We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[HST43257]

When talking about reducing TPE to 4 tph, what do folk th8nk will happen to the stoppers that currently go in to Piccadilly?

If the airport is being missed out, why not send all TPE fasts to Liverpool via Victoria, rather than splitting them between two stations?

I’m interested in 4tph TPE to Liverpool, but I’m unaware of the Chat Moss capacity situation.

I think there’s potential for 8tph Northern on the Huyton to Edge Hill section, so 12 would be a push. I guess the existing 4 track will sort some of this.

 

[Jozhua]

I think it's also worth noting that even if you run longer trains, there is not sufficient space on either the platforms or on bridges/walkways to cope with the level of passengers seen in 2019. We have about three years before we get back to that I reckon, so in the meantime, something has to be done about the lack of space for passenger circulation. The likely outcome of which is simply Castlefield Package C.

Modern high performance EMUs/electrodiesel MUs would allow paths to be saved by accelerating the stoppers to timings comparable to existing semi fasts or better, and dramatically reduce the time saved by skipping stops.

Electrification or 755s is going to be way cheaper than trying to do anything to the infrastructure in Castlefield et al.

I think it's worth noting that it is hard to run an efficient service when you are constantly having to navigate through bottlenecks, so I think something will have to be done in regards to city centre infrastructure, still.

OK, so if the consultation results in implementing Option A, B or C (or a variation thereof), and that is successful in stabilising performance....what is then the point of 15/16?

Do they still achieve anything? I'm suggesting the "problem" (in terms of required extra trains beyond the consultation level) would be reevaluate and the appropriate infrastructure interventions determined from this. Which may or may not be 15/16 any more.

You can stabilise performance temporarily, but I don't think we should go back to being blindsided when 2019 passenger numbers come back and the system yet again begins to fall apart.

I agree. Additional infrastructure works along the Castlefield line, yet alone a rail tunnel under Manchester city centre, are really "pie in the sky". However, it might be worth building a couple of turnback sidings (at least 1 electrified) east of Victoria, given the lack of westbound terminating capacity there. Running inter-city style trains along the Castlefield line, using carriages with end doors only, is not ideal for Oxford Road station or Piccadilly platforms 13/14.

I don't see how infrastructure works along Castlefield or a rail tunnel under the city centre are "pie in the sky". They are both pretty reasonable solutions. Compare them to massive projects like Crossrail, or indeed Mancunian way and it's really not that huge. Remember Budapest is a city of almost identical size and has four Metro lines, plus a tram network.

The consultation is just a sticking plaster for the bigger issues, Manchester is a growing city in need of far better rail infastructure.

The modernization of Oxford road & the P15/16 at Piccadilly are all part of the bigger plan, Piccadilly will be the hub especially with HS2 coming.

Moving TFW services to Victoria just moves the problems & not solved it really, or TFW services via Cheshire lines doesn't suit most passengers who want Oxford road or Piccadilly onward to the airport.

It's a shame rail infastructure takes a low priority in the big decisions being made.

100% agree.

It's worth considering that a lot of people coming down from places like Bolton, Salford, Wigan are looking to change onto services in Piccadilly. Serving it directly with heavy rail makes sense in that regard. Likewise, many people are coming from the Midlands and South East, looking to travel onward to destinations such as the Lakes, Liverpool, Manchester Airport, and North Manchester.

Castlefield isn't just a Manchester issue, as with many things transport, it's a regional issue. Failure to address issues in one place can lead to issues in another.

Lower frequencies with longer trains are the right thing to do but are a medium term fix. However, longer term the frequencies will need to increase as well, so we need to start thinking of what we are going to do to be ready in 2040-2050.

Don't disagree.

But there's a risk of jumping to a long-term infrastructure solution (e.g. 15/16) without understanding the "problem" in terms of required train services.

Define the trains you want to run first (and in how many years' time they are required), and then determine the infrastructure solution from that, and how that is incrementally delivered.

Yeah, we need to think about what the network and service pattern should ideally look like in 2040/50, how we aim to lower carbon, reduce congestion and keep a growing city mobile. This will almost certainly require modal shift, therefore investment in the railway and bus infrastructure in order to cope with that traffic, in combination with providing enough capacity for today's passengers.

 

[nr758123]

I'd reduce it to 4, 2 terminating in Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed and 2 going to Liverpool via Victoria. Having 6 is kind of contingent on using Ordsall, though I suppose you could terminate them at Victoria bays, which would mean you'd avoid using Ordsall and could have one to each destination* from Vic and just to the busiest two destinations from Picc.

The length of the bays at Victoria might be problematic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When talking about reducing TPE to 4 tph, what do folk th8nk will happen to the stoppers that currently go in to Piccadilly?

If the airport is being missed out, why not send all TPE fasts to Liverpool via Victoria, rather than splitting them between two stations?

Doubt you could path that on Chat Moss?

 

[daodao]

Budapest is a city of almost identical size and has four Metro lines, plus a tram network.

Budapest is a major capital city, and its first Metro line was opened as long ago as 1896 by no less a person than his Imperial and Royal Majesty Franz Joseph I. Contrasting Budapest with a provincial city like Manchester is comparing chalk and cheese. Similarly Crossrail is appropriate for the great metropolis of London, but such a scheme is inappropriate and unnecessary for Manchester.

The length of the bays at Victoria might be problematic.

These shorter bays at Victoria (platforms 1 and 2) could be used instead for terminating the Standedge stopping services, if 2 tph fast TPE services are routed to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

 

[Greybeard33]

The length of the bays at Victoria might would be problematic.

Fixed that for you.
Victoria P1 111m, P2 96m.

 

[Ianno87]

The bays at Victoria (platforms 1 and 2) could be used instead for terminating the Standedge stopping services, if 2 tph fast TPE services are routed to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

Don't make me tap the sign.

 

[daodao]

I'd reduce it to 4, 2 terminating in Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed and 2 going to Liverpool via Victoria.

Don't make me tap the sign.

Bletchleyite has also made this suggestion. You may not agree with it, but this is the "speculative ideas" section, and I don't think that the proposal is unreasonable.

 

[Andyh82]

I'd reduce it to 4, 2 terminating in Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed and 2 going to Liverpool via Victoria. Having 6 is kind of contingent on using Ordsall, though I suppose you could terminate them at Victoria bays, which would mean you'd avoid using Ordsall and could have one to each destination* from Vic and just to the busiest two destinations from Picc.

Neither solution really works

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Victoria bays. How do passengers then get to the Airport?

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, You’ve distroyed the TPE frequency from being 4 per hour, to just 2 per hour from 2 different places, which would be a major retrograde step

 

[Ianno87]

Bletchleyite has also made this suggestion. You may not agree with it, but this is the "speculative ideas" section, and I don't think that the proposal is unreasonable.

Neither solution really works

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Victoria bays. How do passengers then get to the Airport?

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, You’ve distroyed the TPE frequency from being 4 per hour, to just 2 per hour from 2 different places, which would be a major retrograde step

Scored an equaliser to make it 2-2!

 

[geordieblue]

Budapest is a major capital city, and its first Metro line was opened as long ago as 1896 by no less a person than his Imperial and Royal Majesty Franz Joseph I. Contrasting Budapest with a provincial city like Manchester is comparing chalk and cheese. Similarly Crossrail is appropriate for the great metropolis of London, but such a scheme is inappropriate and unnecessary for Manchester.

Not that a city being a capital actually means anything - it's about jobs, travel patterns and population. Budapest being a capital city doesn't mean it is entitled to a particularly good transport system.

 

[Jozhua]

Budapest is a major capital city, and its first Metro line was opened as long ago as 1896 by no less a person than his Imperial and Royal Majesty Franz Joseph I. Contrasting Budapest with a provincial city like Manchester is comparing chalk and cheese. Similarly Crossrail is appropriate for the great metropolis of London, but such a scheme is inappropriate and unnecessary for Manchester.

Budapest is the same size as Manchester in terms of population. Indeed, Manchester is a smidge larger. As long as Manchester is only seen as a secondary "provincial city", the economy will continue to suffer and more jobs will endlessly centralise to London.

Btw Line 4 in Budapest opened in 2014, an underground, automated metro. When you see it, it is truly another level compared to anything in the UK.

London is a truly massive city, but we forget how large our other major cities (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham) are on a worldwide scale.

Manchester is also bigger than: Amsterdam, Orlando, Prague, Stockholm and Vancouver. All but one of those cities have an extensive Metro system, alongside a usual splattering of light rail. The idea that Manchester is not deserving of a Metro or underground S-bahn type system in terms of scale is silly.

Not that a city being a capital actually means anything - it's about jobs, travel patterns and population. Budapest being a capital city doesn't mean it is entitled to a particularly good transport system.

Exactly. People need to move wether it's a capital city or not.

 

[daodao]

London is a truly massive city, but we forget how large our other major cities (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham) are on a worldwide scale.

Only 1 city in the UK other than London has a population exceeding 1 million, namely Birmingham [just]. Greater Manchester is an administrative county, and many of its inhabitants are not really part of Manchester, even accepting that the boundaries of the City of Manchester itself [population 500k] are somewhat illogical in places and rather too tight. Leeds does not have artificially constrained boundaries (it includes significant rural areas, such as much of the former Wetherby RDC) and its population is only 750,000. Contrast Budapest, whose population within the city boundary is about 1,750,000.

 

[geordieblue]

Only 1 city in the UK other than London has a population exceeding 1 million, namely Birmingham [just]. Greater Manchester is an administrative county, and many of its inhabitants are not really part of Manchester, even accepting that the boundaries of the City of Manchester itself [population 500k] are somewhat illogical in places and rather too tight. Leeds does not have artificially constrained boundaries (it includes significant rural areas, such as much of the former Wetherby RDC) and its population is only 750,000. Contrast Budapest, whose population within the city boundary is about 1,750,000.

But people are travelling into Manchester - it's an important destination - thus it requires links to its satellite towns. Or should we scrap all Tube services that pass through the City of London, since it doesn't have a population of more than a million?

 

[nr758123]

These shorter bays at Victoria (platforms 1 and 2) could be used instead for terminating the Standedge stopping services, if 2 tph fast TPE services are routed to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.

The Standedge stopping service at peak times (pre-Covid) was already 6 carriages and well-used. A three carriage class 185 would be insufficient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neither solution really works

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Victoria bays. How do passengers then get to the Airport?

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, You’ve distroyed the TPE frequency from being 4 per hour, to just 2 per hour from 2 different places, which would be a major retrograde step

I was referring to terminating the extra two at Vic bays if you had 6.

My view remains that 2 to Picc and 2 to Vic is perfectly acceptable and would provide some benefits while removing use of the damaging white elephant which should never have been built. Change at Picc for your bucket and spade flights to Spain.

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

Only 1 city in the UK other than London has a population exceeding 1 million, namely Birmingham [just]. Greater Manchester is an administrative county, and many of its inhabitants are not really part of Manchester, even accepting that the boundaries of the City of Manchester itself [population 500k] are somewhat illogical in places and rather too tight. Leeds does not have artificially constrained boundaries (it includes significant rural areas, such as much of the former Wetherby RDC) and its population is only 750,000. Contrast Budapest, whose population within the city boundary is about 1,750,000.

That only applies because we have a weird approach to cities. Pretty much the whole of Greater Manchester, bar possibly Wigan, would be in the city area if it was in Germany.

 

[Jozhua]

Only 1 city in the UK other than London has a population exceeding 1 million, namely Birmingham [just]. Greater Manchester is an administrative county, and many of its inhabitants are not really part of Manchester, even accepting that the boundaries of the City of Manchester itself [population 500k] are somewhat illogical in places and rather too tight. Leeds does not have artificially constrained boundaries (it includes significant rural areas, such as much of the former Wetherby RDC) and its population is only 750,000. Contrast Budapest, whose population within the city boundary is about 1,750,000.

I knew this would come up, but I have studied the population statistics in detail. The boundaries of Manchester are near as much worthless, considering that Salford is considered a distinct city, yet directly borders Manchester city centre. Quoting the population boundary of the city of Manchester is like quoting the population of Manhattan (1 million) as the population of New York(8.4 million).

The two most accurate measurements are urban and metro population. I compared Metro population in the statistics.

Manchester has an urban population of 2,705,000 and a metro population of 3,348,000.
Budapest has an urban population of 2,997,000 and a metro population of 3,011,000.

So the cities are very similar in size. Indeed Birmingham has a metro of 3,683,000 and Leeds has a metro area of 2,638,000. All the cities I quoted as being of similar or smaller size than Manchester were based on their Metro populations, most of which were defined from the same organisation (Eurostat.)

I think the way we measure populations in this country is part of the reason we struggle to actually invest in our regional cities. On a global scale, they are pretty big places, yet we treat them as if they are provincial towns. The urban fabric of Manchester portrays a much more different picture than the population statistics. Even in the slow moving UK housing market, the city is home to around 14 skyscrapers, with some very dense suburbs. Despite covid, the city continues to be one of the fastest growing in Europe. I won't be suprised if an exodus from London sees the arrival of many individuals looking for a more affordable city, that still has a lot to offer in terms of attractions, culture, etc. Considering many of these people will be more familiar with public transportation, and Manchester's continuing struggle with pollution levels, making sure we have an adequate rail solution for the city will be very important. Castlefield is going to represent a major bottleneck for those commuting from areas to the north of the city to the new HS2/(hopefully)NPR hub at Piccadilly, we need to make sure to plan for the services we will require in the future. Whilst COVID seems like a death blow to rail travel, passengers will return when the country reopens. People will continue to travel, perhaps in different patterns before and for different reasons, but make no doubt they will do so. Consider that many are likely now in a situation where they can't afford one, or two, cars and that driving instructors/tests will likely have a massive backlog, public transport is going to be more vital than ever for people to get around once out of lockdown.

If we are to upgrade the physical infrastructure, now if the perfect time to do it. Interest rates are low and the economy is in need of stimulus to get it moving. Almost every single economist is advocating the government injects cash into the economy post-lockdown, to make sure we do not fall into a recession and we maintain a functioning tax base to help pay for services. Injecting cash into infrastructure brings benefits that continue to provide value, even when it comes time to pay the debt. Not moving on Castlefield Package C, a Manc-Bahn system, Metro or the like will be a massive missed opportunity for the city and for the region. The money for package C (£500m) is pretty peanuts in terms of infrastructure, yet it could provide a lot more operational flexibility. It's hard to create an efficient system when you are navigating services through so many bottlenecks, at some point you have to get around to removing them. Perhaps there is some more low hanging fruit, but package C is a pretty juicy orange that is shovel ready and not all that difficult to do.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there a diagram of all the paths passing through or terminating in central Manchester in a typical hour?

 

[daodao]

Birmingham has a metro of 3,683,000 and Leeds has a metro area of 2,638,000.

While the populations of certain cities are artificially depressed by only considering the population resident within the borough itself, the regional metropolitan counties of England are not equivalent to the largest cities within them, which is what matters when considering transport provision. Some of them contain other significant cities in their own right, e.g. Bradford and Coventry.

Manchester city's effective population is probably just over 1 million, when one includes most of Salford, north Trafford, Middleton and parts of south Bury. Birmingham's effective population is about 1.3 million once Solihull is included. The city of Leeds is not artificially constrained by borough boundaries and its population is only 750,000.

Further discussion on this matter would be inappropriate, as it is off topic for this thread.

 

[Ianno87]

My view remains that 2 to Picc and 2 to Vic is perfectly acceptable and would provide some benefits while removing use of the damaging white elephant which should never have been built.

"Some benefits" = The worst TPE service offering since the early 1990s. That means net disbenefits to a valuable flow (I'm not talking about Manchester Airport).

The Ordsall Chord is built and is operational infrastructure like everything else- nothing can change that. And one of the Option A/B/C service patterns (all of which make use of it) provide more overall passenger benefits than not using it. It's there to use, so use it if that is the net beneficial thing to do.

 

[Metrolink]

I would say Newcastle and Hull for 2tph, given what is supposed to happen on NPR. Only issue is that Hull services weren’t often busy in my pre covid experiences (Note: I mainly used Selby to Hull on Saturdays so perhaps I’m not the best judge), but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Hull should be 2tph peak whereas Newcastle could become 2tph although I doubt that is needed. I make the Man Picc - Hull, service regularly pre-covid. Off-Peak services were never that busy especially east of Selby, however peak services do get quite busy throughout, with or without stopping between Mossley, Greenfield and Slaithwaite. If you are suggesting no change to the calling points between Huddersfield and Manchester, the service needs 2tph.

Furthermore, Anyone on this thread suggesting that the Hull service should be diverted via Victoria in exchange for the change for another service, IMO is wrong. The Hull service is the fastest way from Manchester Piccadilly to Leeds and beyond, without using the ordsall chord. The journey times are significantly quicker from my knowledge. I would provide this evidence but at the moment the Piccadilly - Hull has been shortened to Leeds - Hull. The Hull service is appealing to rail users like myself who would rather use Piccadilly, or ones coming from Stoke, Stockport, or any other line terminating at Piccadilly who wouldn’t want to do a twenty minute detour around Manchester’s other stations.

 

[Philip]

Neither solution really works

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Victoria bays. How do passengers then get to the Airport?

2 to Victoria and Liverpool, 2 to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, You’ve distroyed the TPE frequency from being 4 per hour, to just 2 per hour from 2 different places, which would be a major retrograde step

There has to be compromise somewhere; either cut the Airport services or reduce the TPE frequency. I think cutting the Airport services and running them through Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly makes the most sense. West Yorkshire/North East passengers can therefore make an easy change at a number of different stations to connect to a direct Piccadilly/Airport service. There is also Leeds Bradford Airport, possibly one in the North East too?

Ordsall Chord would be best utilized by a shuttle between Victoria and Piccadilly, replacing the TPE currently booked on it. That way it is unlikely to incur delays which then have a knock-on effect on everything else.

 

[Purple Orange]

I knew this would come up, but I have studied the population statistics in detail. The boundaries of Manchester are near as much worthless, considering that Salford is considered a distinct city, yet directly borders Manchester city centre. Quoting the population boundary of the city of Manchester is like quoting the population of Manhattan (1 million) as the population of New York(8.4 million).

The two most accurate measurements are urban and metro population. I compared Metro population in the statistics.

Manchester has an urban population of 2,705,000 and a metro population of 3,348,000.
Budapest has an urban population of 2,997,000 and a metro population of 3,011,000.

So the cities are very similar in size. Indeed Birmingham has a metro of 3,683,000 and Leeds has a metro area of 2,638,000. All the cities I quoted as being of similar or smaller size than Manchester were based on their Metro populations, most of which were defined from the same organisation (Eurostat.)

I think the way we measure populations in this country is part of the reason we struggle to actually invest in our regional cities. On a global scale, they are pretty big places, yet we treat them as if they are provincial towns. The urban fabric of Manchester portrays a much more different picture than the population statistics. Even in the slow moving UK housing market, the city is home to around 14 skyscrapers, with some very dense suburbs. Despite covid, the city continues to be one of the fastest growing in Europe. I won't be suprised if an exodus from London sees the arrival of many individuals looking for a more affordable city, that still has a lot to offer in terms of attractions, culture, etc. Considering many of these people will be more familiar with public transportation, and Manchester's continuing struggle with pollution levels, making sure we have an adequate rail solution for the city will be very important. Castlefield is going to represent a major bottleneck for those commuting from areas to the north of the city to the new HS2/(hopefully)NPR hub at Piccadilly, we need to make sure to plan for the services we will require in the future. Whilst COVID seems like a death blow to rail travel, passengers will return when the country reopens. People will continue to travel, perhaps in different patterns before and for different reasons, but make no doubt they will do so. Consider that many are likely now in a situation where they can't afford one, or two, cars and that driving instructors/tests will likely have a massive backlog, public transport is going to be more vital than ever for people to get around once out of lockdown.

If we are to upgrade the physical infrastructure, now if the perfect time to do it. Interest rates are low and the economy is in need of stimulus to get it moving. Almost every single economist is advocating the government injects cash into the economy post-lockdown, to make sure we do not fall into a recession and we maintain a functioning tax base to help pay for services. Injecting cash into infrastructure brings benefits that continue to provide value, even when it comes time to pay the debt. Not moving on Castlefield Package C, a Manc-Bahn system, Metro or the like will be a massive missed opportunity for the city and for the region. The money for package C (£500m) is pretty peanuts in terms of infrastructure, yet it could provide a lot more operational flexibility. It's hard to create an efficient system when you are navigating services through so many bottlenecks, at some point you have to get around to removing them. Perhaps there is some more low hanging fruit, but package C is a pretty juicy orange that is shovel ready and not all that difficult to do.

I agree it is nonsense that a metropolis like Greater Manchester and the West Midlands (for those stuck in 1974 they are not counties either, but their official title is a 'city region', to reflect the nature of what they are and the size of their urban area. Greater London is a city region too).

Anyway, the likelihood of an NPR tunnel happening in Manchester is unlikely, but a slightly more likely case (albeit still unlikely) for a metro tunnel to facilitate more frequent Metrolink services. It has a network of former heavy rail lines to knit together, which can enable more expanion. As for Castlefield, it needs to see the removal of TPE, TfW and EMR. Only then can a proper commuter network begin.

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there a diagram of all the paths passing through or terminating in central Manchester in a typical hour?

Yes. See p11 of the consultation document.

Timetable options to improve rail performance in the north of England

Proposes options to improve train performance in the Manchester area and beyond by altering the north of England rail timetable.

www.gov.uk

 

[Purple Orange]

So you are saying only Northern can use the castlefield corridor ?
Luckily TFN are not looking at that methodology for future usage, the way you propose would just move congestion to Victoria & onwards to Stalybridge for TFW

All people need to do is go to Manchester city centre & look at the huge growth to realise it needs far better heavy rail provisions.

Yes that is what it needs to aim for, but it won’t come tomorrow or even 10 years from now. Only once NPR is established can we see such a change happen.

 

[Gareth]

London is a truly massive city, but we forget how large our other major cities (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham) are on a worldwide scale.

And Liverpool, of course. Not that I criticize you personally for the omission, as your merely reflecting UK government position that there are only 3 cities in England outside the South East that have any sort of notable economic or cultural role.

If it was purely about size, then you wouldn't omit Liverpool but it's also about politics and ideology.

Budapest has better infrastructure compared to Manchester because Hungary sees Budapest as more important to it than the UK sees Manchester. And considering Manchester is probably the UK government's favourite large city outside London, you can appreciate how buggered the country as a whole is when it comes to these things. You also have to add to that the cultural difference in attitude to investment in mass transit between the UK and most continental countries, which exists to begin with.

So, while daodao isn't entirely correct (many non-capital cities in Europe and other parts of the world have transit systems Manchester could only dream of), politics and ideology play a larger role than perhaps, in an ideal world, they should.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool of course has Merseyrail. There are gaps in it, but it doesn't have a massive heavy-rail capacity problem like Manchester does.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Manchester does have a similar population to Dusseldorf, Stuttgart and Leipzig I believe which all have rail tunnels under the city, most of which have been built within the last few decades I believe. So I'd say it's not pie in the sky but simply unlikely in the context of UK infrastructure funding.

 

[nr758123]

Furthermore, Anyone on this thread suggesting that the Hull service should be diverted via Victoria in exchange for the change for another service, IMO is wrong. The Hull service is the fastest way from Manchester Piccadilly to Leeds and beyond, without using the ordsall chord. The journey times are significantly quicker from my knowledge. I would provide this evidence but at the moment the Piccadilly - Hull has been shortened to Leeds - Hull. The Hull service is appealing to rail users like myself who would rather use Piccadilly, or ones coming from Stoke, Stockport, or any other line terminating at Piccadilly who wouldn’t want to do a twenty minute detour around Manchester’s other stations.

The Hull MPs and Hull Chamber of Commerce, in their response to the current consultation, are suggesting precisely that.

What they are suggesting is Hull to Liverpool express, with a Scarborough (or possibly Newcastle) to Piccadilly picking up the stops between Huddersfield & Stalybridge. I'm sure others would be far more qualified than me to comment on how practicable this is.

I'm not sure there's going to be much demand for passengers from Hull or Leeds changing at Piccadilly for points south, as they have a perfectly good (and shorter) service towards the West Midlands, South West & South Wales either direct from Leeds or by changing at Doncaster.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes. See p11 of the consultation document.

Timetable options to improve rail performance in the north of England

Proposes options to improve train performance in the Manchester area and beyond by altering the north of England rail timetable.

www.gov.uk

Well that does suggest significant economies in paths could be made with high performance units.

Also it's really a rat's nest of paths isn't it?