How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[daodao]

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.

I have merely proposed that the service from North Wales to Manchester runs to Victoria, not removed; it should remain with TfW. My point was to chop problematic services from the Castlefield line.

 

[cle]

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!

Yes, 100% agree. Pretty pathetic showing. I know there is inter-working and of course, Bristol / Reading but it's absurd. Better sending a Pendo through to Euston, and taking up a New St terminator - like the Scotland/Wolves service. Would give longer and electric Manc-B'ham once per hour.

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.

People wanting to travel fast between Chorley and Bolton - a fast takes 13 mins. The slowest takes 20! Most are 14-16. Those people, if they exist explicitly, can suck it up. That is a zero consideration.

I have merely proposed that the service from North Wales to Manchester runs to Victoria, not removed; it should remain with TfW. My point was to chop problematic services from the Castlefield line.

100% this.

I have said I think all Wales services should be from Victoria. The South Wales (short, diesel) could provide another fast Victoria-Warrington BQ frequency (building the foundational case and travel patterns for CLC Metrolink!) - plus it gives a brand new Victoria-Crewe connection. It could then open up a new slot for a longer, electric service via Wilmsow - possibly a Desiro semi run to Birmingham!

North Wales obviously fits that way too - and they could interwork stock if Victoria dwells were long. Adding the Calder-Chester, and it's quite the trunk! Especially with Halton helping out at the Helsby/Frodsham end.

Combine this with my Scotland proposal, and we give Victoria more of a purpose, with longer distance services. Balance demand out a little and enable more commuter and Stoke/Crewe facing regional services out of Piccadilly, especially post-HS2 and hopefully a few more Metrolink conversions. Give South Manchester and the hinterland the commuter network it deserves - Sheffield-Manc too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would not oppose this if Victoria had a proper rebuild to give it equivalent facilities to Piccadilly as with those changes it would be very close to equivalent in importance, London trains aside.

It really is a nasty station. Windswept, fume-filled and with a set of ticket barriers being the most dominating feature, showing clearly where the railway's priority lies. The other impression given is of a fairly fancy tramstop with a railway station as an afterthought.

I suspect the only way to achieve this without knocking the Arena down is a mezzanine, which could be built over P1/2 and the tramstop and have decent facilities, with escalator and lift access, and the ticket barriers and entrance onto the overbridge directly from the mezzanine, and exit only via a separate footbridge and gateline downstairs. The Arena bridge should also go, with the Arena entered from outside the station.

 

[Philip]

I would not oppose this if Victoria had a proper rebuild to give it equivalent facilities to Piccadilly as with those changes it would be very close to equivalent in importance, London trains aside.

It really is a nasty station. Windswept, fume-filled and with a set of ticket barriers being the most dominating feature, showing clearly where the railway's priority lies. The other impression given is of a fairly fancy tramstop with a railway station as an afterthought.

I suspect the only way to achieve this without knocking the Arena down is a mezzanine, which could be built over P1/2 and the tramstop and have decent facilities, with escalator and lift access, and the ticket barriers and entrance onto the overbridge directly from the mezzanine, and exit only via a separate footbridge and gateline downstairs. The Arena bridge should also go, with the Arena entered from outside the station.

Perhaps it should be run by Network Rail, rather than Northern, to help elevate its status. Currently it can be compared to Birmingham Snow Hill as very much the secondary station within the city.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps it should be run by Network Rail, rather than Northern, to help elevate its status. Currently it can be compared to Birmingham Snow Hill as very much the secondary station within the city.

That would help - certainly the quality of Liverpool Lime St improved massively when Network Rail took it over as a "major station".

 

[cle]

I agree with those points. It's still a disgrace.

Additional west-facing platform capacity should be explored to support more non-Takt/sporadic longer distance services - even if it is extensions (for a bay on the islands' extremities) or re-building some of the old Exchange-located bays. Even one would be helpful!

Adjacent, but a proper effort on Salford Central (which could include 5 platforms, i.e. potentially one to terminate the odd service) - would help also, to rebalance demand in the city / perception of that side of town. It's the closest for Spinningfields and a lot of other job locations, like ex-Granada site - including of course, the New Bailey developments.

 

[Manutd1999]

If the TPE services from Scotland and the Lake District are moved off Castlefield, they would have to terminate at Victoria. Perhaps also the TfW, although it could be combined with a Calder Valley / Leeds service. Running these services to Stalybridge is sub-optimal and introduces its own problems with capacity on that stretch of line.

How much platform capacity is there currently at Victoria to terminate long-distance services? Is there space for 2-3 trains to hang around for 15 mins+ each? Probably not.....

Is there space to the west to add a long enough bay platform? Or maybe a siding/turnback to the east?

 

[cle]

If the TPE services from Scotland and the Lake District are moved off Castlefield, they would have to terminate at Victoria. Perhaps also the TfW, although it could be combined with a Calder Valley / Leeds service. Running these services to Stalybridge is sub-optimal and introduces its own problems with capacity on that stretch of line.

How much platform capacity is there currently at Victoria to terminate long-distance services? Is there space for 2-3 trains to hang around for 15 mins+ each? Probably not.....

Is there space to the west to add a long enough bay platform? Or maybe a siding/turnback to the east?

I don't think with the new plans, as each island is basically a through high frequency to Rochdale or Stalybridge - and those two stations are already going to be overserved, due to this Victoria west-facing issue.

Maybe a TPE from the east could run into the platforms 1/2 and free up island space. But Scotland/Lakes and Wales would really need 2 platforms to themselves, assuming 4tph long distance (Scotland, Lakes, North Wales, South Wales) + Calder-Chester.

But in theory more could be linked, or partially beyond Rochdale - like only to Bradford. But what's the point of not going to Leeds, at that point.

 

[Philip]

I would run the Chat Moss stopping train into Victoria and possibly combine it with the Stalybridge local or one of the Rochdale services, using 769s of course. I realise that this would leave Liverpool without a direct service to Manchester Airport, but really the majority doing this journey would be taking a fast CLC train to Piccadilly and changing on platform 13 to another fast train to the Airport. The upshot would be a more reliable stopping service and obviously one less train through Castlefield. Both Airport line stoppers can then start from Piccadilly terminating platforms.

 

[option]

As I and others have commented before, the main problem is politicians, who all want here, there and everywhere else to have through services to / from the Airport, when the most sensible idea would be to have dedicated shuttles between the city centre and the airport (as happens with London to/from Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted). A mixture of long distance destinations to/from the airport is always going to create problems with punctuality, and consequent congestion. Unless / until someone can overrule the politicians, there will always be problems with Manchester area services.

Multiple people have raised the issue of direct services from everywhere to Manchester Airport.

I suspect the fix for that lies outside of Manchester.
The north-west has 2 airports; Manchester & Liverpool.
The north-east has 4; Leeds Bradford, Doncaster, Tees Valley, Newcastle

A rationalisation of those to two busier ones could mean more flights/greater choice from the two remaining, & reduce the need to travel to Manchester for holiday flights.


Longer term, but I would think that the HS2 eastern leg & plans for connection to East Midlands Airport will have an impact as well.

 

[30907]

Multiple people have raised the issue of direct services from everywhere to Manchester Airport.

I suspect the fix for that lies outside of Manchester.
The north-west has 2 airports; Manchester & Liverpool.
The north-east has 4; Leeds Bradford, Doncaster, Tees Valley, Newcastle

A rationalisation of those to two busier ones could mean more flights/greater choice from the two remaining, & reduce the need to travel to Manchester for holiday flights.

Tees Valley is hardly used and Robin Hood doesn't add much to the mix.
And Leeds Bradford and Newcastle serve completely different conurbations, but IIRC largely the same destinations.

 

[Philip]

I notice that once again the Atherton line has been pretty much thrown in the gutter in these plans. The improvement to 4tph a few years ago has been undone, with the current 2tph seemingly here for the long term again. I would run the proposed Southport to Oxford Road service via Atherton instead of Bolton and have it terminate at Piccadilly, using the Mayfield loop to turn back. This would provide a Piccadilly connection for Atherton line stations for the first time - useful as currently 2 changes are required for going anywhere south of Manchester.

There is no need for the North Wales service to go to Manchester Airport, so I would combine this with an existing Rochdale or Stalybridge local service and have it terminate in the bay platform at one of those stations; likewise the Chat Moss stopper. Could either Rochdale or Stalybridge handle an additional shuttle service as my plan would require? Under the option B+ proposal it is 2tph for each (2 x Clitheroe for Rochdale and Southport/Man Vic local for Stalybridge).

The changes I have made would see a total of 10tph using Castlefield (Scotland, Cumbria, 2 x Blackpool, Southport, Saltburn via chord, 2 x Liverpool fast via CLC, CLC stopper to Warrington, freight).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Atherton needs converting to Metrolink in my eyes.

 

[nr758123]

I notice that once again the Atherton line has been pretty much thrown in the gutter in these plans. The improvement to 4tph a few years ago has been undone, with the current 2tph seemingly here for the long term again.

I'm not sure "being thrown in the gutter" is a good description for an averagely busy Manchester commuter route ending up with 2 trains per hour.
For my local route (stopping service Manchester- Huddersfield) that would represent a big improvement. Likewise on the Mid-Cheshire line and at places like Bramhall, Poynton, Congleton & Blackrod.

 

[cle]

I'm not sure "being thrown in the gutter" is a good description for an averagely busy Manchester commuter route ending up with 2 trains per hour.
For my local route (stopping service Manchester- Huddersfield) that would represent a big improvement. Likewise on the Mid-Cheshire line and at places like Bramhall, Poynton, Congleton & Blackrod.

Not a race to the bottom though, which is how our culture sometimes ends up (covetous, or the opposite - if my lot is miserable/terrible, others should be too)

We should aspire for 3-4tph on all commuter routes.

 

[Glenn1969]

Not a race to the bottom though, which is how our culture sometimes ends up (covetous, or the opposite - if my lot is miserable/terrible, others should be too)

We should aspire for 3-4tph on all commuter routes.

Surely we should aspire to 4 tph MINIMUM on all commuter routes and all routes between conurbations

 

[Ianno87]

Surely we should aspire to 4 tph MINIMUM on all commuter routes and all routes between conurbations

You can aspire as much as you like.

But, right now, there isn't the capacity in Central Manchester.

 

[cle]

Surely we should aspire to 4 tph MINIMUM on all commuter routes and all routes between conurbations

I agree in theory, in peaks anyway - but we are so path constrained that I think longer trains and regional programs of platform lengthening are more realistic.

Atherton as Metrolink would likely receive the magic 5tph, per that network! Glossop and Marple routes possibly the same (extensions of Piccadilly terminators).

 

[Purple Orange]

I agree in theory, in peaks anyway - but we are so path constrained that I think longer trains and regional programs of platform lengthening are more realistic.

Atherton as Metrolink would likely receive the magic 5tph, per that network! Glossop and Marple routes possibly the same (extensions of Piccadilly terminators).

And in reality converting heavy rail lines to metrolink is the only way to improve commuter services in Greater Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And in reality converting heavy rail lines to metrolink is the only way to improve commuter services in Greater Manchester.

And the resilience of long distance ones, by freeing up heavy rail infrastructure.

They should certainly get on with doing Atherton and Rose Hill.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Stop trying to convert lines to Metrolink, holy hell.

 

[Ianno87]

Stop trying to convert lines to Metrolink, holy hell.

Why on earth would you stop doing something that is successful, frees up capacity and grows passenger numbers overall?

Or do you enjoy riding around on half-empty 150s?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Why on earth would you stop doing something that is successful, frees up capacity and grows passenger numbers overall?

You can't take bikes and pets (in most circumstances) on trams and trains are usually more refined than an LRV.

Or do you enjoy riding around on half-empty 150s?

Nice strawman.

 

[cle]

A new LRV is nicer than the stock out there right now. Not to mention the environmental side, or the better choice of city centre locations.

Plus how else can we grow the network without removing paths. It's ostensibly the same as Crossrail.

Imagine if we still have Bury services in Victoria and Altrincham ones on the Corridor?! This has been debunked time and time again. I do agree on the pets and bikes though. May well come with better integration and longest-length stock.

 

[S&CLER]

I'm in favour of Metrolink conversion for Atherton, but it would need a new entry into Wigan, perhaps using part of the former line that bypassed Wallgate, then running on street to enter the town from the south, if that's possible. Hindley has room for 2 heavy rail and 2 Metrolink tracks but is not well laid out for interchange between them, which would involve climbing stairs. From the former junction for the Pemberton loop, there are only 2 tracks into Wigan.

At the other end, it's hard to see how you could provide a decent interchange in the Salford Crescent area. I've often wished that Pendleton Broad Street had been chosen as the site for an interchange, as it has two long island platforms, each wider than Salford Crescent. If the Agecroft Connecting Line (38 chains long) had been retained and upgraded , trains to/from the Bolton line could have used this route and the two centre roads at Pendleton BS, while the up Atherton line could have been raised on to a flyover from Irlams o'the Height to Brindle Heath Jn, the up and down Atherton lines serving the outer faces of the island platforms. How you would disentangle them at the other end I can't say. But the platforms at PBS look longer than the island at Salford Crescent, which is both a miserable place in itself and a constraint on potential train lengths all over the northwest. On the other hand, Salford Crescent is more convenient for the University and it has a useful if slow bus connection to the Lowry (at least for matinees, I've never risked it at night). Anyway, it's too late now as the Agecroft route has long gone.

 

[Purple Orange]

And the resilience of long distance ones, by freeing up heavy rail infrastructure.

They should certainly get on with doing Atherton and Rose Hill.

And this can be achieved without increasing capacity in the city centre. After that point any additional lines would possibly require new routes through the city centre, but then the ex heavy rail lines will enable a tunnel to be built, which in turn allows further surface lines.

 

[Neptune]

Surely we should aspire to 4 tph MINIMUM on all commuter routes and all routes between conurbations

Only where it is justified (not many places) and where capacity allows (not many places).

 

[HSTEd]

Only where it is justified (not many places) and where capacity allows (not many places).

The problem is cutting services because they are not 'justified' just leads you to a death spiral.

One train per hour is almost useless and two trains per hour are not really attractive to the user.

It needs to be turn up and go

 

[Neptune]

The problem is cutting services because they are not 'justified' just leads you to a death spiral.

One train per hour is almost useless and two trains per hour are not really attractive to the user.

It needs to be turn up and go

The trouble is that 4tph is generally trains carting fresh air around for most of the day.

Look at my local route the Airedale line. There are 2tph between Leeds and Skipton with peak additionals. There is no room for more services (constraints at Leeds plus other traffic which is just as important interacting with the route) despite passenger growth over the years so the solution is to extend services to 6 car trains giving 4 extra coaches per hour.

Making this route 4tph throughout the day could mean sacrificing someone else’s 2tph service rather than the suggestion that every other service needs to be 4tph (Leeds - Ilkley for instance).

Bear in mind Leeds has less capacity problems on that side of the station than Castlefield…..

 

[Ken H]

The problem is cutting services because they are not 'justified' just leads you to a death spiral.

One train per hour is almost useless and two trains per hour are not really attractive to the user.

It needs to be turn up and go

In the real world you have to run services that meet the demand. If you struggle to fill a 2 car 150 every hour, I doubt you will fill a 2 car every 15 minutes, even if there is pent up demand. Which is why Garsdale gets 8 trains a day each way, and Keighley gets 4 an hour.