How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[JonathanH]

Thanks for the diagram. Has it been decided that anything e.g. the Liverpool - Cleethorpes service will use the line to run via Victoria?

No. It is just an idea put forward by the previous poster that is unlikely to be formally proposed. It has been used for engineering work diversions in the past.

 

[daodao]

Though that would also need some considerable improvement works at Victoria to make it deal with those extra passengers and give it the sort of facilities one expects from a long distance InterCity type station rather than just a diesel, above ground equivalent of Liverpool Central.

Victoria has quadruple running lines and 4 through platforms, so essentially it has twice the capacity of the Castlefield line, and this use can be optimised by running through trains on the ex L&Y routes from Wigan and Bolton to Rochdale and beyond and running through trains on the ex-LNW Chat Moss line to Stalybridge and beyond.

The Castlefield line needs to accommodate all services from the CLC line to Liverpool, which in my opinion should comprise 2 tph stopping services to terminate in platform 5 at Oxford Road and 2 tph semi-fast from Liverpool to Sheffield and beyond. This leaves about 6 paths per hour for passenger trains via the link to the Chat Moss line and Salford Crescent, which in my view should be run only by electric trains. These services should therefore be those running to Bolton/Preston and beyond (such as the 2 tph Blackpool service, but not the long-distance WCML services because of poor punctuality) or the Chat Moss line to Liverpool. Unfortunately, the Castlefield line needs to have freight paths (up to 2 tph) because of lack of alternative access routes to the freight terminals at Trafford Park.

The key ways (in no particular order) to solve Manchester's rail problems are:

• Constructing a 30 minute (2 tph) service pattern to reduce the tangle of different services running through these congested routes. For example, the 2 tph to Southport should all run to Victoria and extend to Rochdale and beyond; passengers from this line can connect at Salford Crescent for trains to Piccadilly and the Airport.
• Separating the ex-L&Y and ex-LNW services running through Victoria to use platforms 5/6 and 3/4 respectively.
• Making use of Victoria platforms 1/2 for the 2 tph stopping services (maximum 4 car) from Huddersfield, with the 2 tph semi-fast TPE Standedge line services not running west of Manchester terminating at Piccadilly platforms 1/2/3 instead.
• Removing all regular services from the Ordsall curve, because use of this white elephant makes profligate use of Manchester's central stations (passing through all 5 of them).
• Removing all long-distance trains to the Airport, including if necessary facing down local authorities outwith North-West England demanding through trains from their areas to it.
• In the longer-term, freeing up capacity at Manchester Piccadilly by converting the line to Rose Hill via Reddish North to Metrolink and linking it to tram services currently terminating at Piccadilly.

 

[Philip]

No. It is just an idea put forward by the previous poster that is unlikely to be formally proposed. It has been used for engineering work diversions in the past.

Would the signalling need renewing for faster running via Denton, or just the rails? I'm assuming it is still jointed rail along there?

 

[507020]

Victoria has quadruple running lines and 4 through platforms, so essentially it has twice the capacity of the Castlefield line, and this use can be optimised by running through trains on the ex L&Y routes from Wigan and Bolton to Rochdale and beyond and running through trains on the ex-LNW Chat Moss line to Stalybridge and beyond.

The Castlefield line needs to accommodate all services from the CLC line to Liverpool, which in my opinion should comprise 2 tph stopping services to terminate in platform 5 at Oxford Road and 2 tph semi-fast from Liverpool to Sheffield and beyond. This leaves about 6 paths per hour for passenger trains via the link to the Chat Moss line and Salford Crescent, which in my view should be run only by electric trains. These services should therefore be those running to Bolton/Preston and beyond (such as the 2 tph Blackpool service, but not the long-distance WCML services because of poor punctuality) or the Chat Moss line to Liverpool. Unfortunately, the Castlefield line needs to have freight paths (up to 2 tph) because of lack of alternative access routes to the freight terminals at Trafford Park.

The key ways (in no particular order) to solve Manchester's rail problems are:

• Constructing a 30 minute (2 tph) service pattern to reduce the tangle of different services running through these congested routes. For example, the 2 tph to Southport should all run to Victoria and extend to Rochdale and beyond; passengers from this line can connect at Salford Crescent for trains to Piccadilly and the Airport.
• Separating the ex-L&Y and ex-LNW services running through Victoria to use platforms 5/6 and 3/4 respectively.
• Making use of Victoria platforms 1/2 for the 2 tph stopping services (maximum 4 car) from Huddersfield, with the 2 tph semi-fast TPE Standedge line services not running west of Manchester terminating at Piccadilly platforms 1/2/3 instead.
• Removing all regular services from the Ordsall curve, because use of this white elephant makes profligate use of Manchester's central stations (passing through all 5 of them).
• Removing all long-distance trains to the Airport, including if necessary facing down local authorities outwith North-West England demanding through trains from their areas to it.
• In the longer-term, freeing up capacity at Manchester Piccadilly by converting the line to Rose Hill via Reddish North to Metrolink and linking it to tram services currently terminating at Piccadilly.

This is somewhat sensible in that for historical reasons the L&Y and L&NW lines should not cross each other and that the CLC has no access to Victoria. In reality the MSJ&AR Castlefield line just needs to have 4 tracks like Victoria. The freight terminal needs to be somewhere other than Trafford Park, accessed from the south from somewhere on the 4 track WCML in the Stockport direction.

The new electrification from Liverpool, Bolton and Blackpool North is extremely useful in running electric trains where it exists, but there needs to be more of it, particularly to Stalybridge, Wigan North Western, Southport, Windermere, Buxton via Hazel Grove and Rose Hill Marple via Guide Bridge, to eliminate services which run mostly under the wires.

Likewise the Ordsall Chord has been built, albeit incorrectly, but it is now needed to provide direct connections from Victoria to Piccadilly for everyone who’s service has been rerouted. Perhaps the Airport could be served exclusively by 2tph from the Ordsall Chord and another 6-8tph from a specific platform at Piccadilly.

What you do with the Great Central lines east of Manchester doesn’t make sense, as services to the MB&MR station Rose Hill run via Guide Bridge. Reddish North is served by the services to New Mills Central and Sheffield via the Midland Railway. Converting any of this to Metrolink operation and running a 6 minute frequency will create a new bottleneck and make it impossible to run any trains to New Mills Central, Sheffield, Hadfield or Glossop, or from Piccadilly to Stalybridge and Hull.

However electrifying the lines from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge and Rose Hill Marple removes all but one DMU per week in each direction on a Saturday morning, as long as the Hull service isn’t run with 185s and electrifying from Hazel Grove to Buxton means the Hazel Grove electric service can be provided by trains to Buxton that run into the main shed at Piccadilly, taking them off Castlefield.

What exactly is your opinion of the Class 769 units as a supposed alternative to electrification? Once the emergency timetable reduction has been implemented as a short term measure, angering people from across the whole of the north of England, the focus needs to shift onto what infrastructure works will be undertaken to resolve what are fundamentally infrastructure constraints. All of these great Victorian companies who ran trains to Manchester, the Lancashire & Yorkshire, London & North Western, Midland and Great Central Railways, would not have thought twice at rebuilding congested infrastructure to provide the required capacity, so why today is there this inability to solve basic problems?

 

[The Planner]

Would the signalling need renewing for faster running via Denton, or just the rails? I'm assuming it is still jointed rail along there?

Its more than just rails and signalling, paging @Bald Rick

 

[daodao]

Likewise the Ordsall Chord has been built, albeit incorrectly, but it is now needed to provide direct connections from Victoria to Piccadilly

It creates more problems than solutions - I would be mothball it except for ECS workings.

What you do with the Great Central lines east of Manchester doesn’t make sense, as services to the MB&MR station Rose Hill run via Guide Bridge. Reddish North is served by the services to New Mills Central and Sheffield via the Midland Railway. Converting any of this to Metrolink operation and running a 6 minute frequency will create a new bottleneck and make it impossible to run any trains to New Mills Central, Sheffield, Hadfield or Glossop, or from Piccadilly to Stalybridge and Hull.

However electrifying the lines from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge and Rose Hill Marple removes all but one DMU per week in each direction on a Saturday morning, as long as the Hull service isn’t run with 185s and electrifying from Hazel Grove to Buxton means the Hazel Grove electric service can be provided by trains to Buxton that run into the main shed at Piccadilly, taking them off Castlefield.

You have misunderstood me. I would run the Metrolink service to Rose Hill "on street" or on new reserved track, from the eastern portal of the Piccadilly underground Metrolink station to join the existing railway line via Reddish just east of Ashburys station. The heavy rail service to New Mills Central and beyond would be diverted to run via Guide Bridge. If tram trains were not used, the section between Romiley station and Marple Wharf junction would need to be run as 2 independent single lines, one for Metrolink and one for heavy rail. A Metrolink ervice of 5 tph to Rose Hill should suffice, at least initially.

In reality the MSJ&AR Castlefield line just needs to have 4 tracks like Victoria. The freight terminal needs to be somewhere other than Trafford Park, accessed from the south from somewhere on the 4 track WCML in the Stockport direction.

Unaffordable.

so why today is there this inability to solve basic problems?

The UK is not the economic powerhouse it was in the 19th century when it was a domineering imperial power exploiting other peoples and their resources for its own benefit. There is no magic money tree. There is a need to make the best use of existing infrastructure, with a little tweaking at best, e.g. for new turnback sidings east of Victoria.

 

[Gareth]

The UK isn't a poor country (or, at least, wasn't until we maxed out the credit card on Zero Covid). I can't stand Mingland Declinism nor grossly simplistic appraisals of the UK's history.

It's the country's attitude to infrastructure, especially outside the South East, which has always been poor and a consequence of the wider economic governance of the country in which it sees itself more akin to a city state than a fairly large country with different metropolitan areas, albeit one of which is significantly larger than the rest.

Castlefield needs a huge intervention. I think that means either a tunnel for the long distance services or one for the regional services. As much as I'm aware I'm sounding like Bletchleyite here, Germany would've done it years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK isn't a poor country (or, at least, wasn't until we maxed out the credit card on Zero Covid). I can't stand Mingland Declinism nor grossly simplistic appraisals of the UK's history.

It's the country's attitude to infrastructure, especially outside the South East, which has always been poor and a consequence of the wider economic governance of the country in which it sees itself more akin to a city state than a fairly large country with different metropolitan areas, albeit one of which is significantly larger than the rest.

Castlefield needs a huge intervention. I think that means either a tunnel for the long distance services or one for the regional services. As much as I'm aware I'm sounding like Bletchleyite here, Germany would've done it years ago.

Castlefield is a particularly bad example because we built a piece of infrastructure that made things worse, which was mad-hattery of the highest order.

 

[Dspatula]

Most mass transit systems that have used skip stopping have been abandoning it in recent years.

I really don't see the point in the environment of high performance DMUs.

The reason very people use the train for short journeys currently is because the service is so bad as to be worthless for this purpose.

8 trains per hour each direction would change that dramatically - with a proper unified GM ticket system we would see mass transfers to and from buses on the corridor.

4 trains per hour stopping at a random grab bag of stations is not going to have the same impact - nevermind the signalling implications of mass skip stopping.

EDIT:

The time penalty from non-stop (~14 minutes) to every stop (~21 minutes) between the Airport and Manchester Piccadily doesn't really seem worth the trouble.

Even skip stopping will lose you most of those gains -

That plan is very quickly going to run into issue with turn around times, increased unit requirements, increased staff requirements and platform occupation at Manchester Airport.

Assuming the Recovery Task Force proposals progress, skip stopping on the Styal line will soon be history. The published documents do not spell out stopping patterns, but reading between the lines it can be deduced that the December 2022 timetable will be:

• 1tph freight
• 2tph all shacks stoppers at even 30 minute intervals, comprising:
  - 1tph Liverpool - Airport via Chat Moss
  - 1tph Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport
• 6tph fasts, comprising:
  - 1tph Chester/N Wales - Airport via Warrington BQ
  - 1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh - Airport via Bolton
  - 1tph Barrow/Windermere - Airport via Bolton
  - 2tph Blackpool - Airport via Bolton
  - 1tph Saltburn - Airport via Ordsall Chord

This totals 9tph, 1tph less than in the 2019 timetable. Two TPE services (Cleethorpes and Newcastle) replaced by one additional Northern stopper.

30 minute intervals on the stoppers are pretty much impossible with the distribution of trains they want to keep it'll require a 25/35 split towards the Airport; with a 05 past departure for the Crewe earliest it get out behind the re-timed ex Redcar, Chester and Barrow, and 30 past departure for the ex Liverpool. And a 20/40 split towards Piccadilly; with a 20 past departure for the ex Crewe which is the latest it can be so it's out of the way of the Barrow, Chester and Redcar which are all constrained by slots they have to be in on the far side of Castlefield and, a 59 past departure towards Liverpool.

 

[daodao]

That plan is very quickly going to run into issue with turn around times, increased unit requirements, increased staff requirements and platform occupation at Manchester Airport.

30 minute intervals on the stoppers are pretty much impossible with the distribution of trains they want to keep it'll require a 25/35 split towards the Airport; with a 05 past departure for the Crewe earliest it get out behind the re-timed ex Redcar, Chester and Barrow, and 30 past departure for the ex Liverpool. And a 20/40 split towards Piccadilly; with a 20 past departure for the ex Crewe which is the latest it can be so it's out of the way of the Barrow, Chester and Redcar which are all constrained by slots they have to be in on the far side of Castlefield and, a 59 past departure towards Liverpool.

Unfortunately, this is why the latest Recovery Taskforce proposals won't deliver the desired improvements in reliability and regularity. Direct services from places like Barrow, Chester and Redcar to the Airport via the Castlefield line need to be chopped, and if that requires some ruthlessness so be it.

 

[Ken H]

The problems in manchester are made worse that trains come from a variety of places, some come through other pinch points like Leeds. Other trains come from places with sub optimal signalling, like Carnforth-Barrow. So you have a blueprint for poor service. maybe the fix to manchester is improvements, maybe many miles away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problems in manchester are made worse that trains come from a variety of places, some come through other pinch points like Leeds. Other trains come from places with sub optimal signalling, like Carnforth-Barrow. So you have a blueprint for poor service. maybe the fix to manchester is improvements, maybe many miles away.

I think that is the argument to move all the long distance stuff to Victoria. But if you are going to do that you need to improve Victoria into a station with proper long distance station type facilities. It's a dump.

 

[Philip]

Would a chord south of Piccadilly Station, branching off north-eastwards to join the Phillip's Park line and onto Victoria/Ashton, have been a better idea and of more use than the Ordsall Chord?

It wouldn't have allowed a Piccadilly-Victoria connection without a reversal, but it would have allowed Castlefield line services from the south to instead run to Victoria and then either onwards west, or to reverse at Victoria to cross the Pennines, without using Castlefield and without the time penalty and Heaton Norris conflicts of running via Denton.

 

[SJL2020]

Unfortunately, this is why the latest Recovery Taskforce proposals won't deliver the desired improvements in reliability and regularity. Direct services from places like Barrow, Chester and Redcar to the Airport via the Castlefield line need to be chopped, and if that requires some ruthlessness so be it.

BIB: That seems harsh, especially since Cheshire provides some of the land occupied by the airport, including the second runway.

 

[cle]

BIB: That seems harsh, especially since Cheshire provides some of the land occupied by the airport, including the second runway.

NW/Chester to Manchester Airport (via Picc) is a nonsensical journey. There should be a better route, yes (via Crewe or via Knutsford...) but I can't see it as a priority.

 

[Bevan Price]

The snag that nobody seems to have mentioned about the Denton route is that there is an inconvenient single line section and bridge, between Reddish & Denton, and constructed when the M60 (now part of M62) was built. That would require careful timetabling, and be a potential bottleneck.

 

[507020]

Castlefield is a particularly bad example because we built a piece of infrastructure that made things worse, which was mad-hattery of the highest order.

Are you referring to the Windsor Link, the Metrolink, or the Ordsall Chord? All 3 have made Castlefield worse.

The problems in manchester are made worse that trains come from a variety of places, some come through other pinch points like Leeds. Other trains come from places with sub optimal signalling, like Carnforth-Barrow. So you have a blueprint for poor service. maybe the fix to manchester is improvements, maybe many miles away.

Sub optimal signalling… *cough* Southport *cough*

BIB: That seems harsh, especially since Cheshire provides some of the land occupied by the airport, including the second runway.

This is true. Cheshire also provided half the land for Greater Manchester and the GMPTE/TfGM area itself.

The snag that nobody seems to have mentioned about the Denton route is that there is an inconvenient single line section and bridge, between Reddish & Denton, and constructed when the M60 (now part of M62) was built. That would require careful timetabling, and be a potential bottleneck.

The same with Kirkby and the M57, where the single line section contributed to the overrun there earlier this year.

 

[Greybeard33]

That plan is very quickly going to run into issue with turn around times, increased unit requirements, increased staff requirements and platform occupation at Manchester Airport.

30 minute intervals on the stoppers are pretty much impossible with the distribution of trains they want to keep it'll require a 25/35 split towards the Airport; with a 05 past departure for the Crewe earliest it get out behind the re-timed ex Redcar, Chester and Barrow, and 30 past departure for the ex Liverpool. And a 20/40 split towards Piccadilly; with a 20 past departure for the ex Crewe which is the latest it can be so it's out of the way of the Barrow, Chester and Redcar which are all constrained by slots they have to be in on the far side of Castlefield and, a 59 past departure towards Liverpool.

The Barrow/Windermere services will likely be retimed (earlier arrival/later departure) because they are going to run via Bolton, which is considerably quicker than the current route via Golborne, and will run fast between Piccadilly and the Airport. This will allow an earlier departure for the additional stopper towards the Airport, and a later departure towards Piccadilly, giving a more even split in both directions.

 

[507020]

The Barrow/Windermere services will likely be retimed (earlier arrival/later departure) because they are going to run via Bolton, which is considerably quicker than the current route via Golborne, and will run fast between Piccadilly and the Airport. This will allow an earlier departure for the additional stopper towards the Airport, and a later departure towards Piccadilly, giving a more even split in both directions.

Are they going to stop at Bolton or Chorley? Residents of Bolton and Chorley are very keen for them to.

 

[daodao]

Are you referring to the Windsor Link, the Metrolink, or the Ordsall Chord? All 3 have made Castlefield worse.

Metrolink has not made Castlefield worse. Conversion of poorly used heavily loss-making suburban lines in Greater Manchester to light rail has been a tremendous success, and there are still lines that could be converted, such as the ex-GC line to Rose Hill via Reddish (with an on street section from Piccadilly to Ashburys). It has also released heavy rail capacity in inner Manchester for other services, and diversion of the Altrincham line on street in the city centre has specifically made the ex-MSJ&A Castlefield line available for use by such trains.

Sub optimal signalling… *cough* Southport *cough*

If there are areas with such sub-optimal signalling, such as Southport, then trains from these areas should not be running via the Castlefield line. I have previously suggested that all trains from Southport should run to platforms 5 and 6 at Victoria and then onwards to Rochdale and beyond.

This is true. Cheshire also provided half the land for Greater Manchester and the GMPTE/TfGM area itself.

That is not a valid reason for retaining the ridiculous route from Chester to Manchester Airport via Manchester Piccadilly. Passengers wishing to travel by rail from Chester and North Wales to Manchester Airport should be encouraged to change at Crewe, but it has to be recognised that the quickest route to this airport from these areas is by road via the M56. There used to be bus/coach services on this route via the M56, but these were withdrawn many years ago, presumably due to lack of demand.

 

[nr758123]

• Making use of Victoria platforms 1/2 for the 2 tph stopping services (maximum 4 car) from Huddersfield, with the 2 tph semi-fast TPE Standedge line services not running west of Manchester terminating at Piccadilly platforms 1/2/3 instead.

These services are already 6 cars at peak times. How practicable is it to lengthen platforms 1 & 2 at Victoria?

 

[JonathanH]

These services are already 6 cars at peak times. How practicable is it to lengthen platforms 1 & 2 at Victoria?

Is that only because 6 is a multiple of 3? A 4-car unit with a more high density layout could be an alternative.

Extending platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria seems improbable given the road bridge and pointwork east of the station.

 

[Dspatula]

The Barrow/Windermere services will likely be retimed (earlier arrival/later departure) because they are going to run via Bolton, which is considerably quicker than the current route via Golborne, and will run fast between Piccadilly and the Airport. This will allow an earlier departure for the additional stopper towards the Airport, and a later departure towards Piccadilly, giving a more even split in both directions.

You can make the Barrow earlier but then you have to make the Redcar and Chester later so you're back to square one towards the airport. Back from the Airport even if you move the Barrow you've still got the Chester and Redcar so 25 past is the best you'll get. Not that moving the Barrow behind the Redcar is really workable anyway as it conflicts with the new Cleethorpes Liverpool at Piccadilly, the Stalybridge Southport on the way to Bolton and the Euston Glasgow at Euxton junction.

Unfortunately, this is why the latest Recovery Taskforce proposals won't deliver the desired improvements in reliability and regularity. Direct services from places like Barrow, Chester and Redcar to the Airport via the Castlefield line need to be chopped, and if that requires some ruthlessness so be it.

Careful what you wish for if we're going to be dropping service on a reliability basis then both Blackpools, the Southport and the Liverpool Chat Moss stopper would all be cut before the Barrow (the Wigan version anyway).

 

[Greybeard33]

Are they going to stop at Bolton or Chorley? Residents of Bolton and Chorley are very keen for them to.

The Task Force public consultation document said that, for the original Options B and C, the Cumbria - Airport and Scotland - Airport services would both call at both Chorley and Bolton, at 30 minute intervals. It is a racing certainty that this will also apply to the currently proposed Option B+, which is based on the original Option B.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Metrolink has not made Castlefield worse. Conversion of poorly used heavily loss-making suburban lines in Greater Manchester to light rail has been a tremendous success, and there are still lines that could be converted, such as the ex-GC line to Rose Hill via Reddish (with an on street section from Piccadilly to Ashburys). It has also released heavy rail capacity in inner Manchester for other services, and diversion of the Altrincham line on street in the city centre has specifically made the ex-MSJ&A Castlefield line available for use by such trains.

Agreed. Nor really has the Windsor Link; the pre-1998 timetable operated reliably. It's recent frequency increases and the Ordsall Chord which together have destroyed it. What also didn't help was removal of permissive working at 13/14.

 

[Greybeard33]

You can make the Barrow earlier but then you have to make the Redcar and Chester later so you're back to square one towards the airport. Back from the Airport even if you move the Barrow you've still got the Chester and Redcar so 25 past is the best you'll get. Not that moving the Barrow behind the Redcar is really workable anyway as it conflicts with the new Cleethorpes Liverpool at Piccadilly, the Stalybridge Southport on the way to Bolton and the Euston Glasgow at Euxton junction.

Well, you may well be right. Looking again at the consultation document, it only claimed 30 minute intervals between the Airport stoppers for the original Option C, in which the Airport line service pattern differed somewhat from the current Option B+ (both stoppers were Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport in C). And the Task Force definition of a 30 minute interval might be somewhat flexible.

I believe another public consultation is planned for Option B+, so more detail of the proposed timetable should be released for that.

 

[cle]

Cumbria I can understand as there are a lot of connections, holidaymakers, second homes etc between Cumbria and Lancs/Manchester - but I really don't think that encouraging less driving and domestic flights is done by having Manchester-Scotland services call at every commuter town in Lancs.

I appreciate Bolton and Chorley want fast trains to Manchester + Airport, and to Preston/Lancaster, and I agree with that. But they don't truly need them to Scotland itself, which should be 'intercity' quality, and fast. Perhaps a new hourly Victoria - Wigan NW - Preston and up to Scotland service could be the 'premier' one, and the current service turns at Lancaster or Carlisle. Ideally Windermere, if wired. They could become Blackpools and shuffle those around a bit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cumbria I can understand as there are a lot of connections, holidaymakers, second homes etc between Cumbria and Lancs/Manchester - but I really don't think that encouraging less driving and domestic flights is done by having Manchester-Scotland services call at every commuter town in Lancs.

I appreciate Bolton and Chorley want fast trains to Manchester + Airport, and to Preston/Lancaster, and I agree with that. But they don't truly need them to Scotland itself, which should be 'intercity' quality, and fast. Perhaps a new hourly Victoria - Wigan NW - Preston and up to Scotland service could be the 'premier' one, and the current service turns at Lancaster or Carlisle. Ideally Windermere, if wired. They could become Blackpools and shuffle those around a bit.

Bolton is certainly justified and classically always did have calls. Chorley less so (in steam days did Liverpool-Scotland services stop at Ormskirk which is a similar size?), but why muck up the Takt for the want of one station stop which is what is under discussion?

 

[cle]

I'd rather carve certain long distance services out of the Takt - I think Victoria (and no Ordsall!) is the only possible way to keep a separate service category un-defiled from the plan, which I see as more regional. We don't have Birmingham XC services in consideration to be semi-fast (arguably they already are).

Classic and steam-days, really?! One day, it would be great to up the Liverpool-Glasgow (and add Edinburgh?) and those would also be able to make Cumbria calls and serve intermediate journeys.

Note that I don't want to deprive Bolton and Chorley of fast frequencies specifically, it's more "should those be our main Manchester-Edinburgh/Glasgow services?" - it's got to be even more egregious than the state of Birmingham-Liverpool servicing. The TPE gets better stock and distinction, and is far more commuter in nature.

 

[507020]

Metrolink has not made Castlefield worse. Conversion of poorly used heavily loss-making suburban lines in Greater Manchester to light rail has been a tremendous success, and there are still lines that could be converted, such as the ex-GC line to Rose Hill via Reddish (with an on street section from Piccadilly to Ashburys). It has also released heavy rail capacity in inner Manchester for other services, and diversion of the Altrincham line on street in the city centre has specifically made the ex-MSJ&A Castlefield line available for use by such trains.

If the Metrolink had not been built and the MSJ&AR Castlefield was specifically reserved for local electric services to Altrincham, Hazel Grove, Hadfield/Glossop and perhaps some from Liverpool now that is wired, with freight paths to and from the rail freight terminal, would it not be a lot more reliable? While I am very much a fan of the Metrolink, bikes need to be allowed on it and diverting all existing traffic off Castlefield was done under the premise that services could be increased from the Windsor Link, which led to what we have experienced. Dare I ask what where we would be if the Picc-Vic tunnel had been built all those years ago? If the Styal line had been run exclusively a Merseyrail type isolated line, all Airport services would have run from the tunnel, requiring a change at Piccadilly or Victoria to low level stations.

If there are areas with such sub-optimal signalling, such as Southport, then trains from these areas should not be running via the Castlefield line. I have previously suggested that all trains from Southport should run to platforms 5 and 6 at Victoria and then onwards to Rochdale and beyond.

I would argue that some of the problems are caused not because the lines to Liverpool, Bolton and Blackpool North HAVE been upgraded and electrified in recent years, but because other lines to Southport and Rochdale have NOT.

The Southport line is nothing like the Rochdale line though, which the Calder Valley is busy with several trains per hour of different types including freight, there are very few sources of delay at the Southport end, other than 769s failing. An electric service to Southport would better suit the stopping pattern of the line, but there are other lines, notably the Calder Valley which need doing first.

That is not a valid reason for retaining the ridiculous route from Chester to Manchester Airport via Manchester Piccadilly. Passengers wishing to travel by rail from Chester and North Wales to Manchester Airport should be encouraged to change at Crewe, but it has to be recognised that the quickest route to this airport from these areas is by road via the M56. There used to be bus/coach services on this route via the M56, but these were withdrawn many years ago, presumably due to lack of demand.

The issue with removing that service is that a portion that is needed from Newton-le-Willows to Earlestown, Warrington Bank Quay, intermediate stations to Helsby and finally Chester. Why this is provided only by TfW when entirely in England is delusional though.

Cumbria I can understand as there are a lot of connections, holidaymakers, second homes etc between Cumbria and Lancs/Manchester - but I really don't think that encouraging less driving and domestic flights is done by having Manchester-Scotland services call at every commuter town in Lancs.

I appreciate Bolton and Chorley want fast trains to Manchester + Airport, and to Preston/Lancaster, and I agree with that. But they don't truly need them to Scotland itself, which should be 'intercity' quality, and fast. Perhaps a new hourly Victoria - Wigan NW - Preston and up to Scotland service could be the 'premier' one, and the current service turns at Lancaster or Carlisle. Ideally Windermere, if wired. They could become Blackpools and shuffle those around a bit.

Stops at Chorley make more sense for the Barrow/Windermere services than for Glasgow/Edinburgh, but could they not use the stops at Chorley and Bolton to recover late running before running onto Castlefield? What about people who want to travel fast just between Bolton and Chorley, who may have made a connection at Bolton.

Note that I don't want to deprive Bolton and Chorley of fast frequencies specifically, it's more "should those be our main Manchester-Edinburgh/Glasgow services?" - it's got to be even more egregious than the state of Birmingham-Liverpool servicing. The TPE gets better stock and distinction, and is far more commuter in nature.

And the Birmingham-Liverpool service on Desiros isn’t as egregious as the Birmingham-Manchester being run by Voyagers when the line has been electrified throughout for 60 years!