Victoria to get to Salford Central. The point of providing services is improving connectivity and making their lives easier and splitting the peak stoppers between Vic and Pic would achieve that.

 

[BrianW]

Over 250 contributions already (and more while I write this with 'fat fingers'!) shows what? A lot of people interested; a wide variety of views; some understandable self-interest/ advocacy.
I feel for those responsible for deciding- so many irreconcilables.
For me, at distance, the Options seem well-considered and set out with up and downsides.

I am particularly taken by eg tbtc and others trying to bring together the range of contributions and 'weight' them.

Amongst my rather random thoughts-

1. The 'problem' is well-stated- too many trains to too many places with too many crossings. It's then a matter of prioritising choices. It's good to have these proposals from dispassionate professionals.
2. Changes always have 'winners' and 'losers'; at present, due to congestion, 'something must be done'- I imagine nearly all will agree with that.
3. Options appraisal requires some agreement on criteria and their ranking- I suggest something like this (open of course to criticism):
- Existing commuters (they have made choices of where to live/ work/ play accordingly)
- Existing interchanges (on the basis that they 'work' at present); thus something close to existing timetable.
- Opportunity to rectify current 'issues' eg 29 min interchanges; overcrowdings
- Opportunity to facilitate 'new' or 'better' journeys
4. Relatedly, how many journeys to Mcr Airport are commuters, vs eg once-a-year.
5. Similarly 'holidaymakers' etc to/from eg N.Wales, Southport, Cleethorpes ...
6. It seems to me that many would be content to change at Piccadilly (or somewhere else, undercover!) for a frequent (Tube-like) service to the Airport.
7. The Ordsall curve was a lot of 'hassle' (with more potential crossing conflicts) for a mere 2tph Victoria- Piccadilly 'link'
8. How much interchange takes place at Piccadilly at present- recognising some within 1-12, some 13/14, some between 1-12 and 13/14 ... is that an issue?

Repeating- I don't envy the planners; hard enough without the political 'overlay'.

I confess to agreeing about the 'value' of so-called 'consultation'. I can see it may identify matters that had not been considered, or given little thought, but otherwise serves to heighten expectations and conflict.

I also tend toward Takt-type developments- they assist less frequent travellers and facilitate more to consider becoming train travellers rather than resorting untrustingly to the car.

 

[Fokx]

Simplification helps that by balancing passenger loads across services running to the same place at 30 minute intervals.

For example, the current stoppers between Bolton and Preston (1 to Vic, 1 to Pic) run at 15/45 intervals in one direction, not exactly great for spreading passengers evenly between trains.

But how many of those passengers actually ‘care’ which station the train takes them to? I’d argue at least off-peak the majority won’t. They’re just want ‘Manchester’.

I used to work in Bolton a few years back and depending if it was Pic/Vic I’d either just change at Salford Cresent which had a frequent service to both from the same platform, or just stay on the train and walk back the twenty minutes, often this was faster than waiting in Bolton for a specific train

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2021 ==

Certainly from my experience, there's been complaints from some passengers about moving the stopper into Pic, especially those who went through to Salford. Some from Greenfield/Mossley have had to change at Stalybridge and Victoria to get to Salford Central. The point of providing services is improving connectivity and making their lives easier and splitting the peak stoppers between Vic and Pic would achieve that.

I’d absolutely echo the same here. In my announcements on said route between Mossley and Stalybridge, I will always make it clear for passengers wanting to travel to Manchester Victoria, Salford stations, Bolton or Wigan should change the for northern service on platform 5 which leaves at xx30”

I’ve also sold several tickets from Greenfield to Liverpool and had to advise passengers to change at Pic, go to Vic and then catch the Liverpool from there which involves two changes, three trains.

It works really well towards Manchester but doesn’t link up on the return!

 

[peters]

Option C in the MRTF has peak Newcastle services terminating at Victoria. What use is that for those wanting onward connections at Piccadilly or going to the Airport?

North TransPennine services between Manchester and Leeds tend to get a lot of passengers at peak times. Perhaps there is an argument that a 5 carriage train turning around at Victoria and heading back across the Pennines, is a better use of capacity than a 5 carriage train running to Manchester Airport and back?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Doesn't that make it what we used to have? All of the TPE services going to or through Pic?

Not at all. In theory if this is going to lead to a 'standard' half-hour timetable, you can have the half-hourly fast path from Lime Street over Eccles to Victoria, then up to Huddersfield to Leeds; a half-hourly stopper from Victoria to Staly and Huddersfield; and then a half-hourly Pic / Staly / Hudd / Dews / Leeds off Piccadilly main shed. Assuming the Victoria stopper runs into Staly just behind the Piccadilly, and into Staly just before the Piccadilly towards Manchester, you achieve excellent same-platform interchange and journey opportunities.

 

[Jack Hay]

Over 250 contributions already (and more while I write this with 'fat fingers'!) shows what? A lot of people interested; a wide variety of views; some understandable self-interest/ advocacy.
I feel for those responsible for deciding- so many irreconcilables.
For me, at distance, the Options seem well-considered and set out with up and downsides.

I am particularly taken by eg tbtc and others trying to bring together the range of contributions and 'weight' them.

Amongst my rather random thoughts-

1. The 'problem' is well-stated- too many trains to too many places with too many crossings. It's then a matter of prioritising choices. It's good to have these proposals from dispassionate professionals.
2. Changes always have 'winners' and 'losers'; at present, due to congestion, 'something must be done'- I imagine nearly all will agree with that.
3. Options appraisal requires some agreement on criteria and their ranking- I suggest something like this (open of course to criticism):
- Existing commuters (they have made choices of where to live/ work/ play accordingly)
- Existing interchanges (on the basis that they 'work' at present); thus something close to existing timetable.
- Opportunity to rectify current 'issues' eg 29 min interchanges; overcrowdings
- Opportunity to facilitate 'new' or 'better' journeys
4. Relatedly, how many journeys to Mcr Airport are commuters, vs eg once-a-year.
5. Similarly 'holidaymakers' etc to/from eg N.Wales, Southport, Cleethorpes ...
6. It seems to me that many would be content to change at Piccadilly (or somewhere else, undercover!) for a frequent (Tube-like) service to the Airport.
7. The Ordsall curve was a lot of 'hassle' (with more potential crossing conflicts) for a mere 2tph Victoria- Piccadilly 'link'
8. How much interchange takes place at Piccadilly at present- recognising some within 1-12, some 13/14, some between 1-12 and 13/14 ... is that an issue?

Repeating- I don't envy the planners; hard enough without the political 'overlay'.

I confess to agreeing about the 'value' of so-called 'consultation'. I can see it may identify matters that had not been considered, or given little thought, but otherwise serves to heighten expectations and conflict.

I also tend toward Takt-type developments- they assist less frequent travellers and facilitate more to consider becoming train travellers rather than resorting untrustingly to the car.

Good thinking there, thank you. I wonder whether you have spotted the note in the document that says 93% of arrivals at 'manchester-named stations' go to the city centre and 7% to the airport. This supports your suggestion that travel to the airport has had too much focus, and that has been the cause of a lot of the timetabling problems. Town and city leaders like to boast that they have a direct service to the airport, but actually having attractive services to the central stations matters to more people.

 

[Ianno87]

But how many of those passengers actually ‘care’ which station the train takes them to? I’d argue at least off-peak the majority won’t. They’re just want ‘Manchester’.

I used to work in Bolton a few years back and depending if it was Pic/Vic I’d either just change at Salford Cresent which had a frequent service to both from the same platform, or just stay on the train and walk back the twenty minutes, often this was faster than waiting in Bolton for a specific train

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2021 ==

I used to use Lostock/Bolton. If I just wanted the "city centre" I'd generally not care which way I went. For the shopping area, I did have a slight bias towards using Victoria (especially if the train started there), but not to the point of waiting a whole hour if I'd just missed the direct train (from Lostock). This is probably more than half of my journeys to Manchester.

If I wanted the University area, then I'd head via Castlefield, changing train if necessary.

For everything else (e.g. connecting to another train for a longer distance journey), I'd travel to Victoria or Piccadilly as appropriate.

 

[43096]

I know I'm going on about Southport again, but reducing to 1tph to Vic only would be VERY unpopular.

As far as I can see, under all three options Southport keeps 2tph but going to Victoria.

We cannot have rail services across a huge swathe of the north beholden/held to ransom by one particular group of users. This is a compromise and if the overall best option is to send Southport trains to Victoria, then tough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as I can see, under all three options Southport keeps 2tph but going to Victoria.

The post to which I was replying seemed to suggest reducing that to 1tph. I did say I reckon Sandgrounders would accept a reduction to 1tph but only if it went to Castlefield (this would be the pre-1998 service).